August 1st, 2019 • 2h 52m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Debates
1
Dem Debate
Dana Bash is tiny bug
head
Opening like sports
event
Liz boring story
telling
Ady ALS story with
video on twitter
Bernie slams CNN with
healthcare ads on the show
Mic knocking
throughout
Bullock lots of time
Marianne less
GIP green industrial
plan
Don Lemon racist question
Marianne on fire
Beto reparations
Marianne reparations
Bernie ADOS
Doctor patient unity
ad
Mayor Pete public
service debt reduction
Who gets voted off?
2
2nd dem debate
Dana bad outfit in
black vs red
Go easy on me kid
Tulsi tan shoes
Yang's socks
Anthem flag is not
there
Not even a shot of
the color guard flag
Fox studio ha theatre
from Jake
Yang Asian man who
does math
Kampala mic issues
Tulsi calls out
Sebilius
Joe lock up insurance
executives
Harris barracks
Biden to Booker
Future President
Tulsi slam Kamala'
prison record
Yang mlk ubi
Cory booker black
women
Yang reality show
closer
$340billion per
month?
Kamala prey gaffe
Biden Trump 8 more
years?
Joe03030 wtf?
Report: Gillibrand's father worked for NXIVM, tried to distance himself from Upstate NY 'cult' - syracuse.com
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:16
A new report says New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's father once worked for an Upstate New York group accused of being a ''sex cult,'' but tried to distance himself from the organization over a decade ago.
Court documents obtained by political blog Big League Politics show Doug Rutnik worked as a consultant and lobbyist for NXIVM (pronounced ''nexium'') for four months in 2004. He was hired by Keith Raniere, who founded the Capital Region-based group accused of sex trafficking, branding women and allegedly forcing members to have sex with Raniere.
According to Fox News, Rutnik was paid $25,000 per month but was later sued when he tried to distance himself from the group; NXIVM ended up paying Rutnik a settlement of $100,000. The 2006 settlement is signed by Rutnik and several NXIVM members, including wealthy Seagram's heiresses Clare and Sara Bronfman and NXIVM President Nancy Salzman.
Salzman pleaded guilty to a charge of racketeering conspiracy last month. Her daughter, Lauren Salzman, pleaded guilty last week as well and admitted to keeping a slave locked in a room for two years.
According to Frank Parlato, a former NXIVM employee who helped expose the group to a federal investigation in 2017, Rutnik also got his future wife -- Gillibrand's stepmother -- and a second cousin into NXIVM. It's unclear if either continued to be alleged members after Rutnik left.
''[Gillibrand's] father Doug Rutnik came to work as a consultant for NXIVM... He was fired, they sued him, and they had to pay him $100,000,'' Parlato told Big League Politics. ''Her father's wife, her stepmother, was also a member of NXIVM. ... Doug got her into the cult, Gillibrand's father got Gillibrand's future stepmother into the cult. Doug left the cult because he was sued. Clare Bronfman, after her father was sued, donated money to Gillibrand. Gillibrand accepted it.''
Parlato said Rutnik, whose daughter Gillibrand is running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement in the settlement.
According to The New York Post Gillibrand said she didn't know anything about NXIVM until the group made national headlines in 2017 when former member Sarah Edmondson filed a complaint, saying she was branded with Raniere's initials, ''KR.'' The Justice Department began a federal investigation of NXIVM later that year.
''Senator Gillibrand had never heard of this group until she recently read about them in the newspaper,'' a spokesman told the Post in 2018. ''She is glad that federal and state prosecutors have taken action in this case."
Raniere, ''Smallville'' actress Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, the Salzmans and others were arrested last year for their involvement with NXIVM, based in Colonie, N.Y. Charges include sex trafficking, wire fraud, extortion, identity theft, money laundering, and forced labor conspiracy.
Mack was allegedly the leader of a women's only group within NXIVM called ''DOS,'' a ''secret sorority'' that allegedly brainwashes members, puts them on starvation diets and beats them if they don't recruit enough ''slaves.'' DOS stands for ''dominus obsequious sororium,'' Latin for ''master over the slave women.'' Members are also allegedly required to give their ''master'' or recruiter, naked photos of themselves and other blackmail material before joining.
NXIVM claimed to be a self-help group, with DOS focusing on women's empowerment. Federal authorities say DOS instead groomed female members to have sex with Raniere.
A criminal trial is scheduled to begin April 29 in Brooklyn.
NXIVM claimed to have over 16,000 members in chapters nationwide, as well as in Canada and Mexico. Until the Salzmans' guilty pleas, officials and associates had repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and disputed allegations that it is a cult.
How did Marianne Williamson get woke on reparations?
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 09:54
News outlets were abuzz Wednesday morning about how Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson declared in Tuesday night's debate that reparations were ''a debt owed'' to African Americans for the legacy of slavery and 100 years more of Jim Crow and domestic terrorism.
''Marianne Williamson gave the clearest '-- and best '-- answer on why the U.S. should pay reparations,'' read the headline on Slate.com.
Although reparations have been a topic since the end of the Civil War among African American activists '-- and came up among the Democratic candidates in February '-- Williamson employed unusual language for a political candidate. She said:
''First of all, it's not $500 billion in 'financial assistance.' It's $500 billion '-- $200 to $500 billion '-- payment of a debt that is owed. That is what reparations is.''
"It's... payment of a debt that is owed. That is what reparations is."Author Marianne Williamson earned applause and cheers when she mounted a defense of her plan to offer $200 billion to $500 billion in reparations to the descendants of enslaved Africans in the US. #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/MCCtLWcZ45
'-- CNN (@CNN) July 31, 2019So how did Williamson, a spiritual adviser and self-help author, get so woke on reparations? She's actually been discussing it for 20 years.
For the last two years, a fairly new organization called American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS), has argued that black Americans whose ancestors were enslaved are in dire financial situations because of the racial wealth gap, and that reparations is one way to address the injustice. Because Williamson wrote a 1997 book, Healing the Soul of America: Reclaiming Our Voices as Spiritual Citizens '-- which discusses reparations as a way to heal racism, ''a national character defect'' '-- the group reached out to Williamson in February to talk on co-founder Antonio Moore's Tonetalks show on Dash Radio and YouTube.
''We talked extensively prior to and after my show in person," Moore said. ''And we have exchanged a few emails.''
On the show, Williamson said every time she brings up reparations on the campaign trail, even in majority-white states like New Hampshire and Iowa, she gets applause.
Marianne Williamson & Beto for Reparations. She gets another huge applause. I know people might not like hearing it, but Williamson is having a good night. Doesn't mean she's a good candidate, just saying she's having good night. She seems comfortable and confident. #DemDebate
'-- Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) July 31, 2019She said most Americans haven't been taught the history of America. ''When you look at what happened in the 100 years between the end of slavery and the civil rights legislation," she said on the show, "I think the average American does not know the whole arc of our history.''
When talking to voters about the black code laws, the 40 acres and a mule promised to freed slaves, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, "and that it took 100 years for this to be addressed, that this was another period of violence, people looked at me like no one had presented it for them in the way they might have,'' Williamson said.
Her interaction with ADOS led to her introduction to Duke University economics professor William ''Sandy'' Darity, who has been studying reparations for 30 years. Darity and another economist were profiled in a July Wall Street Journal story on how their work has fueled recent activism on reparations.
Moore said Williamson is the only Democratic presidential candidate among the nominees he contacted who has agreed to come to the ADOS conference in Louisville, Ky., in October. ADOS, which believes reparations are owed solely to descendants of those enslaved in the United States, not to all those of African descent in this country, has been accused by many black people in more established organizations as being anti-immigrant.
The group and Williamson aren't exactly on the same page. Moore said Wednesday that while he is glad she discussed reparations, he and Darity disagree with her estimate of what is owed. ''It should be in the trillions,'' Moore said.
Seth Abramson on Twitter: "As these startlingly different maps suggest, there's a concerted far-right effort (possibly involving foreign actors) to bolster Tulsi Gabbard. I'm not blaming Gabbard for this' '--and I don't think anyone should' '--but we al
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:12
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Closed Captions
Foley technical analysis
I believe that all of the modern mixes are coming through in
5.1 only, with no emphasis or effort put into the downmix into 2 Channel
Stereo.
During our remastering of movies on UltraFlix, we have
discovered very often, that the stereo mix is not properly balanced with noise
versus dialogue. We created the HyperAudio remastering tool whereby we
run the equivalent of a compressor on the soundtrack to bring the levels more
in balance, in addition to fix clipping, run through a “warming” filter to
mimic tube amps, and also ensure that levels between different movies are
always the same so that the audio experience between different movies is always
on par.
We’ve also found that many of the streaming set top boxes
and smart TV’s tell the sending app server side to send 5.1 even if the output
is only going to stereo speakers built into the TV. The audio processor
in these devices often does not do a proper downmix to stereo and in several of
the low priced models does very poor job of the downmix levels leaving dialogue
always lower than other sounds, in particular by not properly mixing in the
center channel with the front left and right.
Your thought about this was dead on and it’s something that
is laziness on many parties.
Is it uniquely American?
Adam,
I'm a few shows
behind due to a vacation in Japan. On the flights over the Pacific, I was
reminded of all the talk about closed captioning when I noticed an American
millennial couple watching the on board entertainment system with the CC turned
on. I decided to walk up and down the plane to see if any others were using the
CC. I wasn't very surprised to see most younger Americans had the CC turned on
while no older American and absolutely no Japanese people had CC on. This does
seem to be an issue specific to American millennials from
my anecdotal experiences.
Jim
We don't talk on the phone anymore - Text is how we communicate
Big Pharma
Tradive Dyskenysio
Hi Adam
Ingrezza costs $7000 a month and it
doesn't cure cancer!
I've been trying it thru samples from MD for tongue
movements. Not sure if it helps but I don't think I'm going to continue
trying it.
My insurance copayment for the medication would be $2000 monthly.
Apparently, I could get a 95% grant to cover the copayment
via a specialty pharmacy and the drug company.
Xanax costs $5 for 30 pills
and just one low .25mg dose does reduce my habitual tonguing of the back of
front teeth.
Though I don't want to take a tranquilizer everyday I
can't justify the outlandish cost of Ingrezza
Brands
Gillette boss: Alienating some consumers with #metoo campaign was a price worth paying
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:40
Six months on from Gillette's controversial ad, the brand's CEO discusses the intense fallout and why taking a stand is a ''necessity'' to connect with younger consumers.
Gillette's CEO and president, Gary Coombe, says that angering some consumers with its #metoo campaign was a ''price worth paying'' if it meant the brand could increase its relevance among younger consumers and turn around its falling market share.
In January, the shaving brand launched a campaign in response to the Me Too movement that urged men to hold each other to a higher standard and to step up when they see fellow men acting inappropriately. The video received intense criticism on social media, with some even calling for a boycott of the brand
Gillette made the decision to launch the campaign in a bid to target the millennial market. Coombe said the 188-year-old brand, which is owned by Procter & Gamble, was ''gently slipping away for [this] generation" as disruptors such as Harry's and Dollar Shave Club grabbed attention.
But Coombe admitted Gillette's strategy hadn't helped. He explained: "The worst thing during through that period was, we also lost connection with the millennial generation. Gillette quickly became the brand of the millennial generation's dads."
To read the full article please sign-in or subscribe below.
This article is available for subscribers only.
Sign up now for your access-all-areas pass.
Got a question?Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email customerservices@marketingweek.com
If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here
Green New Deal
Greta Thunberg to hitch ride across Atlantic on high-speed racing boat | Euronews
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:55
Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has organised a lift across the Atlantic by boat from the UK to New York where she'll attend two climate conferences.
The Swede will make the crossing with the crew of the Malizia II '-- an 18-metre racing boat.
"Team Malizia are honoured to sail Greta Thunberg emission-free across the Atlantic to the UN Climate Action Summit," the crew said on its Facebook page.
Thunberg, who refuses to take aeroplanes because of their impact on the environment, will attend the UN Climate Action Summit in New York and COP25 in Santiago, as well as other events along the way.
She will be joined on the journey, which should take around two weeks, with her father.
They will make the crossing with captain Boris Herrmann, Pierre Casiraghi, the grandson Monaco's late Prince Rainier III and actor Grace Kelly, as well as Nathan Grossman, a documentary maker from Sweden.
Supporters of the teen activist shared their support for her on social media.
"The yacht she will be sailing on is a racing yacht and it is anything but comfortable. And even in a comfortable yacht crossing the Atlantic is no picnic. You go girl! Big cudos for finding an alternative to flying!" wrote one user.
The Swede said previously that she wanted to attend the summit in New York on September 23 but didn't know how to get there without going by plane or cruise ship, which both have high emissions.
"Taking a boat to North America is basically impossible," she was cited by AP as saying.
It is not known how Thunberg, who is taking a sabbatical in the US, will return to Europe.
Want more news?
2020
DCCC faces mass staff upheaval after uproar over diversity - POLITICO
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 04:36
The departure of DCCC Executive Director Allison Jaslow comes as chairwoman Cheri Bustos (pictured) faces accusations that she has done little to address the lack of diversity in the upper ranks of the campaign arm. | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
The top echelon of staffers at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee left their jobs Monday, a shakeup following a pair of POLITICO stories detailing deep unease with the party's campaign apparatus over a lack of diversity.
On Monday morning, Allison Jaslow, DCCC executive director and a close ally of Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) '-- chair of the committee '-- resigned during a tense meeting at the party's Capitol Hill headquarters. And in the next 10 hours, much of the senior staff was out: Jared Smith, the communications director and another Bustos ally; Melissa Miller, a top DCCC communications aide; Molly Ritner, political director; Nick Pancrazio, deputy executive director; and Van Ornelas, the DCCC's director of diversity.
Story Continued Below
Jacqui Newman, the chief operating officer for the campaign arm, will serve as interim executive director and lead the search for a permanent replacement, Bustos said in a statement late Monday.
''Today has been a sobering day filled with tough conversations that too often we avoid," Bustos said. "But I can say confidently that we are taking the first steps toward putting the DCCC back on path to protect and expand our majority, with a staff that truly reflects the diversity of our Democratic caucus and our party."
Ritner was one of two national political directors at the DCCC. Kory Kozloski, the other national political director, is still with the campaign arm, according to multiple sources. While most of the staff departures are effective immediately, Miller is expected to remain at DCCC temporarily to help transition a new communications team, according to sources.
POLITICO reported last week that top lawmakers in the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus were furious with Bustos, saying she was short-changing minorities by excluding them from her senior staff and failing to live up to promises she made during her campaign for the chairmanship. Bustos surrounded herself with loyalists, eschewing the typical campaign hands that run major party apparatuses.
"Today, I recognize that, at times, I have fallen short in leading these talented individuals. To my colleagues, who I have the upmost respect for, I hear your concerns, and we can and must do better," Bustos said.
Newman will chair an executive council to conduct a "national and open search" for a new executive director, Bustos said. Several other top DCCC staffers, including Danny Kazin, the deputy executive director, and Kozloski will also be on the council.
In addition, senior DCCC aides Charles Benton, Jackie Forte-Mackay, Samantha McClain, Dennis Raj, Jillian Shweiki, Alexandra Smith, Michael Smith and Ryan Thompson have been appointed to the committee leading the search.
The staff turmoil follows criticism from many Democrats that Bustos has done little to address the lack of diversity in the upper ranks of the campaign arm since winning the chairmanship late last year.
Bustos also rankled some Democrats by routinely saying she was out to ''finally'' build a ''world class'' DCCC '-- which was perceived as a slight to the previous chairman, Rep. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, who helped lead the party back to the majority after eight years out of power.
And lawmakers felt misled about Bustos' handling of Tayhlor Coleman, a DCCC employee who came under fire for a series of derogatory tweets she sent nearly a decade ago disparaging the LGBTQ community and Hispanics. Coleman is still employed with the campaign arm.
A staff turnover of this magnitude seven months into the Democrats' majority is jarring, and will present Bustos with a set of new challenges. She will be forced to rebuild the committee's top leadership from scratch in the middle of a presidential campaign that has much of the party's best talent tied up.
Bustos is, indeed, under a microscope. Democrats across the Capitol have privately griped about what they see as a subpar campaign committee with a chairwoman unresponsive to members' concerns, and unable or unwilling to live up to her own promises to hire a diverse staff.
Bustos did not respond to an email seeking comment. Much of the senior communications staff was in flux Monday evening, and did not respond to emails.
Bustos flew back to Washington this week '-- the beginning of the August recess '-- to attend an emergency staff meeting at the DCCC Monday. At the beginning of the meeting, Jaslow resigned and left the session immediately. The meeting '-- which was described by several sources as spirited and pointed '-- lasted more than an hour and a half.
"When I was in eighth grade, I decided that my life would be dedicated to serving my country. I did that first in uniform but since have tried to be a force of good in our politics," Jaslow, an Iraq War veteran, said in a statement later. "And sometimes selfless service means having the courage to take a bow for the sake of the mission '-- especially when the stakes are so high."
Bustos' decision to return to Washington to address committee staff in person came after several aides demanded an ''immediate restructuring'' of senior management in recent days.
The staff shakeup follows a tumultuous weekend for Bustos and her senior team, in which they struggled to respond to demands from Democratic lawmakers and committee aides that actions immediately be taken to address the diversity issues.
Jaslow convened an emergency all-staff meeting Friday that was described as "very emotional" by a committee aide present. Jaslow cried as she took responsibility for not doing enough to diversify the upper ranks as some staffers complained that neither she or her deputies were people of color.
Bustos held a tense call with staffers on Saturday before deciding to fly back and address the committee in person on Monday. On the call, Bustos "briefly" apologized for offending people by describing her husband and children as being of "Mexican descent" and announced she will undergo diversity and inclusion training in the coming weeks, according to multiple sources.
"I have never been more committed to expanding and protecting this majority, while creating a workplace that we can all be proud of. I will work tirelessly to ensure that our staff is truly inclusive," Bustos said Monday night.
Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning '-- in your inbox.
STORIES
Ronald Reagan's Racist Conversation With Richard Nixon - The Atlantic
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:14
In newly unearthed audio, the then''California governor disparaged African delegates to the United Nations.
Jul 30, 2019 Clinical associate professor of history at NYU
MediaPunch / AP / National Archive / Getty / The AtlanticThe day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People's Republic of China, then''California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. ''Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,'' Reagan said. ''Yeah,'' Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: ''To see those, those monkeys from those African countries'--damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!'' Nixon gave a huge laugh.
The past month has brought presidential racism back into the headlines. This October 1971 exchange between current and future presidents is a reminder that other presidents have subscribed to the racist belief that Africans or African Americans are somehow inferior. The most novel aspect of President Donald Trump's racist gibes isn't that he said them, but that he said them in public.
The exchange was taped by Nixon, and then later became the responsibility of the Nixon Presidential Library, which I directed from 2007 to 2011. When the National Archives originally released the tape of this conversation, in 2000, the racist portion was apparently withheld to protect Reagan's privacy. A court order stipulated that the tapes be reviewed chronologically; the chronological review was completed in 2013. Not until 2017 or 2018 did the National Archives begin a general rereview of the earliest Nixon tapes. Reagan's death, in 2004, eliminated the privacy concerns. Last year, as a researcher, I requested that the conversations involving Ronald Reagan be rereviewed, and two weeks ago, the National Archives released complete versions of the October 1971 conversations involving Reagan online.
When the UN took its vote to seat a delegation from Beijing instead of from Taiwan in 1971, members of the Tanzanian delegation started dancing in the General Assembly. Reagan, a devoted defender of Taiwan, was incensed, and tried to reach Nixon the night of the vote. Reagan despised the United Nations, which he described as a ''kangaroo court'' filled with ''bums,'' and he wanted the U.S. to withdraw from full participation immediately. Nixon was asleep when Reagan called, so they spoke the next morning.
Reagan's slur touched an already raw nerve. Earlier that day, Nixon had called his deputy national security adviser, Al Haig, to cancel any future meetings with any African leader who had not voted with the United States on Taiwan, even if they had already been scheduled. ''Don't even submit to me the problem that it's difficult to turn it off since we have already accepted it,'' Nixon exclaimed. ''Just turn it off, on the ground that I will be out of town.''
Nixon's anger at the UN delegations from African nations for the loss was misplaced. His own State Department blamed factors other than African voting, including maneuvering by the British and French behind the scenes, for the loss. But Nixon would have none of it. The Africans were to blame.
Had the story stopped there, it would have been bad enough. Racist venting is still racist. But what happened next showed the dynamic power of racism when it finds enablers. Nixon used Reagan's call as an excuse to adapt his language to make the same point to others. Right after hanging up with Reagan, Nixon sought out Secretary of State William Rogers.
Even though Reagan had called Nixon to press him to withdraw from the United Nations, in Nixon's telling, Reagan's complaints about Africans became the primary purpose of the call.
''As you can imagine,'' Nixon confided in Rogers, ''there's strong feeling that we just shouldn't, as [Reagan] said, he saw these, as he said, he saw these'--'' Nixon stammered, choosing his words carefully'--''these, uh, these cannibals on television last night, and he says, 'Christ, they weren't even wearing shoes, and here the United States is going to submit its fate to that,' and so forth and so on.''
The president wanted his patrician secretary of state to understand that Reagan spoke for racist Americans, and they needed to be listened to. ''You know, but that's typical of a reaction, which is probably'''--''That's right,'' Rogers interjected'--''quite strong.''
Nixon couldn't stop retelling his version of what Reagan had said. Oddly unfocused, he spoke with Rogers again two hours later and repeated the story as if it would be new to the secretary.
''Reagan called me last night,'' Nixon said, ''and I didn't talk to him until this morning, but he is, of course, outraged. And I found out what outraged him, and I find this is typical of a lot of people: They saw it on television and, he said, 'These cannibals jumping up and down and all that.' And apparently it was a pretty grotesque picture.'' Like Nixon, Rogers had not seen the televised images. But Rogers agreed: ''Apparently, it was a terrible scene.'' Nixon added, ''And they cheered.''
Then Nixon said, ''He practically got sick at his stomach, and that's why he called. And he said, 'It was a terrible scene.' And that sort of thing will have an emotional effect on people '... as [Reagan] said, 'This bunch of people who don't even wear shoes yet, to be kicking the United States in the teeth' '... It was a terrible thing, they thought.''
Nixon didn't think of himself as a racist; perhaps that's why it was so important to him to keep quoting Reagan's racism, rather than own the sentiment himself. But Reagan's comment about African leaders resonated with Nixon, because it reflected his warped thinking about African Americans.
In the fall of 1971, the Nixon administration was engaged in a massive welfare-reform effort, and was also facing school busing. These two issues apparently inspired Nixon to examine more deeply his own thinking on whether African Americans could make it in American society. Only three weeks before the call with Reagan, Nixon had revealed his opinions on Africans and African Americans in a conversation with the Harvard professor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who had briefly served in the Nixon administration. Nixon was attracted to the theories of Richard Herrnstein and Arthur Jensen, which linked IQ to race, and wondered what Moynihan thought.
''I have reluctantly concluded, based at least on the evidence presently before me '... that what Herrnstein says, and what was said earlier by Jensen, is probably '... very close to the truth,'' Nixon explained to a quiet Moynihan. Nixon believed in a hierarchy of races, with whites and Asians much higher up than people of African descent and Latinos. And he had convinced himself that it wasn't racist to think black people, as a group, were inferior to whites, so long as he held them in paternalistic regard. ''Within groups, there are geniuses,'' Nixon said. ''There are geniuses within black groups. There are more within Asian groups '... This is knowledge that is better not to know.''
Nixon's analysis of African leadership reflected his prejudice toward America's black citizens. This is, at least, what he told Moynihan. ''Have in mind one fact: Did you realize there is not, of the 40 or 45'--you're at the United Nations'--black countries that are represented there, not one has a president or a prime minister who is there as a result of a contested election such as we were insisting upon in Vietnam?'' And, he continued, a little later in the conversation: ''I'm not saying that blacks cannot govern; I am saying they have a hell of a time. Now, that must demonstrate something.''
Fifty years later, the one fact that we should have in mind is that our nation's chief executive assumed that the nonwhite citizens of the United States were somehow inferior. Nixon confided in Moynihan, who had been one of his house intellectuals, about the nature of his interest in research on African American intelligence: ''The reason I have to know it is that as I go for programs, I must know that they have basic weaknesses.''
As these and other tapes make clear, the 37th president of the United States was a racist: He believed in treating people according to their race, and that race implied fundamental differences in individual human beings. Nixon's racism matters to us because he allowed his views on race to shape U.S. policies'--both foreign and domestic. His policies need to be viewed through that lens.
The 40th president has not left as dramatic a record of his private thoughts. Reagan's racism appears to be documented only once on the Nixon tapes, and never in his own diaries. His comment on African leaders, however, sheds new light on what lay behind the governor's passionate defense of the apartheid states of Rhodesia and South Africa later in the 1970s. During his 1976 primary-challenge run against Gerald Ford, Reagan publicly opposed the Ford administration's rejection of white-minority rule in Rhodesia. ''We seem to be embarking on a policy of dictating to the people of southern Africa and running the risk of increased violence and bloodshed,'' Reagan said at a rally in Texas.
These new tapes are a stark reminder of the racism that often lay behind the public rhetoric of American presidents. As I write a biography of JFK, I've found that this sort of racism did not animate President Kennedy'--indeed, early on he took political risks to help African leaders, most notably Gamal Abdel Nasser and Kwame Nkrumah. But his reluctance to do more, sooner for African Americans cannot be separated from the paternalism he brought to the Oval Office or the prejudice held by parts of his Boston inner circle.
Kennedy, at least, learned on the job that securing civil rights for all was a moral imperative. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a symptom of a sickness that dwells in American society, sometimes deeply and weakly, sometimes on the surface and feverishly. He bears responsibility for his own actions, but the tropes, the turns of phrase, the clumsy indirection, and worse, the gunk about American society that he and his most devoted followers pass off as ideas, have an ugly tradition. It is not at the core of the American tradition, for what makes us mighty and successful is that we are much more than the narrowest of our minds. But it remains an ineluctable part of American culture, nonetheless.
Nixon never changed his mind about the supposed inherent inferiority of Africans. At the end of October 1971, he discussed the UN vote with his best friend, Bebe Rebozo. Bebe delighted Nixon by echoing Reagan: ''That reaction on television was, it proves how they ought to be still hanging from the trees by their tails.'' Nixon laughed.
These days, though Trump's imagery is less zoological, it is pretty much the same in spirit. And this president, unlike Nixon, doesn't believe he needs to hide behind anyone else's racism.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
Tim Naftali is a clinical associate professor of history at NYU. He was the first director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.
Teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg will sail across Atlantic to US in sail boat | Daily Mail Online
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:09
Swedish teen Greta Thunberg (pictured), said Monday that she plans to take her message to America the old-fashioned way: by boat
Teenage climate change activist Greta Thunberg plans to take her message to the United States - but instead of flying, she's going to set sail across the Atlantic after shunning planes.
The Swedish teenager, who inspired tens of thousands of school students across the world to skip class for a day to protest for faster action against climate change, said she spent months trying to figure out how to travel to the US without flying on a plane. She said she has ruled out using them due to their high greenhouse gas emissions.
The 16-year-old tweeted that she plans to leave Britain in August aboard the Malizia II to attend the United Nations climate summits in New York in September and Santiago, Chile, in December.
As well as ruling out flying on a plane on the trip, Thunberg also refuses to travel aboard a cruise ship as they're notoriously big polluters. Meanwhile, sailors rarely brave the Atlantic in August because of hurricane risks.
In an interview during her weekly 'Fridays for Future' protest outside Swedish parliament in Stockhold, Thunberg said: 'Taking a boat to North America is basically impossible.
'I have had countless people helping me, trying to contact different boats.'
The yacht she'll be crossing the Atlantic with is a far cry from the Viking ships that first brought Scandinavians to America.
Captained by yachtsman Boris Herrmann, the 60-foot Malizia II is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines to generate zero-carbon electricity on board.
Thunberg will also be accompanied on the two-week journey by a filmmaker, her father Svante and Pierre Casiraghi, the grandson of Monaco's late Prince Rainier III and American actress Grace Kelly.
Thunberg will be crossing the Atlantic on the racing boat Malizia II (pictured)
The 60-foot Malizia II (inside pictured) is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines to generate zero-carbon electricity on board
The boat will be captained by yachtsman Boris Herrmann (right). Herrmann is pictured inside the yacht on Monday
'I haven't experienced anything like this before,' Thunberg said. 'I think this will be a trip to remember.'
Thunberg plans to take a year off from school to keep raising awareness of climate change and pressuring world leaders to step up efforts to curb global warming.
Since starting her 'school strikes' in August 2018, the daughter of an actor and an opera singer has appeared before policymakers at last year's UN climate conference in Poland and harangued business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
She also met with Pope Francis, who praised Thunberg's efforts and encouraged her to continue campaigning.
Although little-known in the US, Thunberg has arguably become the figurehead for a new generation of European eco-activists worried that they'll suffer the fallout from their parents' and grandparents' unwillingness to take strong actions to combat climate change.
'This past year, my life has turned upside down,' Thunberg said.
'Every day is an adventure, basically. Sometimes I have to pinch myself and say 'Is this really real? Has this actually been happening?' Because it has all happened so fast and it's hard to keep up with everything.
'In a way, I am more optimistic, because people are slowly waking up and people are becoming more aware of the situation. This whole 'Fridays for Future' movement is very hopeful,' she said. 'But also ... one year has passed and still almost nothing has happened.'
Greta Thunberg refuses to travel to the US by cruise or plane: Here's whyThe climate change activist has ruled out flying on a plane for the trip because on average, a plane produces a little over 53 pounds of carbon dioxide per air mile.
For example, non-stop flights from London to New York City take between 8 to 10 hours based on the airline.
There are 3,470 miles between London and the Big Apple. When that number is multiplied by 53 it equates to about 183,910 pounds of emissions per flight between the two cities.
Thunberg also refuses to travel aboard a cruise ship as they're notoriously big polluters.
Most cruises travel from the East Coast of the US to the UK '' usually England. By sea, it will take six or seven days in transit, and sometimes longer.
A single large cruise ship can emit over five tons of oxides of nitrogen.
Thunberg has opted to take on the Atlantic on a high-tech yacht, known as the Malizia II.
The journey from the UK to New York will take approximately two weeks on the Malizia II.
The boat is fitted with solar panels and underwater turbines that allow it to generate zero-carbon electricity on board
It will be captained by yachtsman Boris Herrmann.
Her visibility has made Thunberg a target for those who reject the overwhelming consensus among scientists that climate change is being driven by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, released by the burning of fossil fuels.
'I don't care about hate and threats from climate crisis deniers,' she said. 'I just ignore them.'
Thunberg said she's unsure how her message will be received in the US, where there's broad opposition to the kind of radical measures scientists say are required to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century compared with pre-industrial times.
'I will just try to go on as I have before,' the young Swede said. 'Just always refer to the science and we'll just see what happens.'
Thunberg wouldn't rule out meeting with President Donald Trump, who wants the US. to withdraw from the landmark 2015 Paris climate accord, but appeared doubtful such an encounter would happen because she thinks it would be 'just a waste of time'.
'As it looks now, I don't think so, because I have nothing to say to him,' she said. 'He obviously doesn't listen to the science and the scientists. So why should I, a child with no proper education, be able to convince him?'
Aside from attending a summit hosted by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the sidelines of the global body's annual assembly on September 23, Thunberg plans to take part in several climate protests in New York.
The British band The 1975s has released an album with a short essay by Thunberg set to music. It ends with her declaring 'it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel'.
Thunberg stressed that she rejects violence, citing her school strikes for climate as the kind of action she backs.
Since starting her 'school strikes' in August 2018, Thunberg (pictured with fellow students) appeared before policymakers at last year's UN climate conference in Poland and harangued business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland
Thunberg (center) seen arriving for a meeting in the French National Assembly, in Paris, France, on July 23
Last week she deleted a tweet showing her wearing a T-shirt with the slogan 'Antifascist All Stars,' after some accused her of supporting far-left extremists.
'You can rebel in different ways,' she said. 'Civil disobedience is rebelling. As long as it's peaceful, of course.'
After New York, Thunberg intends to travel to the annual UN climate conference in December, held in Chile this year, with stops in Canada, Mexico and other countries along the way, traveling by train and bus.
Thunberg will be setting a very high bar for the activists and leaders from outside the Americas who are attending the UN climate conferences, almost all of whom will likely be coming by plane.
'I'm not saying that people should stop flying,' she said. 'I'm just saying it needs to be easier to be climate neutral.'
'Rat Film' highlights Baltimore's rat warfare, urban planning failures - Baltimore Sun
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 15:00
The Baltimore Sun |
Sep 13, 2017 | 9:00 AM
Across walls, fences, and alleys, rats not only expose our boundaries of separation but make homes in them. "Rat Film" is a feature-length documentary that uses the rat'--as well as the humans that love them, live with them, and kill them--to explore the history of Baltimore. "There's never been a rat problem in Baltimore, it's always been a people problem."
It started with a rat trapped inside Theo Anthony's outdoor trash can.
"Absolutely, what you see is really how it came about," the Baltimore-based filmmaker says of his first documentary feature, "Rat Film," which opens Friday in Baltimore, New York and Chicago. "I had come home one night, and I heard this sound in my trash can. So I whipped out my cellphone and just started filming."
That brief footage, of the trapped rat desperately trying to jump a few inches higher than conventional wisdom says a rat should be able to jump, kicks off an 80-minute rumination on Baltimore's decades-long battle against its unwelcome rodent population, and some disturbing parallels Anthony discovered with the ways city leaders have tried to deal with various urban situations.
"Rat Film," which had its local premiere at May's Maryland Film Festival, is alternately amusing and troubling. A parade of rat-centric characters troops through it, including one man who loves them so much he happily lets them climb on his head while he plays a flute; an exterminator who turns out to be a closet philosopher; a guy who hunts them down with a blowgun and almost religious fervor; and a homeless trio with a surprising, and decidedly gritty, musical bent.
It also features a history lesson that begins in the early part of the 20th century, when Baltimore became the first city in the nation to pass a residential segregation law, restricting blacks and whites to certain sections of the city (such laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court a few years later). The movie ends with an alternate take on the city's future that almost makes sense, in the most unsettling of ways.
His film developed, Anthony says, as he delved into two areas of research '-- Baltimore's rats and some unfortunate attempts at urban planning '-- and realized they dovetailed in ways he never suspected they would. On the heels of the residential segregation legislation, for example, Anthony discovered that parts of the city, often poor and rat-infested, were "redlined" by the insurance industry, forever labeling some areas as both downtrodden and undesirable. And in the 1940s, he also discovered, one byproduct of social and medical research being done on some of these areas was the discovery of a better type of rat poison by a researcher at Johns Hopkins.
"It was like all these really strange coincidences that, when you start to really dive into it, you realize that they're really not coincidences, that they're really linked in their conceptual subject matter," Anthony says.
Anthony, 27, grew up in Annapolis and started coming to Baltimore regularly when he was about 14 or 15, mostly to attend Dan Deacon concerts (not coincidentally, Deacon provides the eerie, electronic soundtrack for "Rat Film"). A graduate of Ohio's Oberlin College, he's now a full-time artist and photographer, with a resume that includes a handful of short documentaries and music videos.
He hadn't planned to make a film about rodents and social planning his first feature, Anthony says, but the more research he did, the clearer his path became.
"I didn't have any expectations, I didn't know if anyone was going to see this film," he says. "Rat Film" is 95 percent him, Anthony says, put together in his attic and room. What started as a five-minute short grew into something far bigger and more complex. His handiwork premiered at Switzerland's Locarno Film Festival in October 2016, and was subsequently picked up for distribution by Cinema Guild.
"Rat Film," Anthony stresses, is no conventional documentary. In one instance, for example, Anthony recruited actors to try their hands at rat fishing, attaching bait to the end of a fishing line and casting down alleyways, hoping to reel in a rodent or two. Rat fishing, he notes, is a real thing, an "urban myth" based in reality, and his actors really are doing it '-- even if it's by design, rather than inclination.
(Anthony defends such a re-creation, while acknowledging that he, perhaps, should have somehow labeled it as such. "Being transparent about re-creating a myth is a different conversation than, 'Should you be able to re-create it in this way,' " he says.)
Even more fundamentally, Anthony says, "Rat Film" reflects not so much history, or sociology, or social criticism. It does, he stresses, reflect the "personal journey" he undertook as a result of his research. Audiences are free to take from that journey whatever they want.
The film "presents itself as just one of many possible investigations into our city's history," he says. "It was a really personal journey. It's not really an objective history of Baltimore, nor does it try to be. It's a very personal investigation, and reflects my trying to understand my own role in that investigation."
"Rat Film" opens Friday at the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Parkway, 5 W. North Ave. mdfilmfest.com.
Most Read ' Movies
No Agenda Stream on 6930Khz USB
Our Investors | Addressable Advertising | INVIDI Technologies
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:44
In early 2017, a consortium made up of AT&T, DISH Network L.L.C., and WPP acquired INVIDI Technologies. INVIDI continues to operate independently, with each company represented on INVIDI's board of directors. AT&T holds controlling interest in the venture.
AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) helps millions around the globe connect with leading entertainment, mobile, high-speed internet and voice services. They are the world's largest provider of pay TV with customers across the U.S. and in 11 Latin American countries. They offer the best global coverage of any U.S. wireless provider.* AT&T helps businesses worldwide serve their customers better with their mobility and highly secure cloud solutions. Additional information about AT&T products and services is available at about.att.com. Follow them on Twitter at @ATT, on Facebook and YouTube.
DISH Network Corp. (NASDAQ:DISH), through its subsidiaries, provides approximately 13.643 million pay-tv subscribers, as of September 2016, with the highest quality programming and technology, with the most choices, at the best value. DISH offers a high definition line-up with more than 200 national HD channels, the most international channels and award-winning HD and DVR technology. Dish Network Corporation is a Fortune 200 company. For more information, visit www.dish.com
WPP (NYSE: WPP) is the world's largest communications services group with billings of US$73 billion and revenues of US$19 billion. Through its operating companies, the WPP Group provides a comprehensive range of advertising and marketing services including: advertising & media investment management; data investment management; public relations & public affairs; branding & identity; healthcare communications; direct, digital, promotion & relationship marketing and specialist communications. The company employs over 200,000 people (including associates and investments in over 3,000 offices across 113 countries. For more information, visit www.wpp.com.
WPP was named Holding Company of the Year at the 2017 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity for the seventh year running. WPP was also named, for the sixth consecutive year, the World's Most Effective Holding Company in the 2017 Effie Effectiveness Index, which recognizes the effectiveness of marketing communications. In 2017, WPP was also recognized by Warc 100 as the World's Top Holding Company for the third year consecutively.
Children born with lower IQ due to climate change, report suggests | Newshub
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:30
Children who experience extreme weather events before they're born have lower IQs than those that don't, a new report suggests.
The report from Global Health Alliance Australia laid bare the impacts climate change is having on health, AAP reports.
Climate Change: What New Zealanders have to change and whenJames Renwick: Climate change deniers' arguments are 'fact-free'Where climate change will hit NZ hardest revealed in interactive mapIt looked at more than 100 pieces of research and policy analysis to work out how environmental conditions are affecting people's health.
Global Health Alliance Australia executive director Misha Coleman was shocked by fact the research suggested an effect on children's IQ.
Studies on the subject found evidence the change is due to stress hormones from the mother crossing into the placenta.
One study found specific effects in children that went through the 2011 Brisbane floods, which was part of a cluster of floods in Queensland from 2010 to 2011.
"It's been estimated that those kids lost about 14 IQ points because of the stress their mothers went through," Coleman told AAP.
The study also revealed higher temperatures and greenhouse gasses are leading to increased asthma attacks and allergies.
Coleman said sometimes it could be hard for people to understand the broader implications of climate change on health.
"During the Black Saturday fires for example, people know about how many people died in the fires," she told AAP.
"But over those days, we had like 43 degree temperatures, there were an additional 374 deaths from heatstroke, because there is a relationship with heart failure and other sorts of underlying diseases that are massively exacerbated."
Newshub.
DHS Warns Small Airplanes Vulnerable to Flight Data Manipulation Attacks
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:10
What could be more horrifying than knowing that a hacker can trick the plane's electronic systems into displaying false flight data to the pilot, which could eventually result in loss of control?
Of course, the attacker would never wish to be on the same flight, so in this article, we are going to talk about a potential loophole that could allow an attacker to exploit a vulnerability with some level of "unsupervised" physical access to a small aircraft before the plane takes off.
The United States Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) has issued an alert for the same, warning owners of small aircraft to be on guard against a vulnerability that could enable attackers to easily hack the plane's CAN bus and take control of key navigation systems.
The vulnerability,
discovered by a cybersecurity researcher at Rapid 7, resides in the modern aircraft's implementation of CAN (Controller Area Network) bus'--a popular vehicular networking standard used in automobiles and small aircraft that allows microcontrollers and devices to communicate with each other in applications without a host computer.
Rapid7 researcher Patrick Kiley demonstrated that a hacker with physical access to a small aircraft's wiring could attach a device'--or co-opt an existing attached device'--to the plane's avionics CAN bus to insert false data and communicate them to the pilot.
"Modern aircraft use a network of electronics to translate signals from the various sensors and place this data onto a network to be interpreted by the appropriate instruments and displayed to the pilot," Kiley said in a report published Tuesday.
The attacker can manipulate the following data:
Engine telemetry readings Compass and attitude dataAltitude, airspeed, and angle of attack (AoA) data"The researchers have further outlined that a pilot relying on instrument readings would be unable to distinguish between false and legitimate readings, which could result in loss of control of the affected aircraft," the DHS' cyber division warned Tuesday.
Kiley demonstrated the attack after investigating avionics systems'--an electronic control and navigation system fitted in an aircraft'--from two unnamed commercial aircraft manufacturers specialized in light aircraft.
Kiley found that the key problem with the avionics CAN bus is that it is integrated into the aircraft's other components without any firewalls or authentication, which means untrusted connections over a USB adapter attached to the plane can send unauthorized commands to its electronic systems.
"In avionics, these systems provide the foundation of control systems and sensor systems and collect data such as altitude, airspeed, and engine parameters such as fuel level and oil pressure, then display them to the pilot," the researcher said."CAN packets also do not have recipient addresses or any kind of built-in authentication mechanism. This is what makes the bus easy to implement, but it also removes any assurance that the sending device was the actual originator of the message."
Though the attack sounds scary, it is not easy to gain "unsupervised" physical access to a plane, given "current industry practices and regulations," nevertheless, the Rapid7 report is worth paying attention to.
The researcher also pointed out that the avionics sector is lagging behind the automotive industry when it comes to the CAN bus system.
The automotive industry has made advancements in implementing safeguards, such as CAN bus-specific filtering, whitelisting, and segregation, that prevent similar physical attacks to CAN bus systems. Aircraft makers should also implement these safeguards.
The DHS' CISA is urging aircraft manufacturers to consider network protections around the CAN bus system and make sure they restrict access to their planes to the best of their abilities.
Did Mueller Defy A Court Order To Stop Lying About Russian Companies?
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:09
In case you haven't been keeping up with every detail of the winding Donald Trump-Russia collusion investigation (don't feel badly, Robert Mueller hasn't either), a little review will help explain the importance of a bombshell that is about to go off.
You may remember a triumphant Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein holding a dramatic press conference in February 2018, in which he announced the indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies. These companies included Concord Management and the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
The indictment accused Concord and IRA of creating fake social media accounts to post ''derogatory information'' about a number of candidates, including ''disparaging'' Hillary Clinton. There are two of these ''Russian interference cases.'' The one involving Concord and IRA does not involve hacking or trafficking in stolen emails. The Concord/IRA case is sometimes referred to as the ''Russian Troll Farm'' case.
The indictment of Russian individuals and companies appeared, at first, to be a mere publicity stunt, as nobody believed the Russians would voluntarily appear in court to challenge the charges. But then one of them did. Concord hired an attorney to fight the indictment.
Both Mueller's report and Attorney General William Barr's April press conference releasing the report included statements strongly suggesting that Concord and IRA worked at the direction of the Russian government. Nobody bothered to notice that the original indictment did not charge Concord with being a tool of the Russian government until Concord filed a motion for a contempt citation against the government for making that allegation.
On July 1, 2019, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich issued an order (to which the government agreed) prohibiting further public statements by the government about the Concord and IRA case, particularly statements alleging that Concord and IRA worked on behalf of the Russian government. A more detailed discussion of this train wreck can be read here.
But Mueller Just Did It AgainThis takes us to the Mueller testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees last week. On live television in front of an audience of millions, former special counsel Robert Mueller carefully skirted speculating on the guilt or innocence of Roger Stone due to his ongoing criminal prosecution. But nobody apparently reminded Mueller that Judge Friedrich had ordered Mueller's team to stop saying Concord and IRA worked for the Russian government.
The government hasn't alleged that, can't prove it, and abandoned those allegations in open court. The government had only just barely escaped a criminal contempt citation because Mueller's report and Barr's press conference seemed to allege that the Russians (the Russians, as in the Russian government) were behind the troll farms. And that's not true, according to the government's own admissions.
Less than two months before Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, Judge Friedrich ruled that Mueller violated pretrial publicity rules with his public statements regarding Concord and its co-defendant, IRA.
''By attributing [the conduct] to 'Russia''--as opposed to Russian individuals or entities'--the report suggests that [Concord's internet activities] were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of the Russian government,'' she wrote. She found Mueller ''violated a standing court rule'' by making these public pronouncements.
This Is What We Call Contempt of CourtMueller's team did not say in the indictment that IRA or Concord worked for the Russian government, nor could it produce any evidence to support the Mueller report's claims of Russian government control or coordination with IRA or Concord. Mueller barely escaped contempt of court because (1) he violated a mere ''standing court rule,'' and not a court order (which she entered after the first violation); and (2) Mueller held a May 29 press conference to walk back public accusations that Concord and IRA worked on behalf of the Russian government.
But then he did it again, in his testimony last week. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) asked Mueller, ''You said in your report'...that the Russian intervention was sweeping and systematic'...one of my colleagues earlier here referred to this Russian intervention as a hoax, and I'd like to get your comment on that. '...The Internet Research Agency was spending about $1.25 million a month on all of this social media in the United States in what I would call an invasion in our country. Would you agree that it was not a hoax that the Russians were engaged in trying to impact our election?''
Mueller responded, ''Absolutely. It was not a hoax. The indictments we returned against the Russians, two different ones, were substantial in their scope, using that scope word again. And I think one of the '-- we have underplayed to a certain extent, that aspect of the investigation that has and would have long term damage to the United States that we need to move quickly to address.'' You can watch the clip here.
Was it an accident? No, Mueller did it again in his response to Rep. William Hurd's (R-Texas) question: ''One of the most striking things in your report is that the Internet Research Agency, not only on its social media campaign in the U.S., but they were able to organize political rallies after the election. Our committee issued a report (inaudible) saying that Russian active measures are growing with frequency and intensity and including their expanded use of groups such as the IRA. And these groups pose a significant threat to the United States and our allies in upcoming elections. Would you agree with that?''
Mueller again made it clear that he believed that the defendants in the Concord and IRA cases worked on behalf of the Russian government: ''Yes. In fact, one of the other areas that we have to look at, and many more companies '-- not companies '-- many more countries are developing capability to replicate what the Russians had done.'' This is exactly what Judge Friedrich said not to do: use the phrase ''the Russians'' or ''Russia'' when referring to Concord and IRA, because it strongly suggests that both worked at the direction of the Russian government.
Will Friedrich Follow Up on Her Order?Worse yet, Mueller was reminded of Judge Friedrich's admonishments in this sharp questioning during the Judiciary Committee hearing. Even if Mueller could not comprehend the perilousness of continuing to claim IRA and Concord worked for the Russian government (after abandoning that claim in open court), he was flanked by his aide Aaron Zebley who, in theory, should have been present to prevent this misstep. Yet, within a few short hours, he cavalierly violated Judge Friedrich's order on national television, not once, but twice.
Why did the Department of Justice coach Mueller to obey the court order regarding pretrial publicity in the Stone case but not the Concord/IRA case? Mueller and his DOJ handlers have made a mockery of the restraint Friedrich exercised in response to the government's previous clear violation of rules prohibiting prosecutors from using the media as their courtroom. In front of millions of viewers, he directly challenged the authority of a presiding district judge to protect the fairness of the trial process.
Potential jurors across the Washington DC and the entire nation watched the most famous prosecutor in American history ''confirm'' something the government claimed it never even alleged: that these defendants (Concord and IRA) coordinated with or acted on behalf of the Russian government. Mueller has no evidence of this, and his surrogates admitted that in open court. The DOJ was ordered to stop saying that. And then Mueller did it anyway.
Does Mueller's media celebrity make him ''above the law?'' Does a sitting district judge have no tool with which to remedy this intentional and repeated violation of her authority? Unless the court does something decisive, an entire nation of citizens is likely to assume the worst.
Adam Mill is a pen name. He works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. Adam has contributed to The Federalist, American Greatness, and The Daily Caller.
Copyright (C) 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.
Jeffrey Epstein sex traffic trial expected in 2020
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:04
Courtroom sketch showing Jeffrey Epstein at his bail hearing in New York on July 15th, 2019.
Artist: Christine Cornell
The child sex trafficking trial of wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein is expected to begin no sooner than June 8, 2020, a court hearing Wednesday determined.
But Epstein's defense lawyers told Judge Richard Berman at the hearing that they want the trial to begin no earlier than after Labor Day in September 2020.
Berman reserved making a final decision on the trial date.
But the judge suspended until June 8 the administrative clock that sets a deadline for the trial.
That effectively means that the earliest a trial would begin is that day.
Epstein's lawyer, Martin Weinberg, told Berman that the defense will need significant time to prepare for trying the case, in which the former friend of Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton is accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls from 2002 through 2005 at his massive homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.
Weinberg said that the defense has not yet reviewed the case's evidence, which he noted will total more than 1 million pages.
"Thirteen months sounds like the appropriate amount of time it takes to prepare a case of this magnitude," Weinberg said.
But a federal prosecutor told Berman that there was a "public interest" in bringing the case to trial more quickly.
"We don't think any delay in this case is in the public interest," the prosecutor said.
The hearing in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was Epstein's first court appearance since he was found on July 23 semi-conscious and with marks on his neck on the floor of his jail cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.
Officials have not said if Epstein tried to kill himself, staged a suicide attempt or was attacked by another inmate in that federal lockup.
At Wednesday's hearing, Epstein appeared in court with no visible injuries. He wore the same blue jail shirt and pants with a brown short-sleeve undershirt and orange sneakers that he had worn in every previous court appearance in the case.
He was clean-shaven and appeared to have recently gotten a haircut. He said nothing during the brief proceeding.
High-profile lawyer Gloria Allred, who is known for her representation of women alleging sexual assault and harassment, was in the courtroom during the hearing. Allred later told reporters outside the courthouse in lower Manhattan that she is representing a number of women who accuse Epstein of victimizing them.
Epstein is being held without bail. Berman earlier this month denied his request to be released into home confinement on a bond of upward of $100 million. The judge said Epstein represents a potential danger to other women, and was also a risk of flight given his wealth.
Epstein, 66, was arrested in early July after a grand jury in Manhattan indicted him on charges of sex trafficking, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.
He has pleaded not guilty in the case, where he faces up to 45 years in prison if convicted.
Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to state charges in Florida related to prostitution involving an underage girl. He served 13 months in jail, but spent much of that time on work release.
Last week, a day before he was found injured in his cell, Epstein was served at the jail with court documents indicating that a woman plans to sue him next month for his alleged rape of her as a 15-year-old high school student in 2002 in his Manhattan residence.
Inside Verdura Resort, where billionaires and CEOs go for Google camp - Business Insider
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:57
The Verdura Resort, a Rocco Forte Hotel in Sicily, hosts the annual Google camp. Rocco Forte Hotels Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin are gathering leading CEOs, musicians, and athletes at the Verdura Resort in Italy the week of July 30 for their annual conference, according to Fox Business. The resort features championship golf and infinity pools surrounded by olive trees and orange groves, according to its website. This year's guests include Bradley Cooper, Tom Cruise, and former president Barack Obama, according to Fox Business. Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories. Billionaires, CEOs, fashion designers, and musicians have descended on a Sicilian resort for an annual conference hosted by Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
The event, known as "The Camp," consists of group discussions on topics Page and Brin deem to be of global importance, Business Insider previously reported. In years past, attendees have debated feminism and the role of sports in modern culture. Inspired by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Page and Brin began hosting the event in 2012, according to Fox Business.
Little else is known about what goes on at The Camp '-- including the schedule and the cost of attendance '-- and all staff are asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, according to Fox Business.
This year, the conference's festivities began with a private concert by Coldplay's Chris Martin, Fox Business reported.
Read more: Inside the beautiful mountain lodge where the biggest names in tech and media are staying for the annual 'summer camp for billionaires' and rooms start at $450 a night
As for the guest list, it's reportedly star-studded: Bradley Cooper, Tom Cruise, Diane Von Furstenberg, Katy Perry, and former president Barack Obama are all attending The Camp, according to Fox Business. Former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel, Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington, fashion designer Tory Burch, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have also attended in the past, Business Insider previously reported.
Keep reading to learn more about the Verdura Resort.
To get to Google Camp, guests fly into the Palermo airport and then arrive at Verdura Resort by helicopter. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Rocco Forte Hotels
The Camp was started in 2012 by Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and has since attracted big-name attendees like Bradley Cooper, Tom Cruise, Diane Von Furstenberg, Katy Perry, and former president Barack Obama. AP Source: Fox Business
Despite its high-profile guests, outsiders don't know much about what goes on at the resort, as all staff members are required to sign non-disclosure agreements. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Fox Business
The resort where Google Camp is held stretches across 230 hectares of the Sicilian countryside and borders the Mediterranean Sea. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Rocco Forte Hotels
The resort also features lots of options for traditional Italian food ... The terrace of the Zagara Restaurant. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Rocco Forte Hotels
... including in-room dining on your private terrace. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Business Insider
As for rooms, the most affordable accommodation, a deluxe room, rents for around '¬300 ($334) a night. It includes a king-size bed and views of the resort's golf courses and the sea. Room 3313. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Fox Business
On the other end of the spectrum is the Presidential Suite, one of the resort's best rooms. Other villas go for around '¬2,600 ($2,893) a night, according to the resort's website. Rocco Forte Hotels Source: Rocco Forte Hotels
Get the latest Google stock price here.
More: Features Arts & Culture Google Billionaires Chevron iconIt indicates an expandable section or menu, or sometimes previous / next navigation options.
Popular from BI Prime One email put a 24-year old on a path from intern to COO in six months. Here's the exact text he used. Popular from BI Prime 25 rising stars in venture capital who control millions of dollars in Silicon Valley and decide which startups will blow up Popular from BI Prime A Wall Street stock chief explains how the Fed has brought the stock market dangerously close to disaster '-- and why rate cuts might be too late to avoid it Popular from BI Prime See the pitch deck that nabbed Clearbanc, a startup that provides funding to other startups, $300 million in Series B financing less than a year after its first venture round Popular from BI Prime $3.2 billion cyber company Cloudflare is eyeing a September IPO, just months after raising an $150 million funding round Close iconTwo crossed lines that form an 'X'. It indicates a way to close an interaction, or dismiss a notification. Check mark iconA check mark. It indicates a confirmation of your intended interaction.
Scientists develop way to turn wastewater into affordable, renewable energy
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:55
By Christopher Carbone, Fox News
July 31, 2019 | 12:21pm | Updated July 31, 2019 | 4:30pm
Researchers have developed a cheap technology that could become a major source of renewable energy in the future.
Stanford University scientists have tested a prototype of a battery that could tap into the mix of salty seawater and freshwater '-- known as ''blue energy'' '-- at wastewater treatments plants. Globally, according to the scholars, the recoverable energy from coastal wastewater treatment plants is about 18 gigawatts, which would be enough to power 1,700 homes for a full year.
''Blue energy is an immense and untapped source of renewable energy,'' said study coauthor Kristian Dubrawski, a postdoctoral scholar in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, in a statement. ''Our battery is a major step toward practically capturing that energy without membranes, moving parts or energy input.''
As the researchers explain in their paper, they monitored the battery prototype's energy production while flushing it with wastewater effluent from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant and seawater collected nearby from Half Moon Bay. The battery materials maintained 97% effectiveness in capturing the salinity gradient energy, according to Stanford University.
Wastewater treatment plants are known to be energy-intensive and vulnerable to power grid shutdowns which have happened in California amid its wildfire crisis; however, as the researchers note, making them energy independent would cut down on emissions and free them from potential blackouts.
According to the researchers, the process of capturing ''blue energy'' releases sodium and chloride ions from the battery's electrodes into the solution, making a current flow from one electrode to another; after that, a quick exchange of wastewater effluent with seawater leads the electrode to reincorporate sodium and chloride ions and reverse the current flow.
Energy gets recovered during the freshwater and seawater flushes, with no upfront investment or charging required. However, the researchers cautioned that the concept needs to be tested more.
''It is a scientifically elegant solution to a complex problem,'' Dubrawski said. ''It needs to be tested at scale and it doesn't address the challenge of tapping blue energy at the global scale '-- rivers running into the ocean '-- but it is a good starting point that could spur these advances.''
REPORT: Jeffrey Epstein Provided Female Interns for Charlie Rose - Big League Politics
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 12:49
Shocking new reporting from a progressive media outlet has linked elite billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to Charlie Rose, the now-disgraced mainstay of CBS's 60 Minutes for decades. Rose was forced out of his comfortable mainstream media position in the aftermath of #MeToo claims against him, alleging that the legacy media titan had made a habit of harassing and groping young women.
DemocracyNow is a left-wing media outlet known for its critical editorial stance against establishment liberalism and the mainstream Democratic Party. The outlet sources anonymous former employees of Rose, who claim that they were referred to the sexual harasser by Epstein. One 22-year old woman describes her experience being peddled between the finance and media oligarchs as ''being offered up for abuse.''
In a disturbing twist, one female personal assistant was supposedly advertised to Rose on the grounds of her previous employment with infamous sex abuser Harvey Weinstein. Epstein allegedly told Rose that the individual was ''the world's most perfect assistant'' on account of her previous employment with Weinstein.
It's unclear from DemocracyNow's reporting whether or not young women were abused by Epstein before being handed off to Charlie Rose to be sexually harassed, but Epstein's track record of sex trafficking make such as possibility entirely plausible. Epstein is currently in jail in New York, facing criminal charges related to his activities with underage girls.
Trending: SEDITION: Declassified Docs Exposing Obama Officials Due Out Wednesday Says Joe diGenova
The former billionaire, who was connected to Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey in his golden days, was said to make a suicide attempt in a New York jail last week. Epstein is accused of orchestrating an elaborate sex trafficking scheme in which he abused girls on his Caribbean ''private island,'' having evaded charges on account of his insider connections to Florida prosecutors for a decade.
Rose was forced out of his elite media perch in 2017, when the first accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior were made. Eventually, 35 women attested to his track record of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior at CBS. The 60 Minutes mainstay was able to avoid accountability for his workplace behavior for decades, but the wave 0f witnesses that emerged in the wake of the #MeToo movement was enough to sink the legacy media personality.
Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?
Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.
Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.
Bypass Tech Censorship!Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
The YouTuber union isn't really a union, but it could be a big deal - Vox
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 11:39
YouTubers are unionizing '-- kind of.
The YouTubers Union is led by Berlin-based YouTuber J¶rg Sprave, whose slingshot-focused channel has more than 2 million subscribers, and recently announced a partnership with IG Metall, the largest trade union in the EU. IG Metall was originally a metalworkers union based in Germany but has expanded to cover other industries. In the past several years, it's taken on more white-collar workers in engineering and IT management.
The YouTubers Union will not be a real union under the IG Metall umbrella, and they have no intention of holding an election or bargaining with YouTube to establish a contract. In effect, they're running a public pressure campaign with the help, now, of a powerful political body.
This week, they launched what Sprave is calling an ''internet movement,'' named FairTube. The 18,000 members of the YouTubers Union are collectively protesting changes to YouTube's advertising rules, which date back to the spring of 2017 and are colloquially known as the ''Adpocalypse.'' (So far, no major YouTube stars have publicly endorsed FairTube '-- likely, at least in part, because FairTube is protesting what it considers special treatment for big moneymakers.)
At the time, YouTube gave advertisers more control over what content their ads appeared next to, and rolled out ''brand safety'' features that YouTubers like Sprave have railed against ever since. Their argument, essentially, is that YouTube has become a sanitized media company, prioritizing brand deals with big celebrities at the expense of allowing independent creators a fair shot at making a living. (Though, as Edward Ongweso Jr. pointed out for Vice, this type of inequality existed on the platform before the advertising changes, and the top 3 percent of YouTubers were already getting close to 90 percent of site traffic.)
FairTube's demands are published on its website. Participants are asking YouTube to make public all ''decision criteria that affect monetization and views of videos,'' to give ''clear explanations'' whenever a video is demonetized (i.e., prohibited from running ads due to a community or content guideline violation), to provide the YouTubers Union with a contact point within the company, allow YouTubers to contest demonetization decisions, create an independent mediation board, and allow YouTubers ''formal participation'' in important company decisions, ''for example through a YouTuber Advisory Board.''
According to YouTube, the company has been taking steps to improve transparency and communication for the past two years, most notably by implementing a ''strike'' system with more consistent penalties for policy violations. YouTube also says it asks for creator feedback when launching new features and products.
A YouTube spokesperson provided Vox with this statement:
We're deeply invested in creators' success, that's why we share the majority of revenue with them. We also need to ensure that users feel safe and that advertisers feel confident that YouTube is safe for their brand. We take lots of feedback as we work to get this balance right, including by meeting with hundreds of creators every year. However, contrary to what is being claimed, YouTube creators are not YouTube employees by legal status.
FairTube is also alleging that YouTube regularly violates the EU's General Data Protection Regulation law
Sprave tells me the group is also alleging that YouTube regularly violates the EU's General Data Protection Regulation law. (In January, Google paid a $57 million fine to the EU for not properly disclosing its data collection practices to users.) His argument is that by sorting and tagging YouTubers' videos in ways the creators can't see or understand, the company is violating the GDPR's directive not to generate data about users without telling them.
''Legally, you can approach any company like Facebook and Google and ask them to tell you what they've done to your data,'' Sprave says. ''YouTube is clearly adding a lot of stuff to our data '... but YouTube isn't telling us. We have to guess. And that absolutely is a violation of the data protection law. If they don't open up and be transparent about what they do to our videos, then the EU will slap a huge fine on them. We're convinced about that.'' (YouTube did not comment on this specific claim.)
Sprave is also optimistic about the US Federal Trade Commission's pending investigation into possible antitrust violations at big tech companies, including YouTube's parent company, Google.
Strange as it may sound, this looks a lot like the effort to unionize Instagram meme accounts, announced in April. That group, which goes by IG Meme Union Local 69-420, also has no plans to create a traditional union. As Rebecca Jennings reported for Vox at the time, ''The organizing drive is still very real: Not only does it use traditional union organizing tactics, but the memers have concrete demands they want Instagram to agree to. And with growing membership, they'll likely have a bit of leverage.''
Much like the YouTubers Union, this group is primarily interested in transparency from the platform their livelihoods or creative work depend on. Adryn Alvarez, a representative from the Instagram union's organizing committee, told Vox that the union hoped to put a stop to what it considered random censorship of posts or full accounts, and to prevent huge meme accounts with millions of followers (and lucrative brand deals) from stealing content from smaller pages.
''Compare it to the early days of the Industrial Revolution where factory workers had no rights, so therefore they had to work 14 hours, seven days a week,'' Sprave says. ''If someone complained, they'd say, 'There's three people who want your job, so if you no longer want it, there's the door.' That's very much the situation that we now have at YouTube, but also at Facebook and Twitter and so on. All of these companies, in a way, work the same way. They don't have to take care of the people who work for them.''
''All of these companies, in a way, work the same way. They don't have to take care of the people who work for them.''
Sprave isn't exactly confident that YouTube will recognize the unofficial union, and says it's possible the company will just try to sit the whole thing out. He believes, though, that the demands are fair, and that they don't have anything to do with the company's bottom line. ''We recognize that YouTube owns the platform and can decide what kind of content they want and what kind they do not want,'' he says. ''If they don't want pornography, it's their right to exclude it. If they don't want hate speech, it's their right to exclude it. The only thing we demand is that these rules are clear and also equally enforced.''
But the fact that FairTube is ''an internet movement'' and not a real union brings up some questions about power within the group. Sprave says there are only a few administrators helping him run the website and Facebook group, but otherwise, he is the primary organizer and sole spokesperson. Asked if it might make sense to establish a committee to represent the diverse interests of YouTube's enormous community, he first tells me that might happen, after YouTube recognizes the union, then pivots to no: ''It would be really dangerous to make it really democratic,'' as there are just too many disparate concerns.
This spring, Jennings also situated the Instagram meme union in a larger trend of white-collar professions seeking the protection of collective bargaining. ''Workers in professional and technical occupations '-- teachers, hospital staff, government employees, and media folks, for example '-- currently have higher rates of union membership than at any other point in history,'' she wrote. ''In 2018, 6.18 million professional workers were in unions, capping a decade-long upward trend in professional union membership.'' Millennials and Gen Z workers are also more likely to join unions than Gen X or boomer workers are, she added, citing the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Internet workers have been unionizing rapidly over the past several years, including, most recently, the staffs at Kickstarter and at BuzzFeed News. (Vox Media also signed its first union contract this summer.)
''One of the things we need to do is make people understand how these new jobs work,'' Sprave says. ''The job of a YouTuber, a lot of young people think it's a dream job, they think it's the best thing in the world, you've got nothing to do and you live like a rock star. You step in front of a camera an hour a day and then you get millions. Not the truth. It's very hard work and really risky and also exhausting. We need to tell the world what kind of a job it really is, so they see why we have the need to have a union.''
Sign up for The Goods' newsletter. Twice a week, we'll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.
Climate activist celebrities arrive at 'Google Camp' by yachts, helicopters, and private jets
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 11:08
| July 31, 2019 11:54 AM
Scores of A-list celebrities arrived in Sicily, Italy this week for the annual "Google Camp" to discuss the threat of climate change while communing with some of the wealthiest tech entrepreneurs in the world to a posh, seaside resort.
The event is hosted by Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, who reportedly intend for the camp to be a "meeting of the minds" between technology giants, powerful business owners, and others who are known to be global thought leaders.
Many guests, rumored to include former President Barack Obama, Leonardo DiCaprio, Katy Perry, Bradley Cooper, Mark Zuckerberg, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, are said to be arriving to the multi-day fest and climate discussion via private jets and mega yachts. Others are anticipated to arrive via helicopter from the Italian mainland.
More than 114 private jets were reported to have been expected at nearby Palermo airport, where camp guests would be transported to the resort by van. Mega yachts docked at a nearby beach were reported to belong to designer Diane Von Furstenberg, German pharmaceutical giant Udo J. Vetter, Google's Eric Schmidt, New Zealand tycoon Graeme Hart, and American billionaire David Geffen.
"Everything is about global warming. That is the major topic this year," a source told the New York Post.
Others criticized the nature of the event and luxurious travel methods taken by the attendees as hypocritical because they intend to discuss a possible climate crisis.
"There will likely be discussions about online privacy, politics, human rights, and of course, the environment, which makes it highly ironic that this event requires 114 private jets to happen," a regular attendee said.
Some estimates suggest that up to 100,000 kilograms of CO2 could be expelled into the air during the journeys of that many private jets. Mega yachts, like Graeme Hart's $275 million "Ulysses," can use up to 2,000 liters of fuel per hour when in motion.
(1) Joe M on Twitter: "The whole Baltimore scandal was a sting. Trump gave $16b billion to revive the slums and crooked Democrats stole it ALL! We knew they would, and Horowitz watched the whole thing play out while taking notes. Now we have them, and are
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:53
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Airbus profits skyrocket while rival Boeing stumbles over 737 MAX crisis '-- RT Business News
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:39
Europe's Airbus has beaten its own records with skyrocketing half-year profits, boasting a strong demand from airlines for its fuel-efficient jets. In contrast, US rival Boeing suffered huge losses over the 737 MAX grounding.
Airbus revenues soared 24 percent in the first half of 2019 to '¬30.1 billion ($33.6 billion), while net profit grew to '¬1.2 billion compared to '¬496 million in the same period last year, the plane maker's chief executive Guillaume Faury said during a conference call on Wednesday.
Also on rt.com Boeing better 'get their s**t together,' Ryanair boss says as 737 MAX delays drag on These results follow Tuesday's announcement that Air France-KLM placed a weighty order for 60 of Airbus' new Canadian-made A220-300 planes for short- and medium-haul flights '' an illustration of the growing demand for Airbus airliners. Most of the profit reported, however, came from increased production of the company's highly popular A320 single-aisle planes. Since the start of the year, Airbus has delivered 294 of these, and confirmed its goal of the total of 880 to 890 deliveries till the year end.
The A320 is a direct competitor to Boeing's 737 MAX, the ill-fated plane that has been grounded indefinitely by regulators worldwide since mid-March after two crashes in Ethiopia and Indonesia resulted in the deaths of 346 people. Though a large number of MAX jets have been long expected by airlines worldwide, the US airplane manufacturer will not be able to deliver any until regulators have declared them safe.
Also on rt.com Grounding of 737 MAX after two deadly crashes will cost Boeing $5 billion to date Last week, Boeing posted its largest-ever quarterly loss, calculating the total cost of the 737 MAX crisis at over $8 billion, Reuters reported. The sum mostly covers compensation the manufacturer will have to pay airlines for delayed deliveries and lower production. The company even warned it may have to shut down production of the grounded jet completely if the regulators don't come up with an assessment soon.
A number of airlines have already demanded compensation from the US company for failed plane deliveries, while Saudi Arabian budget carrier Flyadeal became the first airline to cancel an order of 50 Boeing jets worth up to $5.9 billion in favor of a deal with Airbus.
For more stories on economy & finance visit RT's business section
Alessandra on Twitter: "Hong Kong protestors are on another level. Here they're using lasers to avoid facial recognition cameras. A cyber war against Chinese artificial intelligence. https://t.co/t1hIczr5Go" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:26
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA - The New York Times
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:14
Image Over the years, Jeffrey E. Epstein surrounded himself with many prominent scientists, including several affiliated with Harvard. Credit Credit Rick Friedman/Corbis, via Getty Images Jeffrey E. Epstein, the wealthy financier who is accused of sex trafficking, had an unusual dream: He hoped to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating women at his vast New Mexico ranch.
Mr. Epstein over the years confided to scientists and others about his scheme, according to four people familiar with his thinking, although there is no evidence that it ever came to fruition.
Mr. Epstein's vision reflected his longstanding fascination with what has become known as transhumanism: the science of improving the human population through technologies like genetic engineering and artificial intelligence. Critics have likened transhumanism to a modern-day version of eugenics, the discredited field of improving the human race through controlled breeding.
Mr. Epstein, who was charged in July with the sexual trafficking of girls as young as 14, was a serial illusionist: He lied about the identities of his clients, his wealth, his financial prowess, his personal achievements. But he managed to use connections and charisma to cultivate valuable relationships with business and political leaders.
Interviews with more than a dozen of his acquaintances, as well as public documents, show that he used the same tactics to insinuate himself into an elite scientific community, thus allowing him to pursue his interests in eugenics and other fringe fields like cryonics.
Lawyers for Mr. Epstein, who has pleaded not guilty to the sex-trafficking charges, did not respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Epstein attracted a glittering array of prominent scientists. They included the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who discovered the quark; the theoretical physicist and best-selling author Stephen Hawking; the paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould; Oliver Sacks, the neurologist and best-selling author; George M. Church, a molecular engineer who has worked to identify genes that could be altered to create superior humans; and the M.I.T. theoretical physicist Frank Wilczek, a Nobel laureate.
Image Mr. Epstein's ranch in New Mexico, which he confided to scientists and others he hoped to use as the site for seeding the human race with his DNA. Credit Drone Base/Reuters The lure for some of the scientists was Mr. Epstein's money. He dangled financing for their pet projects. Some of the scientists said that the prospect of financing blinded them to the seriousness of his sexual transgressions, and even led them to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.
Scientists gathered at dinner parties at Mr. Epstein's Manhattan mansion, where Dom P(C)rignon and expensive wines flowed freely, even though Mr. Epstein did not drink. He hosted buffet lunches at Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, which he had helped start with a $6.5 million donation.
Others flew to conferences sponsored by Mr. Epstein in the United States Virgin Islands and were feted on his private island there. Once, the scientists '-- including Mr. Hawking '-- crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered.
The Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker said he was invited by colleagues '-- including Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and biology, and the theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss '-- to ''salons and coffee klatsches'' at which Mr. Epstein would hold court.
While some of Mr. Pinker's peers hailed Mr. Epstein as brilliant, Mr. Pinker described him as an ''intellectual impostor.''
''He would abruptly change the subject, A.D.D.-style, dismiss an observation with an adolescent wisecrack,'' Mr. Pinker said.
Another scientist cultivated by Mr. Epstein, Jaron Lanier, a prolific author who is a founder of virtual reality, said that Mr. Epstein's ideas did not amount to science, in that they did not lend themselves to rigorous proof. Mr. Lanier said Mr. Epstein had once hypothesized that atoms behaved like investors in a marketplace.
Mr. Lanier said he had declined any funding from Mr. Epstein and that he had met with him only once after Mr. Epstein in 2008 pleaded guilty to charges of soliciting prostitution from a minor.
Image Harvard's Steven Pinker was one of the scientific luminaries who met with Mr. Epstein. Credit Kayana Szymczak for The New York Times Mr. Epstein was willing to finance research that others viewed as bizarre. He told one scientist that he was bankrolling efforts to identify a mysterious particle that might trigger the feeling that someone is watching you.
At one session at Harvard, Mr. Epstein criticized efforts to reduce starvation and provide health care to the poor because doing so increased the risk of overpopulation, said Mr. Pinker, who was there. Mr. Pinker said he had rebutted the argument, citing research showing that high rates of infant mortality simply caused people to have more children. Mr. Epstein seemed annoyed, and a Harvard colleague later told Mr. Pinker that he had been ''voted off the island'' and was no longer welcome at Mr. Epstein's gatherings.
Then there was Mr. Epstein's interest in eugenics.
On multiple occasions starting in the early 2000s, Mr. Epstein told scientists and businessmen about his ambitions to use his New Mexico ranch as a base where women would be inseminated with his sperm and would give birth to his babies, according to two award-winning scientists and an adviser to large companies and wealthy individuals, all of whom Mr. Epstein told about it.
It was not a secret. The adviser, for example, said he was told about the plans not only by Mr. Epstein, at a gathering at his Manhattan townhouse, but also by at least one prominent member of the business community. One of the scientists said Mr. Epstein divulged his idea in 2001 at a dinner at the same townhouse; the other recalled Mr. Epstein discussing it with him at a 2006 conference that he hosted in St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands.
The idea struck all three as far-fetched and disturbing. There is no indication that it would have been against the law.
Once, at a dinner at Mr. Epstein's mansion on Manhattan's Upper East Side, Mr. Lanier said he talked to a scientist who told him that Mr. Epstein's goal was to have 20 women at a time impregnated at his 33,000-square-foot Zorro Ranch in a tiny town outside Santa Fe. Mr. Lanier said the scientist identified herself as working at NASA, but he did not remember her name.
According to Mr. Lanier, the NASA scientist said Mr. Epstein had based his idea for a baby ranch on accounts of the Repository for Germinal Choice, which was to be stocked with the sperm of Nobel laureates who wanted to strengthen the human gene pool. (Only one Nobel Prize winner has acknowledged contributing sperm to it. The repository discontinued operations in 1999.)
Mr. Lanier, the virtual-reality creator and author, said he had the impression that Mr. Epstein was using the dinner parties '-- where some guests were attractive women with impressive academic credentials '-- to screen candidates to bear Mr. Epstein's children.
Image Mr. Epstein's island in the United States Virgin Islands. Credit Marco Bello/Reuters Mr. Epstein did not hide his interest in tinkering with genes '-- and in perpetuating his own DNA.
One adherent of transhumanism said that he and Mr. Epstein discussed the financier's interest in cryonics, an unproven science in which people's bodies are frozen to be brought back to life in the future. Mr. Epstein told this person that he wanted his head and penis to be frozen.
Southern Trust Company, Mr. Epstein's Virgin Island-incorporated business, disclosed in a local filing that it was engaged in DNA analysis. Calls to Southern Trust, which sponsored a science and math fair for school children in the Virgin Islands in 2014, were not returned.
In 2011, a charity established by Mr. Epstein gave $20,000 to the Worldwide Transhumanist Association, which now operates under the name Humanity Plus. The group's website says that its goal is ''to deeply influence a new generation of thinkers who dare to envision humanity's next steps.''
Mr. Epstein's foundation, which is now defunct, also gave $100,000 to pay the salary of Ben Goertzel, vice chairman of Humanity Plus, according to Mr. Goertzel's r(C)sum(C).
''I have no desire to talk about Epstein right now,'' Mr. Goertzel said in an email to The New York Times. ''The stuff I'm reading about him in the papers is pretty disturbing and goes way beyond what I thought his misdoings and kinks were. Yecch.''
Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor emeritus of law at Harvard, recalled that at a lunch Mr. Epstein hosted in Cambridge, Mass., he steered the conversation toward the question of how humans could be improved genetically. Mr. Dershowitz said he was appalled, given the Nazis' use of eugenics to justify their genocidal effort to purify the Aryan race.
Yet the lunches persisted.
''Everyone speculated about whether these scientists were more interested in his views or more interested in his money,'' said Mr. Dershowitz, who was one of Mr. Epstein's defense lawyers in the 2008 case.
Luminaries at Mr. Epstein's St. Thomas conference in 2006 included Mr. Hawking and the Caltech theoretical physicist Kip S. Thorne. One participant at that conference, which was ostensibly on the subject of gravity, recalled that Mr. Epstein wanted to talk about perfecting the human genome. Mr. Epstein said he was fascinated with how certain traits were passed on, and how that could result in superior humans.
Image Mr. Epstein and his onetime lawyer, Alan M. Dershowitz. Credit Rick Friedman/Corbis, via Getty Images Mr. Epstein appears to have gained entree into the scientific community through John Brockman, a literary agent whose best-selling science writers include Richard Dawkins, Daniel Goleman and Jared Diamond. Mr. Brockman did not respond to requests for comment.
For two decades, Mr. Brockman presided over a series of salons that matched his scientist-authors with potential benefactors. (The so-called ''billionaires' dinners'' apparently became a model for the gatherings at Mr. Epstein's East 71st Street townhouse, which included some of the same guests.)
In 2004, Mr. Brockman hosted a dinner at the Indian Summer restaurant in Monterey, Calif., where Mr. Epstein was introduced to scientists, including Seth Lloyd, the M.I.T. physicist. Mr. Lloyd said that he found Mr. Epstein to be ''charming'' and to have ''interesting ideas,'' although they ''turned out to be quite vague.''
Also at the Indian Summer dinner, according to an account on the website of Mr. Brockman's Edge Foundation, were the Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and Jeff Bezos, who was accompanied by his mother.
''All the good-looking women were sitting with the physicists' table,'' Daniel Dubno, who was a CBS producer at the time and attended the dinner, was quoted as saying. Mr. Dubno told The Times that he did not recall the dinner or having said those words.
Mr. Brockman was Mr. Gell-Mann's agent, and Mr. Gell-Mann, in the acknowledgments section of his 1995 book ''The Quark and the Jaguar,'' thanked Mr. Epstein for his financial support.
However impressive his roster of scientific contacts, Mr. Epstein could not resist embellishing it. He claimed on one of his websites to have had ''the privilege of sponsoring many prominent scientists,'' including Mr. Pinker, Mr. Thorne and the M.I.T. mathematician and geneticist Eric S. Lander.
Mr. Pinker said he had never taken any financial or other support from Mr. Epstein. ''Needless to say, I find Epstein's behavior reprehensible,'' he said.
Mr. Thorne, who recently won a Nobel Prize, said he attended Mr. Epstein's 2006 conference, believing it to be co-sponsored by a reputable research center. Other than that, ''I have had no contact with, relationship with, affiliation with or funding from Epstein,'' he said. ''I unequivocally condemn his abhorrent actions involving minors.''
Lee McGuire, a spokesman for Mr. Lander, said he has had no relationship with Mr. Epstein. ''Mr. Epstein appears to have made up lots of things,'' Mr. McGuire said, ''and this seems to be among them.''
Freeman Rogers contributed reporting.
A version of this article appears in print on
, Section
A
, Page
1
of the New York edition
with the headline:
Epstein Envisioned Seeding Human Race With His DNA
. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
Sir Paul McCartney has to be reminded how to play Beatles tunes he wrote - Mirror Online
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 21:56
Beatles legend Sir Paul McCartney admits he has to be reminded how to play tunes he wrote with the Fab Four '' because there are so many.
Macca, 77, says he sometimes needs bandmates to put him right in rehearsal, and even listens to old recordings to jog his memory.
Some of the group's early hits are at least 55 years old '' and Sir Paul has worked on more than 1,000 tunes that have been released.
He admitted: ''I have to re-learn everything. I've written an awful lot, you can't retain them all. We go in rehearsal and I'm, 'Oh yeah, that's how it goes'.''
Asked if he believes the works are ''pretty good'', he laughed: ''I do, I really do.
The Beatles back in their heyday (Image: Getty) Read MorePaul McCartney working on first ever musical as he adapts iconic film for stage''Some of the old songs you say, 'Oh, that's clever, I wouldn't have done that'.''
Paul, who reunited with Beatles drummer Ringo Starr on stage in Los Angeles two weeks ago, said: ''It's exciting to think that still works.
"We were a little rock and roll group from Liverpool, it just kept going.''
He has a children's book out in September and says he ''hopefully'' has a new album on the way, adding: ''Writing music is still a thrill '' out of nowhere you produce a rabbit. If you get one you like it's a great feeling.''
Tangibles 2020 | First Them
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:57
The 2020 presidential elections are coming up, and Foundational Black Americans are going to reject the 50 year old benign neglect policy that has been implemented by the political system. This benign neglect policy mandates that Black Americans should be ignored and only mentioned in vague, and non-specific terms.
Lumping Foundational Black Americans into groups with "minorities", "immigrants", "people of color", etc, has only hindered the progress of Black Americans as a group, while providing tangible benefits for other groups.
In this election cycle, Black Americans are going to INSIST that our needs are specifically met by politicians who are seeking our vote. Foundational Black Americans want TANGIBLE benefits specifically for us. We do not want trickle down, secondary benefits that are provided for "every group".
Every group has not been systematically marginalized and disenfranchised in every area of society as Foundational Black Americans. So we refuse to be lumped in with groups who often assist in the exploitation and disenfranchisement of Black Americans.
So politicians must offer TANGIBLES specifically to Foundational Black Americans, or we simply will not vote for them. Be sure to spread this message far and wide on social media using the hashtag #tangibles2020 .
Get InvolvedBe sure to contribute to the #TANGIBLES2020 movement
DONATE
Building Big Brother | Narativ
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:18
Exclusive: Jeffrey Epstein's investment in an Israeli start-up reveals a myriad of links to Donald Trump and Israeli spies.
What we found:
Jeffrey Epstein is an Israeli spy.He is an investor in a start-up with ties to Israeli Intelligence.Two Putin-linked oligarchs are his partners.The start-up poses a privacy risk.+ Ties to Erik Prince, Michael Cohen, George Nader and Peter Thiel.
It's been thirty-two years since the ''Pollard Affair'' pierced the seemingly impenetrable facade of U.S.-Israeli relations. Now, two suspected Israeli agents are in jail '' indicted on separate charges of sex trafficking of minors.
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was arrested on July 6 and charged with trafficking minors across state lines. George Nader '' a key witness for Robert Mueller '' was arrested last month for possession of child porn and transporting a minor for sex from Europe.
Epstein and Nader share a personal network that includes Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Erik Prince, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and his UAE counterpart, Mohamed Bin Zayed.
But their association goes further than powerful friends and proclivities for teenage boys and girls. Epstein and Nader are believed to be agents for Israeli Intelligence. Narativ has independently confirmed Epstein was indeed working for the Israelis.
Both men also have ties to a burgeoning Israeli tech sector which is bringing Mossad-style military intelligence to the private sector and endangering the global balance of power.
The Haaretz newspaper has previously reported that Epstein, who was Donald Trump's friend through the '80s and '90s, partnered in an Israeli start-up alongside former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Barak is seeking to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli Prime Minister in the upcoming re-run elections scheduled for September. Since 2015, he has been the front-man for Carbyne, an Israeli start-up which purports to be a high-tech solution for 911 emergency call centers, but the platform's architecture and investors raise serious privacy concerns.
Narativ undertook an extensive investigation into Carbyne, and can now reveal a myriad of troubling connections between the start-up and people connected to Donald Trump.
Become a Patron!Join Our Patreon Community
Get immediate access to our shows and articles, receive new content alerts and be a part of a community. Click on the Patreon button above and support our independent journalism.
The Michael Cohen ConnectionIn addition to Epstein and Barak, Russian oligarchs Viktor Vekselberg and Andrew Intrater bought 24% of Carbyne's Class A-1 shares through Intrater's Columbus Nova Technology Partners (CNTP) in September 2017. Vekselberg and Intrater are under U.S. sanctions because of Russia's malign activities. Ukrainian-born Vekselberg is close to Vladimir Putin and was interviewed by prosecutors from Robert Mueller's office.
While still employed as Donald Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen consulted for Columbus Nova until August 2017 under a $1 million agreement to his company, ''Essential Consulting.'' Cohen used the same company to pay off adult film star Stormy Daniels, who had an affair with Trump.
Between election day and July 14, 2017, Intrater and Cohen exchanged 230 phone calls and 950 text messages.
Carbyne is a plug-in for 911 call centers and an app for consumers. It provides unprecedented access to a caller's camera and GPS, providing the dispatcher with a live video feed.
The system also automatically cross-references your identity with criminal or other records added to the database. At least two U.S. counties have implemented Carbyne, with many others considering it.
Epstein is a sex offender and known pedophile. He was brought in as an investor by Barak, his close friend of 17 years. Epstein invested $1.5 million in a company (SUM) with Barak in 2014. All of that money went into Carbyne in 2015. Barak has since been a front-man for the company appearing on Fox News to pitch the product. Barak has life-long ties to Israel's spy services.
CEO Amir Elichai served in Israel's elite military intelligence group. Pinchas Berkus, a former Brigadier of the elite 8200 unit, is a company director. Lital Leshem, a co-founder, still serves as a reservist in the Israeli Defence Force. Alex Dizengof, the CTO, worked in cybersecurity for Israel's Prime Minister's office.
The American ConnectionCarbyne also has deep roots in the Military-Industrial complex of the U.S.
Michael Chertoff, who ran Homeland Security under George Bush, serves on Carbyne's advisory board. Chertoff wrote the Patriot Act, which authorized digital surveillance of Americans.
Peter Thiel, who founded Facebook and Palantir, is also a Carbyne investor. Thiel is an outspoken supporter of Trump and invests heavily in companies with military and intelligence applications. According to Bloomberg, Thiel's Palantir uses ''war on terror tools to track American citizens.''
Trae Stephens, another Palantir alum, serves on Carbyne's advisory board. Stephens was also chair of Trump's Department of Defense transition team. Eliot Tawil, a real-estate developer and a major Trump donor also advises the company despite having no background this space.
None of the members of the board of directors or the advisory board appear to have any experience in emergency response. Almost all have ties to Israel and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Chinese authorities are using a 911 mobile app to carry out illegal mass surveillance and arbitrary detention of Muslims in China's western Xinjiang region. Become a Patron!Join Our Patreon Community
Get immediate access to our shows and articles, receive new content alerts and be a part of a community. Click on the Patreon button above and support our independent journalism.
The China ConnectionCarbyne has ties to China through Co-founder Lital Leshem. Leshem, who remains a shareholder at Carbyne, now works alongside Erik Prince at Frontier Resources Group (FRG). FRG is based in the UAE and is a subsidiary of Prince's Frontier Services Group (FSG).
Prince sold a majority stake in FSG to the Chinese in 2013. His boss is now Chang Xhenming, who is very close to President Xi Jinping. Chang is also chair of China's massive Citic Group.
Prince is a former U.S. Navy Seal and a founder of Blackwater, a mercenary contractor. FSG is one of the companies helping to build ''re-training'' camps for ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim communities in China's Xinjiang province. China detains 1 million people in those camps and keeps 13 million people under surveillance.
In May, Human Rights Watch revealed Chinese authorities use a platform not unlike Carbyne to illegally surveil Uyghurs. China's Integrated Joint Operations Platform brings in a much bigger data-set and sources of video, which includes an app on people's phones. Like Carbyne, the platform was designed to report emergencies. Chinese authorities have turned it into a tool of mass surveillance.
Human Rights Watch reverse-engineered the app. The group discovered the app automatically profiles a user under 36 ''person types'' including ''followers of Six Lines'' which is the term used to identify Uyghurs. Another term refers to ''Hajj,'' the annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca.
The app monitors every aspect of a user's life, including personal conversations, power usage, and tracks a user's movement. ''Did the family say something religious? Did they exit through the front door or the back door? (Going through the back door is presumably more suspicious),'' Human Rights Watch says.
A rare photo of Joel Zamel obtained by Narativ (center), Erik Prince of Frontier Resource Group (left) and George Nader (right). All three men attended a meeting with Donald Trump, Jr. on August 3 2016 to discuss a social media manipulation plan by Zamel's Psy Group. Nader, Israeli Intelligence and TrumpU.S. authorities are currently holding George Nader on child porn and trafficking charges. Nader is a representative for the Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman and his UAE counterpart Mohamed bin Zayed.
Nader is also speculated to have ties with Israeli Intelligence. His relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu dates back to the Israeli Prime Minister's first days in office. Nader's work for U.S. allies could explain why he's been able to travel freely in and out of the U.S. despite a previous child pornography arrest.
In August 2016, Nader and Erik Prince attended a meeting at Donald Trump Jr.'s office in Trump Tower in August 2016. Nader brought with him Joel Zamel, who served in Israeli Military Intelligence and is the young CEO of another Israeli start-up, Psy Group.
Zamel proposed an extensive social amplification campaign to support Trump's 2016 campaign, and Nader is reported to have pledged the Saudis and the UAE would foot the bill. Nader would later give Zamel $2m for those services, although Zamel disputes that claim.
Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated Zamel's Psy Group for its involvement with the Trump campaign, which lasted a full year from early 2016 to January 2017.
In January 2017, Nader and Prince also took part in a meeting in Seychelles. The backchannel get-together discussed bringing Russia closer to the incoming Trump administration as part of an anti-Iran alliance with Israel, KSA and UAE. Erik Prince represented the Trump administration. Kiril Dmitriev, the CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, represented Putin.
Evading Justice ''I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone,'' Alex Acosta, former Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta to Trump Administration.
George Nader's and Jeffrey Epstein's arrests, after decades of authorities turning a blind eye to the exploitation of teenagers, suggests a shift in U.S. policy towards Israeli Intelligence. Nader and Epstein were considered untouchable until recently, possibly because of their Israeli Intelligence ties and various cooperation agreements.
There has been extensive reporting on Epstein's charges and sentencing around the underage girls. But Epstein also entered into a cooperation agreement for his financial crimes. Of note, Epstein cooperated with prosecutors to avoid charges for his involvement in a $450 million Ponzi scheme, which he blamed entirely on co-conspirator Steven Hoffenberg amid allegations of bribery.
All told, Epstein spent only 13 months in jail for what appears to be a 38-year crime-spree. How did Epstein evade justice? The answer may lie in a gentlemen's agreement that governs the Israel-US intelligence relationship. Basically, spies can operate with impunity, even when committing criminal acts.
Become a Patron!Join Our Patreon Community
Get immediate access to our shows and articles, receive new content alerts and be a part of a community. Click on the Patreon button above and support our independent journalism.
Mossad For HireIsraeli spies are renowned the world for their ability to run complex stealth operations which go undetected. As one former KGB spy told me: ''A good secret service never leaves any tracks.'' Now, that very skillset has entered the private sector, merged with big data operations, and is being commercialized.
Since 2009, Israel's spy-tech sector has been booming, supported by the easy flow of capital ferried into Israel by Russian oligarchs. This includes start-ups like NSO, which makes the Pegasus spyware capable of hacking any phone; Black Cube a high tech private fixer; and Zamel's Psy Group, a social media manipulation company.
These start-ups have influenced elections and politics around the world, including the 2016 U.S. election. Cambridge Analytica used Black Cube to set up honey traps. Harvey Weinstein hired Black Cube to discredit many of his accusers, and the company also tried to frame former Obama Administration figures.
Saudi Arabia uses NSO's Pegasus hacking software to track dissidents. There is some reporting that Pegasus was used in the assassination of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
Israel has been exporting these services to despots and authoritarians around the globe. The high tech spy companies packed their advisory boards with former generals, heads of Mossad and politicians, creating a thin veneer of respectability.
Beneath the surface, questionable ethics, surveillance concerns, and dubious sources of funding have turned Israel's spy-tech sector into a real threat to global security and balance of power.
According to Newsweek, the U.S. has identified Israeli espionage as a significant and growing threat in the U.S. going back to 2013. One former congressional staffer familiar with the classified material told Newsweek the situation was ''terrifying''.
Israel's spy-tech sector is funded by sanctioned Russian oligarchs and involved with dangerous criminals like Jeffrey Epstein and George Nader. Their services enable authoritarians and represent a serious risk to U.S.-Israeli relations. The sector requires serious investigation. Our very freedoms may depend on it.
Become a Patron!Join Our Patreon Community
Get immediate access to our shows and articles, receive new content alerts and be a part of a community. Click on the Patreon button above and support our independent journalism.
Thanks to @LincolnsBible for your invaluable help with this article.
Procter & Gamble Loses $5 Billion Dollars Following 'Woke' Gillette Ad Campaign '' Summit News
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:54
Procter & Gamble has reported a net loss of $5.24 billion, prompting speculation as to whether a boycott of the company's Gillette shaving products after a divisive 'woke' ad campaign hit the company's bottom line.
The ad, entitled 'We Believe', was released in January. It asked men to ''shave their toxic masculinity,'' while blaming an entire gender for the actions of a small percentage of sexual abusers, rapists and perverts.
The commercial alternated between echoing glib feminist talking points and bashing men, while also featuring a clip from left-wing news outlet The Young Turks.
The ad was so despised, it went on to become one of the most hated ads in Internet history.
It has now been revealed that Procter & Gamble took an $8 billion writedown on its Gillette shaving business, contributing to ''a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30.''
P&G claims the writedown is ''due primarily to foreign exchange fluctuations, increased competition and a contracting market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently.''
But how much of that ''increased competition,'' from the likes of Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, was thanks to customers abandoning Gillette after their man-bashing commercial?
Sales were already on the decline back in April, but the following month Gillette released yet another 'woke' commercial in which a dad taught his transgender son to shave for the first time.
If P&G wants to halt the slide it may have to seriously reconsider alienating a huge chunk of its customer base with identity politics nonsense.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.
Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.
Support my sponsor '' Turbo Force '' a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--'--
Darren Rovell on Twitter: "US Soccer responds, for the first time, with what it says are independently audited finances that show that their women players actually do earn more than the men. https://t.co/ss2mfDGJYo" / Twitter
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:22
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Illegal Immigrant Bought Baby for $80 in Guatemala to Get Priority Release in US
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:14
WASHINGTON'--Children are being rented, bought, recycled, and kidnapped so that single adults, mostly men from Central America, can gain quick release into the United States after crossing the border illegally.
The cost of renting a child varies.
''We've had indications '... that it could cost anywhere from a few hundred'--or even in some cases, less than $100'--up to $1,000 or more,'' said Kevin McAleenan, acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), during a congressional hearing on July 18.
McAleenan said in one case, a 51-year-old illegal alien had purchased a 6-month-old baby for $80 in Guatemala so that he could easily get into the United States. The man, a Honduran national, confessed to border agents when he was faced with a DNA test.
''We've seen all manner of smuggling organizations communicating to potential customers and to those crossing the border how to bring a child with them to be allowed to stay in the United States,'' McAleenan said. ''They've been active in advertising, literally on Facebook and on the radio in Central America.''
A Border Patrol agent apprehends illegal aliens who have just crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico into Penitas, Texas, on March 21, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)Homeland Security Investigations, a division of ICE, sent 400 agents to El Paso and Rio Grande Valley, Texas, in mid-April to interview families that Border Patrol suspected were fake. In the last eight weeks, HSI special agents have identified 5,500 fraudulent families'--about 15 percent of all cases referred.
McAleenan said agents have uncovered 921 fake documents and 615 individuals have been prosecuted for trafficking or smuggling a child.
''That tells me that we might be scratching the surface of this problem and the number of children being put at risk might be even higher,'' he said.
''Everybody knows that if they bring a child, they'll be allowed to stay in the United States'--they call it a 'passport for migration.' I heard that directly from a gentleman from Huehuetenango, the western-most province of Guatemala.''
He said almost every summary of the cases he has seen mentions the same thing: 'The subject stated that he made the attempt because he heard in his hometown that anyone traveling to the United States with a child will be released.''
The southern border has become so overwhelmed that most illegal aliens don't even claim credible fear for asylum anymore, knowing they'll still be released expeditiously into the United States'--especially if they have a child.
In Yuma, Arizona, less than 10 percent of illegal aliens make an asylum claim, sector Chief Anthony Porvaznik said on April 17.
300,000 ChildrenSince Oct. 1, 2018, more than 300,000 children have crossed the southern border, according to McAleenan. Most of them entered as part of a family unit, but 67,000 also entered as unaccompanied minors. Family units increased by 469 percent from the first nine months of the 2018 fiscal year to the same period in the 2019 fiscal year.
The legal loophole that is fueling the sharp increase in family units was opened in 2015 by a California judge, who amended the Flores Settlement Agreement to prohibit the detention of families for more than 20 days. Previously, the 20-day rule was applied to unaccompanied minors only.
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan testifies at a House hearing in front of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, in Washington on July 12, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)An immigration case cannot be adjudicated within 20 days, so families who cross the border illegally are now released by Border Patrol within days, with a future court date that most fail to honor.
One of the most telling statistics is that of men crossing the border with a child. In 2014, fewer than 1 percent of all men apprehended by Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley Sector had a child with them. That number now sits at 50 percent, according to Rodolfo Karisch, chief Border Patrol agent for that sector.
McAleenan said smugglers pair up adults and children. ''If they have an individual who wants to go to the United States and someone else has a child that they might want to make some additional money renting [out], or they want the child delivered to a relative in the United States,'' they'll buy fake documents and then get smuggled to the border.
''There's a whole fake document operation in all three countries,'' McAleenan said, referring to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
''The vulnerabilities in our legal framework [are] incentivizing smugglers and families to put children at risk. The recycling problem is maybe the worst manifestation of that,'' he said. Recycling refers to when a child is used by an adult to get across the border easily as a ''family unit,'' then the child is sent back to be used again.
''ICE now has three significant cases, multiple cities around the country, where they've identified a small group of children'--say five to eight children'--who are being used by dozens of adults to cross our border seeking release into the United States.''
The adults involved in fraudulent family claims are prosecuted by the Department of Justice for federal crimes including: immigration crime, identity and benefit fraud, alien smuggling, human trafficking, and child exploitation.
Changing FloresMcAleenan said Congress could make the biggest impact'--''not only on the flow, but on protecting children'''--by making a change to the Flores agreement.
He said that prior to the 2015 change to Flores, the Obama administration started detaining families together for the duration of their immigration case, which takes around 45 days. The flow of illegal immigrants reduced in response, as those with meritless asylum claims were deported.
''If people are not successful in coming with a child being released, they're actually getting a decision from an immigration judge resulting in repatriation for the vast majority, that would mean others would not try to come,'' McAleenan said.
Although almost 90 percent of those who claim credible fear when presenting themselves at the border pass the initial screening, less than 20 percent are granted asylum relief by an immigration judge. For Central Americans, that number is less than 10 percent.
Border Patrol apprehends illegal aliens who have just crossed the Rio Grande from Mexico near McAllen, Texas, on April 18, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.) told McAleenan at the hearing that a Democrat-controlled House will not amend the Flores agreement, nor will it provide funding for more detention beds.
McAleenan pushed back, saying he's not ready to accept that a system that worked under the Obama administration five years ago would not be accepted by Congress today. He said back then families were kept together for 40 to 50 days in a campus-like setting with education, recreation, medical care, and courtrooms on site.
''We're not seeing successful results in immigration cases when anyone is released from being detained in custody, but especially for families'--they're more likely to cut off their [tracking] bracelets; they're less likely to show up for hearings; they're less likely to respond to a final order of removal,'' McAleenan said. ''So being able to address that at the border in an expedited and fair way with due process is a much better solution than what we're doing now.''
He said he's already discussing bipartisan options with the Senate Judiciary Committee, but he'd like to start a discussion in the House.
67,000 Unaccompanied MinorsMcAleenan is also concerned about the increased number of unaccompanied minors coming across the border and the legal loopholes that prevent them from being sent back home.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) has been established for years to help victims of trafficking; however, a loophole prevents the United States from returning children back to their home countries unless they are from Canada or Mexico (contiguous countries).
McAleenan said even if Central American countries want their children back, U.S. law prohibits it.
''We've had all three ambassadors from the Northern Triangle countries assert that those governments should have some say in what happens to that unaccompanied child,'' he said.
Instead, an unaccompanied child gets moved from Border Patrol to Health and Human Services (HHS), which then finds a sponsor in the United States to place the child with.
Currently, around 11,000 unaccompanied minors are in the care of HHS, creating a proxy foster care system. The vast majority (88 percent) hail from the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Most are aged between 15 and 17.
''The number of unaccompanied minors entering the United States during this fiscal year has risen to levels we have never before seen,'' said Jonathan Hayes, before the House Judiciary Committee on July 25. Hayes is responsible for the unaccompanied minor program within the HHS's Office and Refugee Resettlement department.
Hayes said that as of June, the average length of time that a child stays in HHS custody is approximately 42 days'--a ''dramatic decrease'' from late November 2018, where the average length of care was 90 days.
McAleenan said it's often a parent, who is already in the United States illegally, who pays a smuggler to deliver their child up to the border.
''I don't think most people realize that most of these unaccompanied children are being released to parents or relatives in the United States who are also here unlawfully, who may not have permission to work in the United States,'' McAleenan said.
New restrictions, placed by Congress in the latest round of appropriations, include a provision that illegal aliens in a household with an unaccompanied minor are now exempt from deportation.
Follow Charlotte on Twitter: @charlottecuthbo
A shocking number of food-delivery drivers admit to munching on customers' orders - MarketWatch
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:31
The next time you order food delivery, you might want to check your driver for greasy fingers. A new survey found more than a quarter of delivery drivers admit to having taken food from customers' orders.
The study by US Foods on food-delivery habits polled about 500 delivery drivers and 1,500 adults who used delivery apps including Uber Technologies Inc.'s UBER, -2.94% UberEats, Grubhub GRUB, -12.29% , DoorDash and Postmates.
Read: Grubhub cuts revenue outlook as competition grows
Of those surveyed, 54% of drivers said they've been tempted by the smell of the food they're delivering, and 28% said they had actually sampled food from an order.
''We're sorry to report that sometimes, impulse gets the best of deliverers, and they violate their sacred duty by taking some of the food!'' the report said.
That is not cool with customers. When asked how angry they would be if their driver snarfed some of their fries, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being ''no big deal'' and 10 being ''absolutely unacceptable,'') the average customer responded with an 8.4.
Munching on deliveries also violates delivery companies' policies, which require food orders to be delivered untampered, and could result in offending drivers getting kicked off the service.
The study found 85% of customers favor tamper-evident labels, such as a sticker, on their deliveries.
Of course, customers aren't angels either, and drivers' No. 1 complaint is, unsurprisingly, tips.
Read: After DoorDash's U-turn on tipping policy, here are the food delivery services that pass 100% of tips to workers
Sixty percent of drivers in the survey said they were ''consistently irritated'' by weak or no tips. On the customer side, 95% of those surveyed said they tipped their drivers, though 66% said service and delivery fees '-- which don't go to the driver '-- affected how much they tip. $5 was the average tip for about one in three customers, but 57% of customers said they tipped less than that. Just 11% said they tipped an average of $6 or more.
Instapundit >> Blog Archive >> SHOT: CHASER: ''Without evidence'' now translates as ''I hate Trump and I don't want it t'...
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:25
SHOT:
CHASER:
''Without evidence'' now translates as ''I hate Trump and I don't want it to be true, but I'm not actually going to check because I'm too lazy and hate-filled to do actual journalism.''
Exit question: Do you think Trump made the statement because he expected this sort of reaction?
Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 6:42 pm
(19) Daniel Dale on Twitter: "One thing that Buttigieg and O'Rourke tonight, and others before, have gotten a bit wrong - the "12 years to climate disaster" claim. The report used a "12 years" timeline only to align with countries that had set goals for 2
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:24
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Some Juul 'Vape Juice' Found To Contain Ingredients That Might Inflame Airways : Shots - Health News : NPR
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 04:20
Airway-irritating acetals seem to form in some types of vape juice even without heat, researchers find '-- likely a reaction between the alcohol and aldehydes in the liquid. Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images hide caption
toggle caption Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images Airway-irritating acetals seem to form in some types of vape juice even without heat, researchers find '-- likely a reaction between the alcohol and aldehydes in the liquid.
Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images Scientists don't know much yet about the long-term effects of "vape juice," the liquid used in e-cigarettes and vaporizers. But researchers analyzing the liquid and the vapor produced when it's heated say some kinds of e-liquids are reacting to form irritating chemicals called acetals while they're sitting on shelves.
More than 3 million young people in middle school and high school, in addition to many adults, use e-cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many of them could be inhaling these compounds regularly. And that could be irritating or even damaging to their lungs, Yale and Duke university researchers suggest.
The study published Tuesday looked specifically at eight flavors of Juul e-liquids, which contain a different mixture of solvents than many other brands of e-liquid. These new findings build on similar work the research group published in October 2018 on other brands of e-liquids.
Acetals are formed from alcohol and aldehydes, chemicals used to flavor and perfume foods and other commercial products. While some aldehydes are considered harmful, many are generally recognized as safe to eat and touch, says Hanno Erythropel, the study's lead author and an associate research scientist at Yale's chemical and environmental engineering department.
Still, little is known about the effects of aldehydes and acetals when inhaled this way, Erythropel adds, although some research has shown that the acetals can irritate airways more strongly than the aldehydes from which they were formed. And that irritation can prompt an inflammatory response in the respiratory system.
Unlike small amounts of acetals you get through food, Erythropel says, with vaping, "you are breathing this in. We didn't imagine people would be inhaling flavor compounds at the level they are now. We have very little information."
At this point, the FDA does not require e-liquid manufacturers to list all the ingredients in their products. So the Yale chemists had to "reverse-engineer" the e-liquids by separating and quantifying their chemical ingredients.
Via this process, the researchers detected the presence of acetals in one of the eight Juul flavors they tested: cr¨me br>>l(C)e. This flavor, which uses vanillin for a vanilla-like smell, contains relatively high levels of vanillin acetals, the scientists say. Other flavors might also contain acetals and aldehydes, they say, but they didn't test in this study for all the possible aldehydes.
Julie Zimmerman, the study's principal investigator and a professor in the chemical and environmental engineering department at Yale, stresses that much more research needs to be done before drawing conclusions about the safety of e-liquids. Such research needs to take into consideration the possibility that chemical reactions between different chemical constituents of e-liquids may lead to altered products.
Dr. Robert Jackler, a Stanford professor in otorhinolaryngology, which focuses on ear, nose and throat, has studied the rapid rise of e-cigarettes among youth. He says the paper "contributes to the increasing body of evidence documenting toxicological effects of e-cig vapor by specifically testing Juul's sweet and fruity flavors, which are so popular among teens." Erythropel is careful to note, however, that any flavored product may contain aldehydes '-- even a generic "tobacco-flavored" one.
This discovery and others like it suggest there may be long-term health consequences for young people who use e-cigarettes, says Dr. Christina Sadreameli, assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University and pediatric pulmonologist. Sadreameli, who is also a volunteer spokesperson for the American Lung Association, says e-cigarette manufacturers have long positioned vaping as a far safer alternative to cigarettes, with few health effects.
But "this notion [that] 'it's just water vapor and nicotine and flavorings' is very untrue," she says. "E-cigarette vapor contains a lot of harmful chemicals, heavy metals [and] ultrafine particles."
The discovery of acetals in e-liquids, she says, "raises yet another reason to worry about what is in the vape aerosol and how that can harm the developing lung."
Asked about the study's findings, Lindsay Andrews, a Juul spokesperson, says that the levels of vanillin (which is an aldehyde) the researchers cite in their analysis exceeded "real world" exposures from Juul pods.
Though little is known about the long-term consequences of vaping, some health scares have started to surface. Last week, the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin announced that eight teenagers had been hospitalized with "seriously damaged lungs" over the month of July.
The symptoms that led to their hospitalization included "shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain, cough and weight loss," according to the hospital. Though all the teens improved with treatment, and the exact cause of their symptoms remains unknown, all had reported vaping in the weeks and months prior to being hospitalized.
Zimmerman, Erythropel and their colleagues hope to do more research on the health effects of inhaling acetals. But it will likely be many years before health experts understand the full consequences of acetal inhalation and vaping more broadly, Jackler says.
"Teens acquiring the habit of daily use of e-cigarettes, driven by nicotine addiction, may well suffer adverse health consequences over time," the physician says. "This means we will not know the full impact of the teen e-cigarette epidemic for decades."
Susie Neilson is an intern on NPR's Science Desk. Follow her on Twitter here: @susieneilson.
How police might access your Lyft, Tinder and Google accounts in a criminal investigation | Deseret News
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 03:59
SALT LAKE CITY '-- Buried in the terms of service agreements people accept when they sign up for most smartphone apps is a clause that says their personal information could be shared with law enforcement.
Increasingly, police are using that data to identify suspects and solve crimes, said Joseph Giacalone, a retired New York Police Department detective who now teaches at John Jay College in New York City. Police use of data from apps has grown "infinitely" in the past five years "with no abatement in sight," he said.
Tech companies track and record nearly every move users make in order to improve their services and make money from selling the data to marketers. That means today's police officers have the ability to discover people's locations, what they search for on the Internet, what they buy and who they communicate with, in addition to the contents of their private messages, texts or emails.
The fact that tech companies build such detailed profiles of users' daily activities and whereabouts is a boon to investigators seeking to identify dangerous people and keep the public safe. But in order to find a culprit, police often have to comb through innocent people's information, in some cases without a warrant and without demonstrating probable cause.
" Everyone has basically given up their right to privacy on the internet. You trade your privacy for the convenience of using these apps. "
Joseph Giacalone, a retired New York Police Department detective
This could result in police viewing sensitive information about a person when it's not pertinent to an investigation and innocent people becoming suspects based on coincidental connections to a crime.
''Everyone has basically given up their right to privacy on the internet,'' Giacalone said. ''You trade your privacy for the convenience of using these apps.''
Recently in Utah, Salt Lake City police worked with the ride-hailing company Lyft to discover where 23-year-old University of Utah student Mackenzie Lueck went on the night of her disappearance and to rule out the driver as a suspect. Police also analyzed Lueck's social media and dating app accounts, according to news reports. Eventually, law enforcement located Lueck's body and arrested a man who is suspected of killing her.
Public information officer Greg Wilking was not able to reveal details of the investigation but told the Deseret News that Salt Lake City police used warrants to access necessary information.
Kristin Murphy, Deseret News
Salt Lake City police take arrest two suspects in Salt Lake City on Friday, June 28, 2019.
Thanks to a privacy law passed earlier this year, Utah is one of a minority of states, including Washington and California, that require police to obtain a warrant to access stored data, like messages and photos, or location information from tech companies and cell service providers. Elsewhere, officers are able to request and view private data without a warrant, as long as providers cooperate.
That's because companies have full ownership and control over the data they collect. Some companies encrypt certain content so it can only be viewed by the sender and intended recipient. Apple's iMessages and Facebook's WhatsApp are encrypted, and therefore that content is not accessible to company employees or police. But typical SMS text messages and most other forms of electronic communication are not encrypted.
READ: Here are the policies for police access to your favorite smartphone apps like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Uber and LyftThe large amount of data law enforcement can access has the potential to snare the innocent, even if police use a warrant, according to Riana Pfefferkorn, associate director of surveillance and cybersecurity at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society.
In April, The New York Times reported that a man named Jorge Molina from a suburb of Phoenix was wrongfully arrested on suspicion of murder and jailed. Police obtained a warrant that required Google to provide information on all devices it recorded near the location of the killing. They found Molina's phone was in the area at the suspected time of the crime. His car also matched the make and model of the one in surveillance footage.
Molina, 24, told The New York Times he was shocked that police were able to arrest him based largely on data and feared it would take months or years to be exonerated. Luckily, it only took police a week to recognize their mistake.
''Absolutely, requests for large swaths of data increase the chances for innocent people to be swept up in investigations,'' said Pfefferkorn.
" Users should know and be aware that their information can be disclosed to law enforcement. "
Riana Pfefferkorn, associate director of surveillance and cybersecurity at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society
''Users should know and be aware that their information can be disclosed to law enforcement,'' she added. ''As we continue to deepen the amount of data we generate about ourselves, there will naturally be a move for police to get access to that.''
What it takes for police to get into your dataIf you're an innocent person who happens to walk near the scene of a murder, uses a dating app that matches you with someone who later goes missing or has a Facebook friend who sells drugs, how likely is it that police will search through your private information?
While states like Utah, as well as many tech companies, have rules that require police to file a subpoena or obtain a warrant in order to access personal data, there are no real limits on how much information police can request. Rather, police self-restrict their own data collection based on time constraints, said Gary Ernsdorff, a senior prosecutor in Washington state who has sought data from Lyft, Uber, Facebook and Google.
Silas Walker, Deseret News
Sandy resident Heather Okiishi and her niece, Nicole Brown, who are family friends of Mackenzie Lueck, post and hand out fliers pleading that people keep an eye out for her at Liberty Park in Salt Lake City on Saturday, June 22, 2019.
''Law enforcement does not have the time and resources to snoop for snooping's sake,'' said Ernsdorff. ''If you had a private, intimate conversation with a victim, that's going to be exposed to law enforcement for a very defendable reason. If your conversation was a month ago, the odds of someone reading it go down dramatically.''
Facebook and Instagram require police to obtain a warrant in order to see the stored contents of an account, such as messages, photos, comments and location information. But police can get other information like your name, address and telephone number, credit card information and IP address (used to identify the computer used to sign into an account), with a subpoena, which, unlike a warrant, does not require a demonstration of probable cause of suspicion.
Other companies have rules that are more vague. Snapchat's says, ''We may share information about you if we reasonably believe that disclosing the information is needed to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request or applicable law, rule or regulation.''
Emergency exceptions allow police to request information without a subpoena or warrant if someone's safety is in danger.
''You can see how the emergency carveout could be vulnerable to potential abuse as well,'' said Pfefferkorn. ''Law enforcement might portray something as being an emergency when they do in fact have the time and opportunity to get a warrant.''
Seth Wenig, Associated Press
In this Wednesday, Aug. 8, 2018, file photo a mobile phone displays a user's travels in New York. GA privacy group says in a letter to Federal Trade Commission that Google has violated the terms of a 2011 settlement because of practices exposed in an Associated Press report. The Electronic Privacy Information Center says in the letter to the FTC that Google's recording of time-stamped location data '-- even after users have turned off a setting called Location History '-- "clearly violates" the 2011 settlement.
She added that providers might feel pressure to comply with an emergency request because they want to have a good relationship with government.
Ernsdorff said he is aware of cases where law enforcement overstepped its bounds and sought more information than was reasonably needed for an investigation. In the past, he said, law enforcement ''didn't grasp the magnitude of data out there and the privacy implications.''
Now, police and judges are learning and getting better at making sure warrants are narrowly focused, he said.
READ: Here are the policies for police access to your favorite smartphone apps like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Uber and LyftWhen it comes to Google location data, law enforcement may request data from hundreds of accounts that appeared in a certain area during a certain time, but that data will be anonymized until investigators identify a handful of accounts that are of interest.
''We don't want to be intruding on private matters that are not evidence of a crime. Because we understand the privacy concerns,'' said Ernsdorff.
Concerns about surveillanceWith all the data that exists about people's daily interactions, Pfefferkorn fears we are moving toward a world where it is impossible to do anything privately.
In 2015, records obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California revealed that a police department in Fresno used a social media monitoring firm that boasted it could ''avoid the warrant process when identifying social media accounts for particular individuals,'' and could ''identify threats to public safety'' by monitoring terms including ''police brutality,''''dissent'' and ''black lives matter.'' Other law enforcement agencies in California used a similar service with marketing materials that referred to unions and activist groups as ''overt threats,'' the American Civil Liberties Union reported.
''People should be free to live their lives without the worry of being surveilled at all times,'' said Pfefferkorn, who is particularly concerned about police access to a growing trove of data.
Matthew Tokson, associate professor of law at the University of Utah, is less concerned that police have access to personal data and more concerned that it is being collected in the first place.
Frank Franklin II, Associated Press
In this June 15, 2017, photo, people walk inside the Oculus, the transit station at the World Trade Center in New York. Data collection practices of tech firms are increasingly under the microscope. Using Google services on Android devices and iPhones allows the search giant to record your whereabouts as you go about your day.
''There are so many forms of personal information that are easy to access and so many ways for private companies to record what you are doing and saying,'' said Tokson. ''It's the private side that is eroding privacy by collecting and selling all this data. Anyone might be able to get their hands on it, including the police.''
Ernsdorff said he has tried to reduce his own data footprint and realized it's nearly impossible to live in the modern world and avoid using the everyday technologies that gather personal data.
"Even very wary people are still leaving a trail," Ernsdorff said. He simply advises people to be aware of the information they are giving away.
Last year in June, the Supreme Court revised its long-held ''reasonable expectation of privacy'' test and ruled in Carpenter vs. USA that police need a warrant to obtain seven days or more of location data from cell phone carriers or tech companies. When it comes to requesting six days or fewer of location data, the ruling provides little guidance.
According to Tokson, this Supreme Court ruling and Utah's privacy law passed earlier this year are ''steps in the right direction.'' Utah's law states that location information and stored data obtained without a warrant will be excluded from evidence, ''as if the records were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.'' Tokson says the law is a model for others states when it comes to protecting privacy in a digital world.
13 comments on this story While lawmakers are gradually updating privacy laws, Tokson said the process is not happening quickly enough and that the nation is behind when it comes to accounting for new forms of data collection and technology such as facial recognition, drones and smart home devices.
''These technologies are the new frontier,'' said Tokson. ''We need more controls that will keep up with the technology as it develops.''
READ: Here are the policies for police access to your favorite smartphone apps like Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Uber and Lyft
Thread by @BixterN: "This story is a much bigger deal than the attention it's getting suggests. Why? Because the post-war global economic system was specifically ['...]" #winning
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:10
This story is a much bigger deal than the attention it's getting suggests.
Why?
Because the post-war global economic system was specifically set up to stabilize strategic target nations by turning them into surplus export economies.
(Thread) https://twitter.com/JohnHemmings2/status/1155561599115001856
A cornerstone of American global hegemony post-WW2 has been an economic system in which developing and developed nations are stabilized by employment in the production of large surpluses for export.
Look at Germany and Japan from the 1950s onward.
Producing big surpluses generates lots of jobs and builds up a mildly-affluent class of people doing those jobs.
That has two salutary effects: the masses get too busy and too prosperous to be bothered with risky things like revolutions and protesting.
The more they are engaged in and profiting from working to create those surplus exports, the more stable their nation is. And the less of a risk they pose to the global order imposed by American hegemony.
Very simple calculus here.
There are some problems with this model, however.
The first, and biggest, is that exports need markets or there is no point in generating them.
If postwar Japan built millions of cars nobody was buying, there would have been collapse and revolution there in short order.
Following WW2, there was really only one nation left in the world with significant accumulated capital and productive capacity: the USA.
In the late 40s and 50s, the US was in export mode, creating unprecedented prosperity and building up a wrecked global economy.
But most of our export markets were poor. Even Europe.
By the 60s, with the aggressive expansion of communism, US export dominance had become a liability. Markets for US goods were not stable.
Wages were up, but inflationary domestic policies were causing big problems.
US industry was becoming uncompetitive at the same time the rebuilt economies of Europe and Asia had geared up to produce surpluses.
What happened next is familiar history.
The USA, as a conscious choice, switched away from surplus production to a financial economy. We went from being the world's biggest exporter to becoming the world's biggest importer of surplus goods from elsewhere.
To pay for it, we not only strip-mined 150 years of accumulated capital, which enriched the powerful immensely at the expense of middle America, we also leveraged that capital to create the biggest inflationary credit expansion of the modern era.
We fucken financed it.
In effect, the USA's biggest (really only) export became DOLLARS.
Which the rest of the US hegemonic sphere imported in vast amounts, trading us their production surpluses in the process.
This accomplished several things:
1. It created pacified working and middle classes in client states
2. It exported US credit inflation
3. It gave the controllers of the monetary system vast wealth and power
4. It impoverished the US middle classes and made them dependent
Problem is: you can only strip-mine a legacy resource for so long before it is exhausted.
150 years of accumulated capital from a continental nation is a gigantic resource. But it is also finite.
Our collective seed corn was entirely spent by the end of the 1990s.
From that point forward, US "wealth" was just a numbers game of piling more credit on top of credit, then exporting it to avoid inflationary problems at home by using it to buy lots of stuff from surplus producers abroad.
That doesnt sound stable, does it.
But short-term, it a pretty good deal for everyone (except the US middle class, who are paying for all of it).
We send massive piles of virtual money to foreigners, and they send us stuff.
They get "money" and pacified workers.
All good.
Foreign nations then have big piles of virtual (and some real) dollars. They can't spend them, really, because what are we selling that they could buy in such vast amounts?
Normally, this would be a huge problem. The solution was really rather elegant: Pax Americana.
USD is only "backed" by two things: the willingness of people to use it as a medium of exchange, and the collective might of the US military.
The former is tenuous and unreliable. The latter is very real, very valuable, and very important.
So if other nations use their dollars to then back their own money ("global reserve currency") then they become part of the collective security zone guaranteed by US military power.
Getting back to China, the market opening which occurred as part of the Deng Revolution allowed for some significant possibilities all around.
China would have access to the US export market so it could bootstrap creating a pacified middle class and grow economically.
The US would gain a massive new market for exporting credit inflation (more than a billion new dollar consumers) and bring China into the US hegemonic sphere via dollar dependency and cultural imperialism ("westernizing").
That was the idea, anyway.
To a certain extent, it worked.
China massively ramped up surplus production for export. This employed hundreds of millions, keeping them busy and distributing enough prosperity to pacify them.
The US got access to a vast new population sink into which we could dump inflation $
China, however, had no intention of allowing the US to use the arrangement to rope them into the hegemony. They saw their own opportunity to take from it to strengthen themselves while weakening the US.
Note the cozy relationships China had with Bill Clinton in particular.
On the US side, our big weakness in the deal was that we had an easily corruptible power elite who needed to keep the credit shell game going no matter what.
China's big weakness was that they could not maintain their surplus economy without the US as a market.
So long as the US power elite could be bought with the proceeds of exported inflation plus cheap labor, China had the upper hand in the deal.
Then a few unexpected things happened.
1. The US power elite got so greedy they killed their own credit scam, starting with the Greenspan Put and getting progressively more insane until derivative apocalypse had to be monetized through "quantitative easing" at the Fed in 2009.
2. The US power elite lost their leverage and the White House (i.e. the Mandate of Heaven).
3. The CCP in China miscalculated their ability to control a rising middle class dependent on foreign markets and money.
4. Chinese labor stopped being cheap.
Here's the kicker: there has been talk for many years about how bad the US trade deficit with China is for middle America. This undeniably true.
However, we have been getting gigatons of stuff from them for decades, and giving them nothing but paper and bits in return.
That allowed the US power elite to loot the wealth of the nation for their personal enrichment.
But it also made China totally dependent on the US for its domestic stability.
Paraphrasing the old saying, if you owe the Chinese Central Bank a hundred billion $, the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank trillion$ and all their employees are dependent on you borrowing, YOU OWN THE BANK.
So long as US leadership was in the pocket of China, it was mutual ownership. Stable.
The Downturn broke the economic stability part of the equation, then the election of @realDonaldTrump broke the political dependency part of the equation.
I mean, why do you think Nancy Pelosi (D - Beijing) is so hysterically anti-Trump? It isn't just ideological.
Power is about interests and control.
Anyway, Trump, being a smart negotiator and businessman, understands that if he plays it right, he has China by the balls.
Without access to US export markets, China is weeks away from economic apocalypse. Maybe months away from a civil war.
See, China made a big mistake in their efforts to try and escape the dependency trap which had been set for them.
They tried to create a domestic market for their own surpluses.
How did they do that? By mimicking the US hegemonic model.
They blew a credit bubble. LOL
The inability of previous administrations to use China's dependency on US export markets was not a lack of capability. It was a lack of will.
China had thought they had bought the degenerate western elites and were safe.
They were wrong.
Trump is willing to play hardball with them, limiting or taxing their access to the one thing they can't survive without: you, the US consumer, who is willing to mortgage your whole future to buy their cheap chinesium garbage.
And even further, Trump realizes something absolutely pivotal:
The United States is now the only developed nation in the world with the ability to grow our economy by increasing domestic production.
That's a game-changer, right there.
Combine that with the fact that Trump's domestic power opponents are totally dependent not just on infinitely-increasing credit inflation, but also on unlimited access to cheap foreign labor, and you have the perfect setup for a showdown.
So, when I see a news story saying that China has cut 2 million jobs in response to Trump's tariffs, and that Chinese banks are being propped up by the CCB, I know Trump is
#winning bigly.
Ethics report accuses UNRWA leadership of abuse of power | News | Al Jazeera
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:01
New York City, US - A confidential internal report from the UN's Palestinian refugee agency's ethics office has detailed alleged abuses of authority among the organisation's senior management team.
With input from dozens of current and former staff, the 10-page document cites "credible and corroborated reports" that members of an "inner circle" at the top of UNRWA have engaged in "abuses of authority for personal gain, to suppress legitimate dissent and to otherwise achieve their personal objectives".
The report alleges that the "inner circle" is made up of Commissioner-General Pierre Krahenbuhl, Deputy Commissioner-General Sandra Mitchell - who resigned from her post in late July - Chief of Staff Hakam Shahwan - who left the agency in early July - and Senior Adviser to the Commissioner-General Maria Mohammedi.
It concludes that the individuals' alleged conduct presents "an enormous risk to the reputation of the UN" and that "their immediate removal should be carefully considered".
Al Jazeera obtained a copy of the ethics office report from a source close to UNRWA, who said that agency employees were concerned about a seeming lack of action after it was sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's office in December last year.
Al Jazeera understands that the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has opened a probe into allegations detailed in the report, while the secretary-general's spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, confirmed in late June that the report had been received.
"An investigation of the allegations contained in the report you mention is ongoing. Until this investigation is completed, the Secretary-General is not in a position to make any further comments on this matter," he said in a statement.
"As he has shown in the past, the Secretary-General is committed to acting swiftly upon receiving the full report."
'Concentration of power'The ethics report claims that members of the inner circle "have engaged in misconduct, nepotism, retaliation ... and other abuses of authority".
It alleges that, since 2015, they have steadily consolidated power, leading to "management decline", and that the situation escalated markedly from the beginning of 2018.
The alleged escalation coincided with the fallout from the decision by the United States, historically the agency's largest individual donor, to cut its contributions from $360m to $60m for 2018 and then cut its donations to zero in 2019, causing a funding crisis in UNRWA.
The report claims that the 2018 crisis "served as an excuse for an extreme concentration of decision making power in members of the 'clique' and in particular, the [former] chief of staff; increased disregard for agency rules and established procedures, with exceptionalism becoming the norm; and continued excessive travel of the commissioner-general".
Krahenbuhl rejected the characterisation of UNRWA set out in the extracts [File: Denis Balibouse/Reuters]
It further alleges that these developments led to an "exodus of senior and other staff" and a work culture "characterised by low morale, fear of retaliation ... distrust, secrecy, bullying, intimidation, and marginalisation ... and management that is highly dysfunctional, with a significant breakdown of the regular accountability structure".
When presented with a number of the allegations reported in this story, Krahenbuhl "unreservedly" rejected the characterisation of UNRWA and its senior leadership set out in the extracts.
"If the current investigation - once it is completed - were to present findings that require corrective measures or other management actions, I will not and we will not hesitate to take them," he said in a statement to Al Jazeera.
"Any suggestion therefore that we are not taking our responsibilities seriously is unfounded and highly misleading. We should be judged on the findings of the independent investigation not on allegations, rumors or fabrications," he said.
'Beyond the professional'Much of the report focuses on allegations surrounding the conduct of Commissioner-General Krahenbuhl, 53, who took up the post in March 2014.
It says that in the second half of the same year, the Swiss national made several trips to the Gulf region, accompanied by staff from UNRWA's Arab Partners Unit, including Mohammedi, who was a Senior External Relations Projects Officer at the time.
The report cites unnamed sources as saying that Krahenbuhl "expressed a particular interest" in Mohammedi in late 2014.
Mohammedi was subsequently appointed to the role of senior adviser to the commissioner-general, effective February 2015.
The report says that after the appointment, it quickly became clear to staff in UNRWA's Executive Office and the External Relations and Communications Department (ERCD) that their relationship went "beyond the professional".
The relationship between the two created a "toxic environment" for colleagues in the executive office and caused "frequent embarrassment for ERCD colleagues and others when dealing with member states", including donor representatives and donors, the report alleges.
It claims that, following her appointment, Krahenbuhl took Mohammedi with him on "the vast majority of his business travels, using his authority to obtain waivers enabling her to travel business class with him".
Citing former executive office staff, it alleges that the commissioner-general was "structurally away from his duty station of Jerusalem on duty travel ... claiming DSA (daily subsistence allowance) for 28-29 days per month".
In a statement to Al Jazeera, Krahenbuhl said: "UNRWA is aware that a report was submitted to the United Nations Headquarters, which is said to contain allegations against members of UNRWA's staff."
"At the end of March 2019, I was notified that allegations against UNRWA would be investigated by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). I have at all stages of this process instructed and afforded full cooperation with this investigation.
"While the investigation is underway, I am not at liberty - and neither for that matter is any UNRWA staff member - to comment on specific allegations or on rumours. Interfering with or otherwise commenting on specific elements of an investigation may violate rules and obligations we are bound by as UN staff," he said.
Mohammedi told Al Jazeera she had "never seen" the ethics report and rejected the accusations about her conduct as "false" and "ill-intentioned".
A former UNRWA director, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told Al Jazeera they had read the ethics report and found it to be "accurate".
UNRWA was established by the United Nations in 1949 [File: Nasser Nasser/AP]
Funding crisisAfter the US announced in January 2018 it would reduce its funding to UNRWA, Krahenbuhl launched the "Dignity is Priceless" global fundraising campaign, which aimed to raise $500m.
It was established outside of the ERCD, which traditionally manages fundraising efforts, causing "considerable friction" with the department and "contributing to the departure of several senior ERCD staff", the report claims.
"In spite of its target, the campaign reportedly raised only modest amounts, with the vast majority of the agency's new funding raised through ERCD, with the commissioner-general's and a number of key member states' active support," the report alleges.
Krahenbuhl told Al Jazeera that the 2018 Dignity is Priceless Campaign was "one of the most successful resource mobilization efforts of all times".
"By the end of the year, this campaign enabled us to successfully close the entire shortfall of $446m, an outstanding result", he said in a statement.
'Irregular recruitment'According to the report, Deputy Commissioner-General Sandra Mitchell and former Chief of Staff Hakam Shahwan had previously worked together closely over several years.
The ethics report alleges two reported attempts in 2018 by Mitchell, through Shahwan and other staff, to secure a more senior appointment for her spouse, Robert Langridge.
Mitchell's spouse was appointed as a deputy director at UNRWA's Jordan field office, effective October 2018.
The report alleges that Langridge "was appointed through an irregular recruitment process and in violation of the UN and Agency prohibition of conflicted spousal appointment".
In a statement to Al Jazeera, Langridge said he categorically rejected the allegations.
"I particularly resent and reject the notion that I was not qualified for the position. This is neither factual nor correct," he said.
Mitchell told Al Jazeera she "emphatically" rejected all the allegations.
"There is a pending investigation and as a UN staff member, I am restricted from commenting on specific allegations nor do I wish to interfere in that process as this would violate rules and obligations that I am bound by as a UN staff member", she said in a statement.
UNRWA told Al Jazeera Mitchell decided to step down a few months earlier than scheduled for personal reasons, but as of now, she is still a staff member of the agency.
Pseudonymous emailShahwan was described by many staff members as behaving like a "thug" and as being increasingly seen as the de facto leader of UNRWA, the report alleges.
It also describes allegations that the former chief of staff undercut the work of field directors and had "effectively taken over UNRWA operations in Jerusalem", circumventing field office chains of command and "bypassing established procurement and financial processes and decision making".
The report also alleges that after an UNRWA driver made a complaint against co-workers, including Shahwan, in 2018, the chief of staff reacted by "defaming" the complainant and "using his influence to have the driver placed on administrative leave".
In early July, Shahwan left UNRWA after a pseudonymous email was sent to Al Jazeera, attempting to discredit the alleged author of the ethics report.
When Al Jazeera subsequently contacted the agency about the email, it said that Shahwan had left the agency as a "direct response".
"UNRWA confirms that after receiving a copy of an anonymous email sent to you [Al Jazeera] addressing the alleged author of the report and related matters, the Agency undertook an immediate review and subsequently, one of its senior staff members was separated as a direct response to that breach," UNRWA spokesperson Tamara Alrifai said in statement to Al Jazeera, confirming later that the senior staff member was Shahwan.
"Such an email is totally unacceptable," she added.
In a statement posted on social media in early July, Shahwan said he had "decided to resign" from UNRWA.
When contacted by Al Jazeera, he did not comment on specific allegations about his conduct but said his "resignation has no link whatsoever to any of the allegations in the report".
'Satisfactory results'Established by the United Nations in 1949, UNRWA was originally intended to provide jobs and relief to Palestinian refugees who fled or were forcibly displaced during the 1948 Middle East war, which led to the creation of Israel. Its mandate is renewed every few years in the UN General Assembly.
The agency, which is mostly funded by donations from UN member states, currently provides services, including education, healthcare, relief and social aid to more than five million Palestinian refugees across the Middle East.
UNRWA's mandate is due to come up for renewal later this year in the UN General Assembly, where it traditionally receives strong support, but the agency has faced a number of attacks from the US in recent months.
Krahenbuhl told Al Jazeera that recent external and UN reports showed "positive assessments" of UNRWA's management.
"A recent report by an external group of experts (MOPAN) has just shown satisfactory (and at times very satisfactory) results of UNRWA's management and impact - which is particularly important for us during these times of intense political and financial pressure on the agency," he said in a statement.
"Similarly, the United Nations Board of Auditors recognized the quality of the management and leadership of UNRWA. Finally, the 2018 annual report recently presented by UNRWA's Department of Internal Oversight Services and Ethics Division - both independent bodies - to UNRWA's Advisory Commission (host countries and largest donors) confirmed these positive assessments. These reports testify to the strength of this Agency and are a matter of public record."
Mick Mulvaney - Wikipedia
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 14:45
Mick Mulvaney
Acting White House Chief of Staff Assumed office January 2, 2019PresidentDonald TrumpDeputyEmma Doyle Preceded by John F. KellyDirector of the Office of Management and Budget Assumed office February 16, 2017[a]PresidentDonald TrumpDeputyRussell VoughtMargaret Weichert Preceded by Shaun DonovanActing Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau In office November 25, 2017[b] '' December 11, 2018PresidentDonald TrumpDeputyLeandra EnglishBrian Johnson (acting) Preceded by Richard Cordray Succeeded by Kathleen KraningerMember of the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina's 5th district In office January 3, 2011 '' February 16, 2017 Preceded by John Spratt Succeeded by Ralph NormanMember of the South Carolina Senate from the 16th district In office January 3, 2009 '' January 3, 2011 Preceded by Chauncey K. Gregory Succeeded by Chauncey K. GregoryMember of the South Carolina House of Representatives from the 45th district In office January 3, 2007 '' January 3, 2009 Preceded by Eldridge Emory Succeeded by Debora LongPersonal detailsBornJohn Michael Mulvaney
( 1967-07-21 ) July 21, 1967 (age 52) Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.Political partyRepublicanSpouse(s)Pamela West (m. 1998)
Children3EducationGeorgetown University (BS)University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (JD) *While Mulvaney has not resigned his position, Russell Vought serves as Acting OMB Director for the duration of Mulvaney's term as Acting White House Chief of Staff. John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney ( ; born July 21, 1967) is an American politician who is serving in President Donald Trump's cabinet as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as well as acting White House Chief of Staff.[1][2][3] A Republican, Mulvaney also served as the acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from November 2017 to December 2018.
Mulvaney served in the South Carolina General Assembly from 2007 to 2011, first in the State House of Representatives and then the State Senate.[4] He served as a U.S. House Representative from 2011 to 2017.[5] He was nominated as OMB Director by President-elect Donald Trump in December 2016[6] and confirmed by Senate vote (51''49) on February 16, 2017 .[7]
Mulvaney was known for his support for fiscal conservatism as a congressman. However, as OMB Director, he oversaw an expansion in the deficit. The deficit increases were a result of both spending increases and tax cuts, and were unusually high for a period of economic expansion.[8] In 2019, with regard to its potential mention in an upcoming State of the Union speech, Mulvaney said that "nobody cares" about the deficit.[9] A staunch opponent of the CFPB while in Congress, Mulvaney's tenure as acting Director of the bureau led to a large reduction of the bureau's enforcement and regulatory powers.[10][11]
Early life, education and career [ edit ] Mulvaney was born in Alexandria, Virginia, to Michael "Mike," a real estate developer,[12] and Kathleen "Kathy" Mulvaney, a teacher.[13] He grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina.[14] He later moved to Indian Land, South Carolina.[15][16] His grandparents were originally from County Mayo, Ireland.[17] He attended Charlotte Catholic High School and then Georgetown University, where he majored in international economics, commerce and finance.[15] At Georgetown, he was an Honors Scholar of the School of Foreign Service, and ultimately graduated with honors in 1989.[16]
Mulvaney attended law school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He earned a full scholarship to attend law school, where his focus was on antitrust law. He graduated with his J.D. degree in 1992.[18]
From 1992 to 1997, Mulvaney practiced law with the firm James, McElroy & Diehl. Mulvaney joined his family's homebuilding and real estate business. He participated in the Owners and Presidents Management Program at Harvard Business School. He was a minority shareholder and owner-operator in Salsarita's Fresh Cantina, a privately held regional restaurant chain.[19]
South Carolina legislature [ edit ] State House
Mulvaney was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 2006.[20]
State Senate
In 2008 an unexpected retirement created a vacancy in the South Carolina Senate and he campaigned for and won that office in what was widely regarded to be the hardest fought legislative race in South Carolina that year.[21]
While in the State Senate, Mulvaney served on the Judiciary, Labor/Commerce/Industry, Medical Affairs, Agriculture/Natural Resources, and Corrections Committees. The Palmetto Family Council identified him as the Freshman Legislator of the Year in 2006 for his work on the South Carolina ultrasound bill.[22][23]
In 2010 he was named Legislator of the Year for his work in support of the State's Emergency Medical Services (EMS). He has received one of the few A+ ratings in the entire legislature from the South Carolina Club for Growth.[23]
U.S. House of Representatives [ edit ] Mulvaney's official portrait
Elections [ edit ] 2010
Mulvaney, a GOP Young Gun, ran against Democratic incumbent John M. Spratt Jr. for South Carolina's 5th congressional district . The race was highlighted by Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC's "Take Congress Back: 10 in '10" initiative as one of the top 10 House challenger races.[24] Mulvaney's involvement in the now-defunct Edenmoor real estate development in Lancaster County, South Carolina became a campaign issue, with Mulvaney's opponents alleging that he misled the Lancaster County council and taxpayers to provide $30 million in public funding for the real estate development and that once the public funds had been approved, Mulvaney sold his interest in the development to a third party at a $7 million profit.[25][26] Mulvaney denied the allegations and said that the project's failure was due to Democratic economic policies.[25] He defeated Spratt, who had held the seat since 1983, with 55% of the vote.[27]
Mulvaney's campaign against Spratt was aided by a 501(c)(4) organization named the Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity. The group, which was established by anonymous donors and run by lobbyist Scott W. Reed, was accused by the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington of violating federal campaign finance laws and disclosing false information to the Internal Revenue Service.[28]
2012
He won re-election to a second term by defeating Democrat Joyce Knott 56%''44%.[29][30]
2014
He won re-election to a third term by defeating Democrat Tom Adams, a Fort Mill Town Council[31] member, 59%''41%.[32]
Mulvaney co-founded the bipartisan Blockchain Caucus, "meant to help congressmen stay up to speed on cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies," and develop policies that advance them.[33]
2016
Mulvaney faced Ray Craig in the Republican primary and defeated him 78''22%.[34] Mulvaney was re-elected to a fourth term, winning over 59% of the vote.[35]
Tenure [ edit ] During his time in the U.S. House, Mulvaney aligned himself with the Tea Party movement.[36][37] He was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus.[38]
He opposed gun control initiatives and the Affordable Care Act.[39][40][41] In response to criticism for meeting with the extremist John Birch Society in July 2016, Mulvaney said, "I regularly speak to groups across the political spectrum because my constituents deserve access to their congressman. I can't remember ever turning down an opportunity to speak to a group based on the group's political ideology."[42]
Pay-to-play [ edit ] In April 2018, Mulvaney told a room of banking industry executives and lobbyists that as a Congressman he refused to take meetings with lobbyists unless they contributed to his congressional campaigns.[43] He said, "If you are a lobbyist who never gave us money, I did not talk to you. If you are a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you."[43] At the top of the hierarchy, he added, were his constituents. "If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions," said Mr. Mulvaney.[43]
Government shutdown [ edit ] According to The New York Times, Mulvaney took "a hard line on spending during President Obama's term, vowing not to raise the nation's debt limit and embracing the term 'Shutdown Caucus' because of his willingness to shut the government down instead."[40] In 2015, Mulvaney voted against a government-funding resolution, which would have prevented a government shutdown, in part because it included funding for Planned Parenthood.[44] Explaining his vote, Mulvaney said, "This is not about women's health. It's about trafficking in pieces of dead children."[44] After his appointment as head of the OMB in 2017, he reiterated his conditional position of support for a shutdown.[45]
Regulations [ edit ] Mulvaney supported the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015, which would have "[created] a commission tasked with eliminating and revising outdated and redundant federal regulations."[46][47]
Fiscal year 2014 budget [ edit ] On December 10, 2013, Republican Representative Paul Ryan and Democratic Senator Patty Murray announced that they had negotiated the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, a proposed two-year budget deal.[48][49] The budget deal capped the federal government's spending for Fiscal Year 2014 at $1.012 trillion and for Fiscal Year 2015 at $1.014.[50]
The proposed deal eliminated some of the spending cuts required by the sequester by $45 billion of the cuts scheduled to happen in January and $18 billion of the cuts scheduled to happen in 2015.[50] This did not decrease federal spending; instead, by reducing the amount of spending cuts the government was going to be forced to make by the sequester, it actually increased government spending by $45 billion and $18 billion over what would have been spent had the sequester remained in place. Some Republicans wanted Speaker John Boehner to pursue a temporary measure that would cover the rest of Fiscal Year 2014 at the level set by the sequester '' $967 billion, rather than pass this budget deal, which would have $45 billion in additional spending.[51]
The deal was designed to make up for this increase in spending by raising airline fees and changing the pension contribution requirements of new federal workers.[48] According to The Hill, Mulvaney spearheaded opposition to the bill. He did not blame Ryan for the budget deal, instead saying that the problem was that too few conservatives had been elected to Congress to pass a budget with a greater focus on debt reduction.[51] Mulvaney said that he expected the budget deal to pass because "it was designed to get the support of defense hawks and appropriators and Democrats", not conservatives.[48]
On April 9, 2014, Mulvaney offered a proposal based on the Obama proposal as a substitute amendment in order to force a vote on the President's budget request. The President's proposal failed in a vote of 2''413, although Democrats were urged by their leadership to vote against this "political stunt."[52]
Presidential endorsements [ edit ] Mulvaney speaking at a campaign event for Senator
Rand Paul in Spartanburg, South Carolina in September 2015.
In September 2015, Mulvaney endorsed Kentucky Senator Rand Paul in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries.[53]
Committee assignments
Committee on Financial ServicesCommittee on Small BusinessSubcommittee on Healthcare and TechnologySubcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital AccessSubcommittee on Contracting and Workforce (Chairman)Caucus memberships
Republican Study CommitteeFreedom Caucus[54]Tea Party CaucusCongressional Constitution Caucus[55]Congressional Blockchain Caucus[56]Office of Management and Budget [ edit ] Nomination [ edit ] On December 16, 2016, Mulvaney was announced as President-elect Donald Trump's choice to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.[57]
Mulvaney's nomination as Director-designate was reviewed in hearings held by the members of the United States Senate Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs then presented to the full Senate for a vote.
In his statement to the Senate Budget Committee, Mulvaney admitted that he had failed to pay $15,000 in payroll taxes from 2000''04 for a nanny he had hired to care for his triplets. Mulvaney said he did not pay the taxes because he viewed the woman as a babysitter rather than as a household employee. After filling out a questionnaire from the Trump transition team, he realized the lapse and began the process of paying back taxes and fees. Senate Democrats noted that Republicans had previously insisted that past Democratic nominees' failure to pay taxes for their household employees was disqualifying, including former Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle in 2009.[58][59]
On February 16, 2017, the Senate confirmed Mulvaney, 51''49.[7][60]
Tenure [ edit ] During his tenure as OMB Director, Mulvaney sought to influence President Donald Trump to cut Social Security and Medicare.[12] When he introduced himself to Gary Cohn, who was then Trump's chief economic advisor, Mulvaney said, "Hi, I'm a right-wing nutjob."[12] While Mulvaney was known for his professed support for fiscal conservatism as a congressman, under Mulvaney's tenure as OMB Director there was a dramatic expansion in the deficit as a result of both spending increases and tax cuts.[8] The deficits were unusually high for a period of economic expansion.[8]
Manipulated unemployment numbers claim [ edit ] In March 2017, Mulvaney stated that he believed that "the Obama administration was manipulating the numbers, in terms of the number of people in the workforce, to make the unemployment rate '-- that percentage rate '-- look smaller than it actually was," and that "[w]hat you should really look at is the number of jobs created."[61] There is no evidence that jobs numbers under the Obama administration were manipulated.[61][62][63]FiveThirtyEight's Ben Casselman noted that "manipulating the jobs figures...would mean not just messing with one number but rather interfering with an entire ecosystem of statistics" and "would require a conspiracy theory of massive proportions, involving hundreds if not thousands of people."[62]
Criticism of the Congressional Budget Office [ edit ] In March 2017, Mulvaney stated that the Congressional Budget Office was not capable of assessing the American Health Care Act, stating that "[i]f the CBO was right about Obamacare to begin with, there'd be 8 million more people on Obamacare today than there actually are."[64] According to FactCheck.Org, "[t]he CBO actually nailed the overall impact of the law on the uninsured pretty closely...It's true (as Trump administration officials have repeatedly pointed out) that CBO greatly overestimated the number who would get government-subsidized coverage through the new insurance exchanges. But at the same time, CBO underestimated the number who would get coverage through expanding Medicaid. And whatever the failings of CBO's predictions, they were closer to the mark than those of the Obama administration and some other prominent forecasters."[65]PolitiFact noted that "the initial CBO analysis of the Affordable Care Act did forecast that more people would participate in health care exchanges than actually did, but the CBO has revised those estimates. Moreover, independent analyses, as well as experts agree that the CBO offers some of the best estimates given the information available at the time."[66]
In May 2017, Mulvaney was critical of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) after it estimated the version of the American Health Care Act passed by the house in May 2017 would result in 23 million fewer people with health insurance. Mulvaney said that the CBO's assessment was "absurd" and that "the days of relying on some nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to do that work for us has probably come and gone."[67]
Trump administration's budget proposals [ edit ] While promoting the Trump administration's budget proposal in March 2017, Mulvaney stated that, as to taxpayers, the government was "not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money, anymore'... unless we can guarantee to you that that money is actually being used in a proper function."[68] For instance, Mulvaney justified cuts to block grants that go towards spending on Meals on Wheels because it was "just not showing any results."[69][70] Others disagreed with Mulvaney's statement, citing research that has "found home-delivered meal programs to significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life."[71][69]
On May 22, 2017, Mulvaney presented President Trump's $4.1 trillion 2018 United States federal budget. The budget included cuts to the United States Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the social safety net and increases in funding for defense spending and paid family leave. The "America First" budget included a 10.6% decrease in domestic program spending and a 10% increase in military spending, in addition to $1.6 billion for a border wall.[72] The budget would remove $272 billion from welfare programs, including $272 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.[72] The budget would also remove $800 billion from Medicaid, and $72 billion from Social Security disability benefits, while removing nothing from Social Security retirement or Medicare benefits.[72] Mulvaney projected the budget will not add to the federal deficit because future tax cuts will lead to 3% GDP growth.[72] He described the budget as "the first time in a long time that an administration has written a budget through the eyes of the people who are actually paying the taxes."[73]
In December 2017, the president signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation forecasted that with dynamic scoring, the $1.5 trillion reduction in revenues will increase the federal deficit by $1 trillion.[74] Regulatory implementation of the tax cuts have been delayed by a dispute between Mulvaney and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin regarding the involvement of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.[75]
In February 2018, Mulvaney released the President's $4.4 trillion 2019 United States federal budget, which would add $984 billion to the federal deficit that year, and $7 trillion over the next 10 years.[76] Later that month, the President signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which allowed yearly federal deficits to reach $1 trillion.[77] In March 2018, Congress ultimately passed the $1.3 trillion Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, which funded the government's operations until the end of the fiscal year in September.[78]
Ethics waivers [ edit ] On April 28, 2017, Walter Shaub, the Director of the United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a data request to see the ethics waivers given to ex-lobbyists in the executive branch, which Mulvaney refused, writing a letter that seemed to question OGE's authority to collect ethics records.[79] On May 22, Shaub sent Mulvaney, in addition to every federal ethics officer, every inspector general, and the six members of Congress responsible for government oversight, a 10-page response reasserting his legal authority to see the ethics waivers.[79] On May 26, Mulvaney sent a second letter denying that his first letter had questioned OGE's authority, and providing the information requested.[80] Thereafter, on May 30, the White House complied with Shaub's data call by posting its waivers online.[81] On August 1, Senators Chuck Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, and Gary Peters sent a bipartisan letter to Mulvaney demanding that the White House continue releasing its waivers on a continuing basis.[82] On September 21, OGE's acting Director, David Apol, issued a memorandum declaring that the White House would comply with this congressional request.[83] On October 19, the White House released a second batch of waivers on its website.[84]
Government shutdown [ edit ] In a press briefing on May 2, 2017, Mulvaney said that a "good shutdown" of the federal government might be necessary in September. He defined such a situation as one "that fixes Washington, D.C. permanently."[45] In the same conference call to reporters, Mulvaney defended a funding package which contained no funds for President Trump's proposed border wall. The call became infamous after being plagued with technical problems and interruptions.[85]
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [ edit ] Appointment [ edit ] Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski had encouraged the President to replace Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray.[86] As a congressman, Mulvaney had been a strong critic of the CFPB, calling it a "sick, sad" joke, and co-sponsoring legislation for its elimination.[87] President Trump appointed Mulvaney to serve as Acting Director of the CFPB under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA), which allows for the president to appoint an interim replacement without Senate confirmation. However, a dispute arose over whether Mulvaney can be so-named under the FVRA or whether a provision of the Dodd-Frank Act controls, which would make the deputy director, Leandra English, acting director of the CFPB instead. This led to a court battle, English v. Trump. On November 28, 2017, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied English's motion for a preliminary injunction and allowed Mulvaney to begin serving as CFPB Acting Director.[88]
Tenure [ edit ] According to an April 2019 review of Mulvaney's tenure as CFPB head by The New York Times, Mulvaney had undermined the enforcement and regulatory powers of the bureau.[10] What was "perhaps Washington's most feared financial regulator" had through "strategic neglect and bureaucratic self-sabotage" begun to work against the very interests it was created to defend.[10] Mulvaney immediately stopped hiring at the CFPB, stopped collecting fines, suspended rulemaking, and ordered all active investigations reviewed.[11] Mulvaney also sharply reduced agency personnel's access to bank data, arguing that it posed a security risk.[43] On January 18, 2018, Mulvaney submitted a quarterly budget request for the CFPB to the Federal Reserve for $0.[89][90]
In January 2018, Mulvaney canceled an investigation into a South Carolina payday lender that had previously donated to his congressional campaigns.[86] He also dropped a lawsuit the CFPB was pursuing against an online lender the bureau had found was charging 950% interest.[91] Mulvaney suspended a short-term payday loan regulation.[92] In addition to payday lenders, Mulvaney also scaled back efforts to go after auto lenders and others accused of preying on vulnerable consumers.[43] By April 2018, more than four months after taking charge of the CFPB, Mulvaney had not undertaken a single enforcement action against finance companies; the previous CFPB director, Richard Cordray, averaged two to four enforcement actions per month.[92] Mulvaney accepted nearly $63,000 in donations by payday lenders while he was a congressman.
In April 2018, Mulvaney submitted the CFPB's annual report to Congress, in which he recommended the bureau's funding should be made to require congressional appropriations, that its future rulemaking should require legislative approval, and that he, the director, should be made removable without cause by the President.[93]
The Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade association representing the payday lending industry, praised Mulvaney's approach, calling it "relatively passive."[86]
In April 2018, it was reported that Mulvaney had given some of his political appointees at the CFPB raises.[94] Mulvaney hired at least eight appointees after he took over the agency and created positions for some the appointees which did not exist under Cordray's tenure at the CFPB.[94]
In April 2018, Mulvaney said that he would shut down public access to the CFPB's online database of consumer complaints where consumers could post complaints and the CFPB used to guide its investigations.[43] Mulvaney said, "I don't see anything in here that says I have to run a Yelp for financial services sponsored by the federal government."[43] As the database was mandated by law, it could not be shut down, only closed to the public.[95] A review of Mulvaney's campaign contributions as a congressman showed that 8 of the 10 firms with the most complaints about them had contributed to Mulvaney's campaigns.[95]
In April 2018, Mulvaney announced a $1 billion fine against Wells Fargo for fraudulent practices. The case against Wells Fargo started prior to Mulvaney's tenure, and there were reports that Mulvaney considered dropping the case. Amid this reporting, Trump warned that the bank would be fined.[96]
In May 2018, The New York Times reported that Mulvaney worked two to three days a week at the CFPB, a few hours at a time.[96]
In August 2018, it was reported that Mulvaney was considering rolling back oversight of military lenders. The Military Lending Act was devised to protect military service members and their families from financial fraud, predatory loans and credit card gouging.[97]
White House Chief of Staff [ edit ] Appointment [ edit ] On December 14, 2018, Donald Trump named Mulvaney as his acting White House Chief of Staff beginning with the new year.[98] Prior to Trump's election, Mulvaney had characterized the future president as a "terrible human being,"[99][100] said he would be disqualified from office in an "ordinary universe,"[101] and described Trump's views on a wall on the US-Mexico border as "absurd and almost childish."[102]
Tenure [ edit ] Upon assuming office as White House Chief of Staff, Mulvaney appointed several individuals with similar views as himself to White House positions,[103][104] most notably Joe Grogan to lead the Domestic Policy Council.[105][106][107]
In March 2019, Mulvaney said, "every single (health care) plan that this White House has ever put forward since Donald Trump was elected covered pre-existing conditions."[10] The Associated Press described the claim as "misleading" and PolitiFact rated this assertion "mostly false", claiming that all the health care proposals supported by the White House would have weakened protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, and led to gaps in health insurance coverage and higher premium rates.[10][108]
Personal life [ edit ] Mulvaney is a Roman Catholic.[109] He married Pamela West, whom he met in line at a bookstore while he was a law student, in 1998.[13] The couple have triplets (born in 2000), named Finn, James, and Caroline.[17]
Mick Mulvaney's brother Theodore ''Ted'' Mulvaney is portfolio manager for Braeburn Capital, the investment arm of tech giant Apple Inc.[110][111]
Notes [ edit ] References [ edit ] ^ O'Toole, Molly (December 30, 2018). "Outgoing White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly steered Trump away from bad decisions, his backers say". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved December 30, 2018 . ^ Trump, Donald J. (December 14, 2018). "I am pleased to announce that Mick Mulvaney, Director of the Office of Management & Budget, will be named Acting White House Chief of Staff, replacing General John Kelly, who has served our Country with distinction. Mick has done an outstanding job while in the Administration..." @realDonaldTrump . Retrieved December 14, 2018 . ^ Swanson, Ian (December 14, 2018). "Trump names Mulvaney acting chief of staff". TheHill . Retrieved December 14, 2018 . ^ Chris Cillizza (July 21, 2010). "Lindsey Graham's vote on Elena Kagan ensures primary challenge". Political news and analysis. The Washington Post Company . Retrieved August 10, 2010 . ^ "Rep. Mick Mulvaney: A freshman's view of Washington" . Retrieved January 24, 2017 . ^ "Trump picks US Rep. Mulvaney to head White House budget office". CNBC. Reuters. December 16, 2016. Archived from the original on December 17, 2016 . Retrieved March 15, 2019 . ^ a b "U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote". www.senate.gov . Retrieved February 16, 2017 . ^ a b c "Trump names budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting White House chief of staff". Washington Post. December 14, 2018 . Retrieved December 15, 2018 . ^ @tarapalmeri (Tara Palmeri). "Trump told supporters 40-50% of speech will be about foreign policy. When asked if the deficit will be mentioned in #SOTU speech, chief of staff Mulvaney said 'nobody cares,' per attendee." Twitter. 5 Feb. 2019, 11:19 AM. ^ a b c d e Confessore, Nicholas (April 16, 2019). "Mick Mulvaney's Master Class in Destroying a Bureaucracy From Within". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved April 27, 2019 . Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":10" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). ^ a b Silver-Greenberg, Jessica; Cowley, Stacy (December 6, 2017). "Consumer Bureau's New Leader Steers a Sudden Reversal". The New York Times. p. B1 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ a b c Grunwald, Michael (2017). "Mick the Knife". Politico Magazine. ^ a b Huey-Burns, Caitlin (February 22, 2011). "10 Things You Didn't Know About Mick Mulvaney". US News. ^ Clarke, Sara (January 24, 2017). "10 Things You Didn't Know About Mick Mulvaney". US News. ^ a b "Mulvaney, Mick". United States Congress. ^ a b "Arena Profile: Rep. Mick Mulvaney". Politico. ^ a b Wilson, James (December 22, 2016). "Irish American Mick Mulvaney to be Trump's Budget Director". IrishCentral. ^ "Sen. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC 16th District)". Congress.Org. Archived from the original on March 6, 2012 . Retrieved August 10, 2010 . ^ "Sen. Mick Mulvaney latest Salsarita's franchisee". FastCasual.Com. March 23, 2009. Archived from the original on July 10, 2011 . Retrieved August 10, 2010 . ^ "Mick Mulvaney". Catholicvote.org. Archived from the original on March 1, 2012 . Retrieved May 26, 2017 . ^ "Mulvaney At A Glance". Conservative Review. Archived from the original on January 29, 2017. ^ "2015-2016 Bill 4629: Woman's Ultrasound Right to Know Act - South Carolina Legislature Online". ^ a b "Congressional Profile: Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)". Heritage Action For America. December 12, 2018. ^ Paul Conner (October 28, 2010). "Romney stumps in South Carolina as Mulvaney opens lead on Spratt". The Daily Caller. ^ a b Overman, Jenny (October 19, 2010). "Mulvaney refutes latest Edenmoor accusation". Rock Hill Herald. ^ Matt Garfield (October 8, 2010). "Republican hopeful Mulvaney defends past land deal". The Herald. ^ "2010 General Election". South Carolina State Election Commission. November 18, 2010 . Retrieved May 28, 2012 . ^ Weisman, Jonathan (July 17, 2012). "Tax-Exempt Group's Election Activity Highlights Limits of Campaign Finance Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved July 21, 2012 . ^ "2012 Election Results Map by State". Politico. ^ "Mulvaney easily defeats challenger to represent 5th Congressional District". GoUpstate.com. ^ "South Carolina: Haley, Graham re-elected; Scott to finish term". charlotteobserver. ^ "South Carolina Election Results 2014: House Map by District, Live Midterm Voting Updates". POLITICO. ^ "Trump Picks Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Advocate as Budget Chief - Finance Magnates". December 20, 2016. ^ "June 14, 2016 Statewide Primary Election official results". South Carolina State Election Commission . Retrieved June 18, 2016 . ^ "2016 Statewide General Election official results". South Carolina State Election Commission . Retrieved December 5, 2016 . ^ Jeremy Herb (January 23, 2017). "Trump's tea party budget chief on collision course with GOP hawks". Politico. ^ Taylor, Andrew (February 16, 2017). "Tea Party Gains Voice in Trump's Cabinet with Budget Chief". ABC News (from the Associated Press) . Retrieved February 17, 2017 . ^ Weyl, Ben (January 24, 2017). "Who is Mick Mulvaney?". Politico . Retrieved May 23, 2017 . ^ Jake Sherman (December 3, 2015). "GOP unmoved on gun control as massacres pile up". Politico. ^ a b Steinhauer, Jennifer; Shear, Michael D. (December 17, 2016). "In Mick Mulvaney, Trump Finds Anti-Establishment Leader for Budget Office". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved March 13, 2017 . ^ "The Voter's Self Defense System". Project Vote Smart . Retrieved March 13, 2017 . ^ Pierce, Charles (December 20, 2016). "Trump's Sons Might Be the Ones to Sink Him". Esquire . Retrieved May 26, 2019 . ^ a b c d e f g Thrush, Glenn (April 24, 2018). "Mulvaney, Watchdog Bureau's Leader, Advises Bankers on Ways to Curtail Agency". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved April 25, 2018 . ^ a b "The madness resumes". The Economist. September 26, 2015. ^ a b "Mulvaney defines a "good" shutdown". The Washington Post. Reuters. May 2, 2017 . Retrieved May 3, 2017 . ^ Sophie Kleeman (December 20, 2016). "Why Science Fans Should Be Very Worried About Trump's Pick for Budget Director". Gizmodo. ^ "Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015 (2015 - S. 1484)" . Retrieved December 15, 2018 . ^ a b c Erik Wasson; Russell Berman (December 11, 2013). "Ryan budget deal gets positive review at closed-door Republican conference". The Hill . Retrieved December 12, 2013 . ^ "Murray and Ryan Introduce Bipartisan Budget-Conference Agreement". House of Representatives Committee on the Budget . Retrieved December 12, 2013 . ^ a b Desjardins, Lisa (December 10, 2013). "The budget deal in plain English". CNN . Retrieved December 11, 2013 . ^ a b Wasson, Erik. "Conservatives: Ryan not tarnished by 'bad' deal". The Hill . Retrieved December 11, 2013 . ^ Marcos, Cristina (April 9, 2014). "House kills Obama budget 2''413". The Hill . Retrieved April 10, 2014 . ^ "Rep. Mick Mulvaney endorses Rand Paul for president". Washington Post. September 21, 2015. ^ Bialik, Carl; Bycoffe, Aaron (September 25, 2015). "The Hard-Line Republicans Who Pushed John Boehner Out". FiveThirtyEight.com . Retrieved September 28, 2015 . ^ "Members". Congressional Constitution Caucus . Retrieved May 8, 2018 . ^ Jerry Brito (September 25, 2016). "Bipartisan Blockchain Caucus formed in Congress". Coincenter. ^ Shear, Michael (December 16, 2016). "Trump Picks Mick Mulvaney, South Carolina Congressman, as Budget Director". The New York Times . Retrieved December 17, 2016 . ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (January 18, 2017). "Trump Budget Nominee Did Not Pay Taxes for Employee". The New York Times. ^ Weyl, Ben; Griffiths, Brent (January 24, 2017). "Mulvaney defends nanny tax lapse, tangles with Democrats on budget". Politico. ^ Berman, Russell (February 16, 2017). "The Donald Trump Cabinet Tracker". The Atlantic. ^ a b Disis, Jill (March 12, 2017). "Trump's budget director claims Obama was 'manipulating' jobs data". CNNMoney . Retrieved March 12, 2017 . ^ a b "The White House Takes Its Attacks On Jobs Data To A New (And Dangerous) Level". FiveThirtyEight. March 13, 2017 . Retrieved March 14, 2017 . ^ "No Evidence Jobs Data was 'Manipulated ' ". www.factcheck.org. March 13, 2017 . Retrieved March 19, 2017 . ^ "Can you trust the CBO? Trump White House says no". @politifact . Retrieved March 13, 2017 . ^ "Fact check: How accurate were CBO's Obamacare predictions?". USA Today . Retrieved March 14, 2017 . ^ "Can you trust the CBO? Trump White House says no". @politifact . Retrieved May 31, 2017 . ^ Klein, Philip. "Mick Mulvaney: The day of the CBO 'has probably come and gone ' ". Washington Examiner . Retrieved May 31, 2017 . ^ Levitz, Eric. "White House Says Cutting Meals on Wheels Is 'Compassionate ' ". Daily Intelligencer . Retrieved March 19, 2017 . ^ a b "Analysis | Meals on Wheels is 'not showing any results' only if you ignore all these results". Washington Post . Retrieved March 17, 2017 . ^ "Trump's Cuts to Meals on Wheels Could Hurt Veterans, Raise Health-Care Costs". Bloomberg.com. March 17, 2017 . Retrieved March 17, 2017 . ^ Zhu, Huichen; An, Ruopeng (April 1, 2013). "Impact of home-delivered meal programs on diet and nutrition among older adults: a review". Nutrition and Health. 22 (2): 89''103. doi:10.1177/0260106014537146. ISSN 0260-1060. PMID 24916974. ^ a b c d Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (May 23, 2017). "Budget Proposal Curtails Efforts Against Poverty - $4.1 Trillion Wish List - Tax Cuts and Security Spending Based on Unlikely Growth". The New York Times. p. A1 . Retrieved May 24, 2017 . ^ Berman, Russell (May 23, 2017). "The Mick Mulvaney Budget Hits the Hill". The Atlantic . Retrieved May 23, 2017 . ^ Patel, Jugal K. (November 28, 2017). "The Senate's Official Scorekeeper Says the Republican Tax Plan Would Add $1 Trillion to the Deficit". The New York Times . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Rappeport, Alan; Tankersley, Jim (April 4, 2018). "White House Turf Battle Threatens to Delay Tax Law Rollout". The New York Times. p. B1 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (February 13, 2018). "White House Proposes $4.4 Trillion Budget That Adds $7 Trillion to Deficits". The New York Times. p. A1 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Rappeport, Alan; Landler, Mark (February 10, 2018). "With New Budget Deal, Trump Surrenders to the Administrative State". The New York Times. p. A12 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Kaplan, Thomas (March 23, 2018). "Congress Approves $1.3 Trillion Spending Bill, Averting a Shutdown". The New York Times. p. A20 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ a b Lipton, Eric (May 23, 2017). "White House Moves to Block Ethics Inquiry Into Ex-Lobbyists on Payroll". The New York Times. p. A1 . Retrieved May 24, 2017 . ^ Gold, Matea (May 27, 2017). "White House Relents in Fight with Ethics Office over Waiver Disclosure". The Washington Post . Retrieved January 16, 2018 . ^ Gold, Matea (May 31, 2017). "White House grants ethics waivers to 17 appointees, including four former lobbyists". The Washington Post . Retrieved January 16, 2018 . ^ Feinstein, Dianne. "Feinstein, Peters, Grassley Call for Increased Transparency in Administration Ethics Disclosures". US Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein (Press release). US Senate . Retrieved January 16, 2018 . ^ "Posting of Waivers Issued under Executive Order 13770" (PDF) . US OGE . Retrieved January 16, 2018 . ^ "List of Ethics Waivers Issued as of October 19, 2017". Whitehouse.gov . Retrieved January 16, 2018 . ^ Alemany, Jacqueline (May 2, 2017). "White House budget call devolves into chaos". CBS News . Retrieved December 16, 2018 . ^ a b c Rappeport, Alan (February 5, 2018). "Payday Rules Relax on Trump's Watch After Lobbying by Lenders". The New York Times. p. A1 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Stewart, Emily; Kirby, Jen (November 28, 2017). "Judge rules Mick Mulvaney is in charge of the CFPB, for now". Vox . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Rogers, Katie; Bernard, Tara Siegel (November 29, 2017). "President Wins Round in the Battle for the Consumer Bureau". The New York Times. p. A16 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Hayashi, Yuka (January 18, 2018). "CFPB Requests $0 Budget, Will Draw Down Reserves Instead". Wall Street Journal . Retrieved January 18, 2018 . ^ Cowley, Stacy (January 19, 2018). "Consumer Watchdog's Latest Budget Request: $0". The New York Times. p. B8 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Arnold, Chris (February 12, 2018). "Trump Administration Plans To Defang Consumer Protection Watchdog". Morning Edition. NPR . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ a b Arnold, Chirst (January 24, 2018). "Under Trump Appointee, Consumer Protection Agency Seen Helping Payday Lenders". All Things Considered. NPR . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ Rappeport, Alan (April 3, 2018). "Mick Mulvaney, Consumer Bureau's Chief, Urges Congress to Cripple Agency". The New York Times. p. A10 . Retrieved April 4, 2018 . ^ a b "Mulvaney gives big pay bumps to his hires at consumer agency". AP News . Retrieved April 9, 2018 . ^ a b Merle, Renae (May 8, 2018). "Mick Mulvaney does not want you to see complaints against banks that bankrolled his campaigns, report says". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286 . Retrieved May 9, 2018 . ^ a b " ' Like a Mosquito in a Nudist Colony': How Mick Mulvaney Found Plenty to Target at Consumer Bureau". The New York Times. May 7, 2018. ISSN 0362-4331 . Retrieved May 9, 2018 . ^ "Mulvaney Looks to Weaken Oversight of Military Lending" . Retrieved August 13, 2018 . ^ Smith, David (December 14, 2018). "Mick Mulvaney named as acting White House chief of staff". The Guardian . Retrieved December 15, 2018 . ^ Kucinich, Jackie; Suebsaeng, Asawin (December 14, 2018). "Trump's Next Chief of Staff Called Him 'A Terrible Human Being' Just Before He Was Elected President". The Daily Beast . Retrieved December 15, 2018 . ^ Milman, Oliver (December 15, 2018). "Video shows Trump's next chief of staff calling him 'terrible human being ' ". The Guardian . Retrieved December 15, 2018 . ^ "Mick Mulvaney in October 2016: Trump would be disqualified from office in an 'ordinary universe ' ". CNN. 2018. ^ "Mick Mulvaney in 2015: Trump's views on border wall 'simplistic,' 'absurd and almost childish ' ". CNN. 2018. ^ Cook, Nancy; Cancryn, Adam (January 11, 2019). " ' Acting' in name only: Mulvaney staffs up West Wing". Politico . Retrieved July 23, 2019 . ^ Min Kim, Seung; Rein, Lisa; Dawsey, Josh; Werner, Erica (July 14, 2019). " ' His own fiefdom': Mulvaney builds 'an empire for the right wing' as Trump's chief of staff". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 23, 2019 . ^ Cancryn, Adam; Diamond, Dan (January 22, 2019). "White House to name Grogan top policy aide". Politico . Retrieved July 23, 2019 . ^ Diamond, Dan; Kumar, Anita; Pradhan, Rachana; Cancryn, Adam (June 18, 2019). " ' They're all fighting him': Trump aides spar with health secretary". Politico . Retrieved July 23, 2019 . ^ Plott, Elaina; Nicholas, Peter (June 27, 2019). "How a Forgotten White House Team Gained Power in the Trump Era". The Atlantic . Retrieved July 23, 2019 . ^ Woodward, Calvin; Yen, Hope (April 6, 2019). "AP FACT CHECK: Trump's tortured flips on border, health care". AP NEWS . Retrieved July 25, 2019 . ^ "Arena Profile: Rep. Mick Mulvaney". The Arena . Retrieved March 16, 2017 . ^ "White House Says No Conflict of Interest with Mulvaney and Apple | TYT Network". tytnetwork.com. November 20, 2017 . Retrieved December 11, 2017 . ^ Garside, Juliette (October 26, 2012). "Apple's investment manager wrestles with $120bn problem". The Guardian . Retrieved December 11, 2017 . External links [ edit ] Profile at Office of Management and BudgetMick Mulvaney at CurlieBiography at the Biographical Directory of the United States CongressProfile at Vote SmartFinancial information (federal office) at the Federal Election CommissionLegislation sponsored at the Library of CongressAppearances on C-SPAN
Alan Dershowitz, Devil's Advocate | The New Yorker
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 04:26
The noted lawyer's long, controversial career'--and the accusations against him. Dershowitz says, ''Every honest criminal lawyer will tell you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.''
Illustration by Barry BlittThe noted lawyer's long, controversial career'--and the accusations against him. Dershowitz says, ''Every honest criminal lawyer will tell you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.''
Illustration by Barry Blitt''A lie is a lie is a lie,'' Whoopi Goldberg said. It was May 2nd, and she was on the set of ''The View,'' the daytime talk show that she co-hosts. The subject was Attorney General William Barr, who had argued that the special counsel Robert Mueller's report was not as alarming as it seemed'--endorsing Donald Trump's claim that there had been ''no collusion, no obstruction'' in the Russia case. Goldberg was incredulous. ''Our parents taught us, if you lie, there are consequences,'' she said. ''When are consequences coming back?''
Her guest, the attorney Alan Dershowitz, offered an answer that combined legal analysis and political handicapping. ''They come back in November of 2020, when we all go to the polls and we vote against people that we think lied,'' he said. ''But it would be a terrible thing'''--he held up a finger for emphasis'--''to criminalize lies.''
Dershowitz is a frequent guest on shows like ''The View''; for decades, he has been a frequent guest just about everywhere. If you are a television producer putting together a segment about a celebrated criminal case, Dershowitz is an ideal booking. Intellectually nimble and supremely confident, he is an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School but also an occasional reader (and subject) of the tabloids. Over the years, he has written thousands of newspaper articles, magazine columns, and Web posts. With help from research assistants, he has published three dozen books'--including ''The Best Defense,'' ''Chutzpah,'' and ''Sexual McCarthyism'''--that recount his cases and advance his opinions.
In recent years, as Dershowitz approached the age of eighty, his public presence faded a bit. But Trump's Presidency has enabled a comeback. Dershowitz, a proponent of civil liberties, has made a specialty of defending people who do outrageous things, and Trump does outrageous things constantly. Media outlets looking for someone to argue Trump's side have been happy to have Dershowitz on the air, explaining why the President's critics are putting politics before the law. In May, an edition of the Mueller report, with an introduction by Dershowitz, made the Times best-seller list.
On ''The View,'' Goldberg promised the audience that she'd hand out copies of the book after the taping. But she remained skeptical of Dershowitz's defense of Barr. He offered an explanation: lying to Congress or to the F.B.I. was illegal, but misleading the public was not. ''The rule of law requires that we distinguish between sins and crimes,'' he said. ''There's no federal crime that says that it's illegal to lie to the media.''
After a commercial, the next segment began, with images of several controversial Dershowitz clients: Claus von B¼low, O. J. Simpson, Mike Tyson. The lineup included Jeffrey Epstein, a wealthy money manager who had been accused of sexually abusing underage girls. Starting in 2005, investigators had traced a sex-trafficking operation that extended from mansions in New York and Palm Beach to a Caribbean island, Little St. James, that Epstein owned. As charges became public, press accounts enumerated his famous acquaintances'--including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and Kevin Spacey'--and described trips to the island on his plane, the so-called Lolita Express. Despite sworn accounts from more than a dozen women, Dershowitz and his team secured a deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to minor charges and served only a brief sentence. On ''The View,'' which was hosted by four women, Dershowitz described the experience as fraught: ''It's a case that was very, very difficult, and very, very painful for me, because I saw real victims out there. I'm a very strong supporter of the MeToo movement.'' But, he said, an attorney is obligated to defend the rights of the accused: ''I think of myself like a doctor or a priest. If they wheel Jeffrey Epstein into the emergency ward, the doctor is going to take care of him.'' (Dershowitz put it differently to me, in one of a series of conversations this spring and summer: ''Every honest criminal lawyer will tell you that he defends the guilty and the innocent.'')
One of the hosts, Abby Huntsman, pointed out, ''It does get more complicated for you in your personal life.'' In 2014, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of Epstein's victims, stated in a court filing that Epstein lent her out for sex to his friends'--Dershowitz among them. Dershowitz has strenuously denied the allegations, and maintained that Giuffre is a near-pathological liar engineering an extortion plot. Giuffre's claims about him have never been directly tested in court; instead, they have featured as side arguments in civil suits brought by others. Two weeks before the taping, though, Giuffre had sued Dershowitz directly, for defamation.
On the air, Dershowitz said that he welcomed Giuffre's lawsuit. ''I also welcome her coming on this show and accusing me face to face,'' he said. ''I have been falsely accused,'' he went on, more intently. ''So I am welcoming this trial.'' He rubbed his hands together. ''This is the first opportunity I have to conclusively prove my innocence.''
Huntsman read a statement from Giuffre: ''My abusers have sought to conceal their guilt behind a curtain of lies. My complaint calls for the accounting to which I, and the other victims, are entitled.''
''She's right. She's entitled to an accounting,'' Dershowitz said. ''I have'--''
''Alan,'' Goldberg said. The segment was running out of time.
'''--invited the F.B.I. to the trial'--''
''Alan, you gotta stop.''
'''--so that'--''
''Alan! You want me to give the book away? We've gotta give the book away.''
Dershowitz recovered his composure and smiled for the camera. Before the show cut to commercial, he got in a last word: ''My reputation is more important than my book.''
For decades, while Dershowitz was teaching at Harvard Law School and practicing as a criminal-defense lawyer, he collected notes from his critics and posted the most vitriolic ones on his office door: ''You are a demon of evil''; ''You are the best argument for abortion one could present.'' The notes signalled to students that the law was an arena of principled, if gleeful, combat'--a message reinforced by Dershowitz's habitual manner of genial belligerence. When he was attacked, not just by note writers but also by colleagues in the bar and by an occasional judge, it only confirmed the efficacy of what Dershowitz has called his ''confrontational legal style.'' He specializes in appellate law, working to overturn convictions on appeal, a branch of law that often requires dismantling the strategy and the arguments of other lawyers. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional-law expert and a longtime associate of Dershowitz's at Harvard, told me, ''He revels in taking positions that ultimately are not just controversial but pretty close to indefensible.''
Dershowitz describes his early life as an ideal preparation for conflict. He grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and has written that he often got into fights with Italian kids in the neighborhood, ''though I don't recall getting anything worse than a few deep cuts, several broken teeth, and one concussion.'' (His mother, Claire Dershowitz, disputed this account, telling the Washington Post, ''The only time his tooth was knocked out was when he played tennis.'') At yeshiva, he had a reputation as a wise guy, and his principal recommended that he become ''something where you use your mouth but don't need much brains.'' His fellow-students, drafting the yearbook, wrote that he had a ''mouth of Webster and a head of Clay.''
At Brooklyn College, he began to apply himself, and he excelled. In 1959, he was admitted to Yale Law School. Before moving to New Haven, he married Sue Barlach, a young woman from Bayonne, New Jersey, whom he had met during high school, at a Jewish summer camp in the Catskills. She was nineteen when they arrived in New Haven, and within two years they had a son. Sue's younger sister, Marilyn, dated Dershowitz's younger brother, Nathan, and they often came to New Haven to visit. In 1963, Sue and Alan's second son was born.
Dershowitz felt like an outsider at law school. He has written that, when he gave his first presentation, his ''accent was openly laughed at,'' as was his ''non-preppy garb, which included Bermuda shorts with a Phi Beta Kappa key ostentatiously dangling from a pocket.'' He kept kosher, which meant that he couldn't eat in the common dining room, and he didn't drive or work on the Sabbath. When he was being considered for the position of editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, classmates asked if his religious observance would interfere with editorial responsibilities. He got the post anyway.
During his second year, he applied to some thirty Wall Street law firms for a summer job and was rejected by all of them'--notably by Cravath, Swaine & Moore, where he badly wanted to work. (In 1976, he represented an Italian-American lawyer who was suing the firm for religious and ethnic discrimination.) Still, he made an impression at Yale. Dershowitz graduated at the top of his class and went on to serve as a clerk for two esteemed liberal judges: David Bazelon, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and Arthur Goldberg, the Supreme Court Justice. In 1964, Dershowitz was hired as an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, and at twenty-eight became a full professor. Stuart Eizenstat, a student of his who later became a policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, told me, ''He was the most exciting, most engaging professor I had at Harvard Law School.''
Dershowitz established himself as a civil libertarian, with a particular interest in the rights of the mentally ill. An impassioned First Amendment advocate, he defended neo-Nazi speech and pornography, starting with ''I Am Curious (Yellow),'' an earnestly smutty Swedish film released in 1967. He joined the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union, and represented many litigants pro bono in cases involving challenges to censorship and to the death penalty.
Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who worked with Dershowitz in the late seventies and now teaches at Harvard Law School, told me, ''He's very brilliant, just in the sense of the speed at which his mind works, and how prolific he is in churning out thoughts.'' From the beginning of his career, Gertner said, ''he had the imagination to see strategies and arguments other people don't.'' He also understood, before most of his peers did, the value of deploying the media. As he wrote in his 2013 memoir, ''Taking the Stand,'' ''If you don't have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your case in the court of public opinion.'' Dershowitz seemed to delight in publicity, even though he told friends that ''the aggressive and fast-talking know-it-all'' who appeared on TV wasn't really him. Some members of the law-school faculty were nonplussed by his media presence, his self-promotion, and his decision to take on cases while teaching. But Dershowitz heeded advice that he said Judge Bazelon had given him: ''Don't follow in anyone's footsteps. Your feet are too big to fit anyone else's print. Create your own life.'' Dershowitz once wrote, ''It was scary, but it fit my personality to a T.''
In December, 1971, while Dershowitz was on sabbatical in Palo Alto, his ten-year-old son, Elon, was diagnosed as having a brain tumor. Dershowitz, distraught, became fixated on finding a cure. ''I couldn't concentrate on my book,'' he wrote, in ''Taking the Stand.'' ''My marriage, which had been suffering for several years even before our trip to California, was now in deep trouble.'' After surgery, Elon eventually recovered, but the marriage did not. When the family returned to Cambridge, Dershowitz immersed himself in a case in New York, in which he successfully defended a member of the militant Jewish Defense League against a murder charge in the bombing of two office buildings. Dershowitz's collaborators were Harvey Silverglate, a former student of his, who had a small firm in Boston, and Jeanne Baker, a law-school student who was a research assistant there. ''Working together with these two extraordinary young lawyers,'' he wrote, ''made it clear to me how unhappy I was in my marriage.''
In 1973, he and Sue separated, after fourteen years of marriage, and she soon filed for divorce. The case went to court in early 1976, and the proceedings were acrimonious. In Judge Haskell Freedman's lengthy findings of fact, he wrote that Dershowitz's behavior toward Sue ''negatively affected the plaintiff's health to the extent that she required medical treatment and briefly some psychiatric therapy. '' (Dershowitz denies mistreating her, and his son Elon said that he witnessed no improper treatment.)
Sue had been given provisional custody of the children, but Dershowitz, represented by his friend Silverglate, was seeking sole custody. He brought in a psychiatrist named Pierre Johannet as an expert witness. At first, Johannet recommended joint custody. But in an appearance a month later he testified that he had changed his mind, after listening to tapes of phone conversations between Dershowitz and Sue. (Dershowitz has a long habit of recording calls, but says that he has no recollection of taping these.)
Judge Freedman, too, was influenced by the tapes. In the conversations, Sue addressed Dershowitz ''in the most disparaging terms,'' according to the findings. ''She called him names over the telephone while the children listened.'' The judge noted that Sue interfered with Dershowitz's visits with the children and harshly insulted Jeanne Baker, who had become Dershowitz's girlfriend. Freedman relied on testimony from a number of witnesses'--including Sue's sister, Marilyn, who by then was married to Dershowitz's brother'--that Dershowitz would do more to help the children adjust to the divorce. Freedman acknowledged that Johannet had reversed his position'--but that, he wrote, merely proved that he was a ''truly objective witness.'' He awarded Dershowitz custody.
The couple's dispute over alimony was no less fraught. Sue maintained that Dershowitz had substantially understated his income. In response, Dershowitz submitted two doctors' affidavits stating that he had developed hypertension; one recommended that he ''slow down from his present hectic professional pace.'' The judge decided that he should pay Sue a modest sum for five years and nothing thereafter.
The divorce seemed to liberate Dershowitz. He dated widely, becoming a familiar presence at the bar of Harvest restaurant, in Cambridge. In 1982, Dershowitz was giving a speech in Boston, and a psychologist named Carolyn Cohen came to hear him; he spotted her in the back of the room and was transfixed. They soon began living together, and were married four years later; their daughter was born in 1990. They bought a house in Cambridge and vacationed on Martha's Vineyard.
Sue Barlach moved to New York, and for several years worked as a research librarian for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. On New Year's Eve, 1983, she walked to the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge and leaped to her death.
One night in 1980, Dershowitz appeared at Harvard's Quincy House dorm, where the porn film ''Deep Throat'' was scheduled to be screened. He was prepared for controversy. The movie's female star, Linda Lovelace, had recently published a memoir, ''Ordeal,'' in which she said that her husband had forced her at gunpoint to perform in the film, and her case had become a feminist cause c(C)l¨bre. In the days before the screening, some female residents of Quincy House had objected to being ''subjected to abuse and degradation right in our own living room.''
Four years earlier, Dershowitz had represented Harry Reems, the movie's male star, who had been convicted of conspiring to transport an obscene film across state lines. Dershowitz saw the suppression of ''Deep Throat'' as a violation of free speech. He was also not convinced that Lovelace's performance was coerced. In ''The Best Defense,'' he recalls asking Reems about her claims. Reems, he wrote, ''laughed and said, 'Are you kidding? . . . She was really into it.' ''
After young women at Quincy House asked police to prevent the screening, Dershowitz maintained that a fundamental liberty was at stake. ''If there is anything more obnoxious to a civil libertarian than the punishment of speech after it has taken place, it is the issuance of a prior injunction to prevent speech in the first place,'' he wrote. Dershowitz argued in various places, including a monthly column he wrote for Penthouse, that ''radical feminists'' were using Lovelace to advance an ''all-out war against pornography.'' When a crowd of viewers and protesters gathered in front of Quincy House for the screening, he told them, ''Feminist fascists are no better than any other kinds of fascists.''
During the eighties and nineties, Dershowitz continued to advocate for civil liberties, but his cases increasingly centered on celebrity, wealth, and greed. In his book ''Letters to a Young Lawyer,'' Dershowitz identified some common traits among his most infamous clients: ''Each of these defendants has virtually unlimited quantities of some things, such as money, power or access to sex or power. They, like everyone else, also had limited quantities of other things, such as life, health, duration of career, reputation, time with family, etc. They got into trouble by putting at risk what they had limited amounts of in order to increase the quantities of those things they had unlimited amounts of.''
His first tabloid-famous client was Claus von B¼low, a Danish-British aristocrat who had been convicted of trying to kill his wife, the heiress Martha (Sunny) von B¼low. In 1982, he hired Dershowitz to appeal the conviction. Von B¼low, trained as a lawyer, had polished manners and, as a result of his marriage, a vast fortune. Describing his first visit to von B¼low's residence, Dershowitz wrote, ''Though I had passed by many of the elegant mansions along Fifth Avenue on my way to and from the museums, I had never actually been inside one.'' There was a wood-panelled elevator, art works in the hallway, and a sitting room with antique leather-bound books on the shelves. ''I felt I was in a different world,'' he wrote.
Von B¼low had been convicted of attempting to kill his wife by injecting her with insulin; afterward, she lapsed into a decades-long coma, from which she never emerged. Dershowitz, leading a team of law students and young associates, devised an appellate argument built around the idea that Sunny might have caused her own coma, through a prolonged addiction to pills and alcohol. In 1984, Dershowitz got the conviction reversed, and, in a new trial, von B¼low was acquitted.
Dershowitz wrote a book about the case, ''Reversal of Fortune,'' which was published in 1986. Nora Ephron, reviewing it for the Times, noted wryly, ''Throughout, in the venerable tradition of defense lawyers who write books about themselves, Mr. Dershowitz made brilliant decisions no one else would ever have been brave or intelligent enough even to consider.'' Dershowitz wrote a letter to the editor complaining that Ephron was deriding his work in order to help get a friend's book about the same case published. (The friend published no such book'--and, Ephron replied, wasn't even a friend.)
''Reversal of Fortune'' sold poorly, but Elon, who was involved in the film business, thought that it might find a larger audience as a movie. In 1990, it was released as a major Hollywood film, with Elon as a co-producer. Dershowitz, played by Ron Silver, is portrayed onscreen as a committed fighter for principle. ''I'm not a hired gun,'' he tells von B¼low, played by Jeremy Irons. ''I've got to feel there's some moral or constitutional issue at stake.''
Several Harvard Law School students who were in Dershowitz's criminal-law class the following spring told me that they were excited to be taught by a legal celebrity. But some of the women in the class found his lectures uncomfortable.
Dershowitz has written frequently that defending the rights of the accused in rape cases is a crucial application of the presumption of innocence. In ''Contrary to Popular Opinion,'' published in 1992, he included a list of cases in which women acknowledged having made false accusations of rape. He argued, ''It is precisely because rape is so serious a crime that falsely accusing someone of rape should be regarded as an extremely serious crime as well. Imagine yourself or a 'loved one' being falsely accused of raping a woman!''
Some students thought that he strained logic in order to defend men. ''In Dershowitz's view, men who are accused of rape, there has got to be a defense,'' one female student from the 1991 class recalled. ''He had convoluted ways of thinking about how men could misinterpret lack of consent. And it wasn't relegated to when we were speaking about a rape case. Wherever we were on the syllabus, he would bring it up.''
William Kennedy Smith, a nephew of John F. Kennedy, had recently been accused of raping a woman on a Kennedy family estate, and Dershowitz frequently spoke to the media about the case. (Smith argued that the sex was consensual, and he was later acquitted.) In class, according to a second female student, who is now the chief executive of a nonprofit, ''he would talk about Smith and the woman frolicking in the waves, ripping off their clothes.'' Midway through the semester, ''a woman raised her hand and said, essentially, O.K., enough rape examples! There are women in this class who have been raped. Can we move on to something else?''
''His hair just caught on fire,'' Murph Willcott, a male student who was in the class during the confrontation, recalled. ''He seemed to take that as a challenge to his authority, and he made it clear he was going to teach what he wanted to teach.''
Dershowitz told The New Yorker, ''There was a controversy in the class, and a very small number of students objected to the teaching.'' His intention, he said, was to play ''devil's advocate'' in order to challenge students' thinking. Dershowitz has not shied away from provocative ideas about sex and the law. In a 1997 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, he argued against statutory-rape laws, writing, ''There must be criminal sanctions against sex with very young children, but it is doubtful whether such sanctions should apply to teenagers above the age of puberty, since voluntary sex is so common in their age group.'' He suggested that fifteen was a reasonable age of consent, no matter how old the partner was. He has also argued against punishing men who hire prostitutes. In a 1985 article, in the Gainesville Sun, Dershowitz proposed that a john ''who occasionally seeks to taste the forbidden fruit of sex for hire'' should not be arrested. The nonprofit executive recalled his discussing the idea in class: ''He said, 'Prostitutes know what they're doing'--they should be prosecuted. But you shouldn't ruin the john's life over that.' If I had raised my hand to challenge that, I would have been singling myself out as'--God forbid'--a feminist.''
When people at Harvard objected to Dershowitz's views, he insisted that civil liberties were more important than political sensitivities. In April, 1991, Mary Joe Frug, a professor at New England Law, was murdered by a knife-wielding assailant near her house, in Cambridge. The following March, the Harvard Law Review published an article that she had been working on when she was killed, ''A Postmodern Feminist Legal Manifesto,'' which examined how law perpetuated the subjugation of women.
On the anniversary of Frug's murder, the Harvard Revue, a spoof overseen by editors of the Review, published a parody, ''He-Manifesto of Post-Mortem Legal Feminism.'' The author, ''Mary Doe,'' was described as the ''Rigor-Mortis Professor of Law.'' The commentary, written in the first person, ''was pieced together from scraps dictated to Eve XX, a telekinetic feminist, from beyond the grave.'' The Review held its gala banquet that night, and left copies of the Revue on guests' plates.
Liberal professors at the law school were outraged. Laurence Tribe likened the students who had written the spoof to Klansmen. He and David Kennedy signed a letter, along with a dozen other professors, decrying the law school's atmosphere of ''sexism and misogyny.'' The students apologized, but the furor did not die down. In a column for the Los Angeles Times, titled ''Harvard Witch Hunt Burns the Incorrect at the Stake,'' Dershowitz acknowledged that the parody was ''somewhat'' offensive, but argued that the response indicated a systemic problem. ''The overreaction to the spoof is a reflection of the power of women and blacks to define the content of what is politically correct and incorrect on college and law school campuses,'' he wrote. ''Radical feminists can accuse all men of being rapists, and radical African-Americans can accuse all whites of being racists, without fear of discipline or rebuke.''
Dershowitz often suggested that contention was an inevitable effect of protecting ideals. In ''Taking the Stand,'' he quoted a favorite passage from H. L. Mencken: ''The trouble about fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons of bitches: for oppressive laws are always aimed at them originally.'' In the early nineties, Dershowitz represented the Reverend Jim Bakker after he was convicted of defrauding parishioners, and the hotel baroness Leona Helmsley after she was convicted of defrauding tax authorities; he represented Michael Milken after he was convicted of financial fraud. In a number of cases, he represented prominent men who had been accused of committing violence against women. He helped get O. J. Simpson acquitted in the killing of his wife; he represented Jeffrey MacDonald, a former Green Beret and doctor convicted of killing his wife and his two daughters, and Mike Tyson, who had been convicted of raping an eighteen-year-old contestant in the Miss Black America contest.
The victim in Tyson's case, Desiree Washington, claimed that he had brought her to a hotel room in Indiana and forced her to have sex. Dershowitz maintained that Washington had consented to a one-night stand, then tried to exploit it for money and publicity. In his appeal, he argued that the prosecution had improperly excluded testimony from witnesses who saw the two ''necking'' in Tyson's limousine before they went to his hotel room. ''Desiree was hardly the naive virgin she pretended to be,'' he wrote in ''Taking the Stand.'' Instead, she was ''a sexually active young woman who hung out in nightclubs.'' In an interview with the Toronto Star, he said that after the incident Tyson had asked Washington, ''Now do you love me? Do you want to spend the night?'' Dershowitz added, ''That doesn't sound like a rapist to me.''
He was confident enough in his case to tell the Star, ''Tyson is going to be the cutting-edge case defining the law of acquaintance rape probably for the next decade.'' In the end, though, the ruling went against Tyson.
Controversial as these kinds of cases were at Harvard, they raised Dershowitz's profile, and they were lucrative. As his fees continued to rise, he and his wife bought a million-dollar house in Cambridge.
Dershowitz likes to say that he met Jeffrey Epstein through his friend Lady Rothschild'--the former Lynn Forester. In 1996, Forester (who actually had not yet married into the Rothschild dynasty) suggested that he would enjoy getting to know Epstein, an ''interesting autodidact.'' Epstein, who had grown up in Coney Island and dropped out of college, was an unimposing person, described by one friend as ''shy, weird, introverted.'' But he had luxurious houses, a private plane, and huge amounts of money to spend. He was friendly with many famous men and was drawn to intellectuals. Dershowitz, according to longtime friends, has an enduring fascination with fame, society, and wealth. Charles Fried, a distinguished jurist who taught with Dershowitz at Harvard Law School, told me, ''If you get a chance to go to fancy places with lots of rich people and fly around on private planes'--I think he probably finds that hard to resist.''
Epstein flew to Martha's Vineyard and visited Dershowitz, bringing a bottle of champagne. The two men found common interests, Dershowitz later recalled: ''We talked about science, we talked about academia, we talked about Harvard.'' Epstein, like Dershowitz, had come from a humble background. In the seventies, he had been a trader and a wealth manager at Bear Stearns, before leaving to start his own small firm. In the late eighties, he was hired as a financial adviser by the man he describes as his ''mentor'': Leslie Wexner, the founder and chairman of L Brands, a consortium of retail companies that include Victoria's Secret. Epstein has said that he refused to accept clients with less than a billion dollars in assets, but Wexner is the only client he has ever named.
In New York, Epstein lived in one of the city's largest private homes: a seven-story mansion on East Seventy-first Street, overlooking the Frick. Wexner bought the building in 1989, and within seven years Epstein had taken up residence. ''Jeffrey loved discussing how he got the mansion from Wexner for a dollar,'' a former Epstein employee told me. (A source with knowledge of the deal said that the transaction involved millions of dollars, routed through a series of holding corporations.) Epstein used his mansion to establish a salon for scientists. ''I've known a couple of billionaires in my life,'' an occasional guest at gatherings there said. ''They have their hobbies. Jeffrey's was scientists. He liked to collect them.'' He also held parties for many of New York's most powerful finance executives and politicians.
Maria Farmer, who worked at Epstein's mansion in those days, told me that there were often young girls around. An aspiring artist, she had been introduced to Epstein at a gallery downtown, where she was exhibiting her paintings. He bought one, insisting on a discount. Eventually, she agreed to work the door at his house, signing in tradesmen, decorators, and friends. Farmer said that new girls arrived every day, some of them wearing school uniforms. She recalls asking, ''Why are all these girls coming and going?'' She was told that they were auditioning for work as models for Victoria's Secret.
In September, 1996, Epstein invited Dershowitz to meet Wexner, who was throwing a party for his fifty-ninth birthday. They flew together to New Albany, Ohio, where Wexner had a three-hundred-acre estate, with a Georgian manse for himself and a large house for Epstein. The guests, Dershowitz says, included John Glenn, the senator and former astronaut, and the former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Dershowitz quickly assessed his role: ''I was Jeffrey Epstein's intellectual gift to Leslie Wexner.''
Epstein thought of himself as a patron of academia, and was particularly drawn to Harvard. In 1990, he and Wexner had helped to fund a new building for Harvard Hillel. Epstein also funded research into the history of science, but he wanted to be more than a donor; he wanted to be a member of the community. By 1998, he was serving on the advisory board of the Harvard Society for Mind, Brain, and Behavior. After Lawrence Summers became president of the university, in 2001, Epstein flew him to the Virgin Islands on his plane.
In 2003, Epstein pledged thirty million dollars to Harvard to create the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. He recruited Martin Nowak, a biologist from Princeton University, to lead it, and established offices for the program in a building in Brattle Square. On the top floor, Epstein organized discussions on science, psychology, and other subjects, inviting academics from Harvard and M.I.T. to attend. Dershowitz often participated; the two men were once photographed there, engaged in conversation, Epstein wearing a Harvard sweatshirt.
In the end, Epstein contributed only six and a half million dollars, according to the Boston Globe. But the money was understood at the time to be a first installment; Henry Rosovsky, the former dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, said that he hoped Epstein would become ''one of the leading supporters of science at Harvard.'' Dershowitz, who became a faculty affiliate of the program that Epstein funded, told a Harvard Crimson reporter that Epstein would ''benefit Harvard in a lot of ways. He's a lot more interesting than some traditional academics.'' He called Epstein ''brilliant,'' and said that when they talked, debating mathematics, genetics, law, and psychology, ''nobody finishes a sentence. We cut each other off all the time because we just get it.'' Epstein, he later said, was the only person outside his family whom he trusted to evaluate drafts of his books. His wife once asked whether the friendship would endure if Epstein suddenly filed for bankruptcy. Dershowitz replied, ''I would be as interested in him as a friend if we had hamburgers on the boardwalk in Coney Island and talked about his ideas.''
Epstein could be a loyal supporter. Early in their relationship, he contacted Orin Kramer, the founder of the hedge fund Boston Provident, and said that he wanted to invest several hundred thousand dollars from Dershowitz. It was a small sum for Kramer's fund, but Epstein, who had recently invested thirty million dollars in the fund, was a significant client. Kramer agreed to take Dershowitz's investment. The next year, after the fund sustained enormous losses, Epstein contacted him again and said, ''One of us is going to make Alan whole'--and if I have to do it, that is an outcome you will regret.'' Kramer was taken aback; Dershowitz had signed papers, which are standard among hedge-fund investors, acknowledging that his money was at significant risk. Ultimately, though, he agreed that he would personally restore Dershowitz's investment if Epstein left the remainder of the money he controlled in the fund. (Dershowitz says that he never heard that Epstein had made this call, and that he understood Kramer had restored his money because he felt a ''moral obligation.'')
On campus, Dershowitz was controversial for his increasingly hawkish views on Israel. At times, Epstein lent support against political enemies. In January, 2007, the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers learned that he was to receive the prestigious Crafoord Prize in Biosciences, and Martin Nowak invited him to celebrate the occasion with a talk at the center that Epstein had funded, followed by a reception. That April, Trivers sent Dershowitz a letter criticizing his ''rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians'' the summer before, during Israel's conflict with Hezbollah. If Dershowitz persisted in this kind of argument, he wrote, he could ''look forward to a visit from me. Nazis'--and nazi-like apologists such as yourself'--need to be confronted directly.'' Dershowitz called the Harvard police, and, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, complained that ''radical goons'' had sent him ''threatening messages.''
On May 25th, the day of the party, Trivers was chatting with students when he got an urgent message from Nowak: he was cancelling the party, under orders from someone he would not identify, because Trivers had ''called a Harvard professor a Nazi.'' (Nowak did not respond to requests for comment.) Trivers told me, ''I had invited twenty people'--there was no way to contact all of them. It was the most painful thing that had happened to me in academia.'' Trivers said that Epstein later acknowledged that he had made the call: ''He apologized for having stopped my talk. So that actually formed a bond between Jeffrey and me.''
In October, 2005, Epstein discovered that the Palm Beach police were investigating him for abusing underage girls, and he quickly called Dershowitz to ask him to co¶rdinate the defense. Dershowitz later wrote, in an article for the American Bar Association, that he hesitated, since Epstein was an ''acquaintance,'' and lawyers are cautioned against representing people they know socially. But ultimately he agreed. He has since said that Epstein's case is the only one, out of more than two hundred and fifty in his career, that he regrets taking. Dershowitz told me that he was misled about the severity of the allegations. He said that Epstein had told him that ''there were only half a dozen accusers who were under the age'' and that ''they slipped through the cracks'--they presented fake I.D.'' He added, ''When I later learned the extent of this, I was shocked.''
The investigation of Epstein had begun in March, 2005, when two worried parents went to the Palm Beach Police Department. Their fourteen-year-old daughter had got in a fight at school, and, when the assistant principal was called in, she found more than three hundred dollars in the girl's purse. The girl told detectives that she had gone to Epstein's mansion to give him a massage, after a friend told her that he would pay. He ordered her to take off her clothes, and she said she stripped to her underwear and massaged him as he masturbated and used a vibrator on her, over her underpants. She cried as she described the incident.
The girl had been recruited by a community-college student, who told detectives, in a sworn interview, that Epstein paid her to bring him girls, ''the younger the better.'' Epstein's former house manager, Juan Alessi, told police that Epstein had as many as three massages a day, and that toward the end of his employment, in 2002, the women giving them were ''younger and younger.''
According to victims, Epstein's scouts were instructed to find girls who met his physical criteria'--nymphishly thin, with no tattoos. He sent gifts to favorites: a bouquet of roses, a plane ticket, a car. He offered to pay for college, or ballet school, or courses at the Fashion Institute of Technology. In exchange, he made escalating demands. One woman, who began visiting the Palm Beach mansion when she was sixteen, said that Epstein urged her to free herself from her family and become his ''sex slave.'' He instructed her to have sex with a female assistant, whom he claimed he'd bought from her parents, in Yugoslavia, when she was in her early teens.
In New York, according to the Miami Herald, Epstein worked with a modelling agency owned by a friend to procure underage girls from abroad, providing them with housing and paying their visa fees. He had parties where girls were lent out during the evening. Some girls lived in apartments that he owned in a building on East Sixty-sixth Street. Others moved between his properties: the house in Palm Beach, a ranch in New Mexico, the mansion on the Upper East Side, and his private island. The girls weren't allowed to smoke, and their weight was monitored carefully. They were always on call.
Epstein's most steadfast companion was Ghislaine Maxwell'--a dark-haired, ebullient woman who was a lively presence in New York's socialite scene. She was the daughter of Robert Maxwell, who had built a publishing empire and a career in British politics; in 1991, he was found dead in the ocean near the Canary Islands, having apparently fallen from his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine. (Afterward, his businesses were discovered to be riddled with financial improprieties.) Ghislaine Maxwell was nine years younger than Epstein, and girls in his inner circle said that she was intensely devoted to keeping him content. Maria Farmer, who worked the door at the New York mansion, recalled that Maxwell often greeted her in the morning by saying, ''I have to get some girls today for Jeffrey.'' Farmer added, ''She was literally driving around New York City, or walking in Central Park, looking for young girls to bring back.'' (Maxwell has denied any impropriety.)
One of the women who say that they were recruited by Maxwell was Virginia Roberts Giuffre. In a series of conversations with me during the past year, she described her experience. In 2000, Giuffre, then not quite seventeen, was outside Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump's resort in Palm Beach, where she had recently got a job as a locker-room attendant. Maxwell, pulling out of the parking lot in a chauffeured car, spotted her and told the driver to stop. Giuffre was reading a book about anatomy and massage therapy. ''This nice older lady came up to me,'' she recalled. ''She had an awesome English accent, and she started conversing with me about what I was reading. She said, 'Wow, you're really interested in massage. That's so interesting! Because I actually know somebody who's looking for a travelling masseuse.' ''
Giuffre became a regular presence at Epstein's Palm Beach mansion and often went with him to New York. She learned that she was to have sex with him several times a day, sometimes along with Maxwell and other girls. After several months, her duties increased. In a court document, she stated that she was ''required to be sexually exploited by Defendant's adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen.'' She told me, ''Ghislaine would say, 'We want you to please these men in whatever way they want, I don't care how gross or kinky it is.' '' Epstein wanted her to report back about what the men liked. Giuffre told me that a video-recording system had been installed in the New York mansion, and she was convinced that Epstein was gathering information to use for leverage on the men. Doctors were on call to treat her and the other girls, and Giuffre remembered that Epstein would tell his friends that ''we were clean, we're tested regularly, we're on birth control, no need to use a condom.''
Many of the girls came from troubled backgrounds. ''These are not kids that he picked up from an Ivy League school,'' Giuffre said. ''He picked vulnerable victims.'' Giuffre told me that she was sexually abused by a family friend when she was very young. By the time she was thirteen, she was living on the streets, where she was abused by older men. Life with Epstein provided a kind of security; he paid her, got her an apartment, and took her to New Mexico, London, Paris, Tangiers, and his island. When she was dismayed by her life, she said, she ''self-medicated'' with Xanax. She was afraid of what Epstein would do if she left. ''I wasn't chained to a sink'--but they had an invisible chain for me. I know he had power,'' Giuffre said. ''He was constantly telling me, 'I own the police department'--I have friends that owe me favors.' ''
The detectives pursuing Epstein in Palm Beach believed that they had a strong case; they had interviewed numerous underage victims who seemed credible. The police chief, Michael Reiter, recalled in a deposition that when he discussed the investigation with the state's attorney, Barry Krischer, ''he said, 'Let's go for it, this is an adult male in his fifties who's had sexual contact with children.' '' But once Dershowitz got involved, Reiter said, ''the tone and tenor of the discussions of this case with Mr. Krischer changed completely.''
Detective Joseph Recarey, the lead investigator, later testified about a meeting he had attended with Dershowitz and Krischer. Dershowitz presented a selection of posts from MySpace, in which the girls recounted experiences with alcohol or marijuana. Recarey recalled that Dershowitz set forth the posts as evidence that the girls were ''not to be believed.''
Reiter said in a deposition that he and Recarey were under constant surveillance for months. Their movements were tracked and their trash was searched. Reiter also testified that Dershowitz had contracted private investigators to look into his background. (Dershowitz and Epstein deny any involvement in this.)
Dershowitz focussed especially on a young woman, identified in the police report as A.H., who had given some of the most damaging testimony against Epstein. A.H. told Recarey that she had started going to Epstein's house in 2003, when she was sixteen'--she was saving up for a camping trip to Maine, and a friend said she could make two hundred dollars fast'--and she had become his ''favorite.'' At times, Epstein photographed her naked. (He often took nude pictures of girls and displayed them around the house.) He sent roses when she starred in her high-school play. She had set a rule with Epstein that they wouldn't have intercourse, but one day he pushed her down and forcibly penetrated her. She rebuffed him'--''What are you doing?'''--but she kept coming to see him. ''You know what he promised me?'' she told Recarey. ''That I would get into N.Y.U., and he would pay for it. And I waited and I waited and I scored great on my SATs, and I got a 4.0. . . . I think that has a lot to do with the reason I stayed there so long. 'Cause my dream was like right in front of me, you know?''
Dershowitz sent Recarey a letter about A.H., containing what he described as a ''troublesome and telling illustration of her character.'' He said that he had sent two investigators to speak with her, instructing them to take notes, ''because we feared that she, an accomplished drama student, might try to mislead them as successfully as she had misled others.'' The investigators, he continued, were ''quite shocked at the overwhelming, non-stop barrage of profanity . . . from what initially appeared only to be a young woman of slight build and soft demeanor.'' He also enclosed snippets from A.H.'s presence on social media. ''She, herself, has chosen to go by the nickname of 'pimp juice' and the site goes on to detail, including photos, her apparent fascination with marijuana,'' Dershowitz wrote. (Dershowitz denies gathering information from social media, and says that the letter was composed by someone else in his office, although it bears his signature and is written in the first person.) He suggested that her claims about Epstein were motivated by a desire for money. He publicized the accusations in the Daily Mail, saying that A.H. ''had a long record of lying, theft, and blaming others for her crimes.''
In June, 2006, a grand jury called by Krischer, the state's attorney, charged Epstein with one count of soliciting prostitution'--with no mention of underage girls. There was no requirement that he register as a sex offender and no mandatory jail time. To Epstein, leniency seemed appropriate; he once likened his offense to that of ''a person who steals a bagel.''
But Reiter felt that the charges were insufficient. He requested a federal investigation, and the F.B.I., in a fourteen-month inquiry called Operation Leap Year, identified at least thirty-four victims of Epstein. Prosecutors prepared a fifty-three-page indictment, which could have resulted in a life sentence. Dershowitz argued that federal prosecution was unjustified. In July of 2007, he and another defense lawyer also wrote to prosecutors, ''As we believe we persuaded you . . . Mr. Epstein never targeted minors.'' Epstein's lawyers reportedly said that he was being unfairly pursued because of his wealth.
During the next two months, Epstein's team negotiated for a better deal with the U.S. Attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, who went on to become the Secretary of Labor in the Trump Administration. They arrived at a ''non-prosecution agreement,'' in which the federal government would throw out its indictment if Epstein pleaded guilty to two state felony charges for solicitation of prostitution, one involving a minor. The deal had two unusual facets. It contained a provision granting immunity to ''any potential co-conspirators''; and it was made without informing Epstein's accusers, a violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. (Dershowitz said, ''I was not directly involved in any decision not to inform the victims. That was not my responsibility.'')
On June 30, 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty. He was given a brief sentence: eighteen months in a county jail, with access to a lenient work-release program. Six days a week, he was allowed to leave for an office nearby, where he received visitors'--including, one deputy recently told the Associated Press, a number of young women. While Epstein was in jail, a friend asked what he was reading. ''De Profundis,'' he replied, referring to the letter Oscar Wilde wrote from prison to his lover Lord Alfred Douglas.
After thirteen months, Epstein was released. At his mansion in New York, he had a mural painted of himself in jail, telling visitors that it was a reminder that he could always go back.
Dershowitz says that after Epstein got out of jail they no longer socialized. He sometimes still visited the mansion on East Seventy-first Street, but only to offer legal advice. Epstein resumed his meetings with academics at the Brattle Square office, and, although Lawrence Summers and Henry Rosovsky attended at least once, Dershowitz did not.
The victims, too, wanted to distance themselves from Epstein. Virginia Giuffre had left his orbit in 2002, soon after she turned nineteen. Maxwell and Epstein had agreed to send her to Thailand for a three-week course in massage, and arranged for her to bring back a young girl for Epstein. There, Giuffre met an Australian man, Robert Giuffre, who was on vacation. They fell in love, and were married ten days later.
For five years, Giuffre had no contact with Epstein or Maxwell. She and her husband moved into a house outside Sydney; they had two children, and Giuffre got pregnant again. Then, one afternoon, she answered her cell phone and heard Maxwell's exuberant voice: ''Hi, how's life?'' Maxwell told her that Epstein was being investigated, and that if she refused to co¶perate with police she'd be ''taken care of.'' Giuffre told me that she declined the offer, but reassured Maxwell that she wouldn't speak to anyone; a few days later, Epstein and his lawyer called to hear her say it directly. She was frightened that they had been able to track her down. ''I wanted to start a brand-new life with my husband,'' Giuffre said. ''And when Ghislaine and Jeffrey called it was, like, Oh, my God, this isn't going to go away. That is when I started having to deal with the past.''
In September, 2008, Giuffre got a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, informing her that, as a victim of Epstein's, she was entitled to sue him for damages. Giuffre engaged a Miami lawyer named Katherine Ezell, and the following May she sued Epstein, as Jane Doe 102. Epstein eventually settled her suit, paying an undisclosed sum, but the story persisted.
In February, 2011, Giuffre heard from Sharon Churcher, a reporter for the Mail on Sunday, inquiring about her time with Epstein. Churcher asked if she had any way to substantiate her story. Giuffre had a picture of her posing with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. ''She literally was on the plane the next day,'' Giuffre told me. (The Mail on Sunday later paid her a hundred and forty thousand dollars for the use of the photo and twenty thousand for giving interviews.) Churcher was the first journalist she had ever met, and, Giuffre said, ''I felt like we were buddies.'' As Churcher showed her pictures of prominent men in Epstein's circle, Giuffre identified some of those she'd had sex with.
The next month, the Mail on Sunday published a series of articles, focussed on Prince Andrew, which brought new attention to the case. Two F.B.I. agents contacted Giuffre, saying that they wanted to reopen the investigation, and they soon came to Australia to hear her recount her experience. The story also attracted the notice of lawyers working with other Epstein victims. That spring, Giuffre got a call from Bradley Edwards, an attorney in Florida. He explained that he was working with Paul Cassell, a University of Utah law professor and a former federal judge, on a suit that might overturn the non-prosecution agreement, allowing a new inquiry into Epstein's case. He asked if she would talk about her experience.
In December, 2014, Giuffre set up a foundation, Victims Refuse Silence, to help survivors of sexual abuse and trafficking. The same month, she filed a motion to join the suit. She claimed that Epstein had abused her, and had trafficked her to powerful friends. She named three: Jean-Luc Brunel, a modelling agent; Prince Andrew; and Alan Dershowitz. She asserted that she'd had sex with Dershowitz at least six times, in Epstein's various residences, on his island, in a car, and on his plane. When I asked why she had decided to name Dershowitz, she said, ''Jeffrey got away with it, basically. And Dershowitz was one of the people who enabled that to happen.'' She went on, ''Dershowitz thinks he's a tyrant and can get away with anything. And I wanted to say, I might be as meek as a mouse, but I'm going to hold you accountable.''
After Giuffre's claims became public, Buckingham Palace ''emphatically denied'' the allegations about the Duke of York. Brunel issued a denial. Dershowitz began an urgent campaign to clear his name, which has lasted almost five years. Starting in January, 2015, he made a series of television appearances to dispute Giuffre's claims. Using some of the same language that he had employed to describe Epstein's victims a decade earlier, he called her a ''serial liar,'' a ''prostitute,'' and a ''bad mother,'' who could not be believed ''against somebody with an unscathed reputation like me.'' He insisted that Giuffre had ''made the whole thing up out of whole cloth,'' in search of ''a big payday.'' When a TV reporter in Miami questioned his characterization of Giuffre, a sex-abuse victim, as a ''prostitute,'' Dershowitz replied, ''She made her own decisions in life.''
At Harvard, thirty-eight of Dershowitz's fellow-professors signed a letter supporting his right to defend himself. Among themselves, they debated whether the allegations could be true, and whether he was employing the right strategy. ''I know a little bit about his private life'--not much,'' Charles Fried said. ''I think he's very much a family man. I was inclined to believe him. But you know the old saying'--you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Epstein is a very hard client to represent without getting smudged in that way. It can be done'--but that requires a little more distance and discipline, and also a willingness to eschew fun, than Dershowitz perhaps is willing to show.''
Fried noted that, when Giuffre made her claims about Dershowitz, ''he responded in typical Dershowitz fashion: Attack! Attack! Attack! He made her the defendant, and he attacked. And I think that probably had some effect.'' But other peers of his think that his insistence on winning the case in the court of public opinion has had disastrous results. ''He created the issue by his attacks on Virginia Giuffre,'' a longtime colleague said. ''It would have been better to let the allegation die of its own weight.''
In media appearances, Dershowitz argued that Giuffre's lawyers, Edwards and Cassell, had conspired with her to fabricate testimony that would negate Epstein's non-prosecution agreement. ''If they could find a lawyer who helped draft the agreement who also was a criminal having sex'--wow, that could help them blow up the agreement,'' he told CNN. ''So they sat down together, the three of them, these two sleazy, unprofessional, disbarrable lawyers . . . they said, 'Who would fit into this description?' . . . They and the woman got together and contrived and made this up.'' He declared, ''The end result of this case should be she should go to jail, the lawyers should be disbarred, and everybody should understand that I am completely and totally innocent.'' The case had continued, he suggested, only because Edwards and Cassell were ''prepared to lie, cheat, and steal.'' Noting that Giuffre had made her allegations in a statement, rather than in a sworn affidavit, he said that her lawyers had encouraged that choice, ''because they know if they submit a sworn affidavit they would go to jail.''
Soon afterward, Giuffre submitted a sworn affidavit. ''I have recently seen a former Harvard law professor identified as Alan Dershowitz on television calling me a liar,'' she wrote. ''He is lying by denying that he had sex with me. That man is the same man that I had sex with at least six times.'' When I talked with her, she suggested that Dershowitz had made a tactical mistake by attacking her so persistently. ''The 'bad mom' thing actually hurt the worst,'' she said. ''I love my children more than I love my own life.''
Edwards and Cassell, who strongly denied Dershowitz's claims, sued him for defamation in January, 2015, and Dershowitz countersued. Giuffre became a witness. She was represented, pro bono, by David Boies, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and by his partner, Sigrid McCawley.
Dershowitz and Boies have known each other since they were young lawyers, when Dershowitz was teaching at Harvard and Boies was at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Boies is among the highest-paid trial lawyers in America, a skillful courtroom tactician with a keen instinct for public opinion. For decades, he has cultivated a reputation as a defender of principle. He represented CBS in a major First Amendment case, prosecuted Microsoft for antitrust violations, and fought for marriage equality in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the landmark suit in California.
But Boies has also damaged his reputation by using strikingly aggressive tactics. In 2011, he agreed to represent Theranos, a startup that claimed to have pioneering blood-test technology; he later served on the company's board. When the Wall Street Journal pursued an expos(C) of Theranos's deceptive business practices, Boies vehemently warned against publishing the article, and worked to silence whistle-blowers within the company. (He maintains that he was protecting his client's intellectual property, and that he did not try to impede publication.) Boies stopped representing Theranos in the fall of 2016, but remained on the board for another half a year. In March, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the company's founder with co¶rdinating a ''massive fraud'' that misled investors and patients. In October, 2017, this magazine and the Times were investigating accusations of sexual abuse against Harvey Weinstein, who was Boies's client. Boies's firm hired Black Cube, a private intelligence company run by former Israeli military operatives, to disrupt the reporting. In the process, Black Cube operatives impersonated a source and assumed other false identities to gather information on the reporters. (Boies said that he regrets not supervising Black Cube more closely.)
In the summer of 2014, Boies, who has described courtroom proceedings as ''essentially morality plays,'' met with Giuffre and vetted her story. She was an imperfect witness. She had used drugs throughout the time she was with Epstein, and she acknowledged being hazy on dates. She initially recalled that she started working at Mar-a-Lago when she was almost sixteen, but employment records showed that she started a year later'--meaning that she had been underage for less than a year of the time in which Epstein lent her to his friends. Yet Giuffre maintained that she never forgot the faces of the men she had sex with. At thirty, she was plainspoken and direct, with a quiet self-assurance that seemed hard-won. ''She didn't try to pretend she was perfect, didn't try to give a constructed narrative,'' Boies told me.
Dershowitz presented his own difficulties as a witness. When taped depositions began, in October, 2015, he often refused to answer questions, delivering long soliloquies and furious denunciations. Even his own lawyer tried at times to restrain him. Eventually, a special master, a kind of referee, was appointed to help control the proceedings. The special master repeatedly admonished Dershowitz (''Mr. Dershowitz, I'm going to ask you to stop''), and struck some of his testimony from the record.
Dershowitz argued that he was being used as a ''stalking horse'': Boies's real goal, he said, was to use him as an example to frighten Leslie Wexner into paying a large settlement. He insisted that he had never met Giuffre, that he had never seen photographs of naked girls in Epstein's house, and that he had never seen Epstein with underage girls; if he had, he would have reported him to the authorities. Giuffre was a ''serial liar,'' he said'--nothing she said could be believed.
In cases of sexual abuse, one important legal standard is ''contemporaneous outcry,'' in which victims disclose attacks to people they trust, soon after the event. Giuffre, like many of the other women around Epstein, describes herself as isolated, and says that she was discouraged from speaking with the girls who came and went from Epstein's homes. But she has said that she talked about Dershowitz with Tony Figueroa, her boyfriend during the time she was with Epstein. Giuffre described calling him from the island and complaining of being obligated to ''have sex with O. J. Simpson's lawyer.'' In January, 2016, two attorneys working with Dershowitz tracked Figueroa down to secure an affidavit that would prempt any such testimony. ''Virginia only once mentioned Alan Dershowitz,'' it read. ''I remember she described Mr. Dershowitz as 'O. J. Simpson's lawyer.' She did not say she ever had any physical contact with him.'' Figueroa, who has been arrested several times on minor drug charges, signed the document.
Dershowitz also gathered evidence from phone calls with Rebecca Boylan, a girlhood friend of Giuffre's. In a transcript that he introduced during a deposition, he informs Boylan that he's turning on a tape recorder and asks her to ''please repeat what you told me previously.'' Boylan says that Giuffre was pursuing Dershowitz only under pressure from lawyers, and that ''I've never heard her mention you as [sic] when we were kids.'' Dershowitz says, ''I'm now turning off the tape recorder. Thank you so much.'' Giuffre said that Boylan agreed to the call after they had a falling out. Dershowitz said that Boylan contacted him, unprompted, because she was ''horrified by what was happening to me.'' (Boylan did not respond to requests for comment.)
Dershowitz told me that he wanted the case to go to trial. But, in December of 2015, he e-mailed Boies to discuss a settlement'--on the condition that Giuffre acknowledge that her accusation could have been a mistake. He wrote, ''We should be aiming at a short simple statement such as: 'The events at issue occurred approximately 15 years ago when I was a teenager. Although I believed then and continued to believe that AD was the person with whom I had sex, recent developments raise the possibility that this may be a case of mistaken identification.' ''
In April, 2016, the case settled, with no such statement. The press reported that the agreement included a financial arrangement, implying that Giuffre's team had paid. In fact, Dershowitz's insurance company had paid Giuffre's lawyers. (In negotiations, the parties had discussed a figure of nearly a million dollars, with fifty thousand going to Dershowitz, which would allow him to claim a payment. The final amount has not been disclosed.) Dershowitz also got a valuable concession: Edwards and Cassell agreed to release a statement saying that it was ''a mistake to have filed sexual misconduct accusations against Dershowitz.'' As the statement circulated in news reports, Edwards and Cassell rushed to clarify that they had committed a ''tactical'' mistake. They had attached Giuffre's filings to a case centered on Epstein, not on Dershowitz; because the filings were not directly relevant, the judge had struck them from the record. Dershowitz, in interviews, ignored this interpretation and said that he hoped that Giuffre would be investigated for perjury. The previous fifteen months, he said, had been like ''being waterboarded.''
Dershowitz was free of the lawsuit, but his public stature was diminished. He had retired from Harvard Law School in 2013, at seventy-five, and he was finding media invitations elusive. His latest book, ''Electile Dysfunction,'' attracted little interest. He made frequent appearances on Newsmax, the conservative news outlet. Dershowitz remained preoccupied with Giuffre's allegations. In late 2016, he complained to Boston magazine that, as a result of her claims, he had lost two clients and had stopped getting requests to accept honorary degrees. Before an appearance at Johns Hopkins, he was greeted by women wearing duct tape over their mouths, holding signs that read ''You Are Rape Culture.''
With the election of Trump, though, he became a regular guest on Fox News, sometimes appearing several times a week, to accuse the President's antagonists of misreading the law. After Trump fired the F.B.I. director James Comey, Dershowitz went on ''Fox & Friends'' and dismissed accusations of obstruction of justice. And when Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel Dershowitz voiced his opposition, arguing that a special counsel had too much power. Dershowitz was often introduced as an impartial arbiter'--a Democrat who happened to feel that Trump had been mistreated. It helped that he had been arguing against special counsels at least since 1998, when he wrote ''Sexual McCarthyism,'' a book protesting the investigation of Bill Clinton. He also noted frequently that he had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and insisted that his interest was nonpartisan. ''I'm going to speak out on civil liberties,'' he told Tucker Carlson, on Fox News. ''And sometimes it's going to help Trump. Sometimes it's going to hurt him.'' Civil liberties were ''more important than politics,'' he declared. Carlson replied, ''Well, God bless you.''
At times, Dershowitz's defense of Trump put him in conflict with old comrades. In April, 2018, he accused Mueller, with no apparent evidence, of complicity in one of the worst scandals in F.B.I. history, in which four men in Boston were wrongly imprisoned for murder, in 1968, based on false testimony from a mafioso who was also an informant for the Bureau. In a radio interview, Dershowitz said that Mueller, who had worked in the U.S. Attorney's Boston office, had ''kept four innocent people in prison for many years.'' The allegations echoed across the right-wing media, with statements from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and Dershowitz called for an investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general. As it happened, Nancy Gertner had been the presiding judge in the most expansive lawsuit in the case, in which representatives of the four framed men sued the federal government. On April 18th, she published an Op-Ed in the Times, noting that, in thousands of pages of court records, ''there is no evidence that the assertion is true.'' Gertner told me that she was dismayed by Dershowitz's recent appearances: ''He has squandered his position as a Harvard law professor and a civil libertarian'--for the sole purpose of being on TV.''
Some of Dershowitz's most striking statements came during Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings. When Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her at a high-school party, Dershowitz complained on ''Fox & Friends'' that other commentators were endorsing her claims without sufficient evidence. ''You've never met her!'' he said. ''Are women born with a special gene for telling the truth and men with a special gene for lying?'' In another appearance on the show, he mocked his opponents in the argument over Kavanaugh: '' 'We know he's guilty because he's a white man. She's a woman, she's a survivor'--that's the end of the inquiry.' ''
This January, Dershowitz was on Fox News, discussing the Mueller investigation, when the host asked solicitously about the accusations against him. Not long before, the Miami Herald had published a deeply reported three-part series, by Julie Brown, that offered new details on Epstein's case and the negotiations that led to his deal. Dershowitz seemed eager to answer the question. ''There are e-mails so far that are secret, but that prove not only that I was framed but who framed me,'' he said. ''Have me back on the show when the e-mails come out. Boy, it will be so interesting'--because there will be prominent people in handcuffs.''
Dershowitz has spoken frequently of having incontrovertible proof that Giuffre is lying. ''I don't think anybody in the history of law has ever been able to prove a negative so persuasively, by so much documentary evidence, as I have,'' he told The New Yorker. His evidence, though, often leads to further disputes. He has pointed to an unpublished memoir by Giuffre, saying, ''In her manuscript, she says she never had sex with me.'' She does not say this. In the memoir, Dershowitz appears in only one passage: He knocks on the door of a bedroom where Epstein has just finished having sex with Giuffre, and Epstein invites him in for a discussion. Giuffre writes, ''Alan's taste for the young and beautiful was the bias [sic] for a blooming business relationship between him and Jeffrey.''
Dershowitz also points to e-mails that Giuffre sent to the reporter Sharon Churcher, several months after their meeting, as she was drafting the manuscript. When Giuffre asked for help reconstructing the list of men she had compiled from looking at photographs, Churcher mentioned Dershowitz, writing that she and others suspected him of sexual misconduct, ''and tho no proof of that, you probably met him.'' Giuffre told me, ''I can't say what she was thinking, but I think she threw Alan into it forgetting that I had already mentioned him, even informed her of the experiences I had with him.''
When Giuffre's allegations first became public, the Daily News quoted Dershowitz as saying that he never had a massage at Epstein's home. After the story came out, he quickly asserted that he did have a massage there'--though he said that it was given by a ''fifty-year-old Russian woman named Olga,'' and added, ''I kept my underwear on.'' In any case, he says, during the years that Giuffre lived with Epstein, he never met her; his travel records demonstrate that it was impossible. I examined the records for a few hours, though I wasn't allowed to copy them. Every day had been accounted for, and in most cases there was documentation'--a credit-card bill, a public appearance. But some of the dates were supported by only a handwritten datebook entry (''New York''), or by a telephone call from a landline, which could have been made by anyone at the address. And Dershowitz lived in New York from September, 2000, to June, 2001, when Giuffre was often with Epstein at his mansion. His schedule contains notations about meetings with ''Jeffrey.''
In 2015, Dershowitz hired a security firm, led by the former F.B.I. director Louis Freeh, to look into Giuffre's claims. Dershowitz provided a one-page summary of the inquiry, which said that investigators had ''found no evidence to support the accusations.'' The summary notes that Giuffre described seeing Al Gore and Bill Clinton on Epstein's island, and said that Secret Service records showed no evidence of such a visit. (Gore and Clinton deny visiting the island, although Clinton has acknowledged taking multiple trips on Epstein's plane.) The summary points to no other specific discrepancies. When The New Yorker asked Dershowitz to see supporting documentation for the report, he said that he didn't have it; Freeh's firm did not respond to requests for substantiation. Giuffre told me that Freeh's investigators had never interviewed her.
Dershowitz has frequently argued that Giuffre never accused him until Edwards and Cassell manipulated her to do so, in 2014. (He pointed me to an F.B.I. report, detailing agents' interviews with Giuffre from 2011, and said that it proved that she didn't mention him. I obtained a copy; the majority of it is redacted, including a list of individuals Giuffre identified from photographs.) Giuffre says that she named Dershowitz in 2009, to Katherine Ezell, the attorney in Miami. Ezell declined to comment, but in depositions from the time she questions witnesses about Dershowitz's visits to Epstein's house. Dershowitz says that Ezell's supervisor, Robert Josefsberg, assured him that no one had made any accusations against him in those years. But Josefsberg told me, ''I have never told Alan Dershowitz'--or anyone else'--what this client or any other client has told me. He is wrong.''
Dershowitz has also claimed that Boies must have known that his client was lying. He cites a telephone call, apparently recorded in secret, in which he and Boies discuss the possibility of settling the defamation suit. Dershowitz allowed me to listen to it, again refusing to let me make a copy. The recording has frequent stops and starts, and in many places is unintelligible. Dershowitz emphasizes a passage in which Boies imagines a conversation with Giuffre: ''We know you believe that you had relations with Professor Dershowitz. . . . We have now reviewed the documentary evidence, and we are convinced that your belief is wrong.'' Boies told me that the conversation was hypothetical'--a way of exploring how he might persuade an aggrieved client to accept a settlement, if Dershowitz could offer definitive proof. He also showed me an e-mail that he sent to associates afterward, speculating that Dershowitz had intended to gather evidence: ''From the way he kept trying to put words in my mouth, I suspected he was taping the call.''
This March, Dershowitz sent Giuffre and Boies a message on Twitter, seemingly trying to provoke a confrontation. ''I challenge my accusers to tweet a direct accusation against me so I can sue them for defamation,'' he wrote. ''They won't because they know they made up the story for money.'' Dershowitz argued that, by not making allegations in public, Giuffre and Boies were taking advantage of a legal principle known as the litigation privilege, which forbids defamation suits based on court testimony. Journalists, however, are permitted to report on that testimony'--which can provide a canny lawyer with a safe way to release contested information to the public.
By the time Giuffre made her allegations about Dershowitz, she could no longer sue him for having abused her as a minor; the statute of limitations had expired. Dershowitz once offered during an interview to waive any statute that prevented Giuffre's claims from being tested in court'--but when her lawyers asked him to waive it to allow a civil suit, he refused. The only way for Giuffre to test her allegations in court was in a defamation suit.
In 2015, when Giuffre's allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein became public, Maxwell called them ''obvious lies.'' In September, Boies and McCawley filed a defamation suit against Maxwell on Giuffre's behalf, in the Southern District of New York. The judge, Robert Sweet, suggested that the scope of the case extended beyond Giuffre's claims about Epstein and Maxwell; it dealt, he wrote, with ''a range of allegations of sexual acts involving plaintiff and non-parties to this litigation, some famous, some not.'' Maxwell settled just before a trial was to begin, in May, 2017. The amount was undisclosed, but Giuffre reportedly received a multimillion-dollar settlement.
The allegations in the Maxwell case did not leak to the press; Judge Sweet sealed all the documents. Among them was a sworn affidavit filed by a British-South African woman named Sarah Ransome, who joined the case as Jane Doe 43, and was represented, pro bono, by Boies and McCawley.
I recently spoke with Ransome, who is now thirty-four. She is voluble'--''I'm South African, I'm not a wallflower'''--but, she says, still deeply affected by her experience with Epstein. ''The trauma I have gone through in the last ten years I wouldn't even wish on Jeffrey and Ghislaine,'' she said.
Ransome was introduced to Epstein in September, 2006, when she was twenty-two. She had gone through a painful breakup, and had dropped out of college in Edinburgh, because she couldn't afford the tuition. She decided to spend most of her remaining money on a flight to New York. ''At twenty-two, you're so na¯ve,'' she said. ''But I was in New York to make friends, to get over heartbreak, to try to get an education. You know, it's the land of dreams.'' Soon after she arrived, a new friend introduced her to Epstein, describing him as a philanthropist who used his wealth and his connections to help poor young women'--if they gave him massages.
As the massages turned sexual, Ransome said, she was given the use of a huge apartment in Epstein's building on the Upper East Side, along with a cell phone, a car-service account, and money for living expenses. Ransome said that she dreamed of studying at the Fashion Institute of Technology, and that Epstein and Maxwell promised to arrange her admission. For Ransome, as for the other women, these benefits depended on her having sex with Epstein and with his friends. In her affidavit, she named Dershowitz as one of those friends.
Ransome was another imperfect witness. In the fall of 2016, she had suggested to the New York Post that she had sex tapes of half a dozen prominent people, including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump'--but couldn't provide the tapes when asked. (Ransome told me that she had invented the tapes to draw attention to Epstein's behavior, and to make him believe that she had ''evidence that would come out if he harmed me.'') In 2017, Boies represented Ransome in a lawsuit against Epstein for sex trafficking; last December, Epstein paid an undisclosed sum to settle. In a hearing, Maxwell's lawyer mentioned Ransome's allegation about Dershowitz, and the comment leaked to the press. Protected by the litigation privilege, it was reported in the Daily News, under the headline ''Second woman claims billionaire perv Jeffrey Epstein 'directed' her to have sex with Alan Dershowitz.''
Dershowitz denied that he had ever met Ransome. ''The villain here is David Boies, who is exploiting a crazy woman in order to get revenge against me,'' he told the Daily News. He explained to me that he had filed charges against Boies and McCawley with the bar associations of New York, Florida, and Washington, D.C., registering a range of complaints. In them, Dershowitz again accused Boies and his associates of plotting extortion and encouraging perjury. He also argued that, in early 2015, a partner in Boies's firm had discussed representing him and had accepted a document outlining his strategy'--even though the firm was already representing Giuffre. (Boies denied any impropriety, noting that the firm had more than three hundred lawyers and that his representation of Giuffre was closely held at the time.)
Dershowitz claimed that Boies had advanced Ransome's case in order to force him to abandon his complaints. ''He threatened me that unless I withdrew the bar charges he would find somebody else to accuse me,'' he said. But Boies had agreed to represent Ransome in January, 2017, seven months before Dershowitz filed the charges. In any case, the judgments in all the bar complaints went against Dershowitz. In New York, the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District informed Boies's firm that ''the Committee determined that there was no breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct on your part. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.''
On July 6th, Epstein landed his private jet at Teterboro Airport, in New Jersey, returning from a trip to France. When he emerged from the plane, law-enforcement agents were waiting. He was taken into federal custody'--part of an effort, led by the Southern District of New York, to revive his prosecution, based on new charges. That day, investigators broke open the door of his mansion on East Seventy-first Street and searched the interior. In a safe, they discovered a trove of pictures of naked young women. There were also piles of cash and an expired passport that contained Epstein's photograph alongside an assumed name, with the country of residency listed as Saudi Arabia.
As reports of Epstein's arrest spread, more than a dozen women came forward to say that he had abused them, too. There was new scrutiny of the non-prosecution agreement, which Alexander Acosta had granted in 2008. Amid public outrage, Acosta resigned as Secretary of Labor. Speaking in his own defense, he argued that the agreement had been more stringent than what Barry Krischer, the state's attorney, had recommended.
This was a backhanded tribute to Dershowitz and Epstein's other defenders: without their legal efforts, Krischer would probably have recommended more significant charges. But Dershowitz was distancing himself from the case. In March, when reporters outside a court hearing asked him if he was still in touch with Epstein, he'd said, ''You never stop being someone's lawyer. I'll always take his call.'' Now he told NPR, ''I have no relationship with him.''
On April 16th, Giuffre sued Dershowitz for defamation. Dershowitz said that he was eager for the fight, telling the Daily News, ''This is the opportunity I've been looking for.'' In June, however, he filed a motion to dismiss Giuffre's complaint, along with a motion to disqualify Boies's firm from representing her. In mid-July, he went on Laura Ingraham's show, on Fox News, to assail Boies. ''I have had sex with one woman'''--his wife'--''since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. I challenged David Boies to say under oath that he's only had sex with one woman during that same period of time,'' Dershowitz said. ''He has an abnormal amount of chutzpah to attack me and challenge my perfect, perfect sex life during the relevant period of time.''
Dershowitz told me, ''I have to be able to continue to defend myself in the court of public opinion. I need to be able to defend myself on television, to publicly declare the truth.'' But some media outlets no longer welcomed him. On ''The View,'' the co-host Meghan McCain said, ''I also don't think people like Alan Dershowitz should be on TV right now, while they're being accused of being involved. A lot of people have a lot to answer for.''
Dershowitz responded with a column on Newsmax: ''In 2008, according to the New York Times, Meghan McCain's own father'--the late great Senator John McCain'--was accused of sexual misconduct for an alleged relationship with a lobbyist 30 years his junior. I do not recall Meghan McCain calling for her father to be barred from television.'' In fact, the Times had reported no accusation of sexual misconduct'--just McCain aides' unconfirmed speculation about an affair. During the spring and summer, as Dershowitz pressed his position, even some old allies were taken aback by his rhetoric. At one point, Epstein reacted to his statements in the news by e-mailing a friend, ''Dershowitz is out of his mind.''
If the case goes to court, it may reveal substantial new information. Both Dershowitz and Giuffre will be able to subpoena witnesses; they will also face cross-examination. Both sides have petitioned to unseal documents from Ghislaine Maxwell's defamation suit, including Giuffre's manuscript and Ransome's e-mails to the Post. When I asked Giuffre about returning to court, she sounded almost relieved. ''He's been challenging me for years'--'Come say it in public, come say it in public.' And I said, 'You know what? Challenge accepted,' '' she said. ''I know he's going to put up a good fight. But, at the end of it, I know we're gonna win. We've got the truth on our side.'' Dershowitz was equally assured. ''I will proclaim my absolute innocence until the day I die,'' he told me. ''I have asked the F.B.I. to attend the trial, because it's a hundred per cent certain that perjury will be committed.'' He went on, ''This will be the central part of my defense'--that this was a frameup against me. I'm actually writing a book, 'Suitable for Framing.' '' '...
Greenback (1860s money) - Wikipedia
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:39
Image of one dollar "Greenback", first issued in 1862Greenbacks were paper currency (printed in green on the back) issued by the United States during the American Civil War. They were in two forms: Demand Notes, issued in 1861''1862, and United States Notes issued in 1862''1865. They were legal tender by law, but were not backed by gold or silver, only the credibility of the U.S. government.[1]
History [ edit ] Pre-Civil War period [ edit ] Before the Civil War, the only money issued by the United States was gold and silver coins, and only such coins ("specie") were legal tender; that is, payment in that form had to be accepted.
Paper currency in the form of banknotes was issued by privately owned banks; the notes being redeemable for specie at the bank's office. They were not legal tender. Such notes had value only if the bank could be counted on to redeem them. If a bank failed, its notes became worthless.
National governments had in the past issued paper money and made it legal tender, but usually with at least the pretense that the notes would be redeemable for specie at some time. Continental dollars issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution had no such backing. They soon became almost worthless largely due to massive British counterfeiting of them as an act of war.[2]
During the early 19th century, the U.S. issued interest-bearing Treasury Notes in various denominations. These were not legal tender, but could be used to pay customs duties.
Civil War [ edit ] When President Abraham Lincoln assumed office, he understood the importance of money for the war effort. With this in mind, Lincoln appointed Salmon P. Chase as Secretary of the Treasury. As Secretary, Chase alone was authorized to act on all matters pertaining to the country's finances. Chase, like almost everyone at the time, underestimated the duration and cost of the war.[3] Within a few months it was clear that the costs of the war would run far beyond the government's limited income from tariffs and excises.
The Lincoln Administration sought loans from major banks, mostly in New York City. The banks demanded very high interest rates of 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused to borrow on such terms and called for other solutions.[4]
Demand Notes [ edit ] The United States
Demand Note was authorized by Congress on 17 July 1861 and issued on 10 August 1861.
This was the first measure to finance the war. In July 1861, Congress authorized $50,000,000 in Demand Notes. They bore no interest, but could be redeemed for specie "on demand". They were not legal tender (before March 1862), but like Treasury Notes could be used to pay customs duties.
Unlike private and state banknotes, Demand Notes were printed on both sides. The reverse side was printed in green ink, and so the Demand Notes were dubbed "greenbacks". Initially they were discounted relative to gold, but being fully redeemable in gold were soon at par. In December 1861, the government had to suspend redemption, and they declined. Chase authorized paying interest on Demand Notes, which sustained their value.
The later United States Notes could not be used to pay customs duties or interest on the public debt, only gold and Demand Notes could be used for those. Importers therefore continued to use Demand Notes in place of gold. In March 1862, Demand Notes were made legal tender.
As Demand Notes were used to pay duties, they were taken out of circulation. By mid-1863, about 95% of them were gone.
United States Notes [ edit ] The amount of Demand Notes issued was far insufficient to meet the war expenses of the government, but even so was not supportable.
The solution came from Colonel "Dick" Taylor, an Illinois businessman serving as a volunteer officer. Taylor met with Lincoln in January 1862, and suggested issuing unbacked paper money. Taylor said "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also. If you make them full legal tender... they will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given the express right by the Constitution."[4]
Issuing unbacked paper money was not an idea Lincoln really liked, but soon there was mounting pressure in Congress to do something. The government could either print its own money or go into deep perpetual debt to foreign creditors. So the President was quick to endorse Taylor's proposal.[5] On February 25, 1862, Congress passed the first Legal Tender Act, which authorized the issuance of $150 million in United States Notes.[6]
The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[4][7]
Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U.S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U.S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee. ' "[8]
California and Oregon defied the Legal Tender Act. Gold was more available on the West Coast and merchants in those states did not want to accept greenbacks (U.S. Notes) at face value. They blacklisted people who tried to use them at face value. California banks would not accept greenbacks for deposit and the state would not accept them for payment of taxes. Both states ruled that greenbacks were a violation of their state constitutions.[8]
As the government issued hundreds of millions in greenbacks, the value of the greenback against gold declined. But though the decline was substantial, it was nothing like the collapse of the Continental dollar.
In 1862, the greenback declined against gold until by December gold was at a 29% premium. By spring of 1863 the greenback declined further, to 152 against 100 dollars in gold. However, after the Union victory at Gettysburg the greenback recovered to 131 dollars to 100 in gold. In 1864 it declined again as Grant was making little progress against Lee who held strong in Richmond throughout most of the war. The Greenback's low point came in July of that year: 258 greenbacks equal to 100 gold. When the war ended in April 1865 the greenback made another remarkable recovery to 150.[9] The recovery began when Congress limited the total issue of greenback dollars to $450 million. The greenbacks rose in value until December 1878, when they became on par with gold. Greenbacks from thereon became freely convertible into gold.[10]
Complete denomination set of 1862''1863 United States Notes (Greenbacks) [ edit ] Greenback issue (series 1862''63)IssueDate[11]DenominationsFirst10 March 1862$5 to $1,000Second1 August 1862$1 & $2Third10 March 1863$5 to $1,000Greenback payment obligation (series 1862''63)ObligationObligation text[11]FirstThis note is a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, and is exchangeable for U.S. six per cent twenty year bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years.SecondThis note is a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, and is receivable in payment of all loans made to the United States.See also [ edit ] Early American currencyPromissory note [ edit ] ^ Names in parentheses are either the engravers or artists responsible for the concept and/or initial design. ^ The first number represents the total population for the design type, the second number (in parentheses) is the total number of notes known for the variety illustrated in the table. ^ The $1 and $2 denominations were only issued with the Second obligation on the reverse. All other denominations were issued with both payment obligations.[12] References [ edit ] ^ Brands, 2011, p. 1 ^ Zarlenga, S. (2002). The Lost Science of Money (pp. 377-387). Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute. ^ Mitchell, 1903, p.3 ^ a b c Brown, Ellen (April 8, 2009). "Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy". webofdebt.com . Retrieved 9 July 2013 . ^ Brown, Simpson, 2012, p. 85 ^ Brands, 2011, p. 12 ^ O'Sullivan, Arthur; Sheffrin, Steven M. (2003). Economics: Principles in Action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 552. ISBN 0-13-063085-3. ^ a b Philip Leigh "Lee's Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies" (Yardley, Penna.: Westholme Publishing, 2014), 50 ^ Brands, 2011, p. 13 ^ Zarlenga, S. (2002). The Lost Science of Money (pp. 460-463). Valatie, NY: American Monetary Institute. ^ a b Friedberg & Friedberg, 2013, p. 37. ^ Friedberg, Arthur L. & Ira S., pp. 37''56. ^ Hessler, 2004, p. 24. ^ Hessler, 2004, p. 20. ^ Hessler, 2004, p. 22. ^ Hessler, 2004, p. 27. ^ Hessler, 2004, p. 28. The claim in footnote 4 by Ellen Brown that Congress is given the express right to issue legal tender paper money is wrong. There is no such "right," or more properly, power.
Bibliography [ edit ] Brands, H. W. (2011). Greenback Planet: How the Dollar Conquered the World and Threatened Civilization as We Know It. University of Texas Press. p. 139. , Book (par view)Emery, Sarah E. V. (1894). Seven Financial Conspiracies which Have Enslaved the American People. Lansing, MI: Robert Smith & Co. ebook
Hessler, Gene (2004). U.S. Essay, Proof and Specimen Notes (2 ed.). BNR Press. ISBN 0-931960-62-2. Mitchell, Wesley Clair (1903). A history of the greenbacks: with special reference to the economic consequences of their issue: 1862''65. The University of Chicago Press. p. 577. , E-bookLeigh, Philip (2014). Lee's Lost Dispatch and Other Civil War Controversies. Yardley, Penna.: Westholme. p. 214. ,Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson (1904). Abraham Lincoln, Volume 1. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs. p. 389. , E-book'--'-- (1907). Jay Cooke: Financier of the Civil War, Volume I. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Company. p. 658. , E-book, vol.I'--'-- (1907). Jay Cooke: Financier of the Civil War, Volume II. Philadelphia: George W. Jacobs & Company. p. 590. , E-book, vol.IISpaulding, Elbridge Gerry (1875). Legal Tender Act. Baker, Jones & Company, printers and binders. p. 104. , E-book"Greenbacks First Legal Tender Act, February 25, 1862" . Retrieved 9 July 2013 . Further reading [ edit ] Brown, Ellen Hodgson; Simpson, Reed (2012). Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Third Millennium Press. p. 544. ISBN 0983330859. , BookAlexander, Jesse P. (1875). Money for All: Or, The Economic Science of Money. Ramsey, Millett & Hudson. p. 230. , E-bookBronson, Henry (1877). The Money Problem: Inquiries Concerning the Nature and Office of Money,. Hoggson & Robinson, printers. p. 94. , E-bookBye, John O. (1963). Lincoln's greenback currency. University of Michigan. p. 88. , Book (snippet view)Noll, Franklin, "The United States Monopolization of Bank Note Production: Politics, Government, and the Greenback, 1862''1878," American Nineteenth Century History, 13 (March 2012), 15''43.
Lucie Bland | Is Input Addiction Sabotaging Your Academic Productivity?
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 23:34
26 Jun Is Input Addiction Sabotaging Your Academic Productivity?The topic of input addiction has been on my mind for a while, probably because I've subscribed to too many Youtube channels and podcasts.
I thought I was doing well with the whole phone/social media addiction thing, but looking more closely at my habits, I had to have a serious chat with myself to address some outstanding issues.
What is input addiction? Input addiction is defined as being addicted to things coming in, usually information. We fill the empty void inside of us with information '' and it feels so good!
In today's society, it's rare to see someone on the train without a phone or a book. Research shows that people check their phones on average every 10 minutes.
Input addiction is now socially and culturally accepted. Addiction might be a strong word, but it is appropriate for long-standing habits that affect our social, physical, emotional, or financial life.
If you feel like your attention is constantly scattered and you haven't focused on a single thing since 1999, you probably have some form of input addiction.
Input addiction can include:
''
Constantly checking phone alerts
''
Checking email without a real intent to process them (''double handling'')
''
Always listening to podcasts/videos on the train
''
Multitasking (e.g. checking emails/reading during a meeting)
These behaviors tend to be repetitive, stimulus-driven, and have no clear purpose.
There is a difference between checking e-mail for 30 minutes to respond to queries and clear your inbox; checking for the sake of ''checking'' is a different thing.
What's worse, habits tend to reinforce themselves in our plastic neural circuitry. We long to keep those neural pathways activated.
Being constantly ''on alert'' (phone alerts are called as such for a reason) can prime our physiology into a fight-or-flight mode (rather than a rest-and-digest mode). This means that, over the long term, we could be increasing our stress burden at the detriment of our health.
That's why establishing good habits is such a big win. But when it comes to bad habits, they can be difficult to root out.
How is input addiction affecting you? There are three main ways input addiction can affect research outputs: by setting our brains in a reactive rather than creative mode, by providing distractions, and by limiting human connections.
Input addiction can be detrimental to research output. That is because research is an output, not an input. Research is, as its essence, innovative and creative.
Creativity has four main phases according to psychology researchers: preparation, incubation, illumination, and execution. Note that there is an incubation phase in there '' when we deliberately let our brains relax so they can make new mental associations.
Many of us have had the experience of having great ideas in the shower or when we're about to fall asleep '' as we loosen the grip on our minds and get to the holy grail of free attention, miracles occur.
Second, distraction is the enemy of any productive output. Did you know that multi-tasking increases task completion times by 50%? (close those internet tabs right away!)
The brain tends to focus on incomplete tasks (the Zeigarnik effect) so any email that has been viewed but not handled adds to your mental load.
In addition to affecting our creativity and productivity, input addiction can also affect our ability to connect with others. How many people have you seen playing around on their phone during conferences when they could have been making valuable connections? (hey, that's been me too!)
Challenging input addiction Are you ready to experience boredom? Are you ready to take on some discomfort?
Then join me in a first step to limit addiction!
Here is a list of ideas to help you challenge input addiction '' I'm sure you can think of many more.
Limit interactions with your phone
'' My number one tip here is to switch your phone to airplane mode or switch it off at night (I try to do this at around 7 pm). If you fear that loved ones may call you with an emergency, you can set them up so that their calls can come through.
'' Remove all social media and alerts of your phone. Make it as difficult as possible for you to access emails on your phone (such as deleting the Gmail app).
''
Do social media-free weekends. They feel so good!
''
Try to leave your phone at home when possible, such as when going to the gym.
''
Make a point of being bored some of the day (e.g. in the waiting room at the doctor)
Limit input addiction at work
''
Full-screen mode. I've been told that Mac users can use Command Option H to change to full-screen mode. It's F11 on my laptop, but it seems to vary with different versions of Windows. In Word, press Alt+V together and then U.
'' Don't keep your email open when you're working and deactivate all email and internal messaging notifications.
''
Create an end-of-the-day routine. This can involve shutting down all the open tabs in your browser and, if appropriate, shutting down your laptop ( see my blog post on 5 simple steps to shut down at the end of the workday ).
'' Don't bring your phone to meetings. If you're feeling hardcore, don't bring your laptop either. And definitely do not do emails or other tasks during a meeting '' it's rude!
''
Read with a purpose (don't browse mindlessly). If you're reading the literature, read with a purpose or question in mind, which you can jot down in your notebook.
My favorite tip of all is to spend time in nature. Spending time in nature has myriad benefits for our physical and mental health. The negative ions found at the beach and many natural places reduce our stress levels and improve our health and immunity. What's not to like?
As you can see, most techniques to address input addiction revolve either reducing stimuli (e.g. from our phones) or bringing more intention into our tasks, such as attending meetings, responding to emails, reading, and writing.
Which technique can you start applying today? I'm going to spend more time in full-screen mode '' including when writing blog posts!
'Dilbert' Creator Scott Adams Tries to Sell Interviews With Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Survivors
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 18:43
As police in Gilroy, California, processed the crime scene at a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival on Sunday that left three people dead, Dilbert comic strip creator Scott Adams decided to make some money off the tragedy.
In a message to his more than 300,000 Twitter followers, Adams urged any Gilroy shooting witnesses to make an account on an app he co-founded that allows experts to make money by discussing issues over video calls. By signing up for the app, ''Interface by WhenHub,'' Adams claimed, witnesses could ''set your price'' and make money by selling interviews about the mass murder, while Adams' company took a 20 percent cut.
''If you were a witness to the #GilroyGarlicFestivalshooting please sign on to Interface by WhenHub (free app) and you can set your price to take calls,'' Adams tweeted. ''Use keyword Gilroy.''
Adams soon faced an online backlash, with Republican pollster Frank Luntz and others accusing Adams, who has rebranded himself as pro-Trump internet personality, of using the shooting to promote his app.
No actual Gilroy survivors appear to have taken Adams up on his offer. As of this writing, the only avowed ''expert'' for the search term ''Gilroy'' available on the site appears to be a troll who lists his other topics as ''Scott Adams being vile'' and ''journalism basics.'' He's willing to talk about any of those issues for $50 an hour.
During a Periscope livestream that Adams posted Monday, he announced that his cut of any payments would have been 20 percent, but claimed that he expected that most witnesses using the WhenHub app would set the price at zero, with his potential earnings only ''in the 5 to 10 dollar range.'' That appears to contradict Adams's earlier tweet, in which he encouraged shooting survivors to ''set your price.''
Adams didn't respond to a request for an interview, and instead mocked the Daily Beast's attempt to reach out to him on Twitter.
Noting that he had been contacted by The Daily Beast, Adams exhorted his Twitter followers: ''Let's talk about the fake outrage trolls.''
''That's really cynical'--really, really cynical,'' Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism, told The Daily Beast. ''I imagine there are some people who are going to do it, but I also imagine news media are going to use good old-fashioned methods to find these witnesses, just like they would for any other story.''
Dalglish added: ''There's a reason why media cover these events, and as a reader and a viewer and a citizen, I'm disturbed by the thought that presumably this guy is going to make money. If I'm a witness, my goal in life is not going to be to make money off of this horrible, horrible incident. That doesn't make anybody look good, does it? And I used to like that cartoon.''
During his Periscope video, Adams claimed his many of his critics on social media were just taking part in an organized campaign against him, saying that critics frequently calling him a ''grifter'' and a ''ghoul'' amounted to proof that his detractors were acting in concert.
''What this is about is Trump,'' said Adams, who has frequently supported and defended President Donald Trump on social media and elsewhere. ''The pushback I'm getting is fueled by the intense hatred of Trump and of anybody who's ever said anything good about Trump.''
Adams, who describes himself as a WhenHub's chief strategy officer, did concede that he was using the shooting to promote his app.
''For those of you who are saying, 'Scott, you grifter, you're using this to get attention for your app,''' Adams said. ''Well, obviously, yes.''
This isn't Adams's first bizarre attempt to promote WhenHub, which he envisioned in 2018 as a place where experts could share advice from topics ranging from ''buying a horse'' to ''shy bladder recovery methods.'' After a helicopter pilot was killed in June after his helicopter crashed into a New York City building, Adams offered $500 to any witness who would talk about the crash on his app. None appeared to have taken the offer.
Anyone who signed up to discuss the shooting could also have been paid in the WHEN Token, a cryptocurrency Adams has used to fund his app that is currently worth slightly more than one cent. Shortly before Adams announced WhenHub's cryptocurrency aspect in 2017, Dilbert watchers noticed that the characters in the comic, who are typically suspicious of poorly understood business crazes like blockchain, were suddenly running straightforward explanations of blockchain in an apparent effort to drum up interest in Adams's cryptocurrency.
Dalglish, meanwhile, said beyond the ugly spectacle of someone trying to make money from tragedy, Adams' pitch raises ethical issues.
''If you consider him [Scott Adams] to be a journalist, and we consider most cartoonists to be journalists, there is an ethical problem here,'' she said. ''It's an ethical standard that we don't pay sources'--at least in this country'--and that's what's happening here. Sources are being paid.''
Dalglish predicted that Adams' app and his promoting it for coverage of a mass shooting will be a case study taught this fall in her journalism school's ethics classes.
Adams, for his part, responded defiantly to his critics.
''I do plan to do the same thing again in the future,'' he said on his Periscope livestream, ''Now if it's a mass shooting, I might think twice.''
And then he laughed.
Dear Jack, Twitter is broken - Lon Baker - Medium
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:53
Several weeks ago, I was following the trending topic around the violence in Portland. Like a lot of users, I was sucked in by graphic images, videos, and the increasingly irrational responses flying in every direction on Twitter.
As I followed the topic, I occasionally tossed in my own opinion, like the following'...
While following the topic, I saw some abusive tweets, used the tools Twitter provides to report them and I moved on.
A few days passed, then suddenly all of my Twitter accounts, (personal, professional, and a third I use only for cycling), received suspension notices.
I've never received a warning in the 11 years I had been on Twitter, so this was surprising. I appealed the suspensions and asked for an explanation on what caused this to happen.
To date, Twitter has never responded to any of my inquiries. In the absence of any explanation from Twitter, I've come up with a few theories of what happened.
Algorithms run amokThe job of content review and moderation is massive and far beyond anything Twitter can do manually. So, there is a chance an automated process suspended all my accounts.
I discount this for the following reason '-- I've followed the suspension appeal process and not received any response after nearly four weeks. Also, if Jack's recent statements (here) are accurate, I should have received a warning about any offensive tweets I posted, been asked to take them down or received a 7-day suspension.
If this had been the case I'm sure I would have received an ''oops, sorry'' and everyone would have moved one. No harm, no foul.
Abuse of Twitter Reporting ProcessA group of users decided to report me in a way that results in this type of account suspension.
The behavior of the users on the topic was aggressive and angry at anyone in disagreement with their views. It is predictable that the reporting mechanism is utilized to target other users.
This assumes Twitter has checks and balances to ensure objectivity and fairness when internal processes flag an account for suspension '-- that the moderator's beliefs or politics do not influence the appeals process.
It's just broken?The last possibility is that Twitter's processes are just fundamentally broken or unscalable.
It is possible my suspension appeals are sitting in a ticket queue that may never be addressed or are automatically closed and forgotten.
Why is Twitter screwed?Jack and the Twitter team's decision to moderate content and user behavior inevitably leads to what happened to my accounts. On an individual level, it appears relatively insignificant, but at scale, will affect society in unpredictable ways.
Most elected officials, aspiring candidates, political organizations, and even government offices have an official Twitter account. In many cases, these accounts are a primary means for communicating with citizens, the media, and even foreign governments.
Twitter is unique in that any citizen can directly communicate with the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House or their own elected officials. There are few, if any, really effective means to interact directly with our own elected officials at a national level.
Courts have ruled that elected officials can not block citizens with critical opinions on Twitter. What is to stop the courts from deciding Twitter can not prevent citizens from interacting with the accounts of elected officials or government offices?
If my experience is as suspected, abuse of the reporting process, how long before this becomes a wide-spread tactic? Suppress the oppositions user base online '-- digital gerrymandering.
Revisiting Jack's recent interviews, in light of my experience, leads to the conclusion that Twitter will never be able to objectively and accurately moderate content.
Of note, all the tweets I reported were found to have violated Twitter's rules, and all of the users are still active on Twitter as I write this.
As I publish this, Twitter Support as informed me about one of my accounts.
@Jack '-- as a member of Twitter in good standing for over a decade before this incident, I did not experience any of the following commitments'...none.
Is Twitter screwed? I have no doubt that it.
The Encryption Debate Is Over - Dead At The Hands Of Facebook
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 16:33
The encryption debate was back in the news this week as Attorney General William Barr railed against ''warrant-proof'' encryption that he argued protects criminals and terrorists, continuing the same arguments that have been made for almost 30 years. As the cybersecurity community dismissed Barr's demands and outlined the myriad ways in which such backdoors could be exploited by criminals, the sad reality that most of the cybersecurity community has missed is that the encryption debate is already over '' Facebook ended it earlier this year.
The encryption debate is typically framed around the concept of an impenetrable link connecting two services whose communications the government wishes to monitor. The reality, of course, is that the security of that encryption link is entirely separate from the security of the devices it connects. The ability of encryption to shield a user's communications rests upon the assumption that the sender and recipient's devices are themselves secure, with the encrypted channel the only weak point.
After all, if either user's device is compromised, unbreakable encryption is of little relevance.
This is why surveillance operations typically focus on compromising end devices, bypassing the encryption debate entirely. If a user's cleartext keystrokes and screen captures can be streamed off their device in real-time, it matters little that they are eventually encrypted for transmission elsewhere.
Historically, compromising end devices was an expensive and complex process, powered by a cat-and-mouse game with hardware manufacturers and software vendors to find vulnerabilities that could be used to remotely install them and acquire the necessary device privileges.
Such efforts are hard to scale and the more devices that are compromised, the more likely the vulnerability is to be discovered and patched.
To solve this problem, Facebook announced earlier this year preliminary results from its efforts to move a global mass surveillance infrastructure directly onto users' devices where it can bypass the protections of end-to-end encryption.
In Facebook's vision, the actual end-to-end encryption client itself such as WhatsApp will include embedded content moderation and blacklist filtering algorithms. These algorithms will be continually updated from a central cloud service, but will run locally on the user's device, scanning each cleartext message before it is sent and each encrypted message after it is decrypted.
The company even noted that when it detects violations it will need to quietly stream a copy of the formerly encrypted content back to its central servers to analyze further, even if the user objects, acting as true wiretapping service.
Facebook's model entirely bypasses the encryption debate by globalizing the current practice of compromising devices by building those encryption bypasses directly into the communications clients themselves and deploying what amounts to machine-based wiretaps to billions of users at once.
Asked the current status of this work and when it might be deployed in the production version of WhatsApp, a company spokesperson declined to comment.
Of course, Facebook's efforts apply only to its own encryption clients, leaving criminals and terrorists to turn to other clients like Signal or their own bespoke clients they control the source code of.
The problem is that if Facebook's model succeeds, it will only be a matter of time before device manufacturers and mobile operating system developers embed similar tools directly into devices themselves, making them impossible to escape. Embedding content scanning tools directly into phones would make it possible to scan all apps, including ones like Signal, effectively ending the era of encrypted communications.
Governments would soon use lawful court orders to require companies to build in custom filters of content they are concerned about and automatically notify them of violations, including sending a copy of the offending content.
Rather than grappling with how to defeat encryption, governments will simply be able to harness social media companies to perform their mass surveillance for them, sending them real-time alerts and copies of the decrypted content.
While some phone manufacturers could distinguish themselves by offering bespoke phones with custom operating systems that do not include such scanning, such devices are likely to be rare, used only by those who are willing to go to great lengths to escape government scrutiny and thus automatically drawing substantial attention to themselves. Over time, it is likely that many governments will simply pass laws banning the possession and use of such devices, much as many jurisdictions ban devices that help speeders escape traffic tickets.
Putting this all together, the sad reality of the encryption debate is that after 30 years it is finally over: dead at the hands of Facebook. If the company's new on-device content moderation succeeds it will usher in the end of consumer end-to-end encryption and create a framework for governments to outsource their mass surveillance directly to social media companies, completely bypassing encryption.
In the end, encryption's days are numbered and the world has Facebook to thank.
BREAKING: MH17 Evidence-Tampering Exposed - Cover-Ups, Hiding Records, False Testimony, & FBI seizures - Fort Russ
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:20
By John Helmer '' A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes; and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US, and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time.
The sources of the breakthrough are Malaysian '' Prime Minister of Malaysia Mohamad Mahathir; Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the officer in charge of the MH17 investigation for the Prime Minister's Department and Malaysia's National Security Council following the crash on July 17, 2014; and a forensic analysis by Malaysia's OG IT Forensic Services of Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) telephone tapes which Dutch prosecutors have announced as genuine.
The 298 casualties of MH17 included 192 Dutch; 44 Malaysians; 27 Australians; 15 Indonesians. The nationality counts vary because the airline manifest does not identify dual nationals of Australia, the UK, and the US.
The new film throws the full weight of the Malaysian Government, one of the five members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), against the published findings and the recent indictment of Russian suspects reported by the Dutch officials in charge of the JIT; in addition to Malaysia and The Netherlands, the members of the JIT are Australia, Ukraine, and Belgium. Malaysia's exclusion from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium's inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never been explained.
The film reveals the Malaysian Government's evidence for judging the JIT's witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a Malaysian or other national or international court.
For the first time also, the Malaysian Government reveals how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist movements in the Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.
The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government's opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27.
The 28-minute documentary by Max van der Werff and Yana Yerlashova has just been released. Yerlashova was the film director and co-producer with van der Werff and Ahmed Rifazal. Vitaly Biryaukov directed the photography. Watch it in full here.
The full interview with Prime Minister Mahathir was released in advance; it can be viewed and read here.
Mahathir reveals why the US, Dutch and Australian governments attempted to exclude Malaysia from membership of the JIT in the first months of the investigation. During that period, US, Dutch, Australian and NATO officials initiated a plan for 9,000 troops to enter eastern Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the crash scene, the aircraft and passenger remains, and in response to the alleged Russian role in the destruction of MH17 on July 17; for details of that scheme, read this.
Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29.
Malaysian resistance to the US attempts to blame Moscow for the aircraft shoot-down was made clear in the first hours after the incident to then-President Barack Obama by Malaysia's Prime Minister at the time, Najib Razak. That story can be followed here and here.
In an unusual decision to speak in the new documentary, Najib's successor Prime Minister Mahathir announced:
''They never allowed us to be involved from the very beginning. This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept that kind of attitude. We are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone irrespective of who is involved. We have to know who actually fired the missile, and only then can we accept the report as the complete truth.''
On July 18, in the first Malaysian Government press conference after the shoot-down, Najib (right) announcedagreements he had already reached by telephone with Obama and Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President.
'' 'Obama and I agreed that the investigation will not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.' [Najib] said the Ukrainian president 'has pledged that there would be a full, thorough and independent investigation and Malaysian officials would be invited to take part. 'He also confirmed that his government will negotiate with rebels in the east of the country in order to establish a humanitarian corridor to the crash site,' said Najib. He also said that no one should remove any debris or the black box from the scene. The Government of Malaysia is dispatching a special flight to Kiev, carrying a Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team, as well as a medical team. But we must '' and we will '' find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone can be left unturned.''
The new film reveals in an interview with Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the head of the Malaysian team, what happened next. Sakri's evidence, filmed in his office at Putrajaya, is the first to be reported by the press outside Malaysia in five years. A year ago, Sakri gave a partial account of his mission to a Malaysian newspaper.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/
''I talked to my prime minister [Najib],'' Colonel Sakri says. ''He directed me to go to the crash site immediately.'' At the time Sakri was a senior security official at the Disaster Management Division of the Prime Minister's Department. Sakri says that after arriving in Kiev, Poroshenko's officials blocked the Malaysians. ''We were not allowed to go there'...so I took a small team to leave Kiev going to Donetsk secretly.'' There Sakri toured the crash site, and met with officials of the Donetsk separatist administration headed by Alexander Borodai.
With eleven men, including two medical specialists, a signalman, and Malaysian Army commandos, Sakri had raced to the site ahead of an armed convoy of Australian, Dutch and Ukrainian government men. The latter were blocked by Donetsk separatist units. The Australian state press agency ABC reported their military convoy, prodded from Kiev by the appearance of Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans, had been forced to abandon their mission. That was after Colonel Sakri had taken custody of the MH17 black boxes in a handover ceremony filmed at Borodai's office in Donetsk on July 22.
US sources told the Wall Street Journal at the time ''the [Sakri] mission's success delivered a political victory for Mr. Najib's government'... it also handed a gift to the rebels in the form of an accord, signed by the top Malaysian official present in Donetsk, calling the crash site 'the territory of the Donetsk People's Republic.''...That recognition could antagonize Kiev and Washington, which have striven not to give any credibility to the rebels, whose main leaders are Russian citizens with few ties to the area. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a briefing Monday that the negotiation 'in no way legitimizes' separatists.''
The Australian state radio then reported the Ukrainian government as claiming the black box evidence showed ''the reason for the destruction and crash of the plane was massive explosive decompression arising from multiple shrapnel perforations from a rocket explosion.'' This was a fabrication '' the evidence of the black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, first reported six weeks later in September by the Dutch Safety Board, showed nothing of the kind; read what their evidence revealed.
Foreign Minister Bishop, in Kiev on July 24, claimed she was negotiating with the Ukrainians for the Australian team in the country to carry arms. ''I don't envisage that we will ever resort to [arms],'' she told her state news agency, ''but it is a contingency planning, and you would be reckless not to include it in this kind of agreement. But I stress our mission is unarmed because it is [a] humanitarian mission.''
In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source: https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian control.
By the time she spoke to her state radio, Bishop was concealing that the plan for armed intervention, including 3,000 Australian troops, had been called off. She was also concealing that the black boxes were already in Colonel Sakri's possession.
The document signed by Sakri for the handover of the black boxes is visible in the new documentary. Sakri signed himself and added the stamp of the National Security Council of Malaysia.
Col. Sakri says on film the Donetsk leaders expressed surprise at the delay of the Malaysians in arriving at the crash site to recover the black boxes. ''Why are you so late'', [Borodai] said'...I think [that was] very funny.''
Source: https://www.youtube.com/ Min. 05:47.
Sakri goes on to say he was asked by the OSCE's special monitoring mission for Ukraine to hand over the black boxes; he refused. He was then met by agents of the FBI (Min 6:56). ''They approached me to show them the black box. I said no.'' He also reports that in Kiev the Ukrainian Government tried ''forcing me to leave the black boxes with them. We said no. We cannot. We cannot allow.''
The handover ceremony in Donetsk, July 22, 2014: on far left, the two black boxes from MH17; in the centre, shaking hands, Alexander Borodai and Mohamad Sakri.
Permission for Colonel Sakri to speak to the press has been authorized by his superiors at the prime ministry in Putrajaya, and his disclosures agreed with them in advance.
Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians; for details, read this.
Van der Werff and Yerlashova contracted with OG IT Forensic Services, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, to examine the telephone tapes. The Kuala Lumpur firm has been endorsed by the Malaysian Bar. The full 143-page technical report can be read here.
The findings reported by Akash Rosen and illustrated on camera are that the telephone recordings have been cut, edited and fabricated. The source of the tapes, according to the JIT press conference on June 19 by Dutch police officer Paulissen, head of the National Criminal Investigation Service of The Netherlands, was the Ukrainian SBU. Similar findings of tape fabrication and evidence tampering are reported on camera in the van der Werff film by a German analyst, Norman Ritter.
Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the June 19, 2019, press conference of JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU. Minute 16:02 Right: Norman Ritter presented his analysis to interviewer Billy Sixt to show the telephone tape evidence has been forged in nine separate ''manipulations''. One of the four accused by the JIT last month, Sergei Dubinsky, testifies from Min. 17 of the documentary. He says his men recovered the black boxes from the crash site and delivered them to Borodai at 2300 hours on July 17; the destruction of the aircraft occurred at 1320. Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. ''I dare them to publish the uncut conversations, and then you will get a real picture of what was discussed.'' (Min. 17:59).
Van der Werff and Yerlashova filmed at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Several local witnesses were interviewed, including a man named Alexander from Torez town, and Valentina Kovalenko, a woman from the farming village of Red October. The man said the missile equipment alleged by the JIT to have been transported from across the Russian border on July 17 was in Torez at least one, possibly two days before the shoot-down on July 17; he did not confirm details the JIT has identified as a Buk system.
Kovalenko, first portrayed in a BBC documentary three years ago (starting at Min.26:50) as a ''unique'' eye-witness to the missile launch, clarifies more precisely than the BBC reported where the missile she saw had been fired from.
BBC documentary, ''The Conspiracy Files. Who Shot Down MH17'' -- Min. 27:00. The BBC broadcast its claims over three episodes in April-May 2016. For a published summary, read this.
This was not the location identified in press statements by JIT. Van der Werff explains: ''we specifically asked [Kovalenko] to point exactly in the direction the missile came from. I then asked twice if maybe it was from the direction of the JIT launch site. She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT 'launch site' is less than two kilometres from her house and garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony.''
According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, ''at that moment the Ukrainian Army were there.''
Kovalenko also remembers that on the days preceding the July 17 missile firing she witnessed, there had been Ukrainian military aircraft operating in the sky above her village. She says they used evasion techniques including flying in the shadow of civilian aircraft she also saw at the same time.
On July 17, three other villagers told van der Werff they had seen a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity and at the time of the MH17 crash.
Concluding the documentary, van der Werff and Yerlashova present an earlier interview filmed in Donetsk by independent Dutch journalist Stefan Beck, whom JIT officials had tried to warn off visiting the area. Beck interviewed Yevgeny Volkov, who was an air controller for the Ukrainian Air Force in July 2014. Volkov was asked to comment on Ukrainian Government statements, endorsed by the Dutch Safety Board report into the crash and in subsequent reports by the JIT, that there were no radar records of the airspace at the time of the shoot-down because Ukrainian military radars were not operational.
Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on ''full alert'' because ''fighter jets were taking off from there;'' Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site. He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. ''There [they] have it. In Ukraine they have it.''
Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present, Mohammed Hanafiah Bin Al Zakaria, one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General's ministry, refused to endorse for the Malaysian Government the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. ''Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice for the victims,'' Zakaria said. ''The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process.'' [Question: do you support the conclusions?] ''Part of the conclusions [inaudible] '' do not change our positions.''
Low Barr: Don't give me that crap about security, just put the backdoors in the encryption, roars US Attorney General ' The Register
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:16
Analysis If the cops and Feds can't read people's encrypted messages, you will install backdoors for us, regardless of the security hit, US Attorney General William Barr has told the technology world.
While speaking today in New York, Barr demanded eavesdropping mechanisms be added to consumer-level software and devices, mechanisms that can be used by investigators to forcibly decrypt and pry into strongly end-to-end encrypted chats, emails, files, and calls. No ifs, no buts.
And while this will likely weaken secure data storage and communications '' by introducing backdoors that hackers and spies, as well as the cops and FBI, can potentially leverage to snoop on folks '' it will be a price worth paying. And, after all, what do you really need that encryption for? Your email and selfies?
''We are not talking about protecting the nation's nuclear launch codes,'' Barr told the International Conference on Cyber Security at Fordham University.
''Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, email, and voice and data applications.
"There have been enough dogmatic pronouncements that lawful access simply cannot be done. It can be, and it must be."
If you're not the military nor in big business, you'll just have to suck it up, and use that backdoored encryption system for your personal communication and commercial dealings, Barr argued. Otherwise, he claimed, criminals, who are able to chat privately outside the grasp of the law, would have a free hand at the expense of society. And again, over what? Encrypted sexts and selfies? Get real, nerds.
Cryptography expert Matt Blaze likened Barr's line '' that citizens' personal and business information isn't worth protecting with top-notch encryption '' to "flat Earth bizarre" thinking. "I don't even know where to begin," the professor added.
The Attorney General also insisted that investigators accessing people's private data via backdoors '' with a suitable warrant, of course '' will not be in violation of the US Fourth Amendment, which protects ''persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' It's one thing to respect people's privacy, but the people also expect crimes to be investigated, he said, and that's not always possible when unbreakable encryption shields evidence and suspects.
''The key point is that the individual's right to privacy and the [police's] right of access are two sides of the same coin,'' Barr said.
''The reason we are able, as part of our basic social compact, to guarantee individuals a certain zone of privacy is precisely because the public has reserved the right to access that zone when public safety requires. If the public's right of access is blocked, then these zones of personal privacy are converted into 'law-free zones' insulated from legitimate scrutiny.''
Barr said legislation mandating backdoors in software may be avoided, though he refused to rule it out because a terror attack or some such may conveniently swing the population toward outlawing strong cryptography. ''A major incident may well occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues,'' he said.
It's hardly a novel approach, piggybacking on a tragedy to push for backdoor access to private conversations, as we saw with the Obama administration's handling of the San Bernardino shooting aftermath.
Clueless Barr echoed the familiar refrain that criminals were using encryption to ''go dark,'' and frustrate officers and agents' efforts to catch them. If this were true, we'd be seeing an explosion - or at least some rise in crime - here in America. However, that's simply not the case '' quite the opposite in fact:
Crime rates are dropping as law enforcement goes dark. Barr's claim that they are raising is even less true that his claim the Meuller report totally exonerates his boss. pic.twitter.com/DFr4nFHrRy
'-- Robáµáµáµáµ' Graham (@ErrataRob) July 23, 2019Barr cited three possible methods for providing the cops and Feds with the ability to beat ''warrant-proof encryption,'' all of which have been mooted before, and none of which work.
His first example was previously suggested by British spies at GCHQ, and it involves putting "virtual crocodile clips" on encrypted apps. Specifically, the intelligence services would be allowed to silently enter encrypted chat groups or calls as an extra participant without anyone else in the session being aware of this intrusion and subsequent eavesdropping.
The proposal would force software developers to quietly implement such sneaky access, and Australia has already passed a law making such backdoors mandatory. The plans have been dismissed as unworkable by experts.
Jon Callas, cofounder of the PGP encryption software and the Silent Circle secure messaging and phone systems, has done an excellent in-depth analysis of why such a system is impossible to set up at scale in such a way that only law enforcement could use it. It's a basic problem with backdoors of this kind '' they are easy to set up, and impossible to control so that only officers and g-men can use them.
This kind of special secret access has already ended in disaster, as we saw in the case of Juniper's firewalls. Persons unknown, presumably the NSA though the whole shambles remains highly classified, silently introduced backdoors into the vendor's ScreenOS firmware. Then everyone found out about the hardcoded password and weakened VPN technology in ScreenOS, and could abuse them to slip into corporate networks, or snoop on VPN traffic, via Juniper's vulnerable gateways. It's not known how long the backdoors were in there, though what we do know is that someone found them and used them against targets to steal sensitive data.
More pie-in-the-sky Barr's second proposal was one touted, and patented, by ex-Microsoftie Ray Ozzie '' who, while a smart dude, has very little in the way of security expertise. Ozzie's idea, which is for smartphones only, would involve a return of the infamous Clipper chip that was dropped more than 15 years ago ago.
Ozzie's proposal is for a key escrow system that involves a dedicated piece of hardware holding encryption keys that would be accessible to investigators and no one else. The only problem is no one has any idea how to create such a thing at scale that will remain secret.
The third suggestion was an old idea from ex-GCHQ analyst Matt Tait involving layers of encryption that would allow law enforcement access to the underlying private information. It's a cute idea, and no one has a clue how to do it:
8. Barr goes on to claim that there are many proposals for encryption backdoors on the table. He gives three. They're the same three we always get.1. A (hardware, phones only) proposal by Ray Ozzie.
2. A proposal to tap chat groups by GCHQ.3. An ancient article by Matt Tait.
'-- Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green) July 23, 2019Barr also said software companies use keys and certificates to sign automatic software updates, which are then pushed to users. If these keys can be kept safe, surely keys to cryptography backdoors can be stopped from falling into the wrong hands, right?
"Providers design their products to allow access for software updates using centrally managed security keys,'' he said. ''We know of no instance where encryption has been defeated by compromise of those provider-maintained keys. Providers have been able to protect them.''
Obviously Barr hasn't been paying attention. This is exactly how the NotPetya ransomware that crippled businesses worldwide spread: via poisoned software updates using fake keys. Also Stuxnet used stolen digital keys to cryptographically sign itself so that it looked like legit software. Microsoft lost control of some of its secure boot system's golden keys. The list goes on.
Sponsored: Balancing consumerization and corporate control
Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Keynote Address at the International Conference on Cyber Security | OPA | Department of Justice
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 14:16
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Good Morning.
Thank you all for being here this morning. I would like to offer particular thanks to Fordham University for hosting this Conference and this morning's opening ceremony. As a native New Yorker, it is always nice to have a good excuse to be in the City.
I would also like to thank the New York Division of the FBI for their work in putting on this Conference.
Of all that has changed over the last 30 years, cyber-related issues and cybersecurity may well be the most significant difference between my first tenure as Attorney General and this one. Since taking office in February, I have spent a significant amount of time getting up to speed on the developments in this important area. And I have been both impressed and reassured as I have learned about all of the investment and effort that makes the FBI a leader in this area.
As individuals and as a nation we have become dependent on a vast and expanding digital infrastructure. That, in turn, has made us vulnerable to cybercriminals and foreign adversaries that target that infrastructure. The danger cannot be overstated, and enhancing cybersecurity is a national imperative '-- one shared by the private sector whose networks, data systems and products are at risk, as well as the government agencies charged with securing our critical national infrastructure and guarding our citizens against criminal activity. Among the most critical advances in cybersecurity has been the development of advanced encryption techniques and their deployment in a range of important applications. Encryption provides enormous benefits to society by enabling secure communications, data storage and on-line transactions. Because of advances in encryption, we can now better protect our personal information; more securely engage in e-commerce and internet communications; obtain secure software updates; and limit access to sensitive computers, devices, and networks.
As the Federal Government, we welcome these improvements to privacy and security, and will work to preserve and strengthen them. But at the same time, we must recognize that our citizens face an array of threats to their safety far broader than just cyber threats. Hackers are a danger, but so are violent criminals, terrorists, drug traffickers, human traffickers, fraudsters, and sexual predators. While we should not hesitate to deploy encryption to protect ourselves from cybercriminals, this should not be done in a way that eviscerates society's ability to defend itself against other types of criminal threats. In other words, making our virtual world more secure should not come at the expense of making us more vulnerable in the real world. But, unfortunately, this is what we are seeing today.
Service providers, device manufacturers and application developers are developing and deploying encryption that can only be decrypted by the end user or customer, and they are refusing to provide technology that allows for lawful access by law enforcement agencies in appropriate circumstances. As a result, law enforcement agencies are increasingly prevented from accessing communications in transit or data stored on cell phones or computers, even with a warrant based on probable cause to believe that criminal activity is underway. Because, in the digital age, the bulk of evidence is becoming digital, this form of ''warrant proof'' encryption poses a grave threat to public safety by extinguishing the ability of law enforcement to obtain evidence essential to detecting and investigating crimes. It allows criminals to operate with impunity, hiding their activities under an impenetrable cloak of secrecy. As you know, some refer to this eclipsing of the Government's investigative capabilities as ''going dark.'' While encryption protects against cyberattacks, deploying it in warrant-proof form jeopardizes public safety more generally. The net effect is to reduce the overall security of society. I am here today to tell you that, as we use encryption to improve cybersecurity, we must ensure that we retain society's ability to gain lawful access to data and communications when needed to respond to criminal activity.
This proposition should not be controversial. It simply reflects the balance struck in the Constitution itself and maintained since the Founding era. The Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment strikes a balance between the individual citizen's interest in conducting certain affairs in private and the general public's interest in subjecting possible criminal activity to investigation. It does so, on the one hand, by securing for each individual a private enclave around his ''person, house, papers, and effects'' '-- a "zone" bounded by the individual's own reasonable expectations of privacy. So long as the individual acts within this "zone of privacy,'' his activities are shielded from unreasonable Government investigation. On the other hand, the Fourth Amendment establishes that, under certain circumstances, the public has a legitimate need to gain access to an individual's zone of privacy in pursuit of public safety, and it defines the terms under which the Government may obtain that access. When the Government has probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is within an individual's zone of privacy, the Government is entitled to search for or seize the evidence, and the search usually must be preceded by a judicial determination that "probable cause" exists and be authorized by a warrant.
The key point is that the individual's right to privacy and the public's right of access are two sides of the same coin. The reason we are able, as part of our basic social compact, to guarantee individuals a certain zone of privacy is precisely because the public has reserved the right to access that zone when public safety requires. If the public's right of access is blocked, then these zones of personal privacy are converted into ''law-free zones'' insulated from legitimate scrutiny.
Since the Founding, advances in technology have disrupted this balance in different ways. Sometimes, technology creates new spheres of privacy that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment could not have thought to enumerate, such as with the advent of the telephone. Sometimes, technology gives law enforcement new means to invade privacy that were previously unimaginable, such as thermal imaging devices. And sometimes, technology makes it easier for suspects to evade law enforcement even when there is a lawful basis to investigate, such as automobiles '-- or to bring us back today's topic, data encryption.
With each of these earlier examples, our society has ensured that the traditional balance between individual privacy and public safety was maintained, as reflected in rulings from the Supreme Court. In Katz v. United States (1967), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied to government bugging of a phone booth '-- even though this technique did not strictly involve a search of the suspect's person, house, papers, or effects. Decades later in Kyllo v. United States(2001), the Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied to the use of a thermal imaging device to look inside a home '-- even though prior doctrine strongly suggested that government exploitation of light waves emitted from the property was outside the scope of Fourth Amendment protection. The Supreme Court's application of Fourth Amendment protection to the attachment of a GPS tracking device to a car in United States v. Jones (2012) had a similar effect. In each of these cases, the Court protected privacy against advances in technology. But of course, law enforcement retained the ability to bug a phone booth, to use thermal imaging on a house, or to attach a GPS device to a car if a warrant issued first.
The same script has played out in reverse, with the Supreme Court taking steps to ensure that advances in technology do not unduly tip the scales against public safety by preventing effective law enforcement. A notable example concerns automobiles. If the zone of privacy was extended to automobiles '-- as a type of personal ''effect'' or mobile ''house'' '-- then it would be difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement to work within the traditional requirement that police obtain a warrant from a neutral magistrate before conducting a search or seizure. Even when an officer had probable cause to seize a car and search its contents, the driver could get away long before the officer could complete the process to obtain a warrant. This development threatened again to disrupt the traditional balance between individual privacy and public safety.
So what did we do? In a series of decisions that started with Carroll v. United States (1925), the Supreme Court articulated an exception to the traditional warrant requirement which allows police to seize and search a car without a warrant so long as it can later be shown that they had probable cause to support the investigation. In other words, we did not make automobiles law-free zones. We preserved the constitutional balance by ensuring that law enforcement retained the practical capability to conduct a search when lawfully predicated.
The point I hope you take away today is that our societal response to advances in technology that affect the balance between individual privacy and public safety always has been '-- and always should be '-- a two-way street. When these advances tip the scales too far in favor of the Government, the response is to expand privacy protections. And when these advances threaten public safety by thwarting effective law enforcement, the response should be to preserve lawful access.
By enabling dangerous criminals to cloak their communications and activities behind an essentially impenetrable digital shield, the deployment of warrant-proof encryption is already imposing huge costs on society. It seriously degrades the ability of law enforcement to detect and prevent crime before it occurs. And, after crimes are committed, it thwarts law enforcement's ability to identify those responsible or to successfully prosecute the guilty parties. These costs will grow exponentially as deployment of warrant-proof encryption accelerates and criminals are emboldened by their ability to evade detection.
At conferences like this, we talk about those costs in abstract terms. They are not abstract; they are real. The costs of irresponsible encryption that blocks legitimate law enforcement access is ultimately measured in a mounting number of victims '-- men, women, and children who are the victims of crimes '-- crimes that could have been prevented if law enforcement had been given lawful access to encrypted evidence. Law enforcement has generally not wanted to get too specific about these cases because details can help sophisticated criminals and terrorists evade detection. But, given the frequency with which these situations are now arising, it is only a matter of time before a sensational case crystalizes the issue for the public. FBI Director Wray will be speaking later in the week at this Conference and will address some of the damage being inflicted on law enforcement by encryption that blocks lawful access. But, for now, I want to make a couple of points about the extent of the harm.
Like everybody else, criminals of all stripes increasingly rely on wireless communications, hand-held devices, and the internet. This is especially true of larger-scale criminal organizations that need to coordinate many conspirators over a wide geographical area. Thus, we have seen transnational drug cartels increasingly move their communications onto commercially available encrypted platforms designed to block lawful access. One of many examples is a Mexican cartel that recently started trafficking large quantities of finished fentanyl from Asia to Mexico and then to the United States. The cartel started using WhatsApp as their primary communication method, preventing U.S. law enforcement from conducting wiretaps that would enable us to locate fentanyl shipments and seize them at the border. We also found that the cartel had used WhatsApp for the specific purpose of coordinating the murders of Mexico-based police officials. The cartel ended up murdering hundreds of these police officers. Had we been able to gain lawful access to the chat on a timely basis, we could have saved these lives. So the costs of not being able to gain lawful access in this case were the lives of the assassinated officers, as well as the many lives impacted here by unimpeded entry into the United States of huge amounts of deadly fentanyl.
This is just one of countless examples involving the drug war. Indeed, just the damage done by warrant-proof encryption to our ability to combat drug trafficking is a cost too high to pay. The tsunami of opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamine that started surging into the United States from Mexico in the latter years of the Obama Administration is one of the greatest dangers to the wellbeing of our Nation that we face today. In a single year, more Americans die from drug overdoses than we lost in the entire Vietnam War. In addition to this death toll, hundreds of thousands of lives are destroyed. The vast majority of the drugs are trafficked into the United States by large, transnational criminal organizations. In times past, when we had considerable success in combating similar cartels, the indispensable tool was communications intelligence. It remains the indispensable tool today. If our law enforcement agencies do not recover the ability to gain lawful access to encrypted communications and platforms, the prospects of successfully prosecuting the drug war by traditional law enforcement means are dim.
Warrant-proof encryption is also seriously impairing our ability to monitor and combat domestic and foreign terrorists. As with drug cartels, we are seeing terrorist organizations moving their communications to encrypted platforms designed to block lawful access. Even smaller terrorist groups and ''lone wolf'' actors have turned increasingly to encryption. The 2015 terrorist attack in Garland, Texas still rankles. There, two Islamist extremists carried out an attack for which ISIS claimed responsibility. On the morning of the attack, one of the terrorists exchanged approximately 100 instant messages with an overseas terrorist using an end-to-end encrypted app. To this date, the FBI has still not been able to determine the content of these messages. The deployment of warrant-proof encryption is diminishing the communications intelligence we are able to collect on terrorist threats. Due to the very nature of terrorism '' where each actor seeks to inflict high casualties '' encryption that allows terrorists to operate beyond the reach of lawful surveillance poses an unacceptable risk to the country.
One further point about the costs imposed on society by warrant-proof encryption: it is not only about the crimes that could have been avoided, or the criminals that escape punishment. Converting the internet and communication platforms into ''law free'' zones, and thus giving criminals the means to operate free of lawful scrutiny, will inevitably propel an expansion of criminal activity. If you remove any possibility that the cops are going to be watching a neighborhood, the criminals already in the neighborhood will commit a lot more crimes.
The ''going dark'' problem is not limited to terrorism or drug cartel cases. While those cases are vitally important, it is also important that law enforcement at the federal, state, and local level retain the ability to investigate and prosecute the full spectrum of crimes that plague society. We are aware, for example, that a large violent gang is using encrypted apps to ''green light'' assassinations, and yet, because we cannot access the messages, we cannot prevent the murders. We also know that human traffickers and pedophiles use the internet to facilitate their crimes, and yet encryption is impairing our visibility into some of these activities. With the growing availability of commoditized encryption, it is becoming easier for common criminals to communicate beyond the reach of traditional surveillance. This problem is becoming especially acute for our State and local partners, who lack the resources of the federal government, and whose ability to investigate and prosecute crime is being seriously impaired by warrant-proof encryption.
The Department has made clear what we are seeking. We believe that when technology providers deploy encryption in their products, services, and platforms they need to maintain an appropriate mechanism for lawful access. This means a way for government entities, when they have appropriate legal authority, to access data securely, promptly, and in an intelligible format, whether it is stored on a device or in transmission. We do not seek to prescribe any particular solution. Our private-sector technology providers have immensely talented engineers who have built the very products and services that we are talking about. They are in the best position to determine what methods of lawful access work best for their technology. But there have been enough dogmatic pronouncements that lawful access simply cannot be done. It can be, and it must be.
We are confident that there are technical solutions that will allow lawful access to encrypted data and communications by law enforcement without materially weakening the security provided by encryption. Such encryption regimes already exist. For example, providers design their products to allow access for software updates using centrally managed security keys. We know of no instance where encryption has been defeated by compromise of those provider-maintained keys. Providers have been able to protect them.
We think our tech sector has the ingenuity to develop effective ways to provide secure encryption while also providing secure legal access. Some good minds have already started to focus on this, and some promising ideas are emerging. Our colleagues from GCHQ have proposed ''Virtual Alligator Clips'' which allow a provider to respond to a warrant by adding a silent law enforcement recipient to an otherwise secure chat. Ray Ozzie has tabled a proposal for ''Exceptional Access Keys'' for locked, encrypted phones so they can be unlocked pursuant to a warrant. Matt Tait has proposed Layered Cryptographic Envelopes to allow lawful access to encrypted data-at-rest on disks or other storage devices. I am sure that the putative shortcomings of these ideas have been identified, which hopefully will spur further refinements and alternative proposals. Through this dialectic we can identify workable solutions. I am not endorsing any particular solution. And we will likely need different kinds of solutions for communications and data in transit, as opposed to data at rest. But I am suggesting that it is well past time for some in the tech community to abandon the indefensible posture that a technical solution is not worth exploring and instead turn their considerable talent and ingenuity to developing products that will reconcile good cybersecurity to the imperative of public safety and national security. As Microsoft's Bill Gates has observed, ''[t]here's no question of ability; it's the question of willingness.''
Some object that requiring providers to design their products to allow for lawful access is incompatible with some companies' ''business models.'' But what is the business objective of the company? Is it ''A'' '-- to sell encryption that provides the best protection against unauthorized intrusion by bad actors? Or is it ''B'' '-- to sell encryption that assures that law enforcement will not be able to gain lawful access? I hope we can all agree that if the aim is explicitly ''B'' '-- that is, if the purpose is to block lawful access by law enforcement, whether or not this is necessary to achieve the best protection against bad actors '-- then such a business model, from society's standpoint, is illegitimate, and so is any demand for that product. The product jeopardizes the public's safety, with no countervailing utility. Few companies would say this is their goal.
On the other hand, it is contended that achieving ''B'' (the blocking of lawful access) is essential to achieving ''A'' (giving the best protection against bad actors). Thus, the argument is that a business is thwarted in its purpose of offering the best protection against bad actors unless it can also override society's interest in retaining lawful access. Some hold this view dogmatically, claiming that it is technologically impossible to provide lawful access without weakening security against unlawful access. But, in the world of cybersecurity, we do not deal in absolute guarantees but in relative risks. All systems fall short of optimality and have some residual risk of vulnerability '-- a point which the tech community acknowledges when they propose that law enforcement can satisfy its requirements by exploiting vulnerabilities in their products. The real question is whether the residual risk of vulnerability resulting from incorporating a lawful access mechanism is materially greater than those already in the unmodified product. The Department does not believe this can be demonstrated.
Moreover, even if there was, in theory, a slight risk differential, its significance should not be judged solely by the fact it falls short of theoretical optimality. Particularly with respect to encryption marketed to consumers, the significance of the risk should be assessed based on its practical effect on consumer cybersecurity, as well as its relation to the net risks that offering the product poses for society. After all, we are not talking about protecting the Nation's nuclear launch codes. Nor are we necessarily talking about the customized encryption used by large business enterprises to protect their operations. We are talking about consumer products and services such as messaging, smart phones, e-mail, and voice and data applications. If one already has an effective level of security '-- say, by way of illustration, one that protects against 99 percent of foreseeable threats '-- is it reasonable to incur massive further costs to move slightly closer to optimality and attain a 99.5 percent level of protection even where the risk addressed is extremely remote? A company would not make that expenditure; nor should society. Here, some argue that, to achieve at best a slight incremental improvement in security, it is worth imposing a massive cost on society in the form of degraded public safety. This is untenable, again using a crude illustration, if the choice is between a world where we can achieve a 99 percent assurance against cyber threats to consumers, while still providing law enforcement 80 percent of the access it might seek; or a world, where we have boosted our cybersecurity to 99.5 percent but at a cost reducing law enforcements access to zero percent '-- the choice for society is clear.
Some who resist lawful access complain it places an unreasonable burden on companies, who must spend time and resources on developing and implementing a compliance mechanism. To that, I first say, ''Welcome to civil society.'' We regularly expect '-- and often mandate if necessary '-- that our companies take steps to ensure that their products and services do not impose negative externalities on the public interest. Sometimes this requires prohibiting certain products all together; other times it requires modification of products so they are compatible with the public interest.
Further, the burden is not as onerous as some make it out to be. I served for many years as the general counsel of a large telecommunications concern. During my tenure, we dealt with these issues and lived through the passage and implementation of CALEA '-- the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. CALEA imposes a statutory duty on telecommunications carriers to maintain the capability to provide lawful access to communications over their facilities. Companies bear the cost of compliance but have some flexibility in how they achieve it, and the system has by and large worked. It is absurd to think that we would preserve lawful access by mandating that physical telecommunications facilities be accessible to law enforcement for the purpose of obtaining content, while allowing tech providers to block law enforcement from obtaining that very content.
The United States is not alone in addressing this issue. In fact, many of our international partners such as the UK and Australia are already moving on statutory frameworks to address it. China and Russia have their predictable approach, American companies have an opportunity to advance their interests by setting industry standards now that can influence the conversation here and worldwide in the years to come.
Obviously, the Department would like to engage with the private sector in exploring solutions that will provide lawful access. While we remain open to a cooperative approach, the time to achieve that may be limited. Key countries, including important allies, have been moving toward legislative and regulatory solutions. I think it is prudent to anticipate that a major incident may well occur at any time that will galvanize public opinion on these issues. Whether we end up with legislation or not, the best course for everyone involved is to work soberly and in good faith together to craft appropriate solutions, rather than have outcomes dictated during a crisis. As this debate has dragged on, and deployment of warrant-proof encryption has accelerated, our ability to protect the public from criminal threats is rapidly deteriorating. The status quo is exceptionally dangerous, unacceptable, and only getting worse. The rest of the world has woken up to this threat. It is time for the United States to stop debating whether to address it, and start talking about how to address it.
Crazy Days and Nights: Blind Item #11
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:55
Blind Item #11That Wall Street career before his law enforcement career is what people need to be looking at in terms of his death. His last job prior to law enforcement had him working in cahoots with several people manipulating the currency market. One of a trio arrested in 2017 said that the broker turned fed was letting them know the status of investigations and giving them inside information about what law enforcement was doing.
Popular Posts from the last 30 days Some names are missing, and some were illegible because of the source material. UPDATE: Thanks to readers and others, this update to the ...
April 10, 2019 The club consists of four actresses that I know of. There could be a couple more that I haven't heard about, but it is...
This is from January 18, 2018 When we talk about the pedophile king, I think we all know who we are talking about. I will throw in some c...
If you think the wealthy pedophile has some names he can bring into the mix, you have seen nothing compared to the names the A+/A list most...
July 15, 2019 This permanent A++ list politician was interviewed by the FBI on Friday in regards to the wealthy pedophile. Bill Clinton...
This is from November 1, 2017 This is the holy grail. This is what is on the horizon for some actors/producers and directors that will ru...
Apparently this permanent A++/A+ list mostly movie actor with multiple Oscar wins/noms is going to be hit with a slew of accusations agains...
June 28, 2019 This permanent A list mostly movie actor sent out a cease and desist to the foreign born former A+ list tweener to stop usi...
Way back in the early 90's there was an investigation led by someone who has been in the news much of the past two years. His target? A...
You Are What You Watch? The Social Effects of TV - The New York Times
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:53
There's new evidence that viewing habits can affect your thinking, political preferences, even cognitive ability.
Image The best of TV can be enriching and enlightening, but research suggests we should be cautious about what we give up for the sake of entertainment. Credit Credit Nati Harnik/Associated Press Other than sleeping and working, Americans are more likely to watch television than engage in any other activity.
A wave of new social science research shows that the quality of shows can influence us in important ways, shaping our thinking and political preferences, even affecting our cognitive ability.
In this so-called golden age of television, some critics have pointed out that the best of the form is equivalent to the most enriching novels. And high-quality programming for children can be educational. But the latest evidence also suggests there can be negative consequences to our abundant watching, particularly when the shows are mostly entertainment.
The harm seems to come not so much from the content itself but from the fact that it replaces more enlightening ways of spending time.
'Sesame Street' as a social experimentCognitive ability is a complex characteristic that emerges from interactions between biological dispositions, nutrition and health, parenting behaviors, formal and informal educational opportunities, and culture.
Studying the connection between intelligence and television consumption is far from straightforward, but researchers have developed compelling ways to isolate the effects of television.
Some of the best research has been done on the television program ''Sesame Street.'' The show, which began in 1969, was meant to develop early literacy, numeracy and emotional skills for children of preschool age. A detailed analysis of the show's content in its first and second years reveals that 80 percent of the program was dedicated to those goals, with the rest meant to entertain.
Image Several experiments have shown the positive effects of ''Sesame Street'' around the world. Credit Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse '-- Getty Images Researchers randomly assigned groups of low-income children age 3 to 5 into an experimental group and a control group. In the experimental group, parents were given access to the show if they lacked it and encouraged in person once a month to have their children watch the show.
[The topics new parents are talking about. Evidence-based guidance. Personal stories that matter. Sign up for the NYT Parenting newsletter for the info you need.]
Almost all (93 percent) parents of children in the experimental group reported that their children subsequently watched the show, compared with roughly one-third of children in the control group (35 percent). Among watchers, those in the experimental group also watched more frequently.
Over six months, from November 1970 to May 1971, the experimental group gained 5.4 I.Q. points '-- a large effect '-- relative to the control group and showed stronger evidence of learning along several other dimensions. Gains in cognitive performance were especially large for those who viewed the show frequently relative to those who did so rarely or never. A more recent meta-analysis of published research in 15 countries shows that ''Sesame Street'' has similar effects around the world.
In newly published research, the economists Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine examined longer-term effects of ''Sesame Street'' by comparing the educational outcomes of children and young adults in counties more or less likely to have access to the program during its early years. They found that children living in counties with better ''Sesame Street'' coverage were less likely to be held behind a grade level.
Other experimental research is consistent with the original ''Sesame Street'' findings. Low-income prekindergarten children scored higher on a social competence index six months after being randomly assigned to an experimental group, in which their parents were encouraged to replace age-inappropriate television with educational television.
Less reading and more watchingIn Norway, and a handful of other developed countries, average I.Q. scores have declined slightly in recent years, after rising for many decades. This is known as the negative Flynn effect, a variation of the more famous Flynn effect, which is named after the psychologist who first published comprehensive evidence of I.Q. gains over time. Among native Norwegian men taking an exam at age 18 for military conscription, those born in 1974 scored two I.Q. points higher than those born in 1987.
In an academic article published this year, the Norwegian economist Oystein Hernaes and his co-authors attributed some of this decline in I.Q. scores to access to cable television, which also coincided with a sharp decline in reading. After the introduction of cable in 1981, Norwegian teenagers and young adults drastically cut back on daily time spent reading from 1980 to 2000, and increased their time watching TV. Moreover, relative to public television, cable television had far less educational content and was focused on entertainment and advertisements.
To estimate the effect of cable television on I.Q. scores, the Norwegian scholars analyzed data on the introduction of cable network infrastructure by municipality. They calculated years of exposure to cable by considering the age of eventual test takers when cable became available in their municipality. They controlled for any potential geographic bias by comparing siblings with greater or less exposure to cable television based on their age when cable infrastructure was put in.
They estimate that 10 years of exposure to cable television lowered I.Q. scores by 1.8 points. In related research, Mr. Hernaes finds that exposure to cable television reduced voter turnout in local elections.
Image Mediaset was founded in 1987 by Silvio Berlusconi, who served as prime minister of Italy in four governments. Mediaset mostly showed entertainment; the state-owned TV channel mostly showed news or educational material. Credit Mediaset/Ufficio Stampa Canale 5, via Associated Press Berlusconi televisionA similar study was conducted by the Italian economist Ruben Durante and his co-authors and released in this month's issue of the American Economic Review. They examined the introduction of Silvio Berlusconi's television network, Mediaset, which specialized in light entertainment such as game shows featuring scantily clad women.
The economists document that Mediaset devoted almost no programming to educational content and did not offer news in early years, whereas its main competitor '-- the state-owned channel '-- devoted the majority of its airtime to news or educational material.
To study the effects of Mediaset, Mr. Durante and his co-authors obtained data on the location of Mediaset transmitters in 1985 and calculated the strength of the broadcasting signal in every Italian municipality based on the position of the transmitters and other technical features of the municipality.
They found that children raised in areas with greater access to Mediaset (a standard deviation in signal strength) had lower cognitive scores as adults by the equivalent of 3 to 4 I.Q. points.
People more exposed to Mediaset as children were also less likely to be civically engaged adults and more likely to vote for parties with populist tendencies like Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement.
A handful of American studies along these lines have focused on the political consequences that news media coverage can have, showing that exposure to Fox News could increase Republican Party vote shares significantly, and that exposure to MSNBC increased Democratic Party voting share (but with a much weaker effect).
Image There have never been more entertainment options. Credit Mike Blake/Reuters Art and public healthWe know that education increases cognitive ability, so it stands to reason that educational television would also have a positive effect.
Concerns about culture are hardly novel: Plato made a case for regulating the quality of artistic productions to avoid the corruption of youth and weakening of their character. Twenty-three centuries later, it is easier than ever to placate children as well as lose yourself in entertainment options '-- in the ocean of online videos, podcasts, cable, and streaming shows and movies.
These options are most likely harmless. Some provide relaxation, and others may modestly reshape cultural attitudes for the better; one study found that the introduction of cable TV empowered women in India. High-quality shows and films can be inspiring, even edifying.
Still, media providers and advertisers compete aggressively for our attention. Most lack the altruistic motivations that guided the producers of the original ''Sesame Street.'' The evidence from social science suggests that biased or sensationalist news programs may misinform citizens or discourage civic engagement, and that we should also be cautious about what we give up for the sake of entertainment.
Jonathan Rothwell is the Principal Economist at Gallup, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy. He is the author of a book, ''A Republic of Equals: A Manifesto for a Just Society,'' to be published by Princeton University Press in the fall, on the causes of income inequality. You can follow him on Twitter at @jtrothwell, and listen to his podcast, ''Out of the Echo Chamber.''
A version of this article appears in print on
, Section
B
, Page
3
of the New York edition
with the headline:
You Are What You Watch? The Social Effects of TV
. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
Martin Pall's book on 5G is available online | EMFacts Consultancy
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:51
Martin Pall's book on 5G is available onlineFrom Martin Pall PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University
Please access my 90 page, seven chapter document on EMF effects, how they are produced in the body and the corruption of the international science:
http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards''dr-martin-l.-pall''eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf
Martin Pall
*********************
Chapter 7 from the book:
5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
Written and Compiled by Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State UniversityAddress: 638 NE 41st Ave., Portland OR 97232 USA, martin_pall@wsu.edu 503-232-3883 May 17, 2018
Chapter 7: The Great Risks of 5G: What We Know and What We Don't Know ( See the book for references)
We have already discussed two issues that are essential to understanding 5G. One is that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (often called continuous wave) EMFs. A second is that the EMFs act by putting forces on the voltage sensor of the VGCCs, opening these calcium channels and allowing excessive calcium ions to flow into the cell. The voltage sensor is extraordinarily sensitive to those electrical forces, such that the safety guidelines are allowing us to be exposed to EMFs that are something like 7.2 million times too high.
The reason that the industry has decided to go to the extremely high frequencies of 5G is that with such extremely high frequencies, it is possible to carry much more information via much more pulsation than it is possible to carry with lower frequencies even in the microwave range. We can be assured, therefore, that 5G will involve vastly more pulsation than do EMFs that we are currently exposed to. It follows from that, that any biological safety test of 5G must use the very rapid pulsations including whatever very short term spikes may be present, that are to be present in genuine 5G. There is an additional process that is planned to be used in 5G: phased arrays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array). Here multiple antenna elements act together to produce highly pulsed fields which are designed for 5G, to produce increased penetration. 5G will entail particularly powerful pulsations to be used, which may, therefore, be particularly hazardous.
The only data we have, to my knowledge, on millimeter wave frequencies of 5G used non-pulsed EMFs in the millimeter frequency range of 5G, not genuine 5G. Such millimeter waves have been shown to produce a number of downstream effects of VGCC activation. One millimeter wave study showed that it activated both the VGCCs and also the voltage-gated potassium channels, suggesting that it worked via the voltage sensor, as do other EMFs [136]. Any such data tells us almost nothing about how biologically active genuine very highly pulsed 5G will be.
I take it that from their statements, that both Mr. Ryan and Dr. VinciÅnas are ready to put out 10s of millions of 5G antennae to afflict every single person in the EU with 5G radiation without even a single biological test of safety of genuine 5G. In the U.S., the FCC has taken a much worse position. The FCC is not only willing to allow such completely untested exposures but has also been has been aggressively pushing to promote installation of 5G antennae, such that antennae are already being installed in parts of the U.S. In a world where shocking behavior has become less and less shocking, I consider EU and U.S. views and actions to be shocking. The U.S. situation is mass insanity. I would have hoped that the Europeans, who think of themselves as being much more thoughtful than Americans, would have been genuinely more thoughtful.
Why does 5G need such high numbers of antennae? It is because the 5G radiation is much more absorbed as it enters various materials. The approach is to use many more antennae with one found every few houses, such that 5G can sufficiently penetrate local walls. Such absorption usually involves the interaction with electrically charged groups, such that such high absorption is likely to involve placing forces on electrically charged groups. Because such forces are the way in which EMFs activate the VGCCs, it seems highly likely, therefore, that 5G radiation will be particularly active in VGCC activation.
In summary, then, 5G is predicted to be particularly dangerous for each of four different reasons:
The extraordinarily high numbers of antennae that are planned.The very high energy outputs which will be used to ensure penetration.The extraordinarily high pulsation levels.4.The apparent high level interactions of the 5G frequency on charged groups presumably including the voltage sensor charged groups.
Now what the telecommunications industry argues is that 5G radiation will be mostly absorbed in the outer 1 or 2 mm of the body, such that they claim that we don't have to worry about the effects. There is some truth to that, but there are also some caveats that make any conclusions made from that, much more suspect. In any case, these surface effects of 5G will have especially strong impact on organisms with much higher surface to volume ratios. Consequently, I predict that many organisms will be much more impacted than we will. This includes insects and other arthropods, birds and small mammals and amphibia. It includes plants including even large trees, because trees have leaves and reproductive organs that are highly exposed. I predict there will be major ecological disasters as a consequence of 5G.
This will include vast conflagrations because EMF exposures make plants much more flammable.
But let's get back to humans. The industry has also made claims that more conventional microwave frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of the body. We know that is not true, however because of the effects deep in the human brain, on the heart and on hormone systems. Perhaps the most important two studies demonstrating effects deep within the body are the studies of Professor H¤ssig and his colleagues in Switzerland on cataract formation in newborn calves [137,138]. These two studies clearly show that when pregnant cows are grazing near mobile phone base stations (also called cell phone towers), the calves are born with very greatly increased incidences of cataracts. It follows from these findings that even though the developing fetuses are very deep in the body of the mother and should be highly protected from the EMF exposures, they are not so protected. And because the EMF safety guidelines in Switzerland are 100 times more stringent than are the safety guidelines in most of the rest of Europe, in the U.S., Canada and most of the rest of the world, the more general safety guidelines allow greatly excessive exposures and penetration of effects. The claims of industry that microwave frequency EMFs only act in the outer centimeter of the body are clearly false.
How then can both conventional microwave frequency EMFs and 5G radiation act deeply within the body? You may correctly observe that the electrical effects of the EMFs activate the voltage sensor and that the direct electrical forces are rapidly attenuated in the body. So how can we get deep effects? I think the answer is that the magnetic parts of the EMFs have been known for decades to penetrate much more deeply than do the electrical parts. The magnetic fields put forces on mobile electrically charged groups dissolved in the aqueous phases of the body and small individual movements of the charged groups can regenerate electric fields that are essentially identical to the electric fields of the original EMFs, carrying the same frequency and same pulsation pattern, although with lower intensity. An example of this is given in the Lu and Ueno [139] study. Because the voltage sensor is so stunningly sensitive to electrical forces and part of the reason for that is the very high level of amplification of the electrical field across the plasma membrane, we have an almost perfect way in which to produce EMF effects deeply within our bodies.
I am very concerned that 5G may produce effects like those we already see produced from lower frequency EMFs but are much more severe. I am also concerned that we will also see responses that are qualitatively different. Let me give you three possible examples of the latter type and one quantitative example. Each of the four types of blindness, have downstream effects of VGCC activation as causal factors: cataracts, detached retinas, glaucoma and macular degeneration. The aqueous and vitreous humors in the eye may be an ideal environment for the regeneration of the electrical fields within the eye. We may, therefore have a gigantic epidemic of each of the four types of blindness. Another concern focuses on kidney dysfunction, which was shown in Chapter 5 to be impacted by EMFs. The kidneys have much fluid, both blood and also what will become urine, which may allow efficient the regeneration of electrical fields. Such regeneration may be expected to impact both the glomerular filtration and also the reabsorption, both essential to kidney function.
Does this mean that 5G will produce very large increases in kidney failure? The only way to find out is to do biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation. Let me give you a third example. Fetuses and very young babies have much more water in their bodies than do adults. Therefore, they may be a special risk for impacts of 5G, because of great increases in the regeneration of the electrical fields. Here one can think of all kinds of possibilities. Let me suggest two. We may have a gigantic (sorry about using that word again) epidemic of spontaneous abortion due the teratogenic effects. Another possibility is that instead of autism being one birth in 38, however horrendous that is, it could be one out of two, or even a majority of births. I don't know that these will happen, but these are the kinds of risks we are taking and there are many others one can think of. Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.
This brings us back to the earlier point. The only way to do 5G safety testing is to do genuine 5G biological safety testing. I have published on how this can be done relatively easily at relatively low cost and have, as you saw in the Chapter 6, told the FCC how this can be done. Those tests must be done by organizations completely independent of industry and that leaves out both ICNIRP and SCENIHR and a lot of other organizations.
Now we will get into the precautionary principle which is specially relevant to the EU but may have lessons for all of us.
Dr. VinciÅnas' last full paragraph reads as follows:
''The recourse to the EU's precautionary principle to stop distribution of 5G products appears too drastic a measure. We need first to see how this technology will be applied and how the scientific evidence will evolve. Please be assured that the Commission will keep abreast of the scientific evidence in view of safeguarding the health of European citizens at the highest level possible and in line with its mandate.''
Article 191 defines the Precautionary Principle as follows:
''According to the European Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when a phenomenon, product or process may have a dangerous effect, identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, if this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.
Recourse to the principle belongs in the general framework of risk analysis (which, besides risk evaluation, includes risk management and risk communication), and more particularly in the context of risk management which corresponds to the decision-making phase.
The Commission stresses that the precautionary principle may only be invoked in the event of a potential risk and that it can never justify arbitrary decisions. The precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met:
* identification of potentially adverse effects;
* evaluation of the scientific data available;
* the extent of scientific uncertainty.''
The question now is what about 5G? We have with 5G strong suspicions of similar or much more severe risk of effects documented elsewhere in this document. We have no biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation. Therefore, we have no risk analysis or risk management because we have no risk assessment whatsoever on 5G. So here we have Dr. VinciÅnas arguing that the request for precautionary principle application is premature. But it is not the request for the use of the precautionary principle that is premature, it is the Commission's claim that it has done the required risk analysis and risk assessment. This is the bizarre world that we live in.
The European Commission has done nothing to protect European citizens from the very serious health hazards and the U.S. FDA, EPA and National Cancer Institute have done nothing to protect U.S. citizens. The U.S. FCC has been worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.
Let me close, as follows. There have been certain points in our history where people have stood up to strong destructive forces against what often appeared to be insurmountable odds. Those people are THE most honored people in our history. The people who failed to do so are among the most despised people in our history. I am not at all sure we will have historians to record us 100 years from now or even 30 years from now, given the direction in which we are heading. But if we do, rest assured that these are the standards by which we will all be judged.
http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-emf-hazards''dr-martin-l.-pall''eu-emf2018-6-11us3.pdf
********************************************************
Leave a reply ''
Prominent Biochemistry Professor Warns '' 5G is the 'Stupidest Idea In The History of The World'
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 12:51
| Apr 13, 2019 at 10:46 pm.The international rollout of 5G wireless technology is well underway despite increasingly vocal opposition from scientists and medical professionals.
Many scientists, doctors and professionals are issuing dire warnings about 5G.
The international rollout of fifth generation wireless technology (5G) is well underway despite increasingly vocal opposition from scientists and medical professionals, who are desperately trying to warn us of the well-documented dangers of 5G. The government and industries involved in the 5G rollout are have zero concern for public safety, because the technology promises to be exceptionally profitable, while also forcing everyone everywhere into the emerging technocracy.
Adding to the voices of dissent is Martin L. Pall, PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. In a study and presentation, he takes a closer look at 5G technology, and issues a major warning for all of us.
''Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.'' ~Martin L. Pall, PhD
The report offered 4 explanations for why 5G is significantly more dangerous than earlier generations of wireless technology, noting?
5G is predicted to be particularly dangerous for each of four different reasons:The extraordinarily high numbers of antennae that are planned.The very high energy outputs which will be used to ensure penetration.The extraordinarily high pulsation levels.The apparent high level interactions of the 5G frequency on charged groups presumably including the voltage sensor charged groups.He begins by speaking about the current safety guidelines for 2g/3g/4g technologies, rightly pointing out that government approved guidelines ignore any adverse reactions that occur at dosages or exposures below said guidelines. In other words, as Pall points out, they are meaningless when it comes to safety.
He goes on to discuss eight ways in which this technology adversely affects human health, citing extensive scientific documentation:
Lowered FertilityNeurological/Neuropsychiatric effectsCellular DNA damageAptosis '' Programmed Cell DeathOxidative Stress and Free Radical DamageEndocrine (Hormonal) EffectsExcessive Intracellular CalciumCancerPall's conclusion does not mince words when describing 5G, saying, 'the 5G rollout is absolutely insane.'' The following presentation is exceptionally valuable for anyone wanting to better understand what this is about, and also how to fight against it.
Watch the presentation below, and please hare with friends and family.
Dr. Pall is only one of many professionals issuing the same warning, yet the rollout is moving forward without delay. Here, Dr. Martin Blank from Columbia University's Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, summarizes his assessment.
''We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison's light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation. Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.'' ~ Dr. Marin Blank
Here, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor, comments on 5G while speaking to the U.S. Senate.
''Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects'...5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.'' ~Dr. Sharon Goldberg
And finally, UN Staffer Claire Edwards had this strong warning for high level members of the United Nations, calling 5G a 'war on humanity.'
Creative Commons / Terence Newton / WakingTimes
While you're here'...'...We have a tiny favor to ask of you. Government think tanks have teamed up with social media companies and Google to censor independent media websites and government criticism. Despite this big tech crackdown on the free press, we have been very fortunate, and tens of thousands of people continue to read The Mind Unleashed every single day. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.. And because we value open and accessible information for all, we would never hide our content behind a paywall. Unlike Fox News or CNN, our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. We are not subject to the whims of billionaire shareholders. We are editorially independent, and that makes websites like this an important part in the war for truth and justice. Hopefully we're wrong, but without your help, we're afraid big tech companies may soon make The Mind Unleashed algorithmically disappear from the Internet. We need your support to keep delivering quality independent news. Every contribution, big or small, will go directly into funding independent journalism. Thank you. Click here to support usTRENDING NOW:GOING VIRAL:FOLLOW US:
Dan Coats Will Step Down, Trump Tweets - The Atlantic
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:18
Read: The impossible job of speaking truth to Trump
Coats was in a difficult position from the moment he took the job'--leading a workforce that holds telling ''truth to power'' as an ideal while at the same time reporting to a boss whom an ally once accused of creating a ''reality-distortion field'' around himself. The DNI position itself, which was created after the 9/11 attacks to better coordinate intelligence sharing among different agencies, is one Trump reportedly considered eliminating altogether before appointing Coats. Some experts have called the DNI an ineffective additional layer of bureaucracy, and those in the job have struggled to navigate murky authorities and rival bureaucratic power centers like the head of the CIA.
Indeed, Coats, a lifelong politician and twice-retired senator from Indiana, wasn't an obvious pick for a position historically held by intelligence professionals. But two former colleagues of his told me in February it was clear he respected the work of intelligence professionals and took seriously his responsibility to present it faithfully to the president. This was no small thing, given that the president had set a hostile tone with the intelligence community before he was even inaugurated, invoking Nazi Germany when excoriating intelligence leaks on Twitter.
Coats's commitment to the intelligence community's Russia assessment even helped stoke the first rumors that he might leave, in the summer of 2018. During an onstage interview at the Aspen Security Forum at the time, he expressed shock that Trump planned to invite Putin to Washington, and offered gentle disapproval of Trump's long, solo-but-for-translators meeting with the Russian leader. White House officials took their frustration to the press, with one telling The Washington Post that the intelligence chief had ''gone rogue.'' At the time, though, the worry was that Coats might resign, according to the Post. Trump praised him publicly afterward, Coats apologized, and people seemed to move on.
But then, in January 2019, it appeared Coats's time in office was truly coming to a close. He, alongside other intelligence leaders, delivered congressional testimony on worldwide threats that undercut or contradicted statements Trump had made on issues including Iran, North Korea, and Russia. The president afterward scolded his intelligence leaders on Twitter for being ''naive'' on Iran in particular. At first, it appeared that incident was quickly smoothed over: After an Oval Office meeting with his intelligence chiefs days later, Trump tweeted about his confidence in the intelligence community and said the media had misrepresented their testimony.
Read: Trump's top intelligence officials contradict him on Russian meddling
Weeks later, though, reports surfaced that he was still furious with his DNI'--and now it wasn't about Iran; it was about North Korea. Trump has bet big on getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons; Coats, in his testimony, said it was unlikely the North would ever do so. Trump reportedly saw this as undermining his position weeks before a planned second summit with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. ''I think you have a classic example here where Director Coats is trying to make policy and not inform policy,'' the president's friend Chris Ruddy said on CNN in mid-February. The Washington Post followed up with a report that Trump, according to one adviser, saw Coats as disloyal. The paper pointed out that the anonymous complaints fit a pattern of previous administration departures, serving to put ''the offending official on notice that their days are numbered.''
Text of S. 3153: Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate version) - GovTrack.us
Sun, 28 Jul 2019 19:45
1. (a)This Act may be cited as the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 .
(b)The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I'--Intelligence Activities
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Classified Schedules of Authorizations.
Sec. 103. Personnel ceiling adjustments.
Sec. 104. Intelligence Community Management Account.
TITLE II'--Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Computation of annuities for employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.
TITLE III'--General Intelligence Community Matters
Sec. 301. Restriction on conduct of intelligence activities.
Sec. 302. Increase in employee compensation and benefits authorized by law.
Sec. 303. Modification of special pay authority for science, technology, engineering, or mathematics positions and addition of special pay authority for cyber positions.
Sec. 304. Modification of appointment of Chief Information Officer of the Intelligence Community.
Sec. 305. Director of National Intelligence review of placement of positions within the intelligence community on the Executive Schedule.
Sec. 306. Supply Chain and Counterintelligence Risk Management Task Force.
Sec. 307. Consideration of adversarial telecommunications and cybersecurity infrastructure when sharing intelligence with foreign governments and entities.
Sec. 308. Cyber protection support for the personnel of the intelligence community in positions highly vulnerable to cyber attack.
Sec. 309. Modification of authority relating to management of supply-chain risk.
Sec. 310. Limitations on determinations regarding certain security classifications.
TITLE IV'--Matters relating to elements of the intelligence community
Subtitle A'--Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Sec. 401. Authority for protection of current and former employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Sec. 402. Designation of the program manager-information sharing environment.
Sec. 403. Modification to the executive schedule.
Subtitle B'--Other elements
Sec. 411. Repeal of foreign language proficiency requirement for certain senior level positions in the Central Intelligence Agency.
Sec. 412. Plan for designation of counterintelligence component of Defense Security Service as an element of intelligence community.
Sec. 413. Notice not required for private entities.
TITLE V'--Election matters
Sec. 501. Report on cyber attacks by foreign governments against United States election infrastructure.
Sec. 502. Review of intelligence community's posture to collect against and analyze Russian efforts to influence the Presidential election.
Sec. 503. Assessment of foreign intelligence threats to Federal elections.
Sec. 504. Strategy for countering Russian cyber threats to United States elections.
Sec. 505. Information sharing with State election officials.
Sec. 506. Designation of counterintelligence officer to lead election security matters.
TITLE VI'--Security clearances
Sec. 601. Definitions.
Sec. 602. Reports and plans relating to security clearances and background investigations.
Sec. 603. Improving the process for security clearances.
Sec. 604. Goals for promptness of determinations regarding security clearances.
Sec. 605. Security Executive Agent.
Sec. 606. Report on unified, simplified, governmentwide standards for positions of trust and security clearances.
Sec. 607. Report on clearance in person concept.
Sec. 608. Budget request documentation on funding for clearances.
Sec. 609. Reports on reciprocity for security clearances inside of departments and agencies.
Sec. 610. Intelligence community reports on security clearances.
Sec. 611. Periodic report on positions in the intelligence community which can be conducted without access to classified information, networks, or facilities.
Sec. 612. Information sharing program for positions of trust.
Sec. 613. Report on protections for confidentiality of whistleblower-related communications.
TITLE VII'--Reports and other matters
Subtitle A'--Matters relating to Russia and other foreign powers
Sec. 701. Limitation relating to establishment or support of cybersecurity unit with the Government of Russia.
Sec. 702. Report on returning Russian compounds.
Sec. 703. Assessment of threat finance relating to Russia.
Sec. 704. Notification of an active measures campaign.
Sec. 705. Notification of travel by accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation in the United States.
Subtitle B'--Reports
Sec. 711. Technical correction to Inspector General study.
Sec. 712. Reports on authorities of the Chief Intelligence Officer of the Department of Homeland Security.
Sec. 713. Report on cyber exchange program.
Sec. 714. Report on role of Director of National Intelligence with respect to certain foreign investments.
Sec. 715. Report on surveillance by foreign governments against United States telecommunications networks.
Sec. 716. Biennial report on foreign investment risks.
Sec. 717. Modification of certain reporting requirement on travel of foreign diplomats.
Sec. 718. Semiannual reports on investigations of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
Sec. 719. Congressional notification of designation of covered intelligence officer as persona non grata.
Sec. 720. Inspectors General reports on classification.
Sec. 721. Reports on intelligence community participation in vulnerabilities equities process of Federal Government.
Sec. 722. Reports on global water insecurity and national security implications.
Sec. 723. Annual report on memoranda of understanding between elements of intelligence community and other entities of the United States Government regarding significant operational activities or policy.
Sec. 724. Repeal of report requirement for inspectors general of certain elements of intelligence community.
Sec. 725. Repeal of requirement for annual personnel level assessments for the intelligence community.
Sec. 726. Report on outreach strategy addressing threats from United States adversaries to the United States technology sector.
Sec. 727. Study on the feasibility of encrypting unclassified wireline and wireless telephone calls.
Sec. 728. Modification of requirement for annual report on hiring and retention of minority employees.
Subtitle C'--Other matters
Sec. 731. Technical amendments related to the Department of Energy.
Sec. 732. Securing energy infrastructure.
Sec. 733. Sense of Congress on WikiLeaks.
Sec. 734. Bug bounty programs.
Sec. 735. Sense of Congress on consideration of espionage activities when considering whether or not to provide visas to foreign individuals to be accredited to a United Nations mission in the United States.
Sec. 736. Public Interest Declassification Board.
Sec. 737. Modification of authorities relating to the National Intelligence University.
2.In this Act:
(1)The term congressional intelligence committees has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003 ).
(2)The term intelligence community has the meaning given such term in such section.
I 101. (a)Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for the conduct of the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the following elements of the United States Government:
(1)The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(2)The Central Intelligence Agency.
(3)The Department of Defense.
(4)The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(5)The National Security Agency.
(6)The Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.
(7)The Coast Guard.
(8)The Department of State.
(9)The Department of the Treasury.
(10)The Department of Energy.
(11)The Department of Justice.
(12)The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(13)The Drug Enforcement Administration.
(14)The National Reconnaissance Office.
(15)The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(16)The Department of Homeland Security.
(b)Funds appropriated by the Department of Defense Missile Defeat and Defense Enhancements Appropriations Act, 2018 (division B of Public Law 115''96 ) for intelligence or intelligence-related activities are specifically authorized by Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3094 ), as specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations pursuant to section 102, and are subject to such section 504.
(c) (1)Section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3094 ) is amended'--
(A)by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(B)by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
(e)This section cannot be waived for any covert action (as defined in section 503(e)) unless and until the Director of National Intelligence notifies the congressional intelligence committees that the action is urgent for national security purposes.
.
(2)Such section, as amended by paragraph (1), is further amended'--
(A)by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(B)by inserting after subsection (e), as added by paragraph (1), the following:
(f)This section cannot be waived for any major system (as defined in section 506A(e)) acquisition unless and until the Director of National Intelligence notifies the congressional intelligence committees that the action is urgent for national security purposes.
.
102. (a) (1)The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101 and, subject to section 103, the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2018, for the conduct of the intelligence activities of the elements listed in paragraphs (1) through (16) of section 101, are those specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations for fiscal year 2018 prepared to accompany this Act.
(2)The amounts authorized to be appropriated under section 101 and, subject to section 103, the authorized personnel ceilings as of September 30, 2019, for the conduct of the intelligence activities of the elements listed in paragraphs (1) through (16) of section 101, are those specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations for fiscal year 2019 prepared to accompany this Act.
(b) (1)The classified Schedules of Authorizations referred to in subsection (a) shall be made available to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the President.
(2)Subject to paragraph (3), the President shall provide for suitable distribution of the classified Schedules of Authorizations referred to in subsection (a), or of appropriate portions of such Schedule, within the executive branch.
(3)The President shall not publicly disclose the classified Schedules of Authorizations or any portion of such Schedule except'--
(A)as provided in section 601(a) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (50 U.S.C. 3306(a) );
(B)to the extent necessary to implement the budget; or
(C)as otherwise required by law.
103. (a)The Director of National Intelligence may authorize employment of civilian personnel in excess of the number authorized for fiscal year 2018 by the classified Schedules of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a) if the Director of National Intelligence determines that such action is necessary to the performance of important intelligence functions, except that the number of personnel employed in excess of the number authorized under such section may not, for any element of the intelligence community, exceed'--
(1)3 percent of the number of civilian personnel authorized under such schedule for such element; or
(2)10 percent of the number of civilian personnel authorized under such schedule for such element for the purposes of converting the performance of any function by contractors to performance by civilian personnel.
(b)The Director of National Intelligence shall establish guidelines that govern, for each element of the intelligence community, the treatment under the personnel levels authorized under section 102(a), including any exemption from such personnel levels, of employment or assignment in'--
(1)a student program, trainee program, or similar program;
(2)a reserve corps or as a reemployed annuitant; or
(3)details, joint duty, or long-term, full-time training.
(c)Not later than 15 days prior to the exercise of an authority described in subsection (a), the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees'--
(1)a written notice of the exercise of such authority; and
(2)in the case of an exercise of such authority subject to the limitation in subsection (a)(2), a written justification for the contractor conversion that includes a comparison of whole-of-government costs.
104. (a) (1)There is authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of National Intelligence for fiscal year 2018 the sum of $546,900,000. Within such amount, funds identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a) for advanced research and development shall remain available until September 30, 2019.
(2)There is authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of National Intelligence for fiscal year 2019 the sum of $539,624,000. Within such amount, funds identified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a) for advanced research and development shall remain available until September 30, 2020.
(b)The elements within the Intelligence Community Management Account of the Director of National Intelligence are authorized 797 positions as of September 30, 2018. Personnel serving in such elements may be permanent employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or personnel detailed from other elements of the United States Government.
(c) (1) (A)In addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account for fiscal year 2018 such additional amounts as are specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a). Such additional amounts made available for advanced research and development shall remain available until September 30, 2019.
(B)In addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account by subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated for the Intelligence Community Management Account for fiscal year 2019 such additional amounts as are specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a). Such additional amounts made available for advanced research and development shall remain available until September 30, 2020.
(2)In addition to the personnel authorized by subsection (b) for elements of the Intelligence Community Management Account as of September 30, 2018, there are authorized such additional personnel for the Community Management Account as of that date as are specified in the classified Schedule of Authorizations referred to in section 102(a).
II 201.There is authorized to be appropriated for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Fund $514,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
202. (a) (1)Section 221 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2031 ) is amended'--
(A)in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking the period at the end and inserting , as determined by using the annual rate of basic pay that would be payable for full-time service in that position.;
(B)in subsection (b)(1)(C)(i), by striking 12-month and inserting 2-year;
(C)in subsection (f)(2), by striking one year and inserting two years;
(D)in subsection (g)(2), by striking one year each place such term appears and inserting two years;
(E)by redesignating subsections (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) as subsections (i), (j), (k), (l), and (m), respectively; and
(F)by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
(h) (1)Subject to the rights of former spouses under subsection (b) and section 222, at the time of retirement a married participant found by the Director to be in good health may elect to receive an annuity reduced in accordance with subsection (f)(1)(B) and designate in writing an individual having an insurable interest in the participant to receive an annuity under the system after the participant's death, except that any such election to provide an insurable interest survivor annuity to the participant's spouse shall only be effective if the participant's spouse waives the spousal right to a survivor annuity under this Act. The amount of the annuity shall be equal to 55 percent of the participant's reduced annuity.
(2)The annuity payable to the participant making such election shall be reduced by 10 percent of an annuity computed under subsection (a) and by an additional 5 percent for each full 5 years the designated individual is younger than the participant. The total reduction under this subparagraph may not exceed 40 percent.
(3)The annuity payable to the designated individual shall begin on the day after the day that the retired participant dies and terminate on the last day of the month before the designated individual dies.
(4)An annuity that is reduced under this subsection shall, effective the first day of the month following the death of the designated individual, be recomputed and paid as if the annuity had not been so reduced.
.
(2) (A)The Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.) is amended'--
(i)in section 232(b)(1) (50 U.S.C. 2052(b)(1) ), by striking 221(h), and inserting 221(i),; and
(ii)in section 252(h)(4) (50 U.S.C. 2082(h)(4) ), by striking 221(k) and inserting 221(l).
(B)Subsection (a) of section 14 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 3514(a) ) is amended by striking 221(h)(2), 221(i), 221(l), and inserting 221(i)(2), 221(j), 221(m),.
(b)Subparagraph (B) of section 222(b)(5) of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2032(b)(5)(B) ) is amended by striking one year and inserting two years.
(c)Subparagraph (A) of section 252(b)(3) of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2082(b)(3)(A) ) is amended by striking October 1, 1990 both places that term appears and inserting March 31, 1991.
(d)Section 273 of the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act (50 U.S.C. 2113 ) is amended'--
(1)by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and
(2)by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
(b)The Director shall have the authority to reemploy an annuitant on a part-time basis in accordance with section 8344(l) of title 5, United States Code.
.
(e)The amendments made by subsection (a)(1)(A) and subsection (c) shall take effect as if enacted on October 28, 2009, and shall apply to computations or participants, respectively, as of such date.
III 301.The authorization of appropriations by this Act shall not be deemed to constitute authority for the conduct of any intelligence activity that is not otherwise authorized by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.
302.Appropriations authorized by this Act for salary, pay, retirement, and other benefits for Federal employees may be increased by such additional or supplemental amounts as may be necessary for increases in such compensation or benefits authorized by law.
303.Section 113B of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3049a ) is amended'--
(1)by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
(a) (1)Notwithstanding part III of title 5, United States Code, the head of each element of the intelligence community may, for 1 or more categories of positions in such element that require expertise in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics'--
(A)establish higher minimum rates of pay; and
(B)make corresponding increases in all rates of pay of the pay range for each grade or level, subject to subsection (b) or (c), as applicable.
(2)The special rate supplements resulting from the establishment of higher rates under paragraph (1) shall be basic pay for the same or similar purposes as those specified in section 5305(j) of title 5, United States Code.
;
(2)by redesignating subsections (b) through (f) as subsections (c) through (g), respectively;
(3)by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
(b) (1)Notwithstanding subsection (c), the Director of the National Security Agency may establish a special rate of pay'--
(A)not to exceed the rate of basic pay payable for level II of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, if the Director certifies to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, that the rate of pay is for positions that perform functions that execute the cyber mission of the Agency; or
(B)not to exceed the rate of basic pay payable for the Vice President of the United States under section 104 of title 3, United States Code, if the Director certifies to the Secretary of Defense, by name, individuals that have advanced skills and competencies and that perform critical functions that execute the cyber mission of the Agency.
(2)Employees receiving a special rate under paragraph (1) shall be subject to an aggregate pay limitation that parallels the limitation established in section 5307 of title 5, United States Code, except that'--
(A)any allowance, differential, bonus, award, or other similar cash payment in addition to basic pay that is authorized under title 10, United States Code (or any other applicable law in addition to title 5 of such Code, excluding the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.)) shall also be counted as part of aggregate compensation; and
(B)aggregate compensation may not exceed the rate established for the Vice President of the United States under section 104 of title 3, United States Code.
(3)The number of individuals who receive basic pay established under paragraph (1)(B) may not exceed 100 at any time.
(4)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, special rates of pay and the limitation established under paragraph (1)(B) may not be used as comparative references for the purpose of fixing the rates of basic pay or maximum pay limitations of qualified positions under section 1599f of title 10, United States Code, or section 226 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 147 ).
;
(4)in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by striking A minimum and inserting Except as provided in subsection (b), a minimum;
(5)in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (2), by inserting or (b) after by subsection (a); and
(6)in subsection (g), as redesignated by paragraph (2)'--
(A)in paragraph (1), by striking Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 and inserting Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 ; and
(B)in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting or (b) after subsection (a).
304.Section 103G(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3032(a) ) is amended by striking President and inserting Director.
305. (a)The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall conduct a review of positions within the intelligence community regarding the placement of such positions on the Executive Schedule under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code. In carrying out such review, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall determine'--
(1)the standards under which such review will be conducted;
(2)which positions should or should not be on the Executive Schedule; and
(3)for those positions that should be on the Executive Schedule, the level of the Executive Schedule at which such positions should be placed.
(b)Not later than 60 days after the date on which the review under subsection (a) is completed, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives an unredacted report describing the standards by which the review was conducted and the outcome of the review.
306. (a)The Director of National Intelligence shall establish a Supply Chain and Counterintelligence Risk Management Task Force to standardize information sharing between the intelligence community and the acquisition community of the United States Government with respect to the supply chain and counterintelligence risks.
(b)The Supply Chain and Counterintelligence Risk Management Task Force established under subsection (a) shall be composed of'--
(1)a representative of the Defense Security Service of the Department of Defense;
(2)a representative of the General Services Administration;
(3)a representative of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy of the Office of Management and Budget;
(4)a representative of the Department of Homeland Security;
(5)the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center; and
(6)such other members as the Director of National Intelligence determines appropriate.
(c)Each member of the Supply Chain and Counterintelligence Risk Management Task Force established under subsection (a) shall have a security clearance at the top secret level and be able to access sensitive compartmented information.
(d) (1)Not less frequently than once each year, the Supply Chain and Counterintelligence Risk Management Task Force established under subsection (a) shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the activities of the Task Force during the previous year, including identification of the supply chain and counterintelligence risks shared with the acquisition community of the United States Government by the intelligence community.
(2)In this subsection, the term appropriate congressional committees means the following:
(A)The congressional intelligence committees.
(B)The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(C)The Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives.
307.Whenever the head of an element of the intelligence community enters into an intelligence sharing agreement with a foreign government or any other foreign entity, the head of the element shall consider the pervasiveness of telecommunications and cybersecurity infrastructure, equipment, and services provided by adversaries of the United States, particularly China and Russia, or entities of such adversaries in the country or region of the foreign government or other foreign entity entering into the agreement.
308. (a)In this section:
(1)The term personal accounts means accounts for online and telecommunications services, including telephone, residential Internet access, email, text and multimedia messaging, cloud computing, social media, health care, and financial services, used by personnel of the intelligence community outside of the scope of their employment with elements of the intelligence community.
(2)The term personal technology devices means technology devices used by personnel of the intelligence community outside of the scope of their employment with elements of the intelligence community, including networks to which such devices connect.
(b) (1)Subject to a determination by the Director of National Intelligence, the Director may provide cyber protection support for the personal technology devices and personal accounts of the personnel described in paragraph (2).
(2)The personnel described in this paragraph are personnel of the intelligence community'--
(A)who the Director determines to be highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and hostile information collection activities because of the positions occupied by such personnel in the intelligence community; and
(B)whose personal technology devices or personal accounts are highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and hostile information collection activities.
(c)Subject to the availability of resources, the cyber protection support provided to personnel under subsection (a) may include training, advice, assistance, and other services relating to cyber attacks and hostile information collection activities.
(d)Nothing in this section shall be construed'--
(1)to encourage personnel of the intelligence community to use personal technology devices for official business; or
(2)to authorize cyber protection support for senior intelligence community personnel using personal devices, networks, and personal accounts in an official capacity.
(e)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the provision of cyber protection support under subsection (a). The report shall include'--
(1)a description of the methodology used to make the determination under subsection (a)(2); and
(2)guidance for the use of cyber protection support and tracking of support requests for personnel receiving cyber protection support under subsection (a).
309. (a)Subsection (f) of section 309 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112''87 ; 50 U.S.C. 3329 note) is amended by striking the date that is 180 days after.
(b)Subsection (g) of such section is amended by striking the date and all that follows through the period and inserting September 30, 2023..
(c)Such section is amended'--
(1)by redesignating subsections (f) and (g), as amended by subsections (a) and (b), as subsections (g) and (h), respectively; and
(2)by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
(f) (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 and not less frequently than once each calendar year thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence shall, in consultation with each head of a covered agency, submit to the congressional intelligence committees (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003 )), a report that details the determinations and notifications made under subsection (c) during the most recently completed calendar year.
(2)The first report submitted under paragraph (1) shall detail all the determinations and notifications made under subsection (c) before the date of the submittal of the report.
.
310. (a)An officer of an element of the intelligence community who has been nominated by the President for a position that requires the advice and consent of the Senate may not make a classification decision with respect to information related to such officer.
(b) (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), in a case in which an officer described in subsection (a) has been nominated as described in such subsection and classification authority rests with the officer or another officer who reports directly to such officer, a classification decision with respect to information relating to the officer shall be made by the Director of National Intelligence.
(2)In a case described in paragraph (1) in which the officer nominated is the Director of National Intelligence, the classification decision shall be made by the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.
(c)Whenever the Director or the Principal Deputy Director makes a decision under subsection (b), the Director or the Principal Deputy Director, as the case may be, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report detailing the reasons for the decision.
IV A 401.Section 5(a)(4) of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (50 U.S.C. 3506(a)(4) ) is amended by striking such personnel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the Director of National Intelligence may designate; and inserting current and former personnel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and their immediate families as the Director of National Intelligence may designate;.
402. (a)Section 1016(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485(b) ) is amended'--
(1)in paragraph (1), by striking President and inserting Director of National Intelligence; and
(2)in paragraph (2), by striking President both places that term appears and inserting Director of National Intelligence.
(b)Section 1016(f)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (6 U.S.C. 485(f)(1) ) is amended by striking The individual designated as the program manager shall serve as program manager until removed from service or replaced by the President (at the President's sole discretion). and inserting Beginning on the date of the enactment of the Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 , each individual designated as the program manager shall be appointed by the Director of National Intelligence..
403.Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center..
B 411. (a)Section 104A of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3036 ) is amended by striking subsection (g).
(b)Section 611 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108''487 ) is amended by striking subsection (c).
412.Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a plan to designate the counterintelligence component of the Defense Security Service of the Department of Defense as an element of the intelligence community by not later than January 1, 2020. Such plan shall'--
(1)address the implications of such designation on the authorities, governance, personnel, resources, information technology, collection, analytic products, information sharing, and business processes of the Defense Security Service and the intelligence community; and
(2)not address the personnel security functions of the Defense Security Service.
413.Section 3553 of title 44, United States Code, is amended'--
(1)by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (k); and
(2)by inserting after subsection (i) the following:
(j)Nothing in this section shall be construed to require the Secretary to provide notice to any private entity before the Secretary issues a binding operational directive under subsection (b)(2).
.
V 501. (a)In this section:
(1)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees;
(B)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(C)the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
(2)The term congressional leadership includes the following:
(A)The majority leader of the Senate.
(B)The minority leader of the Senate.
(C)The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(D)The minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(3)The term State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
(b)Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis shall submit to congressional leadership and the appropriate congressional committees a report on cyber attacks and attempted cyber attacks by foreign governments on United States election infrastructure in States and localities in connection with the Presidential election in the United States and such cyber attacks (or attempted cyber attacks) as the Under Secretary anticipates against such infrastructure. Such report shall identify the States and localities affected and shall include cyber attacks and attempted cyber attacks against voter registration databases, voting machines, voting-related computer networks, and the networks of Secretaries of State and other election officials of the various States.
(c)The report submitted under subsection (b) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
502. (a)Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall'--
(1)complete an after action review of the posture of the intelligence community to collect against and analyze efforts of the Government of Russia to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election in the United States; and
(2)submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the findings of the Director with respect to such review.
(b)The review required by subsection (a) shall include, with respect to the posture and efforts described in paragraph (1) of such subsection, the following:
(1)An assessment of whether the resources of the intelligence community were properly aligned to detect and respond to the efforts described in subsection (a)(1).
(2)An assessment of the information sharing that occurred within elements of the intelligence community.
(3)An assessment of the information sharing that occurred between elements of the intelligence community.
(4)An assessment of applicable authorities necessary to collect on any such efforts and any deficiencies in those authorities.
(5)A review of the use of open source material to inform analysis and warning of such efforts.
(6)A review of the use of alternative and predictive analysis.
(c)The report required by subsection (a)(2) shall be submitted to the congressional intelligence committees in classified form.
503. (a)In this section:
(1)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees;
(B)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(C)the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
(2)The term congressional leadership includes the following:
(A)The majority leader of the Senate.
(B)The minority leader of the Senate.
(C)The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(D)The minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(3)The term security vulnerability has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (6 U.S.C. 1501 ).
(b)The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant elements of the intelligence community, shall'--
(1)commence not later than 1 year before any regularly scheduled Federal election and complete not later than 180 days before such election, an assessment of security vulnerabilities of State election systems; and
(2)not later than 180 days before any regularly scheduled Federal election, submit a report on such security vulnerabilities and an assessment of foreign intelligence threats to the election to'--
(A)congressional leadership; and
(B)the appropriate congressional committees.
(c)Not later than 90 days before any regularly scheduled Federal election, the Director of National Intelligence shall'--
(1)update the assessment of foreign intelligence threats to that election; and
(2)submit the updated assessment to'--
(A)congressional leadership; and
(B)the appropriate congressional committees.
504. (a)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Treasury, shall develop a whole-of-government strategy for countering the threat of Russian cyber attacks and attempted cyber attacks against electoral systems and processes in the United States, including Federal, State, and local election systems, voter registration databases, voting tabulation equipment, and equipment and processes for the secure transmission of election results.
(b)The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include the following elements:
(1)A whole-of-government approach to protecting United States electoral systems and processes that includes the agencies and departments indicated in subsection (a) as well as any other agencies and departments of the United States, as determined appropriate by the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(2)Input solicited from Secretaries of State of the various States and the chief election officials of the States.
(3)Technical security measures, including auditable paper trails for voting machines, securing wireless and Internet connections, and other technical safeguards.
(4)Detection of cyber threats, including attacks and attempted attacks by Russian government or nongovernment cyber threat actors.
(5)Improvement in the identification and attribution of Russian government or nongovernment cyber threat actors.
(6)Deterrence, including actions and measures that could or should be undertaken against or communicated to the Government of Russia or other entities to deter attacks against, or interference with, United States election systems and processes.
(7)Improvement in Federal Government communications with State and local election officials.
(8)Public education and communication efforts.
(9)Benchmarks and milestones to enable the measurement of concrete steps taken and progress made in the implementation of the strategy.
(c) (1)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall jointly brief the appropriate congressional committees on the strategy developed under subsection (a).
(2)In this subsection, the term appropriate congressional committees means the following:
(A)The congressional intelligence committees.
(B)The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(C)The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
505. (a) (1)Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall support the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, and any other official of the Department of Homeland Security designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, in sponsoring a security clearance up to the top secret level for each eligible chief election official of a State or the District of Columbia, and additional eligible designees of such election official as appropriate, at the time that such election official assumes such position.
(2)Consistent with applicable policies and directives, the Director of National Intelligence may issue interim clearances, for a period to be determined by the Director, to a chief election official as described in paragraph (1) and up to 1 designee of such official under such paragraph.
(b) (1)The Director of National Intelligence shall assist the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis with sharing any appropriate classified information related to threats to election systems and to the integrity of the election process with chief election officials and such designees who have received a security clearance under subsection (a).
(2)The Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis shall coordinate with the Director of National Intelligence to facilitate the sharing of information to the affected Secretaries of State or States.
(c)In this section, the term State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
506. (a)The Director of National Intelligence shall designate a national counterintelligence officer within the National Counterintelligence and Security Center to lead, manage, and coordinate counterintelligence matters relating to election security.
(b)The person designated under subsection (a) shall also lead, manage, and coordinate counterintelligence matters relating to risks posed by interference from foreign powers (as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 )) to the following:
(1)The Federal Government election security supply chain.
(2)Election voting systems and software.
(3)Voter registration databases.
(4)Critical infrastructure related to elections.
(5)Such other Government goods and services as the Director of National Intelligence considers appropriate.
VI 601.In this title:
(1)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees;
(B)the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate ;
(C)the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate ;
(D)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate ;
(E)the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives ;
(F)the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives ;
(G)the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives ; and
(H)the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives .
(2)The term Council means the Security, Suitability, and Credentialing Performance Accountability Council established pursuant to Executive Order 13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103; 50 U.S.C. 3161 note), or any successor entity.
(3)The term Security Executive Agent means the Director of National Intelligence acting as the Security Executive Agent in accordance with section 605.
(4)The term Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent means the Director of the Office of Personnel Management acting as the Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent in accordance with Executive Order 13467 (73 Fed. Reg. 38103; 50 U.S.C. 3161 note), or any successor entity.
602. (a)It is the sense of Congress that'--
(1)ensuring the trustworthiness and security of the workforce, facilities, and information of the Federal Government is of the highest priority to national security and public safety;
(2)the President and Congress should prioritize the modernization of the personnel security framework to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability;
(3)the current system for security clearance, suitability and fitness for employment, and credentialing lacks efficiencies and capabilities to meet the current threat environment, recruit and retain a trusted workforce, and capitalize on modern technologies; and
(4)changes to policies or processes to improve this system should be vetted through the Council to ensure standardization, portability, and reciprocity in security clearances across the Federal Government.
(b) (1)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees the following:
(A)A plan to reduce the background investigation inventory to 500,000 by the end of year 2018 and to 200,000 or an otherwise sustainable steady-level by the end of year 2019. Such plan shall include notes of any required changes in investigative and adjudicative standards or resources.
(B)A plan to consolidate the conduct of background investigations associated with the processing for positions of trust in the most effective and efficient manner between the National Background Investigation Bureau and the Defense Security Service, or a successor organization. Such plan shall address required funding, personnel, contracts, information technology, field office structure, policy, governance, schedule, transition costs, and effects on stakeholders.
(2) (A)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Council, in coordination with the members of the Council, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the future of personnel security to reflect changes in threats, the workforce, and technology.
(B)The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
(i)A risk framework for granting and renewing access to classified information.
(ii)A discussion of the use of technologies to prevent, detect, and monitor threats.
(iii)A discussion of efforts to address reciprocity and portability.
(iv)A discussion of the characteristics of effective insider threat programs.
(v)An analysis of how to integrate data from continuous vetting, insider threat programs, and human resources data.
(vi)Recommendations on interagency governance.
(3)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Council, in coordination with the members of the Council, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a plan to implement the report's framework and recommendations submitted under paragraph (2)(A).
(4)Not less frequently than monthly, the Security Executive Agent shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees regarding the status of the disposition of requests received from departments and agencies of the Federal Government for a change to, or approval under, the Federal investigative standards, the national adjudicative guidelines, continuous evaluation, or other national policy regarding personnel security.
603. (a)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent, in coordination with the members of the Council, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that includes the following:
(1)A review of whether the information requested on the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86) and by the Federal Investigative Standards prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence appropriately support the adjudicative guidelines under Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (known as the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines). Such review shall include identification of whether any such information currently collected is unnecessary to support the adjudicative guidelines.
(2)An assessment of whether such Questionnaire, Standards, and guidelines should be revised to account for the prospect of a holder of a security clearance becoming an insider threat.
(3)Recommendations to improve the background investigation process by'--
(A)simplifying the Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard Form 86) and increasing customer support to applicants completing such Questionnaire;
(B)using remote techniques and centralized locations to support or replace field investigation work;
(C)using secure and reliable digitization of information obtained during the clearance process;
(D)building the capacity of the background investigation labor sector; and
(E)replacing periodic reinvestigations with continuous evaluation techniques in all appropriate circumstances.
(b)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent shall, in coordination with the members of the Council, establish the following:
(1)A policy and implementation plan for the issuance of interim security clearances.
(2)A policy and implementation plan to ensure contractors are treated consistently in the security clearance process across agencies and departments of the United States as compared to employees of such agencies and departments. Such policy shall address'--
(A)prioritization of processing security clearances based on the mission the contractors will be performing;
(B)standardization of how requests for clearance sponsorship are issued;
(C)digitization of background investigation-related forms;
(D)use of the polygraph;
(E)the application of the adjudicative guidelines under Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (known as the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines);
(F)reciprocal recognition of clearances across agencies and departments of the United States, regardless of status of periodic reinvestigation;
(G)tracking of clearance files as individuals move from employment with an agency or department of the United States to employment in the private sector;
(H)collection of timelines for movement of contractors across agencies and departments;
(I)reporting on security incidents and job performance that affect the ability to hold a security clearance;
(J)any recommended changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) necessary to ensure that information affecting contractor clearances or suitability is appropriately and expeditiously shared between and among agencies and contractors; and
(K)portability of contractor security clearances between or among contracts at the same agency and between or among contracts at different agencies that require the same level of clearance.
(3)A strategy and implementation plan that'--
(A)provides for periodic reinvestigations as part of a security clearance determination only on an as-needed, risk-based basis;
(B)includes actions to assess the extent to which automated records checks and other continuous evaluation methods may be used to expedite or focus reinvestigations; and
(C)provides an exception for certain populations if the Security Executive Agent'--
(i)determines such populations require reinvestigations at regular intervals; and
(ii)provides written justification to the appropriate congressional committees for any such determination.
(4)A policy and implementation plan for agencies and departments of the United States, as a part of the security clearance process, to accept automated records checks generated pursuant to a security clearance applicant's employment with a prior employer.
(5)A policy for the use of certain background materials on individuals collected by the private sector for background investigation purposes.
604. (a)The Council shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that, by December 31, 2021, 90 percent of all determinations regarding'--
(1)security clearances'--
(A)at the secret level are issued in 30 days or fewer; and
(B)at the top secret level are issued in 90 days or fewer; and
(2)reciprocity of a security clearance at the same level are recognized in 2 weeks or fewer.
(b)The Council shall ensure that by December 31, 2021, reinvestigation on a set periodicity is not be required for more than 10 percent of the population that holds a security clearance.
(c)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit a plan to carry out this section to the appropriate congressional committees. Such plan shall include recommended interim milestones for the goals set forth in subsections (a) and (b) for 2019, 2020, and 2021.
(d)In this section, the term reciprocity means reciprocal recognition by Federal departments and agencies of eligibility for access to classified information.
605. (a)The Director of National Intelligence shall serve as the Security Executive Agent for all departments and agencies of the United States.
(b)The duties of the Security Executive Agent are as follows:
(1)To direct the oversight of investigations, reinvestigations, adjudications, and, as applicable, polygraphs for eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position made by any Federal agency.
(2)To review the national security background investigation and adjudication programs of Federal agencies to determine whether such programs are being implemented in accordance with this section.
(3)To develop and issue uniform and consistent policies and procedures to ensure the effective, efficient, timely, and secure completion of investigations, polygraphs, and adjudications relating to determinations of eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.
(4)Unless otherwise designated by law, to serve as the final authority to designate a Federal agency or agencies to conduct investigations of persons who are proposed for access to classified information or for eligibility to hold a sensitive position to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for obtaining and retaining access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, as applicable.
(5)Unless otherwise designated by law, to serve as the final authority to designate a Federal agency or agencies to determine eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position in accordance with Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995, as amended.
(6)To ensure reciprocal recognition of eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position among Federal agencies, including acting as the final authority to arbitrate and resolve disputes among such agencies involving the reciprocity of investigations and adjudications of eligibility.
(7)To execute all other duties assigned to the Security Executive Agent by law.
(c)The Security Executive Agent shall'--
(1)issue guidelines and instructions to the heads of Federal agencies to ensure appropriate uniformity, centralization, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, and security in processes relating to determinations by such agencies of eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, including such matters as investigations, polygraphs, adjudications, and reciprocity;
(2)have the authority to grant exceptions to, or waivers of, national security investigative requirements, including issuing implementing or clarifying guidance, as necessary;
(3)have the authority to assign, in whole or in part, to the head of any Federal agency (solely or jointly) any of the duties of the Security Executive Agent described in subsection (b) or the authorities described in paragraphs (1) and (2), provided that the exercise of such assigned duties or authorities is subject to the oversight of the Security Executive Agent, including such terms and conditions (including approval by the Security Executive Agent) as the Security Executive Agent determines appropriate; and
(4)define and set standards for continuous evaluation for continued access to classified information and for eligibility to hold a sensitive position.
606.Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent and the Suitability and Credentialing Executive Agent, in coordination with the other members of the Council, shall jointly issue a report regarding the advisability and the risks, benefits, and costs to the Government and to industry of consolidating to not more than 3 tiers for positions of trust and security clearances.
607. (a)It is the sense of Congress that to reflect the greater mobility of the modern workforce, alternative methodologies merit analysis to allow greater flexibility for individuals moving in and out of positions that require access to classified information, while still preserving security.
(b)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent shall submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees that describes the requirements, feasibility, and advisability of implementing a clearance in person concept described in subsection (c) for maintaining access to classified information.
(c)The clearance in person concept'--
(1)permits an individual to maintain his or her eligibility for access to classified information, networks, and facilities for up to 3 years after the individual's access to classified information would otherwise lapse; and
(2)unless otherwise directed by the Security Executive Agent, recognizes an individual's security clearance and background investigation as current, regardless of employment status.
(d)The report required under subsection (b) shall address'--
(1)requirements for an individual to voluntarily remain in a continuous evaluation program validated by the Security Executive Agent even if the individual is not in a position requiring access to classified information;
(2)appropriate safeguards for privacy;
(3)advantages to government and industry;
(4)the costs and savings associated with implementation;
(5)the risks of such implementation, including security and counterintelligence risks;
(6)an appropriate funding model; and
(7)fairness to small companies and independent contractors.
608. (a)As part of the fiscal year 2020 budget request submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the President shall include exhibits that identify the resources allocated by each agency to processing security clearances, disaggregated by type of security clearance.
(b)Each exhibit submitted under subsection (a) shall include, with respect to security clearances, details on the costs of'--
(1)background investigations and reinvestigations;
(2)additional screening mechanisms, such as polygraphs, medical exams, and psychological exams;
(3)adjudications;
(4)other means of continuous vetting, such as continuous evaluation and user activity monitoring; and
(5)the average per person cost for each type of security clearance.
609. (a)The head of each Federal department or agency shall submit an annual report to the Security Executive Agent that'--
(1)identifies the number of individuals whose security clearances take more than 2 weeks to be reciprocally recognized after such individuals move to another part of such department or agency; and
(2)breaks out the information described in paragraph (1) by type of clearance and the reasons for any delays.
(b)Not less frequently than once each year, the Security Executive Agent shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an annual report that summarizes the information received pursuant to subsection (a) during the period covered by such report.
(c)In this section, the term reciprocally recognized means reciprocal recognition by Federal departments and agencies of eligibility for access to classified information.
610.Section 506H of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3104 ) is amended'--
(1)in subsection (a)(1)'--
(A)in subparagraph (A)(ii), by adding and at the end;
(B)in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ; and and inserting a period; and
(C)by striking subparagraph (C);
(2)by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3)by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
(b) (1)Not later than March 1 of each year, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit a report to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate , and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives regarding the security clearances processed by each element of the intelligence community during the preceding fiscal year. Each report submitted under this paragraph shall separately identify security clearances processed for Federal employees and contractor employees sponsored by each such element.
(2)Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include, for each element of the intelligence community for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following:
(A)The total number of initial security clearance background investigations sponsored for new applicants.
(B)The total number of security clearance periodic reinvestigations sponsored for existing employees.
(C)The total number of initial security clearance background investigations for new applicants that were adjudicated with notice of a determination provided to the prospective applicant, including'--
(i)the total number of such adjudications that were adjudicated favorably and granted access to classified information; and
(ii)the total number of such adjudications that were adjudicated unfavorably and resulted in a denial or revocation of a security clearance.
(D)The total number of security clearance periodic background investigations that were adjudicated with notice of a determination provided to the existing employee, including'--
(i)the total number of such adjudications that were adjudicated favorably; and
(ii)the total number of such adjudications that were adjudicated unfavorably and resulted in a denial or revocation of a security clearance.
(E)The total number of pending security clearance background investigations, including initial applicant investigations and periodic reinvestigations, that were not adjudicated as of the last day of such year and that remained pending, categorized as follows:
(i)For 180 days or shorter.
(ii)For longer than 180 days, but shorter than 12 months.
(iii)For 12 months or longer, but shorter than 18 months.
(iv)For 18 months or longer, but shorter than 24 months.
(v)For 24 months or longer.
(F)For any security clearance determinations completed or pending during the year preceding the year for which the report is submitted that have taken longer than 12 months to complete'--
(i)an explanation of the causes for the delays incurred during the period covered by the report; and
(ii)the number of such delays involving a polygraph requirement.
(G)The percentage of security clearance investigations, including initial and periodic reinvestigations, that resulted in a denial or revocation of a security clearance.
(H)The percentage of security clearance investigations that resulted in incomplete information.
(I)The percentage of security clearance investigations that did not result in enough information to make a decision on potentially adverse information.
(3)The report required under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
; and
(4)in subsection (c), as redesignated, by striking subsection (a)(1) and inserting subsections (a)(1) and (b).
611.Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report that reviews the intelligence community for which positions can be conducted without access to classified information, networks, or facilities, or may only require a security clearance at the secret level.
612. (a)In this section, the term agency has the meaning given the term Executive agency in section 105 of title 5, United Stats Code.
(b)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent shall establish a program to share between and among agencies and industry partners of the Federal Government information regarding individuals applying for and in positions of trust, including derogatory and suitability information.
(c)The goal of the program required by subsection (b) shall be to alert agencies and industry partners as to individuals who may require further vetting or should be subject to certain insider threat programs regarding granted access, or continued access, to classified information, especially when such individuals change agencies, employers, or contracts.
(d)The Security Executive Agent shall ensure that the program required by subsection (b) includes such safeguards for privacy as the Security Executive Agent considers appropriate.
(e)The Security Executive Agent shall ensure that under the program required by subsection (b)'--
(1)sufficient information is provided to the private sector so that employers in the private sector can make informed decisions about hiring and retention in positions of trust; and
(2)agencies and private sector entities that receive information under the program have the capabilities in place to safeguard personnel privacy in compliance with applicable law and policy.
(f) (1)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent shall submit a plan to the appropriate congressional committees for the implementation of the program required under subsection (b).
(2)The plan required under paragraph (1) shall include'--
(A)matters that address privacy, security, and human resources processes; and
(B)any recommendations of the Security Executive Agent for legislative or administrative action to carry out or improve the program.
613.Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Security Executive Agent shall, in coordination with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report detailing the controls employed by the intelligence community to ensure that continuous evaluation programs, including those involving user activity monitoring, protect the confidentiality of whistleblower-related communications.
VII A 701. (a)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(1)the congressional intelligence committees; and
(2)the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(b) (1)No amount may be expended by the Federal Government, other than the Department of Defense, to enter into or implement any bilateral agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation regarding cybersecurity, including the establishment or support of any cybersecurity unit, unless, at least 30 days prior to the conclusion of any such agreement, the Director of National Intelligence submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on such agreement that includes the elements required by subsection (c).
(2)Any agreement between the Department of Defense and the Russian Federation regarding cybersecurity shall be conducted in accordance with section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114''328 ), as amended by section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115''91 ).
(c)If the Director submits a report under subsection (a) with respect to an agreement, such report shall include a description of each of the following:
(1)The purpose of the agreement.
(2)The nature of any intelligence to be shared pursuant to the agreement.
(3)The expected value to national security resulting from the implementation of the agreement.
(4)Such counterintelligence concerns associated with the agreement as the Director may have and such measures as the Director expects to be taken to mitigate such concerns.
(d)This section shall not be construed to affect any existing authority of the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, or any other head of an element of the intelligence community, to share or receive foreign intelligence on a case-by-case basis.
702. (a)In this section, the term covered compounds means the real property in New York, the real property in Maryland, and the real property in San Francisco, California, that were under the control of the Government of Russia in 2016 and were removed from such control in response to various transgressions by the Government of Russia, including the interference by the Government of Russia in the 2016 election in the United States.
(b)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the intelligence risks of returning the covered compounds to Russian control.
(c)The report required by this section shall be submitted in classified and unclassified forms.
703. (a)In this section, the term threat finance means'--
(1)the financing of cyber operations, global influence campaigns, intelligence service activities, proliferation, terrorism, or transnational crime and drug organizations;
(2)the methods and entities used to spend, store, move, raise, conceal, or launder money or value, on behalf of threat actors;
(3)sanctions evasion; and
(4)other forms of threat finance activity domestically or internationally, as defined by the President.
(b)Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report containing an assessment of Russian threat finance. The assessment shall be based on intelligence from all sources, including from the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence of the Department of the Treasury.
(c)The report required by subsection (b) shall include each of the following:
(1)A summary of leading examples from the 3-year period preceding the date of the submittal of the report of threat finance activities conducted by, for the benefit of, or at the behest of'--
(A)officials of the Government of Russia;
(B)persons subject to sanctions under any provision of law imposing sanctions with respect to Russia;
(C)Russian nationals subject to sanctions under any other provision of law; or
(D)Russian oligarchs or individuals involved in organized crime.
(2)An assessment with respect to any trends or patterns in threat finance activities relating to Russia, including common methods of conducting such activities and global nodes of money laundering used by Russian threat actors described in paragraph (1) and associated entities.
(3)An assessment of any connections between Russian individuals involved in money laundering and the Government of Russia.
(4)A summary of engagement and coordination with international partners on threat finance relating to Russia, especially in Europe, including examples of such engagement and coordination.
(5)An identification of any resource and collection gaps.
(6)An identification of'--
(A)entry points of money laundering by Russian and associated entities into the United States;
(B)any vulnerabilities within the United States legal and financial system, including specific sectors, which have been or could be exploited in connection with Russian threat finance activities; and
(C)the counterintelligence threat posed by Russian money laundering and other forms of threat finance, as well as the threat to the United States financial system and United States efforts to enforce sanctions and combat organized crime.
(7)Any other matters the Director determines appropriate.
(d)The report required under subsection (b) may be submitted in classified form.
704. (a)In this section:
(1)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees; and
(B)the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(2)The term congressional leadership includes the following:
(A)The majority leader of the Senate.
(B)The minority leader of the Senate.
(C)The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(D)The minority leader of the House of Representatives.
(b)The Director of National Intelligence, in cooperation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the head of any other relevant agency, shall notify the congressional leadership and the Chairman and Vice Chairman or Ranking Member of each of the appropriate congressional committees, and of other relevant committees of jurisdiction, each time the Director of National Intelligence determines there is credible information that a foreign power has, is, or will attempt to employ a covert influence or active measures campaign with regard to the modernization, employment, doctrine, or force posture of the nuclear deterrent or missile defense.
(c)Each notification required by subsection (a) shall include information concerning actions taken by the United States to expose or halt an attempt referred to in subsection (a).
705.In carrying out the advance notification requirements set out in section 502 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division N of Public Law 115''31 ; 131 Stat. 825; 22 U.S.C. 254a note), the Secretary of State shall'--
(1)ensure that the Russian Federation provides notification to the Secretary of State at least 2 business days in advance of all travel that is subject to such requirements by accredited diplomatic and consular personnel of the Russian Federation in the United States, and take necessary action to secure full compliance by Russian personnel and address any noncompliance; and
(2)provide notice of travel described in paragraph (1) to the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation within 1 hour of receiving notice of such travel.
B 711.Section 11001(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended'--
(1)in the subsection heading, by striking and inserting ;
(2)in paragraph (1), by striking audit and inserting review; and
(3)in paragraph (2), by striking audit and inserting review.
712. (a)In this section, the term Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise has the meaning given such term in Department of Homeland Security Instruction Number 264''01''001, or successor authority.
(b)Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on the authorities of the Under Secretary.
(c)The report required by subsection (b) shall include each of the following:
(1)An analysis of whether the Under Secretary has the legal and policy authority necessary to organize and lead the Homeland Security Intelligence Enterprise, with respect to intelligence, and, if not, a description of'--
(A)the obstacles to exercising the authorities of the Chief Intelligence Officer of the Department and the Homeland Security Intelligence Council, of which the Chief Intelligence Officer is the chair; and
(B)the legal and policy changes necessary to effectively coordinate, organize, and lead intelligence activities of the Department of Homeland Security.
(2)A description of the actions that the Secretary has taken to address the inability of the Under Secretary to require components of the Department, other than the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department to'--
(A)coordinate intelligence programs; and
(B)integrate and standardize intelligence products produced by such other components.
713. (a)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the potential establishment of a fully voluntary exchange program between elements of the intelligence community and private technology companies under which'--
(1)an employee of an element of the intelligence community with demonstrated expertise and work experience in cybersecurity or related disciplines may elect to be temporarily detailed to a private technology company that has elected to receive the detailee; and
(2)an employee of a private technology company with demonstrated expertise and work experience in cybersecurity or related disciplines may elect to be temporarily detailed to an element of the intelligence community that has elected to receive the detailee.
(b)The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1)An assessment of the feasibility of establishing the exchange program described in such subsection.
(2)Identification of any challenges in establishing the exchange program.
(3)An evaluation of the benefits to the intelligence community that would result from the exchange program.
714. (a)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the heads of the elements of the intelligence community determined appropriate by the Director, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the role of the Director in preparing analytic materials in connection with the evaluation by the Federal Government of national security risks associated with potential foreign investments into the United States.
(b)The report under subsection (a) shall include'--
(1)a description of the current process for the provision of the analytic materials described in subsection (a);
(2)identification of the most significant benefits and drawbacks of such process with respect to the role of the Director, including any benefits or drawbacks relating to the time allotted to the Director to prepare such materials; and
(3)recommendations to improve such process.
715. (a)In this section, the term appropriate congressional committees means the following:
(1)The congressional intelligence committees.
(2)The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(3)The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives.
(b)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall, in coordination with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing'--
(1)any attempts known to the intelligence community by foreign governments to exploit cybersecurity vulnerabilities in United States telecommunications networks (including Signaling System No. 7) to target for surveillance of United States persons, including employees of the Federal Government; and
(2)any actions, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, taken by the intelligence community to protect agencies and personnel of the United States Government from surveillance conducted by foreign governments.
716. (a) (1)The Director of National Intelligence shall establish an intelligence community interagency working group to prepare the biennial reports required by subsection (b).
(2)The Director of National Intelligence shall serve as the chairperson of such interagency working group.
(3)Such interagency working group shall be composed of representatives of each element of the intelligence community that the Director of National Intelligence determines appropriate.
(b) (1)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on foreign investment risks prepared by the interagency working group established under subsection (a).
(2)Each report required by paragraph (1) shall include an identification, analysis, and explanation of the following:
(A)Any current or projected major threats to the national security of the United States with respect to foreign investment.
(B)Any strategy used by a foreign country that such interagency working group has identified to be a country of special concern to use foreign investment to target the acquisition of critical technologies, critical materials, or critical infrastructure.
(C)Any economic espionage efforts directed at the United States by a foreign country, particularly such a country of special concern.
717.Section 502(d)(2) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 115''31 ; 22 U.S.C. 254a note) is amended by striking the number and inserting a best estimate.
718. (a)Title XI of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3231 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
1105. (a)In this section:
(1)The term covered official means'--
(A)the heads of each element of the intelligence community; and
(B)the inspectors general with oversight responsibility for an element of the intelligence community.
(2)The term investigation means any inquiry, whether formal or informal, into the existence of an unauthorized public disclosure of classified information.
(3)The term unauthorized disclosure of classified information means any unauthorized disclosure of classified information to any recipient.
(4)The term unauthorized public disclosure of classified information means the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to a journalist or media organization.
(b) (1)Not less frequently than once every 6 months, each covered official shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on investigations of unauthorized public disclosures of classified information.
(2)Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to the preceding 6-month period, the following:
(A)The number of investigations opened by the covered official regarding an unauthorized public disclosure of classified information.
(B)The number of investigations completed by the covered official regarding an unauthorized public disclosure of classified information.
(C)Of the number of such completed investigations identified under subparagraph (B), the number referred to the Attorney General for criminal investigation.
(c) (1)Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security of the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the status of each referral made to the Department of Justice from any element of the intelligence community regarding an unauthorized disclosure of classified information made during the most recent 365-day period or any referral that has not yet been closed, regardless of the date the referral was made.
(2)Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include, for each referral covered by the report, at a minimum, the following:
(A)The date the referral was received.
(B)A statement indicating whether the alleged unauthorized disclosure described in the referral was substantiated by the Department of Justice.
(C)A statement indicating the highest level of classification of the information that was revealed in the unauthorized disclosure.
(D)A statement indicating whether an open criminal investigation related to the referral is active.
(E)A statement indicating whether any criminal charges have been filed related to the referral.
(F)A statement indicating whether the Department of Justice has been able to attribute the unauthorized disclosure to a particular entity or individual.
(d)Each report submitted under this section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may have a classified annex.
.
(b)The table of contents in the first section of the National Security Act of 1947 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1104 the following new item:
Sec. 1105. Semiannual reports on investigations of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.
.
719. (a)In this section, the term covered intelligence officer means'--
(1)a United States intelligence officer serving in a post in a foreign country; or
(2)a known or suspected foreign intelligence officer serving in a United States post.
(b)Not later than 72 hours after a covered intelligence officer is designated as a persona non grata, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a notification of that designation. Each such notification shall include'--
(1)the date of the designation;
(2)the basis for the designation; and
(3)a justification for the expulsion.
720. (a)Not later than October 1, 2019, each Inspector General listed in subsection (b) shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report that includes, with respect to the department or agency of the Inspector General, analyses of the following:
(1)The accuracy of the application of classification and handling markers on a representative sample of finished reports, including such reports that are compartmented.
(2)Compliance with declassification procedures.
(3)The effectiveness of processes for identifying topics of public or historical importance that merit prioritization for a declassification review.
(b)The Inspectors General listed in this subsection are as follows:
(1)The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community.
(2)The Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency.
(3)The Inspector General of the National Security Agency.
(4)The Inspector General of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
(5)The Inspector General of the National Reconnaissance Office.
(6)The Inspector General of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
721. (a)In this section:
(1)The term Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process document means the executive branch document entitled Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process dated November 15, 2017.
(2)The term Vulnerabilities Equities Process means the interagency review of vulnerabilities, pursuant to the Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process document or any successor document.
(3)The term vulnerability means a weakness in an information system or its components (for example, system security procedures, hardware design, and internal controls) that could be exploited or could affect confidentiality, integrity, or availability of information.
(b) (1)Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a written report describing'--
(A)with respect to each element of the intelligence community'--
(i)the title of the official or officials responsible for determining whether, pursuant to criteria contained in the Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process document or any successor document, a vulnerability must be submitted for review under the Vulnerabilities Equities Process; and
(ii)the process used by such element to make such determination; and
(B)the roles or responsibilities of that element during a review of a vulnerability submitted to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process.
(2)Not later than 30 days after any significant change is made to the process and criteria used by any element of the intelligence community for determining whether to submit a vulnerability for review under the Vulnerabilities Equities Process, such element shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report describing such change.
(3)Each report submitted under this subsection shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
(c) (1)Not less frequently than once each calendar year, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a classified report containing, with respect to the previous year'--
(A)the number of vulnerabilities submitted for review under the Vulnerabilities Equities Process;
(B)the number of vulnerabilities described in subparagraph (A) disclosed to each vendor responsible for correcting the vulnerability, or to the public, pursuant to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process; and
(C)the aggregate number, by category, of the vulnerabilities excluded from review under the Vulnerabilities Equities Process, as described in paragraph 5.4 of the Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process document.
(2)Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include an unclassified appendix that contains'--
(A)the aggregate number of vulnerabilities disclosed to vendors or the public pursuant to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process; and
(B)the aggregate number of vulnerabilities disclosed to vendors or the public pursuant to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process known to have been patched.
(3)The Director of National Intelligence may forgo submission of an annual report required under this subsection for a calendar year, if the Director notifies the intelligence committees in writing that, with respect to the same calendar year, an annual report required by paragraph 4.3 of the Vulnerabilities Equities Policy and Process document already has been submitted to Congress, and such annual report contains the information that would otherwise be required to be included in an annual report under this subsection.
722. (a)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than once every 5 years thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the implications of water insecurity on the national security interest of the United States, including consideration of social, economic, agricultural, and environmental factors.
(b)Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall include an assessment of water insecurity described in such subsection with a global scope, but focus on areas of the world'--
(1)of strategic, economic, or humanitarian interest to the United States'--
(A)that are, as of the date of the report, at the greatest risk of instability, conflict, human insecurity, or mass displacement; or
(B)where challenges relating to water insecurity are likely to emerge and become significant during the 5-year or the 20-year period beginning on the date of the report; and
(2)where challenges relating to water insecurity are likely to imperil the national security interests of the United States or allies of the United States.
(c)In researching a report required by subsection (a), the Director shall consult with'--
(1)such stakeholders within the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State as the Director considers appropriate; and
(2)such additional Federal agencies and persons in the private sector as the Director considers appropriate.
(d)Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
723.Section 311 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (50 U.S.C. 3313 ) is amended'--
(1)by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2)by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
(a)Each year, concurrent with the annual budget request submitted by the President to Congress under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, each head of an element of the intelligence community shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report that lists each memorandum of understanding or other agreement regarding significant operational activities or policy entered into during the most recently completed fiscal year between or among such element and any other entity of the United States Government.
(b)Each head of an element of an intelligence community who receives a request from the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives for a copy of a memorandum of understanding or other document listed in a report submitted by the head under subsection (a) shall submit to such committee the requested copy as soon as practicable after receiving such request.
.
724. (a)Section 8H of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended'--
(1)by striking subsection (g); and
(2)by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (g) and (h), respectively.
(b) (1)Section 507(a) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3106(a) ) is amended'--
(A)by striking paragraph (1); and
(B)by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4).
(2)Section 3001(j)(1)(C) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. 3341(j)(1)(C) ) is amended by striking and (h) and inserting and (g).
725.Section 506B of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3098 ) is hereby repealed.
726. (a)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report detailing outreach by the intelligence community and the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to United States industrial, commercial, scientific, technical, and academic communities on matters relating to the efforts of adversaries of the United States to acquire critical United States technology, intellectual property, and research and development information.
(b)The report required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1)A review of the current outreach efforts of the intelligence community and the Defense Intelligence Enterprise described in subsection (a), including the type of information conveyed in the outreach.
(2)A determination of the appropriate element of the intelligence community to lead such outreach efforts.
(3)An assessment of potential methods for improving the effectiveness of such outreach, including an assessment of the following:
(A)Those critical technologies, infrastructure, or related supply chains that are at risk from the efforts of adversaries described in subsection (a).
(B)The necessity and advisability of granting security clearances to company or community leadership, when necessary and appropriate, to allow for tailored classified briefings on specific targeted threats.
(C)The advisability of partnering with entities of the Federal Government that are not elements of the intelligence community and relevant regulatory and industry groups described in subsection (a), to convey key messages across sectors targeted by United States adversaries.
(D)Strategies to assist affected elements of the communities described in subparagraph (C) in mitigating, deterring, and protecting against the broad range of threats from the efforts of adversaries described in subsection (a), with focus on producing information that enables private entities to justify business decisions related to national security concerns.
(E)The advisability of the establishment of a United States Government-wide task force to coordinate outreach and activities to combat the threats from efforts of adversaries described in subsection (a).
(F)Such other matters as the Director of National Intelligence may consider necessary.
(c)In preparing the report required by subsection (a), the Director is encouraged to consult with other government agencies, think tanks, academia, representatives of the financial industry, or such other entities as the Director considers appropriate.
(d)The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex as necessary.
(e)In this section, the term appropriate committees of Congress means'--
(1)the congressional intelligence committees;
(2)the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
(3)the Committee on Armed Services, Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives.
727. (a)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall complete a study on the feasibility of encrypting unclassified wireline and wireless telephone calls between personnel in the intelligence community.
(b)Not later than 90 days after the date on which the Director completes the study required by subsection (a), the Director shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on the Director's findings with respect to such study.
728. (a)Subsection (a) of section 114 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3050 ) is amended by inserting and the preceding 5 fiscal years after fiscal year.
(b)Subsection (b) of such section is amended, in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking disaggregated data by category of covered person from each element of the intelligence community and inserting data, disaggregated by category of covered person and by element of the intelligence community,.
C 731. (a) (1)Subsection (b) of section 3212 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2402(b) ) is amended'--
(A)by striking paragraphs (11) and (12); and
(B)by redesignating paragraphs (13) through (19) as paragraphs (11) through (17), respectively.
(2)Section 3233(b) of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2423(b) ) is amended'--
(A)by striking Administration and inserting Department; and
(B)by inserting Intelligence and after the Office of.
(b)Section 4524(b)(2) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2674(b)(2) ) is amended by inserting Intelligence and after The Director of.
(c)Paragraph (2) of section 106(b) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3041(b)(2) ) is amended'--
(1)in subparagraph (E), by inserting and Counterintelligence after Office of Intelligence;
(2)by striking subparagraph (F);
(3)by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H), respectively; and
(4)in subparagraph (H), as so redesignated, by realigning the margin of such subparagraph 2 ems to the left.
732. (a)In this section:
(1)The term appropriate congressional committees means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees;
(B)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate ; and
(C)the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives .
(2)The term covered entity means an entity identified pursuant to section 9(a) of Executive Order 13636 of February 12, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 11742), relating to identification of critical infrastructure where a cybersecurity incident could reasonably result in catastrophic regional or national effects on public health or safety, economic security, or national security.
(3)The term exploit means a software tool designed to take advantage of a security vulnerability.
(4)The term industrial control system means an operational technology used to measure, control, or manage industrial functions, and includes supervisory control and data acquisition systems, distributed control systems, and programmable logic or embedded controllers.
(5)The term National Laboratory has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801 ).
(6)The term Program means the pilot program established under subsection (b).
(7)The term Secretary means the Secretary of Energy.
(8)The term security vulnerability means any attribute of hardware, software, process, or procedure that could enable or facilitate the defeat of a security control.
(b)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 2-year control systems implementation pilot program within the National Laboratories for the purposes of'--
(1)partnering with covered entities in the energy sector (including critical component manufacturers in the supply chain) that voluntarily participate in the Program to identify new classes of security vulnerabilities of the covered entities; and
(2)evaluating technology and standards, in partnership with covered entities, to isolate and defend industrial control systems of covered entities from security vulnerabilities and exploits in the most critical systems of the covered entities, including'--
(A)analog and nondigital control systems;
(B)purpose-built control systems; and
(C)physical controls.
(c) (1)The Secretary shall establish a working group'--
(A)to evaluate the technology and standards used in the Program under subsection (b)(2); and
(B)to develop a national cyber-informed engineering strategy to isolate and defend covered entities from security vulnerabilities and exploits in the most critical systems of the covered entities.
(2)The working group established under paragraph (1) shall be composed of not fewer than 10 members, to be appointed by the Secretary, at least 1 member of which shall represent each of the following:
(A)The Department of Energy.
(B)The energy industry, including electric utilities and manufacturers recommended by the Energy Sector coordinating councils.
(C) (i)The Department of Homeland Security; or
(ii)the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team.
(D)The North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
(E)The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(F) (i)The Office of the Director of National Intelligence; or
(ii)the intelligence community.
(G) (i)The Department of Defense; or
(ii)the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security and America's Security Affairs.
(H)A State or regional energy agency.
(I)A national research body or academic institution.
(J)The National Laboratories.
(d) (1)Not later than 180 days after the date on which funds are first disbursed under the Program, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an interim report that'--
(A)describes the results of the Program;
(B)includes an analysis of the feasibility of each method studied under the Program; and
(C)describes the results of the evaluations conducted by the working group established under subsection (c)(1).
(2)Not later than 2 years after the date on which funds are first disbursed under the Program, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a final report that'--
(A)describes the results of the Program;
(B)includes an analysis of the feasibility of each method studied under the Program; and
(C)describes the results of the evaluations conducted by the working group established under subsection (c)(1).
(e)Information shared by or with the Federal Government or a State, Tribal, or local government under this section'--
(1)shall be deemed to be voluntarily shared information;
(2)shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, or any provision of any State, Tribal, or local freedom of information law, open government law, open meetings law, open records law, sunshine law, or similar law requiring the disclosure of information or records; and
(3)shall be withheld from the public, without discretion, under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, and any provision of any State, Tribal, or local law requiring the disclosure of information or records.
(f) (1)A cause of action against a covered entity for engaging in the voluntary activities authorized under subsection (b)'--
(A)shall not lie or be maintained in any court; and
(B)shall be promptly dismissed by the applicable court.
(2)Nothing in this section subjects any covered entity to liability for not engaging in the voluntary activities authorized under subsection (b).
(g)Nothing in this section authorizes the Secretary or the head of any other department or agency of the Federal Government to issue new regulations.
(h) (1)There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (b).
(2)There is authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 to carry out subsections (c) and (d).
(3)Amounts made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall remain available until expended.
733.It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.
734. (a)In this section:
(1)The term appropriate committees of Congress means'--
(A)the congressional intelligence committees;
(B)the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate; and
(C)the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(2)The term bug bounty program means a program under which an approved computer security specialist or security researcher is temporarily authorized to identify and report vulnerabilities within the information system of an agency or department of the United States in exchange for compensation.
(3)The term information system has the meaning given such term in section 3502 of title 44, United States Code.
(b) (1)Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a strategic plan for appropriate agencies and departments of the United States to implement bug bounty programs.
(2)The plan required by paragraph (1) shall include'--
(A)an assessment of'--
(i)the Hack the Pentagon pilot program carried out by the Department of Defense in 2016 and subsequent bug bounty programs in identifying and reporting vulnerabilities within the information systems of the Department of Defense; and
(ii)private sector bug bounty programs, including such programs implemented by leading technology companies in the United States; and
(B)recommendations on the feasibility of initiating bug bounty programs at appropriate agencies and departments of the United States.
735.It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State, in considering whether or not to provide a visa to a foreign individual to be accredited to a United Nations mission in the United States, should consider'--
(1)known and suspected intelligence activities, espionage activities, including activities constituting precursors to espionage, carried out by the individual against the United States, foreign allies of the United States, or foreign partners of the United States; and
(2)the status of an individual as a known or suspected intelligence officer for a foreign adversary.
736.Section 710(b) of the Public Interest Declassification Act of 2000 (Public Law 106''567 ; 50 U.S.C. 3161 note) is amended by striking December 31, 2018 and inserting December 31, 2022.
737. (a) (1)Section 1595(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
(5)The National Intelligence University.
.
(2)The Secretary of Defense shall provide each person employed as a professor, instructor, or lecturer at the National Intelligence University on the date of the enactment of this Act an opportunity to elect to be paid under the compensation plan in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act (with no reduction in pay) or under the authority of section 1595 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (1).
(b)Section 2161 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:
(d)The Secretary of Defense may authorize the President of the National Intelligence University to accept qualifying research grants in the same manner and to the same degree as the President of the National Defense University under section 2165(e) of this title.
.
(c) (1)Chapter 108 of such title is amended by inserting after section 2167a the following:
2167b. (a) (1)The Secretary of Defense may permit eligible private sector employees who work in organizations relevant to national security to receive instruction at the National Intelligence University in accordance with this section.
(2)No more than the equivalent of 35 full-time student positions may be filled at any one time by private sector employees enrolled under this section.
(3)Upon successful completion of the course of instruction in which enrolled, any such private sector employee may be awarded an appropriate diploma or degree under section 2161 of this title.
(b) (1)For purposes of this section, an eligible private sector employee is an individual employed by a private firm that is engaged in providing to the Department of Defense, the intelligence community, or other Government departments or agencies significant and substantial intelligence or defense-related systems, products, or services or whose work product is relevant to national security policy or strategy.
(2)A private sector employee admitted for instruction at the National Intelligence University remains eligible for such instruction only so long as that person remains employed by the same firm, holds appropriate security clearances, and complies with any other applicable security protocols.
(c)Private sector employees may receive instruction at the National Intelligence University during any academic year only if, before the start of that academic year, the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, that providing instruction to private sector employees under this section during that year will further the national security interests of the United States.
(d)The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that'--
(1)the curriculum in which private sector employees may be enrolled under this section is not readily available through other schools and concentrates on national security relevant issues; and
(2)the course offerings at the National Intelligence University are determined by the needs of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community.
(e)The President of the National Intelligence University shall charge students enrolled under this section a rate that'--
(1)is at least the rate charged for employees of the United States outside the Department of Defense, less infrastructure costs; and
(2)considers the value to the school and course of the private sector student.
(f)While receiving instruction at the National Intelligence University, students enrolled under this section, to the extent practicable, are subject to the same regulations governing academic performance, attendance, norms of behavior, and enrollment as apply to Government civilian employees receiving instruction at the university.
(g) (1)Amounts received by the National Intelligence University for instruction of students enrolled under this section shall be retained by the university to defray the costs of such instruction.
(2)The source, and the disposition, of such funds shall be specifically identified in records of the university.
.
(2)The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 108 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2167a the following:
2167b. National Intelligence University: admission of private sector civilians to receive instruction.
.
Clips
VIDEO - Rat Film 2016 720p - YouTube
VIDEO - Bernie Sanders 2015: Baltimore Looks Like Third World Country - YouTube
VIDEO - Sanders: We Have a 'Racist President' Who Attacks African-Americans | Breitbart
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 14:53
Sunday on CNN's ''State of the Union,'' Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) responded to President Donald Trump attacking Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and his Baltimore district.
Sanders said, ''It's unbelievable that we have a President of the United States who attacks American cities, who attacks Americans, who attacks somebody who is a friend of mine, Elijah Cummings is one of the most decent and outstanding members of the House of Representatives. He fights every day to improve life in his community.''
He added, ''I do find it interesting that when we have rural Republican districts where life expectancy is going down, where downtowns are boarded up, and people are struggling, and they're struggling in rural and urban and suburban America, our job is to bring people together, to improve life for all people, not to be a '-- have a racist president who attacks people because they are African-Americans. That is a disgrace. And that is why we're going to defeat this president.''
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
VIDEO - Kamala Harris: As A Top-Tier Candidate, I Can Only Take Tulsi Gabbard's Comments So Seriously | Video | RealClearPolitics
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 14:26
Sen. Kamala Harris reacts to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ripping her at Wednesday's debate for using prisoners for cheap labor and keeping evidence from a man on death row as Attorney General of California. Harris in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper after the debate:
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction about that in the past? And how do you think it went? SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next debate.COOPER: for a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did expect that I might take hits tonight. But, you know, listen, this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his, you know, of his country like cockroaches. She who has embraced and been an apologist in a way to refuse to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously. So, you know, I'm prepared to move on.
VIDEO - (11) Praying Medic on Twitter: "Elijah Cummings in 1999: "This morning I left my community of Baltimore, a drug-infested area" where people are "walking around like zombies." https://t.co/wYDpzMyt2t" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 13:03
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - TULSI GABBARD DESTROYS KAMALA HARRIS! BRINGING UP HER RECORD AS A PROSECUTOR! - YouTube
VIDEO - Harris claims Kathleen Sebelius didn't write health care law - YouTube
VIDEO - Lucan Denfield on Twitter: "@adamcurry #noagenda https://t.co/UlNH5VOL9l" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 11:48
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Watch the 9 minutes that has America searching Tulsi Gabbard - YouTube
VIDEO - Brett Banditelli on Twitter: "Joe Biden telling a nationwide debate audience to "go to joe30330" is a digital strategist's nightmare luckily, he doesn't have any working on his campaign. https://t.co/ebhikdnYZP" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 11:12
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - (3) Trump War Room on Twitter: "WATCH: Joe Biden promises to kill the job of every American who works with fossil fuels. #DemDebate https://t.co/Np0iumK9SO" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:59
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - (3) Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter: "Tulsi takes down Kamala Harris over her record on criminal justice reform, the death penalty, and the war on drugs -TULSI2020 #DemDebate #Tulsi2020 https://t.co/7XQoiqHThu https://t.co/epf58iQNYI" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:58
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - (1) Justice OIG on Twitter: "Video: Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz discusses today's report on the Office of Justice Programs' Efforts to Address Challenges in Administering the Crime Victims Fund Program https://t.co/ZGs7MC8iZv https:/
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:52
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - (3) Boomieleaks on Twitter: "BREAKING: Kamala Harris responds to Tulsi Gabbard's criticism in post-debate interview with Anderson Cooper. https://t.co/p1OyektD6H" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:42
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Axios on Twitter: "Joe Biden to Kamala Harris: "Go easy on me, kid." https://t.co/b8EmhZavYK" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:21
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Reno Gruber on Twitter: "@TheMemeCorps @marwilliamson @adamcurry @THErealDVORAK ITM" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:17
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Praying Medic on Twitter: "Here's your Democrat front-runner. @realhublife - you owe us a creepy Joe recap tomorrow. https://t.co/NZk9Ca1sIS" / Twitter
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 10:17
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Charlamagne Tha God: We're Experiencing Fascism In America | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC - YouTube
VIDEO - Diana: The Night She Died (Conspiracy Documentary) | Timeline - YouTube
VIDEO - David Vance on Twitter: "It's a fair point Amy makes. The extreme environmentalist movement, which is now embedded in our schools, is causing distress to these innocent children. It's green driven hysteria. https://t.co/SG5t4I1HF8" / Twitter
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:37
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Atari Teenage Riot - "Modern Liars" (Official Video) - YouTube
VIDEO - Mario Lopez says letting your kids live as their preferred gender is 'dangerous' and 'alarming' | Daily Mail Online
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:59
Mario Lopez says he doesn't understand parents letting their children transition genders.
Lopez, 45, appeared on The Candace Owens Show last month, and the two spoke about what Owens described as a 'weird trend' coming out of Hollywood, citing Charlize Theron's upbringing of her seven-year-old daughter Jackson, who identifies as a transgender girl.
Theron, 43, in April told DailyMail.com that she is raising Jackson to be a girl based on the child's stated preference: 'I thought she was a boy, too, until she looked at me when she was three-years-old and said, "I am not a boy!"'
The latest: Mario Lopez, 45, said he doesn't understand parents letting their children transition genders in an appearance on The Candace Owens show last month, where the two discussed Charlize Theron's upbringing of her seven-year-old daughter Jackson, who identifies as a trans girl
Owens shared her own personal experience with kids to illustrate her point.
'Even though I'm not a parent, I nannied for five years of my life and the things that come out of children's mouths - they say whatever in the moment, you don't know what they've seen on TV what got in there ear,' she said. 'I've had children say they were mermaids, I've had children say they could fly - and jump off a staircase and thank God I caught him, right, cause he thought he could be Superman.
'I am trying to understand this new Hollywood mentality where they just think their children now have the mental authority,' Owens said, to which the Extra host responded, 'I am trying to understand it myself and please don't lump me into that whole [group].
The San Diego native, best known for playing A.C. Slater on Saved by the Bell, said he's 'kind of blown away too' by the parenting decisions of some of his Tinseltown peers.
Discussion: The San Diego native, best known for playing A.C. Slater on Saved by the Bell, sat down with Owens for a wide-ranging interview
Parenthood: Lopez has two children - daughter Gia, eight, and son Dominic, five, with wife Courtney Laine Mazza
Her take: Owens drew upon her five years of experience as a nanny to lend her expertise to the topic matter
Said Lopez: 'My God if you're three-years-old, I just think it's dangerous as a parent to make this determination then ... it's sort of alarming and my gosh, I just think about the repercussions later on.'
Lopez, who has two children with wife Courtney Laine Mazza - daughter Gia, eight, and son Dominic, five - added, 'I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids, but at the same time, you got to be the adult in the situation.'
He said that a child's 'formative years' are a more appropriate time to have the discussion,' and before that is 'way too young.'
Loving mom: Theron said of her kids, 'They were born who they are and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up, and who they want to be, is not for me to decide.' The family was seen in March in LA
Superstar: Theron was snapped on the red carpet in Las Vegas in April
In the interview in April with DailyMail.com, Theron made clear where she stands on the gender issue.
'I have two beautiful daughters who, just like any parent, I want to protect and I want to see thrive,' the Atomic Blonde star said. 'They were born who they are and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up, and who they want to be, is not for me to decide.'
The Oscar-winning Monster actress continued: 'My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be. And I will do everything in my power for my kids to have that right and to be protected within that.'
Elsewhere in the interview, Lopez was asked about the growth of movements such as #BelieveWomen, which he said had to be handled with care.
'I think blanket statements or hashtags like Believe Women ... I think that's a very dangerous hashtag ... because people lie and sometimes those people are women and God forbid you have a son out there and a girl may have felt a certain way about a situation - dismissed, hurt, whatever - and is feeling vengeful and just decides to tell a certain story that's not exactly true ... come back and really hurt that individual,' Lopez said. 'And if were just supposed to assume she's telling the truth, without any sort of proof, evidence - that's incredibly dangerous.
'And the other way around too, you can't just believe men, either.'
VIDEO - (1) Rep. Steven Smith ðºð¸ on Twitter: "These people have lost their minds. https://t.co/f6aIE6rOYn" / Twitter
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:56
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Ben Shapiro on Twitter: "So much journalisming https://t.co/i2pn2oL2xz" / Twitter
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:21
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Agreement With Radio Host's Reference To 'White Supremacist Jews' In Trump Administration | The Daily Caller
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:12
'):""},t.getDefinedParams=function(n,e){return e.filter(function(e){return n[e]}).reduce(function(e,t){return l(e,function(e,t,n){t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n;return e}({},t,n[t]))},{})},t.isValidMediaTypes=function(e){var t=["banner","native","video"];if(!Object.keys(e).every(function(e){return s()(t,e)}))return!1;if(e.video&&e.video.context)return s()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],e.video.context);return!0},t.getBidderRequest=function(e,t,n){return c()(e,function(e){return 0t[n]?-1:0}};var r=n(3),i=n(91),o=n.n(i),a=n(11),c=n.n(a),u=n(8),s=n.n(u),d=n(10);function f(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t\n ')):""}function se(e,t,n){return null==t?n:X(t)?t:Z(t)?t.toString():void C.logWarn("Unsuported type for param: "+e+" required type: String")}function de(e,t,n){return n.indexOf(e)===t}function fe(e,t){return e.concat(t)}function le(e){return Object.keys(e)}function pe(e,t){return e[t]}var ge=ye("timeToRespond",function(e,t){return ti;)a(r,n=t[i++])&&(~u(o,n)||o.push(n));return o}},142:function(e,t,n){var r=n(18).document;e.exports=r&&r.documentElement},143:function(e,t,n){var r=n(26),i=n(41),o=n(50)("IE_PROTO"),a=Object.prototype;e.exports=Object.getPrototypeOf||function(e){return e=i(e),r(e,o)?e[o]:"function"==typeof e.constructor&&e instanceof e.constructor?e.constructor.prototype:e instanceof Object?a:null}},144:function(e,t,n){n(145);for(var r=n(18),i=n(20),o=n(28),a=n(15)("toStringTag"),c="CSSRuleList,CSSStyleDeclaration,CSSValueList,ClientRectList,DOMRectList,DOMStringList,DOMTokenList,DataTransferItemList,FileList,HTMLAllCollection,HTMLCollection,HTMLFormElement,HTMLSelectElement,MediaList,MimeTypeArray,NamedNodeMap,NodeList,PaintRequestList,Plugin,PluginArray,SVGLengthList,SVGNumberList,SVGPathSegList,SVGPointList,SVGStringList,SVGTransformList,SourceBufferList,StyleSheetList,TextTrackCueList,TextTrackList,TouchList".split(","),u=0;u=e.length?(this._t=void 0,i(1)):i(0,"keys"==t?n:"values"==t?e[n]:[n,e[n]])},"values"),o.Arguments=o.Array,r("keys"),r("values"),r("entries")},146:function(e,t,n){"use strict";var r=n(147),i=n(78);e.exports=n(149)("Set",function(e){return function(){return e(this,0=c.syncsPerBidder?s.logWarn('Number of user syncs exceeded for "'.concat(t,'"')):r.canBidderRegisterSync(e,t)?(i[e].push([t,n]),void(o=function(e,t){return e[t]?e[t]+=1:e[t]=1,e}(o,t))):s.logWarn('Bidder "'.concat(t,'" not permitted to register their "').concat(e,'" userSync pixels.')):s.logWarn("Bidder is required for registering sync"):s.logWarn('User sync type "'.concat(e,'" not supported'))},r.syncUsers=function(){var e=0i&&(r=!1)),!r}),r&&e.run(),r}function c(e,t){void 0===e[t]?e[t]=1:e[t]++}},addWinningBid:function(e){S=S.concat(e),B.callBidWonBidder(e.bidder,e,c)},setBidTargeting:function(e){B.callSetTargetingBidder(e.bidder,e)},getWinningBids:function(){return S},getTimeout:function(){return m},getAuctionId:function(){return y},getAuctionStatus:function(){return u},getAdUnits:function(){return f},getAdUnitCodes:function(){return p},getBidRequests:function(){return g},getBidsReceived:function(){return b},getNoBids:function(){return v}}},n.d(t,"c",function(){return G}),t.f=d,t.d=v,n.d(t,"e",function(){return h}),t.g=S;var w=n(0),s=n(10),f=n(52),a=n(27),o=n(64),l=n(12),_=n(3),r=n(24),i=n(17),c=n(11),p=n.n(c),u=n(46);function g(e){return(g="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function b(){return(b=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;te.getTimeout()+_.config.getConfig("timeoutBuffer")&&e.executeCallback(!0)}function v(e,t){var n=e.getBidRequests(),r=p()(n,function(e){return e.bidderCode===t.bidderCode});!function(t,e){var n;if(t.bidderCode&&(0t.max?e:t},{max:0}),t=a()(e.buckets,function(e){if(n>o.max*r){var t=e.precision;void 0===t&&(t=s),i=(e.max*r).toFixed(t)}else if(n=e.min*r)return e});return t&&(i=function(e,t,n){var r=void 0!==t.precision?t.precision:s,i=t.increment*n,o=t.min*n,a=Math.pow(10,r+2),c=(e*a-o*a)/(i*a),u=Math.floor(c)*i+o;return(u=Number(u.toFixed(10))).toFixed(r)}(n,t,r)),i}function g(e){if(i.isEmpty(e)||!e.buckets||!Array.isArray(e.buckets))return!1;var t=!0;return e.buckets.forEach(function(e){void 0!==e.min&&e.max&&e.increment||(t=!1)}),t}},53:function(e,t){e.exports=function(e){if("function"!=typeof e)throw TypeError(e+" is not a function!");return e}},54:function(e,t,n){var r=n(16),i=n(18).document,o=r(i)&&r(i.createElement);e.exports=function(e){return o?i.createElement(e):{}}},55:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Object("z").propertyIsEnumerable(0)?Object:function(e){return"String"==r(e)?e.split(""):Object(e)}},56:function(e,t,n){var r=n(31);e.exports=Array.isArray||function(e){return"Array"==r(e)}},57:function(e,t,n){var r=n(14),i=n(18),o="__core-js_shared__",a=i[o]||(i[o]={});(e.exports=function(e,t){return a[e]||(a[e]=void 0!==t?t:{})})("versions",[]).push({version:r.version,mode:n(58)?"pure":"global",copyright:"(C) 2019 Denis Pushkarev (zloirock.ru)"})},58:function(e,t){e.exports=!0},59:function(e,t,n){var u=n(44),s=n(33),d=n(89);e.exports=function(c){return function(e,t,n){var r,i=u(e),o=s(i.length),a=d(n,o);if(c&&t!=t){for(;at.cpm/t.video.durationBucket)return-1;return 0};var s=n(0),d=n(36),r=n(65),i=n(46),o=n(17),f=n(64),c=n(3),u=n(2),a=n(134),l=n.n(a),p=n(11),g=n.n(p);function b(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t"):"";return'\n \n \n prebid.org wrapper\n \n ").concat(n,"\n \n \n \n ")}(e.vastUrl,e.vastImpUrl),ttlseconds:Number(e.ttl)};return"string"==typeof e.customCacheKey&&""!==e.customCacheKey&&(t.key=e.customCacheKey),t}},65:function(e,t,n){"use strict";Object.defineProperty(t,"__esModule",{value:!0}),n.d(t,"checkAdUnitSetup",function(){return G});var r=n(48),c=n(0),i=n(132),o=n(24),a=n(47),d=n(3),v=n(37),f=n(66),u=n(17),s=n(133),l=n(8),p=n.n(l),g=n(61),y=n(12),b=n(22);function h(e){return(h="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}function m(){return(m=Object.assign||function(e){for(var t=1;t (eg mediaTypes.banner.sizes)."),e.sizes=n);if(t&&t.video){var i=t.video;if(i.playerSize)if(Array.isArray(i.playerSize)&&1===i.playerSize.length&&i.playerSize.every(function(e){return Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(e,2)}))e.sizes=i.playerSize;else if(Object(c.isArrayOfNums)(i.playerSize,2)){var o=[];o.push(i.playerSize),A.logInfo("Transforming video.playerSize from [".concat(i.playerSize,"] to [[").concat(o,"]] so it's in the proper format.")),e.sizes=i.playerSize=o}else A.logError("Detected incorrect configuration of mediaTypes.video.playerSize. Please specify only one set of dimensions in a format like: [[640, 480]]. Removing invalid mediaTypes.video.playerSize property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize}if(t&&t.native){var a=t.native;a.image&&a.image.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.image.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.sizes),a.image&&a.image.aspect_ratios&&!Array.isArray(a.image.aspect_ratios)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.image.aspect_ratios field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.image.aspect_ratios),a.icon&&a.icon.sizes&&!Array.isArray(a.icon.sizes)&&(A.logError("Please use an array of sizes for native.icon.sizes field. Removing invalid mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes property from request."),delete e.mediaTypes.native.icon.sizes)}}),e},"checkAdUnitSetup");function W(e){var n=v.a[e]().filter(A.bind.call(c.adUnitsFilter,this,v.a.getAdUnitCodes())),r=v.a.getLastAuctionId();return n.map(function(e){return e.adUnitCode}).filter(c.uniques).map(function(t){return n.filter(function(e){return e.auctionId===r&&e.adUnitCode===t})}).filter(function(e){return e&&e[0]&&e[0].adUnitCode}).map(function(e){return function(e,t,n){return t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n,e}({},e[0].adUnitCode,{bids:e})}).reduce(function(e,t){return m(e,t)},{})}function L(e,t,n){var r={};r.reason=e,r.message=t,n&&(r.bid=n),A.logError(t),I.emit(U,r)}function z(e){e.forEach(function(e){if(void 0===e.called)try{e.call(),e.called=!0}catch(e){A.logError("Error processing command :","prebid.js",e)}})}S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr=function(e){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr",arguments),e){var t=S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode(e);return A.transformAdServerTargetingObj(t)}A.logMessage("Need to call getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCodeStr with adunitCode")},S.getAdserverTargetingForAdUnitCode=function(e){return S.getAdserverTargeting(e)[e]},S.getAdserverTargeting=function(e){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getAdserverTargeting",arguments),f.b.getAllTargeting(e)},S.getNoBids=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getNoBids",arguments),W("getNoBids")},S.getBidResponses=function(){return A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.getBidResponses",arguments),W("getBidsReceived")},S.getBidResponsesForAdUnitCode=function(t){return{bids:v.a.getBidsReceived().filter(function(e){return e.adUnitCode===t})}},S.setTargetingForGPTAsync=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForGPTAsync",arguments),Object(c.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var n=f.b.getAllTargeting(e);f.b.resetPresetTargeting(e),f.b.setTargetingForGPT(n,t),Object.keys(n).forEach(function(t){Object.keys(n[t]).forEach(function(e){"hb_adid"===e&&v.a.setStatusForBids(n[t][e],E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET)})}),I.emit(B,n)}else A.logError("window.googletag is not defined on the page")},S.setTargetingForAst=function(e){A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.setTargetingForAn",arguments),f.b.isApntagDefined()?(f.b.setTargetingForAst(e),I.emit(B,f.b.getAllTargeting())):A.logError("window.apntag is not defined on the page")},S.renderAd=function(e,t){if(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.renderAd",arguments),A.logMessage("Calling renderAd with adId :"+t),e&&t)try{var n=v.a.findBidByAdId(t);if(n){n.status=E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED,n.ad=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.ad,n.cpm),n.adUrl=A.replaceAuctionPrice(n.adUrl,n.cpm),v.a.addWinningBid(n),I.emit(C,n);var r=n.height,i=n.width,o=n.ad,a=n.mediaType,c=n.adUrl,u=n.renderer,s=document.createComment("Creative ".concat(n.creativeId," served by ").concat(n.bidder," Prebid.js Header Bidding"));if(A.insertElement(s,e,"body"),Object(y.c)(u))Object(y.b)(u,n);else if(e===document&&!A.inIframe()||"video"===a){var d="Error trying to write ad. Ad render call ad id ".concat(t," was prevented from writing to the main document.");L(R,d,n)}else if(o)e.open("text/html","replace"),e.write(o),e.close(),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n);else if(c){var f=A.createInvisibleIframe();f.height=r,f.width=i,f.style.display="inline",f.style.overflow="hidden",f.src=c,A.insertElement(f,e,"body"),q(e,i,r),A.callBurl(n)}else{var l="Error trying to write ad. No ad for bid response id: ".concat(t);L(N,l,n)}}else{var p="Error trying to write ad. Cannot find ad by given id : ".concat(t);L(x,p)}}catch(e){var g="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page:").concat(e.message);L(k,g)}else{var b="Error trying to write ad Id :".concat(t," to the page. Missing document or adId");L(P,b)}},S.removeAdUnit=function(e){(A.logInfo("Invoking pbjs.removeAdUnit",arguments),e)?(A.isArray(e)?e:[e]).forEach(function(e){for(var t=0;tObject(f.timestamp)()},O=function(e){return e&&(e.status&&!v()([E.BID_STATUS.BID_TARGETING_SET,E.BID_STATUS.RENDERED],e.status)||!e.status)};function w(e,n){var r=[],i=Object(f.groupBy)(e,"adUnitCode");return Object.keys(i).forEach(function(e){var t=Object(f.groupBy)(i[e],"bidderCode");Object.keys(t).forEach(function(e){return r.push(t[e].reduce(n))})}),r}var o=function(n){var i={},r={};function o(e){return"string"==typeof e?[e]:S.isArray(e)?e:n.getAdUnitCodes()||[]}function a(){var e=n.getBidsReceived();return l.config.getConfig("useBidCache")||(e=e.filter(function(e){return r[e.adUnitCode]===e.auctionId})),w(e=e.filter(function(e){return Object(f.deepAccess)(e,"video.context")!==b.a}).filter(function(e){return"banner"!==e.mediaType||Object(g.c)([e.width,e.height])}).filter(O).filter(I),f.getOldestHighestCpmBid)}function c(){return n.getStandardBidderAdServerTargeting().map(function(e){return e.key}).concat(T).filter(f.uniques)}function u(t,n,e,r){return Object.keys(n.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).forEach(function(e){t.length&&t.filter(function(t){return function(e){return e.adUnitCode===n.adUnitCode&&e.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e)).forEach(function(t){return function(e){S.isArray(e.adserverTargeting[t])||(e.adserverTargeting[t]=[e.adserverTargeting[t]]),e.adserverTargeting[t]=e.adserverTargeting[t].concat(n.adserverTargeting[t]).filter(f.uniques),delete n.adserverTargeting[t]}}(e))}),t.push(n),t}function s(){var t=c();return function(e){return-1===t.indexOf(e)}}function d(t){return m({},t.adUnitCode,Object.keys(t.adserverTargeting).filter(s()).map(function(e){return m({},e.substring(0,20),[t.adserverTargeting[e]])}))}return i.setLatestAuctionForAdUnit=function(e,t){r[e]=t},i.resetPresetTargeting=function(e){if(Object(f.isGptPubadsDefined)()){var t=o(e),r=n.getAdUnits().filter(function(e){return v()(t,e.code)});window.googletag.pubads().getSlots().forEach(function(n){A.forEach(function(t){r.forEach(function(e){e.code!==n.getAdUnitPath()&&e.code!==n.getSlotElementId()||n.setTargeting(t,null)})})})}},i.resetPresetTargetingAST=function(e){o(e).forEach(function(e){var t=window.apntag.getTag(e);if(t&&t.keywords){var n=Object.keys(t.keywords),r={};n.forEach(function(e){v()(A,e.toLowerCase())||(r[e]=t.keywords[e])}),window.apntag.modifyTag(e,{keywords:r})}})},i.getAllTargeting=function(e){var t=1=t.length?{value:void 0,done:!0}:(e=r(t,n),this._i+=e.length,{value:e,done:!1})})},68:function(e,t,r){var i=r(25),o=r(139),a=r(69),c=r(50)("IE_PROTO"),u=function(){},s="prototype",d=function(){var e,t=r(54)("iframe"),n=a.length;for(t.style.display="none",r(142).appendChild(t),t.src="javascript:",(e=t.contentWindow.document).open(),e.write("
VIDEO - '¤ð''ð''ð''ªð''²'¤ on Twitter: "1. CNN host OWNED by Rev. Bill Owens 2. Host keeps trying to use power of suggestion & directs EVERYTHING about "Trump racist" & he gets set straight & suddenly he's out of time 3. MSM race baiting i
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:41
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Ben Swann on Twitter: "Did @jaketapper just cut off @SenSanders during #DemDebate2 when he said that big pharma "will be advertising on CNN tonight during this debate? The words had not finished coming out of his mouth when he was told "Your time
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:40
Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
VIDEO - Donald Trump interview 2 days after 9/11 at ground zero - YouTube
VIDEO - The Carbonaro Effect: Inside Carbonaro - Realistic Duck Decoy | truTV - YouTube
VIDEO - Barr says encryption creates security risk - YouTube
VIDEO - Mick Mulvaney on Trump's feud with Rep. Cummings, fallout from Mueller - YouTube
VIDEO - Media bashes Mueller hearing as boring disaster | SUPERcuts! #702 - YouTube
VIDEO - CNN Analyst Phil Mudd: Democrats Should 'Shut Up' About Impeaching Trump - YouTube
VIDEO - Seattle News Videos | KIRO-TV
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:19
Sign in using your kiro profile
Need a profile? Register now.
{* #userInformationForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* traditionalSignIn_password *}
Remember Me
Forgot password? {* traditionalSignIn_signInButton *}
{* /userInformationForm *}
OR
Sign in using you account with: {* loginWidget *}
Welcome Back {* welcomeName *} {* loginWidget *}
Welcome back. Please sign in
{* #userInformationForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* traditionalSignIn_password *}
{* traditionalSignIn_signInButton *}
{* /userInformationForm *}
* Required fields
{* #registrationForm *} {* traditionalRegistration_emailAddress *} {* traditionalRegistration_password *} {* traditionalRegistration_passwordConfirm *} {* traditionalRegistration_displayName *} {* registration_firstName *} {* registration_lastName *} {* registration_birthday *} {* registration_postalZip *}
By submitting your registration information, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
{* createAccountButton *} {* /registrationForm *}
We collect zip code so that we may deliver news, weather, special offers and other content related to your specific geographic area. We have sent a confirmation email to {* data_emailAddress *}. Please check your email and click on the link to activate your account.
We look forward to seeing you on [website] frequently. Visit us and sign in to update your profile, receive the latest news and keep up to date with mobile alerts.
Click here to return to the page you were visiting.
Don't worry, it happens. We'll send you a link to create a new password. {* #forgotPasswordForm *} {* forgotPassword_emailAddress *}
{* forgotPassword_sendButton *}
{* /forgotPasswordForm *}
We have sent you an email with a link to change your password.
{* mergeAccounts *}
{* #tradAuthenticateMergeForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *} {* mergePassword *}
{* traditionalSignIn_signInButton *}
{* /tradAuthenticateMergeForm *}
Sorry we could not verify that email address. Enter your email below and we'll send you another email.
{* #resendVerificationForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *}
{* submitButton *}
{* /resendVerificationForm *}
Click submit to receive another verification email
{* #resendVerificationForm *} {* traditionalSignIn_emailAddress *}
{* submitButton *}
{* /resendVerificationForm *}
Check your email for a verification link
VIDEO - Joe diGenova: The DOJ Will Begin Dropping 'Hugely Embarrassing' Declassified Documents on Wednesday '' American Greatness
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 12:47
Joe diGenova: The DOJ Will Begin Dropping 'Hugely Embarrassing' Declassified Documents on Wednesday
F ormer U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova said Monday that the Justice Department will begin declassifying documents this week, echoing what the Hill's John Solomon reported on Friday. He also said that U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation of the investigators is moving very quickly and a grand jury has been convened.
''The declassification process will start this week,'' diGenova said on WMAL Radio Monday morning. ''There are going to be documents released I think by Wednesday. The attorney general as I understand it, is in the process of getting those ready to come out.''
The attorney told WMAL that the first documents that are going to be released are the ones that Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA) requested. He said a series of other releases will come after that.
DiGenova said that Durham is ''progressing very, very quickly'' in his investigation, and made sure to point out that it was a criminal investigation''not a ''review.''
''This is a criminal investigation of senior DOJ and FBI officials from the Obama administration and intelligence community people''including John Brennan,'' he declared. ''This is a federal grand jury. This is not a review. This is not an IG audit.''
He added: ''This is a criminal investigation of a bunch of people who tried to seditiously overthrow the president of the United States.''
DiGenova explained that the reason the documents were not released sooner is because outgoing Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Dan Coats and FBI Director Christopher Wray had been blocking their release.
''They were fighting tooth and nail '-- phony cover-ups allegedly to protect sources and methods when Chris Wray was simply trying to protect the FBI from hugely embarrassing details that are going to come out,'' he said.
See The Conservative Treehouse for a comprehensive list of all the material the Justice Department may be about to release.
Debra Heine is a conservative Catholic mom of six and longtime political pundit. She has written for several conservative news websites over the years, including Breitbart and PJ Media.
VIDEO - Sir is it true you have an egg shaped penis? - YouTube
VIDEO - INVIDI Addressable Advertising - How It Works - YouTube
VIDEO - Taylor Swift - The Archer (Lyric Video) - YouTube
VIDEO - "MH17 - Call for Justice" - YouTube
VIDEO - Sean Duffy Questions SunTrust CEO on their interference with Immigration Enforcement - YouTube
VIDEO - The Russian Connection - YouTube
VIDEO - Mini-Nuclear Reactors Are Coming, and They Could Reinvent the Energy Industry - YouTube
VIDEO - Dr. Martin Pall To The NIH: "The 5G Rollout Is Absolutely Insane." - YouTube
VIDEO - Mick Mulvaney on "Face the Nation" defends Trump tweets on Elijah Cummings: "Everything" he says "is offensive to some people" - CBS News
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 00:19
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney strongly defended President Trump's criticism of Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and his majority-African American Maryland district, denying the president's controversial comments were designed to stoke racial animus.
"Does the president speak hyperbolically? Absolutely. Have we seen this type of this reaction from his before? Yes," Mulvaney said on "Face the Nation" Sunday. "And you will again because he pushes back, he fights back when he feels like he's attacked."
"I understand that everything that Donald Trump says is offensive to some people," he added later.
Transcript: Mick Mulvaney on "Face the Nation"Mr. Trump on Saturday morning leveled a series of attacks on Cummings, calling the powerful chairman of the House Oversight Committee a "brutal bully" for denouncing squalid conditions at migrant detention facilities near the border, which the president claimed were "clean" and "well run."
The president also targeted Cummings' district, which encompasses some of Baltimore's predominantly African American neighborhoods, as well as wealthier suburbs in Howard County. "Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place," Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter Saturday.
Mulvaney suggested the president attempting to call out "lies" from Cummings about the conditions of migrants in U.S. custody. He said the Maryland Democrat's comments were not conducive to a "civilized debate" about potential solutions to deal with the months-long but dwindling surge of migrants heading towards the U.S.-Mexico border.
The acting chief of staff accused Cummings of focusing on investigating potential misconduct by the president and the repercussions of of his policies, instead of alleviating the "abject" poverty Mulvaney said is prevalent in Baltimore.
"I think the president wants folks to know that, look, instead of dealing with those issues, Mr. Cummings is spending his time on this impeachment inquiry '-- which we all know is going nowhere," he said. "Democrats have a chance to actually focus on things that matter. Instead they're working on scandal and I think the president is doing everything he can to highlight that."
Pressed on the fact that Mr. Trump was again singling out a minority lawmaker and casting his district as a "dangerous" place where "no human being would want to live," Mulvaney said he could see why some could perceive the president's comments as racist.
"I understand why, but that doesn't mean that it's racist," he said. "The president is pushing back against what he sees as wrong. It's how he's done in the past and he'll continue to do in the future."
(C) 2019 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
