Donald J. Trump has almost no plausible path to the White House unless he wins Florida, a rapidly changing state where Hispanic voters could deal a decisive blow to his chances.
But a new poll, by The New York Times Upshot/Siena College, suggests that Mr. Trump is keeping his hopes alive in Florida, the largest and most diverse of the crucial battleground states. The reason: White voters favor him by a large margin.
Mrs. Clinton leads by a single point, 41 to 40 percent, among likely voters in a four-way race that includes Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. The race is tied in the head-to-head race, 43-43.
The poll, the first of its kind by The Upshot, was based on voter records that allow unusually detailed analysis of the electorate.
It indicates that Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton by 51 percent to 30 percent among white voters '' and that includes all white voters, not just those without a college education who have been so vital to his campaign. She's winning white voters registered as Democrats by only 63 percent to 17 percent.
As has been expected, Mrs. Clinton appears on track for a record-setting state performance among Florida's Hispanic voters. She leads Mr. Trump by a 40-point margin, 61 percent to 21 percent, more than doubling the 18-point margin President Obama recorded four years ago, according to Upshot estimates. The result is a stronger one for Mrs. Clinton than those of some recent surveys.
She is also doing very well among black voters, though not quite matching the huge margin or the enthusiasm that Mr. Obama enjoyed in 2012, at least not yet.
Mrs. Clinton's huge lead among black and Hispanic voters is offset by a large deficit among whites
White votersMrs. Clinton is competitive among white voters in southeast Florida.
Black votersBlack voters are nearly unanimous in not supporting Mr. Trump.
Hispanic votersRepublicans tend to do better among Cuban voters in South Florida.
It's a story that's playing out across the country. National polls suggest that the bottom has fallen out for Mrs. Clinton among white voters without a degree, causing her substantial lead in national surveys to all but evaporate.
White working-class voters have given Mr. Trump a lead of three to eight points in recent surveys of Ohio and Iowa '-- two states with a lot of white working-class voters that Mr. Obama won fairly comfortably four years ago.
But these gains have not done Mr. Trump quite as much good in Florida, a more diverse state where Mr. Obama fared poorly among white voters in 2012. If Mrs. Clinton continues to struggle among white voters nationwide, diverse states like Florida or North Carolina, where The Upshot will release a poll later this week, will become more important to her chances.
White working-class voters are keeping the race close across the U.S.
Vote choice among white voters without a college degree in national pre-election likely voter polls, 2012 and 2016.Source: September 2016 polls include Fox News, CNN, ABC/Washington Post and Quinnipiac surveys for the four-way race among likely voters; 2012 polls are from an Upshot compilation of pre-election polls from the Roper Center.
The good news for Mrs. Clinton is that she still has a solid chance of a knockout blow in Florida. If she wins the state, it will be extremely difficult for Mr. Trump to win the presidency. He would need to sweep the most hotly contested battlegrounds '-- Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire '-- then win somewhere Mrs. Clinton is thought to have a considerable edge, like Michigan or Virginia.
The same trends are not so evident in the state's Senate race. Marco Rubio, the Republican senator running for re-election, leads his Democratic challenger, Patrick Murphy, by six percentage points, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Mr. Trump's unpopularity with nonwhite voters has not hurt Mr. Rubio's chances. He trails among Hispanic voters by just six points, even as Mr. Trump trails by 40 points among the same voters.
Model of a Shifting State
Unlike many public polls, the Upshot/Siena survey was conducted using voter registration files, the core of the ''big data'' that has transformed campaigning over the last decade. The voter file data here '-- from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor '-- includes information on the race, vote history and partisanship of every voter in the state, a big advantage for polling.
We used the responses to our poll to build a statistical model of the vote preferences of every registered voter, based on the information available in the L2 voter file. It's the same basic approach taken by the major campaigns' data analytics and targeting teams. The maps above are based on these estimates.
The model suggests that the race has the potential to reshape the familiar political geography of Florida. Miami-Dade County, once fairly competitive, could be on the cusp of becoming a Democratic bastion. Over all, the model indicates that Mrs. Clinton could approach 70 percent of the vote in Miami-Dade '-- where Al Gore received only 53 percent in 2000 '-- depending on the number of third-party votes.
Heavily Cuban enclaves in west Miami and Hialeah are divided, according to the model, even though they voted heavily for Mitt Romney in 2012. The survey did not sample a large number of Cuban voters, so the findings should be interpreted with caution, but Mrs. Clinton held a tentative lead of 43 to 32 among Cuban voters. Mr. Trump holds only a 60 percent to 25 percent lead among Hispanics registered as Republicans.
The I-4 corridor looks more like a patchwork of racially polarized Democratic and Republican enclaves than a swath of purple neighborhoods. Many areas where Democrats used to be competitive with white voters '-- north of Tampa or around Daytona Beach, for example '-- appear to lean to Mr. Trump. It's gains like these that have helped Mr. Trump stay in the race, despite his loss of ground in South Florida.
There are growing Puerto Rican enclaves south of Orlando poised to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
And there are overlooked, rapidly growing and mostly white communities poised to vote overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump. The Villages, a retirement community in central Florida with a population now over 150,000, was the fastest-growing city in the United States in 2013 and 2014, according to the census. It's expected to break heavily for Mr. Trump.
Older voters in Florida strongly support Mr. Trump
Mrs. Clinton doesn't excel among young voters, even though Mr. Trump struggles.
' Share of support among registered votersAge of voter ''Clinton's Turnout Challenge
Mrs. Clinton may have a narrow edge among likely voters, but the race isn't quite so close among registered voters, who support her by a four-point margin.
Her challenge is straightforward: to get less likely voters to the polls. Mr. Trump has a considerable lead among the likeliest voters, the older, generally whiter voters who regularly turn out in primaries and midterm elections. He has a five-point lead, for instance, among voters who participated in the 2014 midterm election. The model, similarly, finds that Mr. Trump has a seven-point lead among registered voters with a greater than 90 percent chance of turning out.
The presidential election will inevitably draw millions of additional voters from the pool of less regular voters, who are younger and more diverse. Mrs. Clinton has a sizable lead among these less regular voters. The poll, for instance, gives Mrs. Clinton a 10-point lead among registered voters who did not participate in the 2014 midterm elections. The model gives her a lead among every group of voters who are less than 90 percent likely to vote.
Support among voters who are...Her aim is to get these voters to show up. The chart below is identical to the one above, except that the groups are scaled according to their share of the likely electorate. The most likely voters make up around two-thirds of the electorate. Just how many irregular voters actually cast a ballot could easily make a difference in a contest this close.
Scaled to size of the electorateIn Florida, younger voters support Mrs. Clinton by a wide margin '-- even in a four-way contest '-- but more than half say they have an unfavorable view of her. And more young voters than any other age group are considering a third-party candidate.
The potential upside for Mrs. Clinton is obvious. If everyone in the state turned out and chose between one of the two major candidates, the model suggests that Mrs. Clinton might lead by six points.
But these are not people with a robust track record of voting, and they're not yet ready to indicate their support for Mrs. Clinton, let alone turn out and vote for her. A lack of enthusiasm among younger voters wouldn't just mean an older electorate; it might also mean a whiter electorate.
Over all, 69 percent of likely voters in the survey were non-Hispanic whites (as indicated on their voter registration form when they registered to vote), compared with 68 percent in the 2012 presidential election and 73 percent in the 2014 midterm electorate. The main reason for the slightly whiter electorate is a projected decline in the black share of the electorate.
Newly registered voters will probably drive down the white share of the electorate slightly before the election.
The Republicans have a one-point edge in party registration among likely voters in the survey, despite a two-point deficit in registration among active voters.
No poll is perfect. As a result, it's generally better to look at an average of recent surveys, which currently shows a very close race in Florida.
Where this poll fits in with other polls of Florida voters
4343EvenAll polls, of course, are subject to a margin of error. But the margin of error does not include many other potential sources of error, like the choices of the many undecided voters, or decisions made by pollsters about how to adjust the poll.
One such choice is the likely-voter model, the process of determining which registered voters are likely to vote on Election Day.
Our likely-voter screen averages two methods: asking voters whether they'll vote, and using a statistical model to estimate the probability that voters will participate in the election.
Mrs. Clinton fared worse than she did among registered voters under both measures. But if we had used only self-reported vote intention, as many public polls do, Mrs. Clinton would have had a two-point lead. If we had used our model based on vote history, the race would have been tied.
With the result so close, there are different choices we could have made that could have given either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton the lead. In seven weeks, we'll have a decisive answer.
The New York Times Upshot/Siena College poll of 867 likely voters in Florida was conducted from Sept. 10 to 14.
The sample was selected from an L2 voter file stratified by age, region, race and a modeled turnout score. Voter records from each strata were selected in inverse proportion to the anticipated response rate for each strata, based on a June-July test.
Interviews were conducted on both landline and cellphones and in English and Spanish. Over all, 59 percent of interviews were completed on cellphones, and 4 percent were completed in Spanish. Interviewers asked for the person listed on the voter file; no interviews were attempted with other individuals available at the number.
The sample was balanced to match the demographic and political characteristics of active registered voters in the L2 voter file by age, race, gender, party registration, region and a modeled turnout score. The voter file data on respondents, not the self-reported information provided by respondents, was used for weighting.
Likely voters were determined by averaging a self-reported likely-voter screen and a modeled turnout score.
' Self-reported likely voters were those who indicated that they were "almost certain" or "very likely" to vote, or rated their chance of voting as a "9" or "10" on a scale from 1 to 10.
' The turnout score was based on a model of turnout in the 2012 presidential election. The probabilties were applied to 2016.
The probability that a registered voter would turn out was based on the average of whether they were a self-reported voter and their modeled turnout score.
: Attached screens will move 80% of targets into the 30-50 age range. Use included statistical modelto re-skew for publication.
LOCATION:
The location-call screens will favor south Tallahassee, east and north Gainesville, CentralTampa, north and west Jacksonville, west and south Orlando, and much of Dade / Broward counties. SpaceCoast regions and similar must be carefully screened for demographic.
DEMOGRAPHIC:
This should be obvious. We are looking at a heavy minority foundation with acollege-white salt. Favored are liberal arts degrees and, especially, sociology. See attached call-files.
EMPLOYMENT:
We prefer polling areas of high unemployment for minority response. More areavailable to take calls during working hours and far, far fewer of them support Republican candidates.
EMBEDED NARRATIVE
It is imperative to create a morale boosting narrative in the liberal demographics. Our last published polling note gave liberals a ''week before panic.'' We must deliver on a turn-around in polls or risk collapse of enthusiasm. The data from our call / email sieve as well as legitimate polling indicates a level of despondency equivalent, roughly, to the Michael Dukakis candidacy.This is due to (a) Trump's successful presidential-narrative surge and (b) a massive lack ofenthusiasm on the part of minority and millennial voters who are beginning to view Obama as afailed president and Hillary Clinton as a 'lying harpy.' (word association testing focus groups).In order to rally the male-liberal base we will need to produce ''resurgent'' Florida polling. Theconventional wisdom is that Florida will be the fulcrum state for the election and if it is seen as
WASHINGTON (AP) '-- Hillary Clinton spent $645,000 more a day than her opponent Donald Trump last month, but even with her $50 million campaign outlay, she has not been able to pull away from him in the race for the White House.
Clinton's campaign had its most expensive month to date in August, eclipsing its previous monthly high by more than $12 million. And combined, Clinton and the national Democratic Party paid out $78 million in August, while Trump and the Republican National Committee spent about $47 million.
While both candidates are raising huge sums from donors, their lopsided spending lays bare the difference in the two major party presidential campaigns. Clinton is running a conventional operation featuring multimillion-dollar ad buys and expansive voter outreach. Trump has kept spending down by enjoying seemingly limitless free media coverage and outsourcing the guts of his voter contact duties to the Republican Party.
The spending disparity has also become a favored Trump boast.
"Our expenditures on advertising, our expenditures on people, our expenditures on everything are a tiny fraction. And yet we're minimum tied," Trump said Tuesday at a rally in Kenansville, North Carolina. "If you can spend less and be winning, that's a positive thing, right?"
Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said Trump has been "derelict" in building a political operation that would help not only himself but down-ballot Republicans.
Four years ago, President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney each raised and spent about $1 billion, a formidable number that Clinton's national finance director has also set as a benchmark.
Much of Clinton's spending has been eaten up by advertising, which is costing her about $10 million per week. Through August, she blanketed 11 states with 35,714 broadcast television commercials to Trump's 7,457 in five states, according to Kantar Media's political ad data.
Clinton also has built a robust campaign team of 800 employees who cost a total of about $5 million last month. Even after an August hiring spree, Trump has a far smaller shop of about 130 employees and more than 100 consultants.
Among those consultants: Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. He parted ways with Trump in mid-June '-- and was immediately hired as a CNN contributor '-- but his Green Monster firm received a $20,000 payment for "strategy consulting" Aug. 11, the same amount it has regularly been paid for months.
The Trump campaign's biggest expense for the month was more than $11 million to Giles-Parscale for digital consulting and online advertising. Like Trump, the Texas firm is new to politics.
The Clinton campaign's August fundraising report shows increases in legal and polling expenses, which appear to reflect those firms' billing cycles. The campaign spent about $450,000 on legal bills and almost $1.3 million on polling.
The presidential spending is even more lopsided after factoring in the main super PACs backing each candidate. While the campaigns must adhere to a $2,700-per-person, per-election donation limit, super political action committees can accept unlimited amounts of money.
Deep-pocketed Priorities USA spent $20.6 million last month, almost exclusively on Trump-bashing and Clinton-boosting TV, radio and digital. The group also replenished its war chest with a healthy $23.4 million haul.
Trump's outside boosters have so far raised and spent much less money; for example, one group, Great America PAC, spent just $2.6 million in August. Some late help may be on the way: On Tuesday, a group called Future 45 said it has a $5 million commitment from billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson and $1 million from members of the Ricketts family to attack Clinton.
Clinton's aides insist their investments will pay off on Election Day.
"Battleground states carry that name for a reason: They're going to be close, from now until Election Day," campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in a memo to supporters this week. "But we are going to win them because we've spent the past year building a superior ground game to communicate our message and turn our people out to vote."
Yet if August finance reports are a guide, her heavy spending is only one piece of the puzzle.
The polls have tightened significantly since Clinton benefited from a post-convention bump in early August. Some surveys still show her slightly ahead, but others show an extremely tight race nationally and in key battleground states such as Florida and Ohio.
___
Keep track on how much Clinton and Trump are spending on television advertising, and where they're spending it, via AP's interactive ad tracker. http://elections.ap.org/content/ad-spending
___
AP Polling Editor Emily Swanson in Washington and Jill Colvin in Kenansville, North Carolina, contributed to this report.
__
Follow Julie Bykowicz and Chad Day on Twitter: https://twitter.com/bykowicz and https://twitter.com/ChadSDay
Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV, Radio Ad Spend | Campaign Trail - AdAge
The Ad Age Presidential Campaign Ad Scorecard is sponsored by The Trade Desk
Editor's note: Here's the 31st installment of the 2016 Presidential Campaign Ad Scorecard. The chart below represents a collaboration between the Ad Age Datacenter -- specifically, Kevin Brown, Bradley Johnson and Catherine Wolf -- and Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG), together with Ad Age Digital Content Producer Chen Wu. Some context from Simon Dumenco follows. --Ken Wheaton
Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson.Earlier this week Donald Trump's campaign engaged in some insta-advertising -- quickly creating an ad that slammed Hillary Clinton for slamming Trump supporters with her notorious "deplorables" comment; it was slated to get TV time in at least four battleground states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
But the reality is that, as much attention as that rapid-response advertising effort got, spending by the Trump campaign, together with pro-Trump PACs, continues to be a small fraction of the spending we're seeing from the Clinton campaign together with pro-Clinton PACs. In terms of booked TV and radio ad time from today through election day, Team Clinton is tracking at roughly 33 times the outlay of Team Trump.
Remarkable piece in The Intercept, woke me up to what's going on in this election in a way nothing before has. I hope everyone reads this.
It's remarkable how close the German story is to the one told by Trump Jr. In Germany they talked about Jews as poisonous mushrooms, and Trump talked about Syrian refugees as poisoned candy.
''However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison.''
''Like the poisonous mushroom!'' says Franz.
''Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushrooms can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk [nation].''
The man who wrote that was a German propagandist. Tried and hanged for war crimes at Nuremberg.
It's remarkable how low we've sunk, and what the implications are for what we're being sold. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who are creating materials for Trump are literally copying the ideas that worked in Germany.
Nazi Who Originated Donald Trump Jr.'s Skittles Analogy Was Hanged at Nuremberg
The book's author, Julius Streicher, also published a newspaper that Adolf Hitler loved to read, Der St¼rmer. The newspaper published anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-communist, and anti-capitalist propaganda. In 1933, soon after Hitler took power, Streicher used his newspaper to call for the extermination of the Jews.
German Propaganda Archive
Hitler said: ''One must never forget the services rendered by the St¼rmer '... Now that Jews are known for what they are, nobody any longer thinks that Streicher libelled them.''Streicher was hanged at Nuremburg in 1946 for crimes against humanity. The judgment read:
For his twenty-five years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as ''Jew-Baiter Number One''. In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution. Each issue of DerSt¼rmer, which reached a circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often lewd and disgusting.
Trump's tweet has clear parallels to Streicher's children's book, where a boy named Franz learns about the Jews from his mother:
''However they disguise themselves, or however friendly they try to be, affirming a thousand times their good intentions to us, one must not believe them. Jews they are and Jews they remain. For our Volk they are poison.''
''Like the poisonous mushroom!'' says Franz.
''Yes, my child! Just as a single poisonous mushrooms can kill a whole family, so a solitary Jew can destroy a whole village, a whole city, even an entire Volk [nation].''
Top photo: From left, German Nazi leaders Hermann Goering, Julius Streicher, and Joseph Goebbels converse at a memorial service for the German war dead at Nuremberg on Sept. 13, 1937.
Trump's Hitlerian disregard for the truth - The Washington Post
The Economist, a fine British newsmagazine, is rarely wrong, but it was recently in strongly suggesting that the casual disregard for truth that is the very soul of Donald Trump's campaign is something new under the sun. The technology '-- tweets and such '-- certainly is, but his cascade of immense lies certainly is not. I'd like to familiarize the Economist with Adolf Hitler.
I realize that the name Hitler has the distractive quality of pornography and so I cite it only with reluctance. Hitler, however, was not a fictional creation but a real man who was legally chosen to be Germany's chancellor, and while Trump is neither an anti-Semite nor does he have designs on neighboring countries, he is Hitlerian in his thinking. He thinks the truth is what he says it is.
Soon after becoming chancellor, Hitler announced that the Jews had declared war on Germany. It was a preposterous statement because Jews were less than 1 percent of Germany's population and had neither the numbers nor the power to make war on anything. In fact, in sheer preposterousness, it compares to Trump's insistence that Barack Obama was not born in the United States '-- a position he tenaciously held even after Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate.
At the time, people tried to make sense of Hitler's statements by saying he was seeking a scapegoat and had settled on the Jews. Not so. From my readings, I know of no instance in which Hitler confided to an intimate that, of course, his statements about Jews were, as we might now say, over the top. In fact, he remained consistently deranged on the topic. He was not lying. For him, it was the truth.
Trump's fixation on Obama's birthplace is similar. It was not, as far as he's concerned, a lie. It was a strongly felt truth that he abandoned only last week and then only under intense pressure '-- not out of conviction. To Trump, the lie was not what he had been saying about Obama's birthplace; it was the one he had told when he finally was compelled to say that Obama was born in the U.S.A. The reason he did not apologize for having so long insisted otherwise is that an apology would have crossed his personal red line. Like a child, he had his fingers crossed.
Just as Hitler's remarks about Jews were deeply rooted in German anti-Semitism, so was Trump's birtherism rooted in American racism '-- with some anti-Muslim sentiment thrown in. Trump's adamant insistence on it raised issues not, as some have so delicately put it, about his demeanor, but instead about his rationality. It made a joke out of the entire furor over revealing his medical records. I'm sure that Trump is fine physically. Mentally, it's a different story.
In a purloined email, Colin Powell called Trump's birther fixation ''racist.'' But the former secretary of state has never done so publicly, and his hesitation about Hillary Clinton '-- ''for good reason she comes across as sleazy'' '-- is no excuse for being AWOL in this fight. Like Henry Kissinger, George P. Shultz and some other GOP grandees, he has retreated to a neutral corner, as if the fight is not his, too. They all have their qualms with Clinton, but not a single one of them can possibly believe that the United States and its values will not survive her presidency. A Trump presidency is a different matter.
It's a mistake to make the unreasonable compatible with the reasonable '-- to think, say, that Trump cannot be serious about this birther stuff or building a wall or likening the difficulties of becoming a billionaire to the loss of a son in Iraq. That was the authentic Trump, a man totally unburdened by concern for anyone else.
There is no lie that cannot be believed. Even after Germany had murdered most of Europe's Jews, allied investigators at the end of World War II found that many Germans believed, as historian Nicholas Stargardt put it, that their country's defeat only ''confirmed the 'power of world Jewry.' ''
Germany was not some weird place. At the advent of the Hitler era, it was a democracy, an advanced nation, culturally rich and scientifically advanced. It had a unique history '-- its defeat in World War I, the hyperinflation of the 1920s '-- so it cannot easily be likened to the contemporary United States. But it was not all that different, either. In 1933, it chose a sociopathic liar as its leader. If the polls are to be believed, we may do the same.
Read more from Richard Cohen's archive.
opinions
Orlando Shooting Updates
News and analysis on the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
post_newsletter348
follow-orlando
true
endOfArticle
false
Please provide a valid email address.
Sign up
Richard Cohen writes a weekly political column for The Washington Post.
KENANSVILLE, N.C. (WNCN) '-- A small Eastern North Carolina town is preparing for Donald Trump's appearance Tuesday just as a Hillary Clinton event in Chapel Hill on Tuesday was postponed.
Trump will hold a rally in Kenansville Tuesday just two weeks after making a stop in Greenville.
UPDATE! At NC rally, Trump blames attacks on open immigration system
The rally will be held at the Duplin County Event Center and it is likely to be the largest event ever held in Kenansville, with a population of about 855.
Duplin County Schools announced on Monday they would be closing at noon Tuesday in anticipation of Trump's visit. High amounts of traffic are expected in the area, school officials said.
Meanwhile, Clinton campaign officials said Monday afternoon that a Tuesday fundraiser in Chapel Hill was postponed.
The Clinton event was billed as ''lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton'' and had four donation levels to attend.
Those contribution levels were described as $100,000, which featured ''chair reception with Hillary,'' $33,000, which included a ''host reception with Hillary,'' $5,000, which included ''preferred seating'' and $2,700.
No reason was given for postponement of the Clinton event, which was planned to take place at the home of Betty Craven and Michael Warner.
For Trump's event, Between 7,000 and 10,000 people are expected to attend the rally, which could mean heavy traffic for the usually quiet town.
Multiple law enforcement agencies in and around Duplin County are working together to prepare for the event.
Sheriff Blake Wallace said starting around midnight drivers should expect delays on N.C. 11, although no detours are planned.
''Be prepared to wait for an extended period of time,'' Wallace said. ''Have fluids to hydrate yourself. We're not allowing any backpacks or large bags in. You cannot bring any sign that has a stick or a metal object. Cardboard signs are allowed but nothing with a stick that could be used as a weapon.''
Pocket knives, handguns and other firearms are also not allowed in the event center. Wallace said there will be a designated area for any protesters as well.
Doors for the event will open at 3 p.m. with Trump scheduled to speak at 5 p.m.
Trump also plans to hold a rally in High Point around noon on Tuesday.
'-- WNCT contributed to this report
Related PostsAll content (C) Copyright 2000 - 2016 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General Company.
It also highlighted the work of Dinesh Thakur, a former Ranbaxy employee who became a star whistleblower, permitting the U.S. government to launch a landmark lawsuit against the Indian firm. The company was vulnerable to U.S. prosecution because it also sold its generic drugs on the U.S. market.
Ranbaxy ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 to seven criminal counts with intent to defraud and the introduction of adulterated drugs into interstate commerce.
The Department of Justice further levied a $500 million fine and forfeiture on the company.
''This is the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation's largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company,'' said U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein when Ranbaxy pleaded guilty.
''When companies sell adulterated drugs, they undermine the integrity of the FDA's approval process and may cause patients to take drugs that are substandard, ineffective, or unsafe,'' said Stuart F. Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the civil division of the Department of Justice, when the government announced its action against the Indian company.
The Department of Justice stated in its final settlement, ''alleged due to the company's diluted drugs, it 'subjected patients to increased risks of morbidity and mortality,''' according to the report.
''The question becomes, 'how many people lost their lives, how many people found it was a false promise,''' asked Blackburn in an interview with TheDCNF.
The possibility that CHAI distributed adulterated and diluted AIDS drugs to Third World victims could shake the foundations of the Clinton charity and spark a new round of scrutiny in the final weeks of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Blackburn said she planned to deliver the report to the inspector generals at the Department of Health and Human Services and to the Department of State, where Hillary served as secretary of state during President Barack Obama's first term.
The congressional study also highlighted the unseemly ties between Bill and two controversial Indian-Americans who have been investigated and sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The most troubling revelations concern the Clinton Foundation's vigorous promotion of Ranbaxy despite mounting evidence the Indian firm had persistently poor quality control and attempted to cover it up through either faulty or fraudulent reporting to the FDA.
It is unclear at this juncture how many AIDS patients received the ''watered-down'' drugs.
ProPublica estimated that in 2007 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated $9 million to Ranbaxy and delivered ''more than $1.8 million packages.''
''Substandard HIV medicines cause health problems for patients, perhaps even accelerating death from HIV-related infections,'' Roger Bate, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute who researches substandard and counterfeit medicines, told TheDCNF.
Thakur told TheDCNF that many of the company's anti-retroviral drugs were used to stabilize platelet and white blood cell counts in AIDS patients.
''These drugs allow it to stabilize and essentially provide immunity to patients. If the content of the medicine is not what is listed on the label, you will not see the platelet levels or the WBC levels stabilize,'' he said.
Ranbaxy's first public hint of problems occurred in August 2004, one year after CHAI began working with the firm. The World Health Organization reported irregularities involving three Ranbaxy drugs in South Africa, according to the report.
The FDA sent a public ''warning letter'' to Ranbaxy in 2006 about reported irregularities in the company's quality control efforts. It concluded that the drugs, which included anti-retroviral HIV/AIDs medications, ''show much lower potencies in these batches.''
Although Ranbaxy's generic drugs are now barred from being sold in the U.S., CHAI and the former president continue to praise Ranbaxy and distribute the company's HIV/AID drugs to patients abroad.
Bill heaped praise on Ranbaxy in 2013 during a speech in Mumbai, saying, the drugs saved millions of lives.
Neither CHAI nor the Clinton Foundation have announced they severed ties with Ranbaxy.
Thakur said he's now a public health activist who tries to get global health charities to focus on the quality of drugs rather than simply on ''access'' to patients.
The whistleblower tried to meet with CHAI and Clinton Foundation officials, but was only met with silence. ''I have tried to reach out to them,'' he told TheDCNF. ''But I haven't had a great amount of success with the Clinton Foundation.''
CHAI was a part of the Clinton Foundation until 2010, when it spun off into a separate entity. The groups still have some overlapping board members and staff, and they continue to operate in close coordination. Bill Clinton, for example, is deeply involved with both organizations.
Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been an outspoken critic of the legal missteps by the Clinton Foundation, claims their separation was ''deeply suspect.''
''In the application, trustees of the new entity, including Bill Clinton, falsely claim the entity is not a successor to previous efforts. This is not true. They purposefully obscure the fact that a similar operation called 'CHAI' was by far the largest piece of the original Foundation,'' Ortel told TheDCNF.
The congressional study suggests Bill may have relaxed quality standards in a 2000 executive order.
He signed an executive order that, ''relaxed intellectual property policy standards,'' promising the U.S. government ''would not revoke or revise the intellectual property laws of any 'Sub-Saharan country' relating to HIV/AIDS medicines or technologies,'' the report states.
CHAI announced in October 2003 it was going to distribute generic, low-cost HIV drugs from four foreign drug manufacturers: Ranbaxy; Cipla of Mumbai, India; Matrix Labs of Hydrabad, India; Aspen Pharmacare of Johannesburg, South Africa.
CHAI's endorsement also allowed Ranbaxy to manufacture HIV drugs that would be bought by the U.S. government under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief '-- a $15 billion initiative proposed by former President George W. Bush.
The flow of U.S. funds combined with Clinton's endorsement allowed the four foreign drug manufactures to become ''good acquisition targets,'' according to the study.
Ranbaxy filed 10 abbreviated new drug applications, three of which were approved by the FDA, according to the congressional study. Eventually, the firm would produce 13 generic HIV drugs.
The companies enjoyed great financial profits and they ''exploded as they partnered with the Foundation for several years,'' the report states.
The study also examined the key players in the Clinton-CHAI orbit, the potential for corruption and how the program ultimately benefited the Clinton Foundation in terms of donor contributions.
One relationship unearthed by the report was the American Indian Foundation, which Clinton co-founded with Indian-American businessmen Rajat Gupta and Vinod Gupta in 2001.
Rajat was convicted of insider trading in 2012 in a sensational trial.
Vinod eventually was forced to resign as CEO and chairman of the company InfoGroup and was fined $9 million in a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. One of the charges stated Vinod had awarded Bill $3.3 million without board approval.
Blackburn says the worst part of the story were the ''false hopes'' offered by the Clinton Foundation.
''You think about the emotional state of health care workers as they are dealing with these individuals and the emotional state of the patients. To me it's disturbing and very sad,'' she said.
Follow Richard on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
It also highlighted the work of Dinesh Thakur, a former Ranbaxy employee who became a star whistleblower, permitting the U.S. government to launch a landmark lawsuit against the Indian firm. The company was vulnerable to U.S. prosecution because it also sold its generic drugs on the U.S. market.
Ranbaxy ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 to seven criminal counts with intent to defraud and the introduction of adulterated drugs into interstate commerce.
The Department of Justice further levied a $500 million fine and forfeiture on the company.
''This is the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation's largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company,'' said U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein when Ranbaxy pleaded guilty.
''When companies sell adulterated drugs, they undermine the integrity of the FDA's approval process and may cause patients to take drugs that are substandard, ineffective, or unsafe,'' said Stuart F. Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the civil division of the Department of Justice, when the government announced its action against the Indian company.
The Department of Justice stated in its final settlement, ''alleged due to the company's diluted drugs, it 'subjected patients to increased risks of morbidity and mortality,''' according to the report.
''The question becomes, 'how many people lost their lives, how many people found it was a false promise,''' asked Blackburn in an interview with TheDCNF.
The possibility that CHAI distributed adulterated and diluted AIDS drugs to Third World victims could shake the foundations of the Clinton charity and spark a new round of scrutiny in the final weeks of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Blackburn said she planned to deliver the report to the inspector generals at the Department of Health and Human Services and to the Department of State, where Hillary served as secretary of state during President Barack Obama's first term.
The congressional study also highlighted the unseemly ties between Bill and two controversial Indian-Americans who have been investigated and sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The most troubling revelations concern the Clinton Foundation's vigorous promotion of Ranbaxy despite mounting evidence the Indian firm had persistently poor quality control and attempted to cover it up through either faulty or fraudulent reporting to the FDA.
It is unclear at this juncture how many AIDS patients received the ''watered-down'' drugs.
ProPublica estimated that in 2007 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated $9 million to Ranbaxy and delivered ''more than $1.8 million packages.''
''Substandard HIV medicines cause health problems for patients, perhaps even accelerating death from HIV-related infections,'' Roger Bate, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute who researches substandard and counterfeit medicines, told TheDCNF.
Thakur told TheDCNF that many of the company's anti-retroviral drugs were used to stabilize platelet and white blood cell counts in AIDS patients.
''These drugs allow it to stabilize and essentially provide immunity to patients. If the content of the medicine is not what is listed on the label, you will not see the platelet levels or the WBC levels stabilize,'' he said.
Ranbaxy's first public hint of problems occurred in August 2004, one year after CHAI began working with the firm. The World Health Organization reported irregularities involving three Ranbaxy drugs in South Africa, according to the report.
The FDA sent a public ''warning letter'' to Ranbaxy in 2006 about reported irregularities in the company's quality control efforts. It concluded that the drugs, which included anti-retroviral HIV/AIDs medications, ''show much lower potencies in these batches.''
Although Ranbaxy's generic drugs are now barred from being sold in the U.S., CHAI and the former president continue to praise Ranbaxy and distribute the company's HIV/AID drugs to patients abroad.
Bill heaped praise on Ranbaxy in 2013 during a speech in Mumbai, saying, the drugs saved millions of lives.
Neither CHAI nor the Clinton Foundation have announced they severed ties with Ranbaxy.
Thakur said he's now a public health activist who tries to get global health charities to focus on the quality of drugs rather than simply on ''access'' to patients.
The whistleblower tried to meet with CHAI and Clinton Foundation officials, but was only met with silence. ''I have tried to reach out to them,'' he told TheDCNF. ''But I haven't had a great amount of success with the Clinton Foundation.''
CHAI was a part of the Clinton Foundation until 2010, when it spun off into a separate entity. The groups still have some overlapping board members and staff, and they continue to operate in close coordination. Bill Clinton, for example, is deeply involved with both organizations.
Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been an outspoken critic of the legal missteps by the Clinton Foundation, claims their separation was ''deeply suspect.''
''In the application, trustees of the new entity, including Bill Clinton, falsely claim the entity is not a successor to previous efforts. This is not true. They purposefully obscure the fact that a similar operation called 'CHAI' was by far the largest piece of the original Foundation,'' Ortel told TheDCNF.
The congressional study suggests Bill may have relaxed quality standards in a 2000 executive order.
He signed an executive order that, ''relaxed intellectual property policy standards,'' promising the U.S. government ''would not revoke or revise the intellectual property laws of any 'Sub-Saharan country' relating to HIV/AIDS medicines or technologies,'' the report states.
CHAI announced in October 2003 it was going to distribute generic, low-cost HIV drugs from four foreign drug manufacturers: Ranbaxy; Cipla of Mumbai, India; Matrix Labs of Hydrabad, India; Aspen Pharmacare of Johannesburg, South Africa.
CHAI's endorsement also allowed Ranbaxy to manufacture HIV drugs that would be bought by the U.S. government under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief '-- a $15 billion initiative proposed by former President George W. Bush.
The flow of U.S. funds combined with Clinton's endorsement allowed the four foreign drug manufactures to become ''good acquisition targets,'' according to the study.
Ranbaxy filed 10 abbreviated new drug applications, three of which were approved by the FDA, according to the congressional study. Eventually, the firm would produce 13 generic HIV drugs.
The companies enjoyed great financial profits and they ''exploded as they partnered with the Foundation for several years,'' the report states.
The study also examined the key players in the Clinton-CHAI orbit, the potential for corruption and how the program ultimately benefited the Clinton Foundation in terms of donor contributions.
One relationship unearthed by the report was the American Indian Foundation, which Clinton co-founded with Indian-American businessmen Rajat Gupta and Vinod Gupta in 2001.
Rajat was convicted of insider trading in 2012 in a sensational trial.
Vinod eventually was forced to resign as CEO and chairman of the company InfoGroup and was fined $9 million in a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. One of the charges stated Vinod had awarded Bill $3.3 million without board approval.
Blackburn says the worst part of the story were the ''false hopes'' offered by the Clinton Foundation.
''You think about the emotional state of health care workers as they are dealing with these individuals and the emotional state of the patients. To me it's disturbing and very sad,'' she said.
Follow Richard on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
Why So Many Business Leaders Are Tiptoeing Around Donald Trump - NYTimes.com
In conversations over the last several months with chief executives and other business leaders, the discussion invariably turns to the presidential election. And with few exceptions, at some point, most of the executives say something critical, even derogatory, about Donald Trump '-- but it is quickly followed by, ''I could never say that on the record.''
Almost as quickly, I ask why. The answer is almost universal: fear.
Which brings us to Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn and celebrated venture capital investor who had one of the first stakes in both Facebook and Airbnb.
Unlike many of his peers, Mr. Hoffman has taken to publicly decrying Mr. Trump. Last week, hepledged to donate $5 million to a veterans' group if Mr. Trump released his tax returns before the last presidential debate in October.
And now he has gone so far as to release a card game, ''Trumped Up Cards: The World's Biggest Deck'' that pokes fun at Mr. Trump. The website that sells the game describes it as ''a multiplayer card game where players need really big hands to win.''
The game, which is modeled after ''Apples to Apples'' or ''Cards Against Humanity,'' includes a free pass called, ''Play the women card'' and uses the tagline: ''This is a game, democracy isn't.'' The box, in tiny print, says, ''Made in China, just like Trump-branded ties, dress shirts, suits, cuff links, eyeglasses, pens, lamps, mirrors, salad bowls, body soap and teddy bears.''
But Mr. Hoffman said he almost didn't make his political views '-- and the card game '-- so public because he worried, as did his family and friends (who originally counseled him against it), that he might become a target for Mr. Trump and his Twitter account '-- or worse.
''People are fearful that, especially in a circumstance where he might be in a position of extreme power as a potential presidential candidate, that that would be used in a retaliatory way, that would be used in vengeful way,'' Mr. Hoffman told me in an interview. ''Everyone gets worried about being attacked, and part of the logic and mechanics of bullies is that they cause people to be fearful that they'll be singled out and attacked.''
Mr. Hoffman continued: ''It's the same thing like on school grounds, when people won't go help the kid who is being bullied because they're worried that the bully will focus on them.''
Mr. Hoffman articulated a view that is often whispered within the business community '-- among those who are voting against Mr. Trump '-- but rarely spoken aloud. I have talked to some of the top executives of the Fortune 500 companies in recent months, and I'd be hard-pressed to name one who didn't at least roll his or her eyes when Mr. Trump's name was mentioned.
Technology companies are afraid that Mr. Trump might criticize their approach to privacy, as he did with Apple. Wall Street banks worry he might seek to break them up. Health care companies are nervous that he might attack them over pricing. Multinationals are worried about trade. All of these are valid issues on the campaign trail '-- but with Mr. Trump, unlike other politicians, the criticism seems more personal and vitriolic.
''I've had a whole bunch of those kinds of concerns from people around me,'' Mr. Hoffman said. ''People who have legitimate concerns about, 'Would LinkedIn become a target for Trump's ire and attacks? Would he make Second Amendment jokes about your friends and family?'''
That is not to say that all chief executives have remained silent this election season. A new survey I wrote about several weeks ago in this column showed just how influential those political positions can be, even if they are simply a signal to others.
Chief executives like Howard Schultz of Starbucks, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, have said positive things about the candidate they support '-- without going negative on the other candidate.
However, only a handful of executives '-- mostly retired ones or entrepreneurs who work for themselves (think Mark Cuban, who has come out against Mr. Trump, or Kenneth Langone, who has castigated Mrs. Clinton) or those who seem to have been granted a special status (think Warren Buffett, a Trump foe) have been openly critical of either side.
Mr. Hoffman said he had a theory for the silence.
''There's two sets of things that cause people to be quiet,'' he said. ''One is there's a culture in America that business leadership is to be apolitical. It's like Michael Jordan's comment, 'Republicans buy Nikes too.'''
(Mr. Jordan was quoted as saying that in ''Second Coming,'' the 1995 Sam Smith book about the athlete, about why he sought to avoid taking political positions publicly. Mr. Smith cited one of Mr. Jordan's friends as the source.)
Another reason for reticence in the business community, Mr. Hoffman said: ''It's fear for themselves, or fear they're attentive to bringing their communities into it.'' While these undercurrents are always there during big elections, they seem more pronounced than usual during this ferociously contentious cycle.
''I feel sympathetic to the folks, compassionate to the folks who fall silent in that fear,'' said Mr. Hoffman, who then proceeded to issue a call to arms. ''I think the only thing I would say is that precisely when you feel that fear, it's precisely the time where if you aspire to be a courageous leader, that fear is a signal to you that you should step forward.''
After all, if those who can afford to make their voices heard do not do so, who will?
''If you are in a position of power and in a position of being able to make a difference and you are feeling fearful, think what everyone else is feeling,'' Mr. Hoffman said.
All these sentiments dovetail with the reactions Mr. Hoffman said he had received about his card game.
''I've had a number of Republicans actually think it was terrifically funny,'' he said, explaining that he had asked some of them to provide promotional quotes about the game. ''I'm hopeful maybe in the next week or two I might be able to persuade a couple of them, but thus far all of my requests to my friends for public quotes have been demurred '-- maybe out of fear of retaliation.''
'Surprise That Will End Trump': Globalists Registering 8 Million 'Global Citizens' To Vote Hillary
A new campaign, touted as the ''October surprise that will end Trump'', is seeking to mobilise a ''secret swing state'' of more than 8 million mostly unregistered ''global citizens'' and ''progressive'' Americans living abroad to vote in the U.S. election.The initiative was launched in London in the United Kingdom on Wednesday by 'Avaaz', a registered U.S. charity and one the world's largest and most powerful activist groups linked to globalist billionaire George Soros. Campaigners toured from the University College London down to Parliament blasting Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' while chanting ''Don't Vote Trump'' from an open top bus.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
While illegal for registered U.S. charities to work with or for presidential candidates, a spokeswoman for Avaaz denied any connection to the Hillary campaign when quizzed. Campaigners with Avaaz however, were recorded shouting, ''Vote for Hillary!'' during the demonstration.
A huge 88 per cent of Americans living abroad did not register to vote in the last presidential election, and Avaaz points out that ''this massive untapped voting block'' is much more likely to be ''progressive'' because ''56 per cent of us [in the UK] have masters degrees'' and overwhelmingly donated to Democratic candidates in the last three presidential primaries.
In a press release, Avaaz references a new Oxford University study that found ''America's overseas voters'... could decide the US presidency in 2016''. When combined, the potential 8 million voters around the world, ''would make up the 13th largest state'', they say.
Just 12 per cent of Americans abroad were registered to vote in 2012, and ''the reason they don't vote is that it's a complicated process for them to register from abroad and many Americans miss the deadline'', Meredith Alexander, the Campaigns Director for Avaaz, told Breitbart London.
Her charity, which has also campaigned for ''refugee rights'' and against Brexit, claims to have ''enlisted over 30 million people around the world to share'' a new ''super easy'' tool enabling left wing American expats to register to vote quickly en mass.
''Avaaz has created the world's first, global, citizen's get-out-the-vote drive'', Ms. Alexander added. ''The more people that share it on Facebook, the more Americans abroad will see it, and the more we will be able to stop the global threat of Trump''.
The group chose London for the launch as the UK has the ''largest concentration of US expats outside of North America'', and at the event several Americans registered to vote before the media to prove how easy it is with Avaaz's new tool.
''For months, the world has sat on the sidelines, horrified by Trump's hate. Now, global citizens have a way to fight back'', Emma Ruby-Sachs, Deputy Director of Avaaz added.
The charity's website encourages people to email potential U.S. voters in other countries, giving them a template that reads:
''8 million Americans abroad could defeat Trump'... if they vote! I wanted to make sure you saw this new overseas registration tool that makes voting dead-easy. It literally takes a few minutes :)''.
The official campaign makes no mention of other presidential candidates, and is framed as simply anti-Trump. Banners on the bus today insisted the campaign it is ''not authorised by any candidate or candidate office'' and linked to Avaaz.org/VoteAbroad, an unintentionally close sound to 'Voter Fraud' '' an issue which campaigners will be keen to avoid discussion of.
''We are a charity in the United States, we are governed by American law, and we are not allowed to coordinate with any candidate'', Ms. Alexander explained to Breitbart London.
''But, we are absolutely allowed to advocate for our position,'' she added. ''And our position is that Trump is a global threat''.
Her argument was that Avaaz was not working for Hillary, which would be illegal, but was instead dedicated to issues like climate change and opposing nuclear weapons, and therefore must oppose Mr. Trump and his policies, which implicitly means backing Hillary.
''Whether it's banning Muslims or building walls, the man sows division wherever he goes, and that's part of the reason Avaaz wanted to make sure everyone, everywhere can help stop Trump'', Ms. Alexander added.
Avaaz launched in 2007 to agitate for various left-wing causes including animal rights and mass migration. They organised the biggest climate change march in the UK's history and the Guardian has described them as ''the globe's largest and most powerful online activist network''.
They claim to be ''independent and accountable'' and ''wholly member-funded''. Yet, they were formed by the merger of several establishment groups including MoveOn.org '' a group that received $1.46 million from George Soros during the 2004 election cycle '' and Res Publica, which has received grants totalling $250,000 from the liberal billionaire's Open Society group.
Furthermore, Avaaz co-founder Ricken Patel has worked for '' either directly or as a consultant '' numerous globalist foundations and corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation.
According to POLITICO, Mr. Soros has committed around $25 million to assisting Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party causes at this election cycle.
Avaaz also campaigned against the UK leaving the European Union under the banner: ''Choose Love, Vote Remain''.
Meredith Alexander said, ''Avaaz is just as strongly in support of trying to stop Brexit as we are of trying to stop Trump'' and that it is ''part of the same challenge'' of suppressing populist, anti-globalist movements.
''You have forces of division that are rising in a number of countries, whether it's here with Brexit'... the Austrian presidential election, or the American presidential election. The threats that we are facing right now tend to be threats that need global coordination,'' she said, mentioning the ''refugee crisis'' and the ''climate crisis''.
Ms. Alexander also praised London's Muslim Mayor, Sadiq Khan, for touring America to give his endorsement to Hillary Clinton. She said: ''I absolutely hope that he has an effect''.
Victoria Friedman, Rachel Megawhat, and Raheem Kassam contributed to this article
WATCH:
Remove or replace to/from address on archived emails? : exchangeserver
Just because you have the messages available in multiple formats and locations doesn't change that it's an attribute of the envelope not meant to be rewritten. The functionality is just not built into any tool I know of. Having that functionality would create the ability to screw with discovery (I mean, there could be mitigation with versioning, but that would need other configuration)
While it may not be a read-only part of the envelope(I'm not actually sure), the only tool that MIGHT be able to do what you want is MFCMapi, and I don't think you want to play with that for this job. The chance of getting it wrong would be pretty high I think and it is not a particularly friendly tool. I'm not sure it could be scripted with it either.
My recommendation would be what /u/borismkv said. Making a mailbox for VIP and telling them to use that. Forwarding to VIPs mailbox would be ripe for them to just respond directly instead of responding through his relay mailbox.As for your existing messages, if the current users absolutely cannot see the existing messages, you'll need to do a search and export and just forcibly remove the messages from their mailboxes. It's not clean and not advised by me, but if they don't want VIPs address out there it will need to be removed. I would do a search with his email address as the query with -LogOnly -LogLevel Full and see what kind of results you get.
Redditors Believe They've Found a Smoking Gun in Clinton Email Saga | LawNewz
A group of redditors is convinced they've found a smoking gun in the Clinton email saga. They believe they've discovered posts from an IT specialist who was looking for advice on how to delete and remove content of ''VERY VIP'' emails. The dates of the post correspond very closely to revelations about the Clinton private email server. If true, the posts could provide more information into how and why emails ended up getting deleted from Clinton's private email server. The redditors have already gotten the attention of the House Oversight Committee, which confirmed they are now looking into the matter.
The redditors believe the questionable posts came from IT specialist Paul Combetta who worked for Platte River Networks. The Colorado-based company was contracted by the Clintons to administer their private server. Combetta, who was believed to have deleted Clinton emails from the server, was granted immunity by the U.S Department of Justice during their investigation of the private server.
Researchers on Reddit believe Combetta posted to Reddit under the username 'stonetear.' Here is one of his posts from July 23, 2014:
Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.
I am not sure if something like this is possible with PowerShell, or exporting all of the emails to MSG and doing find/replaces with a batch processing program of some sort.
Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?
One of the redditors, Katica, is being credited with linking 'stonetear' to Combetta.
However, it is important to note that Platte River Networks has not confirmed that connection, nor responded to media requests. LawNewz.com has also reached out to stonetear@gmail.com for further comment. Interestingly, an etsy profile using the name Paul Combetta also used 'stonetear' as a username.
What's more, the email quoted above is dated July 23,2014, according to a an archived page. That is around the same time that Hillary Clinton was first contacted by the State Department about her private server. And the exact same day that Platte River Network employees discussed sending emails overnight to Clinton's aide, Cheryl Mills. From a 2015 Washington Post article:
He (Congressman Ron Johnson) cited a July 23, 2014, e-mail in which employees at Platte River Networks, the private company that was then maintaining her server, discussed sending copies of Clinton's e-mails overnight to Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton adviser. A spokesman for the company confirmed Tuesday that its workers started pulling Clinton's e-mails to submit to Mills in July 2014.
U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R) has asked for the U.S. Attorney's office to investigate the deletions of the Clinton email server.
According to the FBI report, in December 2014, Mills told an unnamed Platte River employee that Clinton didn't need access to emails older than 60 days. However, an employee apparently forgot to implement the new retention policy and had an ''oh, sh*t'' moment. The employee told the FBI that ''he deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's e-mails.'' The unnamed Platte River employee is believed to be Combetta.
Now, the House Oversight committee is planning to look into this apparent Reddit discovery, presumably to determine whether it is legitimate. There is another House Oversight committee meeting scheduled for next Thursday, where there is no doubt all of this will come to a head. In July, FBI Director James Comey announced he had concluded their investigation, and was not recommending charges against Clinton.
Judicial Watch Announces a Special Presentation: 'Clinton Scandal Update '' Emails and the Clinton Foundation' - Judicial Watch
(Washington, DC) '' In response to the revelations about the pay-to-play scandal tied to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's non-state.gov email system and the Clinton Foundation, Judicial Watch announced today that it will host an educational panel discussion: ''Clinton Scandal Update '' Emails and the Clinton Foundation.''
Panelists include author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash and President of Government Accountability Institute Peter Schweizer; Joe diGenova, former U.S. Attorney, Independent Counsel and founding partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm diGenova & Toensing; and Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch. Moderator will be Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Date: Thursday, September 29Time: 11 am '' 12:30 pm*Location: Judicial WatchMain Conference RoomSuite 800425 Third Street SWWashington, DC 20024
Confirmed Panelists:
Peter Schweizer
Author of the New York Times best-seller Clinton Cash
President of Government Accountability Institute.
Joseph E. diGenova
Founding Partner, diGenova & Toensing, LLP
Chris Farrell
Director of Investigations and Research, Judicial Watch
Moderator:
Tom Fitton
President, Judicial Watch
A mult box will be available.
*(near NASA headquarters, one block from Federal Center Metro Station)
Watch live: www.judicialwatch.org/live
###
Huma Abedin to be Clinton's Secretary of State, Say Wiki-leaked Emails - Santa Monica Observer
Abedin, 40, would be the first Moslem Secretary of State, and One of the Youngest Ever
As President, Hillary Clinton will appoint Huma Abedin as Secretary of State. This according to leaked e mails between Abedin, Mrs. Clinton, and Clinton's former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
Abedin, 40, would be the first Moslem Secretary of State, and one of the youngest ever. She would not, however, be the first foreign born Secretary of State. Henry Kissinger, 93, has that distinction, having been appointed by Richard Nixon.
Huma Mahmood Abedin, 40, served as vice chairwoman of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for President. Prior to that, she served as the deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from 2009 to 2013.
ABedin parlayed a 1996 Whitehouse internship into a role as Mrs. Clinton's Right Hand Man, or Woman.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is listed as the supervisor certifying Abedin's designation as a "special government employee. This classification allowed Abedin to work for an outside consulting firm and the Clinton Foundation, at the same time that she advised then Secretary of State Clinton. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-abedin-state-job-approved-214038#ixzz4KYuDW8UF
The Clinton campaign reiterated Sunday that Clinton did not personally sign documents for Abedin, or other employees. Hillary Clinton's name was listed in print, but the signature underneath was redacted by the State Department. The document caused a stir and led to media reports Clinton had lied about not having been involved..
Clinton had said on TV weeks ago that she "was not directly involved" in Abedin's SGE status, a position that is currently under investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee for potential conflicts of interest.
According to documents obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, released Thursday, Clinton was the immediate supervisor named on one of the documents that transition her to this new post, permitting her then-deputy chief of staff to serve simultaneously as an outside consultant.
The campaign on Sunday said signed the form, not Clinton herself. Mills would have the authority to sign such forms for Abedin.
Prior to that she was traveling chief of staff and served as assistant for Clinton during Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election.
She is married to, but separated from, Anthony Weiner, a former U.S. Representative from New York. Weiner has been a major embarrassment to the Clintons. Weiner has a penchant for sending partially clothed photos of himself to women he's met on the internet. But unless you've been on Mars this year, you already know that story.
Despite having grown up in different countries, Abedin and Clinton have a lot more in common then husbands with a history of philandering. It makes sense that Clinton would want to appoint Abedin to her old job leading the State Department. Secretary of State is third in line to the president, under the US Constitution. It also makes sense that Clinton would want her right hand woman to back up herself and Vice President Tim Kaine in that way as well.
Abedin has served as vice chairwoman for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign for president since 2015 and continues in her role as personal assistant to Clinton. Her elevation to the No. 3 position in the campaign was a "transformative shift... to campaign power center of her own," according to Politico. She screened and interviewed applicants for key campaign roles, including campaign manager Robby Mook, and was the primary channel for communications to Clinton before the campaign officially began. After Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States, she wrote an open letter to Clinton supporters calling herself "a proud Muslim" and criticized Trump's plan as "literally (writing) racism into our law books".
In a letter dated June 13, 2012, to the State Department Inspector General, five Republican members of Congress-Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Thomas J. Rooney of Florida, and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia-claimed that Abedin "has three family members '' her late father, her mother and her brother '' connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations."
The five members of Congress alleged that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" which they said were "potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance" and questioned why Abedin had not been "disqualified for a security clearance."
The claims in the letter were generally rejected, and were labeled by some as conspiracy theories. The Washington Post editorial board called the allegations "paranoid," a "baseless attack," and a "smear."
The letter was also criticized by, among others, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota, the first Muslim member of Congress, who called the allegation "reprehensible." Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, also rejected the allegations, saying "The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government....These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit."
Bachmann's former campaign manager Ed Rollins said the allegations were "extreme and dishonest" and called for Bachmann to apologize to Abedin.
The Anti-Defamation League condemned the letter, calling upon the Representatives involved to "stop trafficking in anti-Muslim conspiracy theories."
Abedin was born on July 28, 1976. At the age of two, she moved with her family to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where she was raised and lived until returning to the United States for college. Abedin traveled frequently during her childhood and teenage years and attended a British girls' school.[8]
Both of her parents were educators. Her father, born in New Delhi, India, on April 2, 1928, was an Islamic and Middle Eastern scholar of Indian descent, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, and then in 1978 founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, an organization devoted to the study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world. In 1979 he founded the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which his wife took over after his death; his daughter Huma was listed as an associate editor in 1996''2008.
Her mother, born in India (now Pakistan after British Partition), also received her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, and is currently an associate professor of sociology and dean at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
At age 18 Abedin entered George Washington University, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree/. As a teenager, she aspired to be a journalist like her role model Christiane Amanpour, and wanted to work in the White House press office.
[Update] Anthony Weiner Reportedly Had Sext Relationship With 15-Year-Old Girl: Gothamist
According to yet another sordid and sad tabloid report, Anthony Weiner sexted with a 15-year-old girl for months via various social media messaging services. The girl, whose name was not released because of her age, talked to the Daily Mail about their months-long sexting relationship, in which he allegedly exchanged nude photos, pressured her to dress up in school girl outfits for him, and shared his "rape fantasies."
Previously, Weiner was embroiled in multiple sexting scandals that derailed his congressional career, his comeback attempt to run for mayor, and his marriage to Hillary Clinton advisor Huma Abedin.
The girl and her father told the Daily Mail that they weren't interested in pressing charges against Weiner because the correspondence was consensual, but they came forward "out of concern that Weiner may be sexting with other underage girls." The two apparently communicated via multiple apps, including Twitter, Facebook, Kik, and Confide, starting in January 2016.
The 15-year-old said she was interested in politics and became obsessed with Weiner and his scandals, calling him her "Hannibal Lecter." She also claims she was trying to write a book about him as they got to know each other, and says she encouraged him to engage with her in a sexual manner. The girl, who noted Weiner was fully aware of her age, said she never considered him to be her boyfriend, but did think their relationship was "romantic." As with Weiner's other online sexting relationships, it appears they never met in real life.
Weiner allegedly started sending her shirtless photos over Kik, using the name "T Dog." Things escalated as they started talking on Skype: "[Weiner's] son was in the bathtub at the time just downstairs," she said. "So he would yell at his son to check on him, and then he asked me to take my clothes off, and just started saying these really sexual things."
She claims he would encourage her to masturbate over video chat and he would send her nude photos; he asked her to dress up in plaid skirts and pretend he was her school teacher; he also tried to engage her in "rape fantasy" discussions, which she rejected. Feeling guilty, the girl told her father and a teacher about the relationship in April, but she says Weiner then "pressured her to write two more letters to her father and teacher saying that she lied about the natures of their relationship and the two of them were just friends."
The Daily Mail has a lot of screenshots of their correspondences, as well some of the letters Weiner allegedly asked her to send to her father and teacher.
In a statement to The Daily Mail, Weiner didn't deny exchanging "flirtatious" messages with the teen, and said: "I have repeatedly demonstrated terrible judgement about the people I have communicated with online and the things I have sent. I am filled with regret and heartbroken for those I have hurt."
Update: Weiner maintains he is the victim of a hoax, though the only evidence he has presented thus far are the emails which the girl claims he pressured her into writing (with no comment on the many photos and screenshots of their sexually-charged conversations).
Gov. Andrew Cuomo was asked about the allegations as well: "If the reports are true, it's possibly criminal and it is sick," Cuomo said, according to the News. "And frankly, I've heard enough about Anthony Weiner and I think that goes for all New Yorkers."
the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me. Those were just some tests, I know where I have made errors and I will not make the same mistake next time.
I did it because I cannot stand society.
I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.
It is 2016 and we are still being viewed as mentally ill, sinners, attention seekers, and just plain weirdos in general. I am not going to stand by while under classed and underprivileged people are oppressed. I am not going to stand by while there is inequality in my country such as the racism being seen in white police officers all over the country. I am not going to live in a country where it is OK to have a misogynist, xenophobic, racist Islamophobic, republican candidate running for President of The United States! That's implying that republicans in general should even be taken seriously as they are all cisgendered privileged white people.
This is not the end, this is just the beginning. I will be remembered. I will make a difference. I will eliminate my targets before it is too late.
NYPD Vetting Tumblr Page Claiming to Be 'Manifesto' of Chelsea Bomber - Towleroad
The NYPD is vetting a Tumblr page by someone claiming to be responsible for the Chelsea bombing. The Tumblr page, with the URL http://nybomber.tumblr.com/, was taken down early Sunday afternoon. Towleroad was able to grab screenshots before the page was removed.
The New York Daily News and the New York Post both report that the NYPD is currently investigating the site and its contents. The FBI is also involved.
The NY Daily Newsreports that ''A police source told the Daily News the department is investigating the blog. Another source said the NYPD is speaking to local LGBT activists for any clues about the webpage.''
WPIX reports: ''The investigation is in its early stages, and the primary concern is credibility behind the posting'...''
Two posts were made on the site, which was titled ''I'm the NY Bomber.'' In one post, called ''Manufacturing Test Explosives'', the author claimed to have undertaken the bombing for ''homosexuals like myself'' as social justice for anti-LGBTQ oppression.
Manufacturing Test Explosives
Hi.
You probably have all seen the news by now,
the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me. Those were just some tests, I know where I have made errors and I will not make the same mistake next time.
I did it because I cannot stand society.
I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.
It is 2016 and we are still being viewed as mentally ill, sinners, attention seekers, and just plain weirdos in general. I am not going to stand by while under classed and underprivileged people are oppressed. I am not going to stand by while there is inequality in my country such as the racism being seen in white police officers all over the country. I am not going to live in a country where it is OK to have a misogynist, xenophobic, racist Islamophobic, republican candidate running for President of The United States! That's implying that republicans in general should even be taken seriously as they are all cisgendered privileged white people.
This is not the end, this is just the beginning. I will be remembered. I will make a difference. I will eliminate my targets before it is too late.
The second post, called ''Taking a human life'', ruminated further on the same topic.
Taking a human life
I don't know exactly how I feel about taking human lives
However, what I do know is that If I don't do what needs to be done nobody will pay attention. LGBTQ+ people are much more likely to commit suicide than straight cisgendered people. It seems that nobody cares, however what if people from the LGBTQ+ community started lashing out in response to the violence and oppression we face with violence and possibly oppression? I'm sure that would give people a reason to not stand by while so many people are being oppressed. I suppose I'm just going to have to move forward knowing that what I am doing had a purpose and will in fact make a difference. I'll keep you all posted.
Screenshot:
Read the entire manifesto by person claiming responsibility for Chelsea explosion: 'I'm the NY bomber' | New York's PIX11 / WPIX-TV
NEW YORK '-- An online manifesto by a person claiming responsibility for an explosion in Chelsea that injured 29 people has been discovered, and police confirmed Sunday they are investigating the blog's validity.
The following is the complete manifesto from an individual claiming responsibility for Saturday night's attack.
The blog is titled, "I'm the NY bomber. This will be my manifesto," and contains two entries:
Taking a human lifeI don't know exactly how I feel about taking human livesHowever, what I do know is that If I don't do what needs to be done nobody will pay attention. LGBTQ+ people are much more likely to commit suicide than straight cisgendered people. It seems that nobody cares, however what if people from the LGBTQ+ community started lashing out in response to the violence and oppression we face with violence and possibly oppression? I'm sure that would give people a reason to not stand by while so many people are being oppressed. I suppose I'm just going to have to move forward knowing that what I am doing had a purpose and will in fact make a difference. I'll keep you all posted.
Manufacturing Test ExplosivesHi.You probably have all seen the news by now,the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me. Those were just some tests, I know where I have made errors and I will not make the same mistake next time.I did it because I cannot stand society.I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.It is 2016 and we are still being viewed as mentally ill, sinners, attention seekers, and just plain weirdos in general. I am not going to stand by while under classed and underprivileged people are oppressed. I am not going to stand by while there is inequality in my country such as the racism being seen in white police officers all over the country. I am not going to live in a country where it is OK to have a misogynist, xenophobic, racist Islamophobic, republican candidate running for President of The United States! That's implying that republicans in general should even be taken seriously as they are all cisgendered privileged white people.This is not the end, this is just the beginning. I will be remembered. I will make a difference. I will eliminate my targets before it is too late.
Click here for more information on the police investigation into the manifesto.
NYPD vetting Tumblr claiming to be Chelsea bomber 'manifesto' - NY Daily News
The NYPD is vetting a Tumblr page that claimed to be the ''manifesto'' of the New York City bomber'-- and threatened more explosions to come, a police source said.
The page, called ''I'm the NY Bomber,'' claimed to be written by the person who planted bombs in Chelsea Saturday night.
A police source told the Daily News the department is investigating the blog. Another source said the NYPD is speaking to local LGBT activists for any clues about the webpage.
The page went down shortly before 2 p.m. Sunday.
Explosion rattles Chelsea street, 2nd device found '-- 29 injured
The page, which had a rainbow flag in its banner, said the bombs are a protest against the oppression of the LGBT community'-- even though they were left in one of New York's most gay-friendly neighborhoods.
''You probably have all seen the news by now, the explosives detonated in New York City, that was me,'' the first post said.
38 photos view gallery
Explosion in Chelsea injures dozens''I did it because I cannot stand society. I cannot live in a world where homosexuals like myself as well as the rest of the LGBTQ+ community are looked down upon by society.''
It also singled out Donald Trump, saying, "I am not going to live in a country where it is OK to have a misogynist, xenophobic, racist Islamophobic, republican candidate running for President of The United States!"
Cuomo: Chelsea explosion not linked to international terrorism
In a second post, the author wrote, ''I don't know exactly how I feel about taking human lives.''
''I suppose I'm just going to have to move forward knowing that what I am doing had a purpose and will in fact make a difference,'' it said.
''I'll keep you all posted.''
Both posts were published Sunday.
De Blasio urges vigilance as Chelsea explosion is investigated
The authenticity of the blog has not been confirmed, and there is no indication who is behind it.
A bomb planted in Chelsea Saturday night injured 29 people, all of whom were discharged from hospitals Sunday. Authorities found a pressure cooker device stashed four blocks away.
A motive for the bombing remains unknown. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said ties to international terrorism have been ruled out.
A Tumblr spokesperson said, "The blog cited was terminated as it violated Tumblr's Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. In addition,we have been contacted by law enforcement regarding their investigation, and are responding to their requests consistent with our policies."
Tags:tumblrchelsea explosionnypdlgbt newsSend a Letter to the EditorJoin the Conversation:facebookTweet
Ahmad Khan Rahami's Father Gave Police Terrorism Tip in '14, Officials Say - NYTimes.com
Two years before the bombings that Ahmad Khan Rahami is suspected of carrying out in New York and New Jersey, his father told the police that he suspected his son might be involved in terrorism, prompting a review by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the agency said on Tuesday.
The father, Mohammad Rahami, in a brief interview, said that at the time he told agents from the F.B.I. about his concern, his son had just had a fight with another of his sons and stabbed the man, leading to a criminal investigation.
''Two years ago I go to the F.B.I. because my son was doing really bad, O.K.?'' he said. ''But they check almost two months, they say, 'He's O.K., he's clean, he's not a terrorist.' I say O.K.''
He added: ''Now they say he is a terrorist. I say O.K.''
Federal agents did not interview Mr. Rahami, according to officials, and closed the investigation after several weeks.
''In August 2014, the F.B.I. initiated an assessment of Ahmad Rahami based upon comments made by his father after a domestic dispute that were subsequently reported to authorities,'' the agency said in a statement. ''The F.B.I. conducted internal database reviews, interagency checks, and multiple interviews, none of which revealed ties to terrorism.''
One day after Mr. Rahami was taken into custody and three days after bombs exploded in Chelsea in Manhattan and the Jersey Shore, investigators on Tuesday were learning more about what might have motivated the attack, but they still have many unanswered questions.
When Mr. Rahami was captured during a shootout with the police on Monday, the authorities found a notebook, pierced with a bullet hole and covered in blood, expressing opinions sympathetic to jihadist causes, according to a law enforcement official who agreed to speak about the investigation only on the condition of anonymity.
In one section of the book, Mr. Rahami wrote of ''killing the kuffar,'' or unbelievers, the official said. Mr. Rahami also praised Anwar al-Awlaki, Al Qaeda's leading propagandist, who died in a drone strike in Yemen, as well as the soldier in the Fort Hood shooting, one of the deadliest ''lone wolf'' attacks inspired by Al Qaeda.
Five years after his death in a drone strike in Yemen ordered by President Obama, Mr. Awlaki remains a powerful influence on would-be jihadists, especially in the English-speaking West. Among his documented admirers were Syed Rizwan Farook, who along with his wife killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif.; Omar Mateen, who fatally shot 49 people in an Orlando nightclub; and Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who staged an attack at the finish line of the Boston Marathon with pressure-cooker bombs in 2013.
Thousands of Mr. Awlaki's lectures and jihadist declarations are available on the web, as is Inspire magazine, which has published detailed instructions for making pipe bombs as well as more sophisticated explosive devices using pressure cookers and Christmas lights, the same components used in the New York-area bombs.
One key area of investigation is around the question of whether Mr. Rahami had help building the bombs or if anyone knew what he was doing and failed to report it. In all, he is linked to 10 explosive devices found in the region, including the two pressure-cooker bombs, one of which exploded in Chelsea on Saturday night, injuring 29 people.
No terrorist organization has claimed responsibility for the attack. While the Islamic State is usually quick to claim credit for attacks around the world, organizations linked to Al Qaeda vary widely in when or if they claim credit.
The authorities are scrutinizing a number of trips Mr. Rahami made overseas, particularly several to Pakistan. In May 2011, he made a three-month trip to Quetta, according to law enforcement officials, citing Customs and Border Protection records. Then, in April 2013, he made another trip to Quetta and did not return until March 2014, according to information provided to federal customs authorities by the New York City police.
Notably, Mr. Rahami underwent an additional interview at the airport with Customs and Border Protection officers on his returns from both of those trips, but customs officers did not flag any concerns in his travel records. Mr. Rahami was born in Afghanistan but he became a naturalized United States citizen when he was still a minor.
Two law enforcement officials said that Mr. Rahami's wife, Asia Bibi Rahami, was traveling overseas when the bombing occurred and was detained in the United Arab Emirates. It was not clear if the F.B.I. had been able to question her.
Just before Mr. Rahami returned from his last trip to Pakistan in March, he emailed Representative Albio Sires, a New Jersey Democrat, asking for help getting a visa for his wife to come to America, according to Mr. Sires.
Ms. Rahami's Pakistani passport had expired, and agents at the United States Embassy in Islamabad discovered that she was 35 weeks pregnant, Mr. Sires said. Ms. Rahami was told that she would need to wait until her baby was born so she could apply for United States visas for both her and her child.
She eventually made it into the United States, though it was unclear when her visa issue was resolved. But in August 2014, Mr. Rahami got into a fight with his family, during which he stabbed his brother in the leg with a knife, according to court records.
The police arrived to investigate, and it was at this time that Mr. Rahami's father told them about his concerns about his son's possible involvement in terrorism. The information was passed to the Joint Terrorism Task Force led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Newark. Officers opened what is known as an assessment, the most basic of F.B.I. investigations, and interviewed the father.
An official, when asked about the inquiry, said the father made the comment out of anger at his son and later recanted it.
The assessment of Mr. Rahami is illustrative of the challenges the F.B.I. faces as it solicits information from the public about people who might pose a threat but then has to sort through what is credible and what it not.
The agency has been criticized as not having done enough in previous terrorism attacks, such as the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; bureau officials say they must balance the need to protect the country while not overstepping its authority.
In the case of Mr. Rahami, the F.B.I. did not develop any further information that would have justified opening a more serious investigation, according to officials.
In Boston, one of the brothers, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was also the subject of an assessment in 2011.
And in that case, the F.B.I. also did not generate any additional leads that would have prompted a more serious investigation.
The Tsarnaev assessment was one of approximately 1,000 the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Boston carried out that year.
In the Orlando nightclub attack this year, the circumstances were different. Omar Mateen, who carried out the deadly assault, had made highly inflammatory comments, which came to the attention of investigators. He told colleagues he had family ties to Al Qaeda and was a member of Hezbollah. During the 10-month investigation, Mr. Mateen was interviewed twice and the F.B.I. used confidential informers and recorded his calls. But the bureau found no evidence that his statements were credible or that he had ties to terrorism.
Mr. Rahami did face criminal charges of aggravated assault and illegal weapons possession stemming from the domestic dispute, according to court records. He spent over three months in jail, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. A grand jury, however, declined to indict Mr. Rahami.
Mr. Rahami remained in the hospital on Tuesday, recovering from surgery for gunshot wounds he sustained during the firefight with the police. Two officers were also injured in the gunfight.
A Linden police officer, Angel Padilla, who was wearing a bulletproof vest when he was shot in the abdomen, was released from the hospital Monday night, according to Capt. James Sarnicki of the Linden department.
Peter Hammer, a traffic investigator who was sitting in his patrol car when a bullet came through his windshield and grazed his head, was released Tuesday morning from University Hospital in Newark, Captain Sarnicki said.
Mr. Rahami is currently charged with attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, among other offenses.
Peter Liguori, the deputy public defender in Union County, N.J., said that his office had not received a call or application for a lawyer in Mr. Rahami's case.
''If he applies, we'll help him,'' Mr. Ligouri said. ''We would represent him if he needs our services.''
Mr. Rahami had a daughter with a high school girlfriend, Maria Mena, and on Tuesday, she filed court papers seeking full custody of the child, citing his possible involvement in ''terrorist-related activity in NYC.''
Reporting was contributed by Elizabeth A. Harris, Sarah Maslin Nir, Julia Preston, William K. Rashbaum, Eli Rosenberg and Scott Shane.
ADA-Trolls
Harvard and M.I.T. Are Sued Over Lack of Closed Captions - NYTimes.com
February 12, 2015M.I.T. and Harvard have extensive materials available free online, including edX, a nonprofit that offers dozens of MOOCs, or massive open online courses.
Gretchen Ertl for The New York Times
Advocates for the deaf on Thursday filed federal lawsuits against Harvard and M.I.T., saying both universities violated antidiscrimination laws by failing to provide closed captioning in their online lectures, courses, podcasts and other educational materials.
''Much of Harvard's online content is either not captioned or is inaccurately or unintelligibly captioned, making it inaccessible for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing,'' the complaint said, echoing language used in the M.I.T. complaint. ''Just as buildings without ramps bar people who use wheelchairs, online content without captions excludes individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.''
Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Harvard, said that while he could not comment on the litigation, Harvard expected the Justice Department to propose rules this year ''to provide much-needed guidance in this area,'' and that the university would follow whatever rules were adopted.
A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said the university was committed to making its materials accessible to its students and online learners who are hearing-impaired, and included captioning in all new course videos and its most popular online courses.
The case highlights the increasingly important role of online materials in higher education. M.I.T. and Harvard have extensive materials available free online, on platforms like YouTube, iTunesU, Harvard@Home and MIT OpenCourseWare. In addition, the two universities are the founding partners of edX, a nonprofit that offers dozens of MOOCs, or massive open online courses, free to students around the world.
The complaints say Harvard and M.I.T. violated both the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and seek a permanent injunction requiring them to include closed captioning, which provides a text version of the words being spoken, in their online materials. Despite repeated requests by the association, the complaints say, the two universities provide captioning in only a fraction of the materials, ''and even then, inadequately.''
The lawsuits, filed by the National Association of the Deaf, which is seeking class-action status, say the universities have ''largely denied access to this content to the approximately 48 million '-- nearly one out of five '-- Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing.''
Bill Lann Lee, the Oakland, Calif., lawyer who represented the association along with lawyers from several disability rights groups, said the association thought that because Harvard and M.I.T. had been leaders in putting university content online, a change in their practices would have an impact on other universities' policies.
The federal government has already moved to ensure that blind students will not be left out by the adoption of electronic readers; it is now taking action to ensure that deaf students have access to captioned materials.
In 2010, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights sent a joint letter to university and college presidents saying federal disability laws required that ''individuals with disabilities must be provided with aids, benefits or services that provide an equal opportunity to achieve the same result or the same level of achievement as others.''
Although the letter dealt specifically with blind students and e-book readers, disability rights lawyers say the same reasoning applies to deaf students and online lectures.
In December, the Education Department resolved broad compliance reviews with the University of Cincinnati and Youngstown State University, with agreements that specifically included captioning as part of compliance with the disability laws.
''Disability law compliance at universities is very much a work in progress, even though access to education is incredibly important,'' said Samuel Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor who was formerly the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. ''It requires making changes in bureaucratic routines, and in big institutions, there's resistance to deviating from the routines.''
A statement on online course content and accessibility | Berkeley News
UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education Cathy Koshland issued this statement today:
UC Berkeley has long been committed to ensuring equal access to students, faculty and staff with disabilities. Despite the absence of clear regulatory guidance, we have attempted to maximize the accessibility of free, online content that we have made available to the public. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice has recently asserted that the University is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because, in its view, not all of the free course and lecture content UC Berkeley makes available on certain online platforms is fully accessible to individuals with hearing, visual or manual disabilities.
The department's findings do not implicate the accessibility of educational opportunities provided to our enrolled students.
In response, the university has moved swiftly to engage our campus experts to evaluate the best course of action. We look forward to continued dialog with the Department of Justice regarding the requirements of the ADA and options for compliance. Yet we do so with the realization that, due to our current financial constraints, we might not be able to continue to provide free public content under the conditions laid out by the Department of Justice to the extent we have in the past.
In many cases the requirements proposed by the department would require the university to implement extremely expensive measures to continue to make these resources available to the public for free. We believe that in a time of substantial budget deficits and shrinking state financial support, our first obligation is to use our limited resources to support our enrolled students. Therefore, we must strongly consider the unenviable option of whether to remove content from public access.
Please know that we fully intend to exhaust every available option to retain or restore free public availability of online content. It is our hope that we will find an appropriate resolution with the Department of Justice that allows us to serve the extended seeing- and hearing-impaired community and continue to provide free online content.
'--'---
View the Department of Justice letter.
Migrants
DHS Mistakenly Gave Citizenship to 858 Immigrants - The Daily Beast
The Department of Homeland Security mistakenly granted U.S. citizenship to 858 immigrants who were supposed to be deported, according to an internal audit. The immigrants were found to have used different names or dates of birth'--items that were not noticed because their fingerprints were not in a government database, because they were still on paper files and not part of a computer check. The individuals came from countries that pose a national-security risk to the U.S., or those which are routine hotbeds of immigration fraud, the auditor reported. Officials don't believe the flap is part of a larger problem within the government. An additional 953 people who were scheduled to be deported were also mistakenly naturalized, according to the inspector general's report.
SNOWDEN
Article III | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
SCHICK v. REED, (1974)No. 73-5677Argued: October 23, 1974 Decided: December 23, 1974
Petitioner, sentenced to death, under Art. 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, by a court-martial for murder, attacked the validity of a Presidential commutation to life imprisonment (under which petitioner had served 20 years) conditioned on petitioner's never being paroled. The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally rejecting petitioner's contention that this Court's intervening decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , required that petitioner be resentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole, the alternative punishment for murder under Art. 118. Held: The conditional commutation of petitioner's death sentence was within the President's powers under Art. II, 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." Pp. 260-268.
(a) The executive pardoning power under the Constitution, which has consistently adhered to the English common-law practice, historically included the power to commute sentences on conditions not specifically authorized by statute. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150; Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307. Pp. 260-266.
(b) Since the pardoning power derives from the Constitution alone, it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by any statute, including Art. 118, and Furman v. Georgia, supra, did not affect the conditional commutation of petitioner's sentence. Pp. 266-268.
157 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 483 F.2d 1266, affirmed.BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., joined, post, p. 268.
Homer E. Moyer, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner pro hac vice. With him on the briefs was Robert N. Sayler. [419 U.S. 256, 257]
Louis F. Claiborne argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Petersen, and Harry R. Sachse.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1960, the President, acting under the authority of Art. II. 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution, commuted petitioner Maurice L. Schick's sentence from death to life imprisonment, subject to the condition that he would not thereafter be eligible for parole. The petitioner challenges the validity of the condition, and we granted certiorari to determine the enforceability of that commutation as so conditioned.
The pertinent facts are undisputed. In 1954 petitioner, then a master sergeant in the United States Army stationed in Japan, was tried before a court-martial for the brutal murder of an eight-year-old girl. He admitted the killing, but contended that he was insane at the time that he committed it. Medical opinion differed on this point. Defense experts testified that petitioner could neither distinguish between right and wrong nor adhere to the right when he killed the girl; a board of psychiatrists testifying on behalf of the prosecution concluded that petitioner was suffering from a nonpsychotic behavior disorder and was mentally aware of and able to control his actions. The court-martial rejected petitioner's defense and he was sentenced to death on March 27, 1954, pursuant to Art. 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 918. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by an Army Board of Review and, following a remand for consideration of additional psychiatric reports, by the Court of Military Appeals. 7 U.S.C. M. A. 419, 22 C. M. R. 209 (1956).
The case was then forwarded to President Eisenhower for final review as required by Art. 71 (a) of the UCMJ, [419 U.S. 256, 258] 10 U.S.C. 871 (a). The President acted on March 25, 1960:
"[P]ursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, the sentence to be put to death is hereby commuted to dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances becoming due on and after the date of this action, and confinement at hard labor for the term of his [petitioner's] natural life. This commutation of sentence is expressly made on the condition that the said Maurice L. Schick shall never have any rights, privileges, claims, or benefits arising under the parole and suspension or remission of sentence laws of the United States and the regulations promulgated thereunder governing Federal prisoners confined in any civilian or military penal institution (18 U.S.C. 4201 et seq., 10 USC 3662 et seq., 10 USC 871, 874), or any acts amendatory or supplementary thereof." App. 35.
The action of the President substituted a life sentence for the death sentence imposed in 1954, subject to the conditions described in the commutation. Petitioner was accordingly discharged from the Army and transferred to the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pa. He has now served 20 years of his sentence. Had he originally received a sentence of life imprisonment he would have been eligible for parole consideration in March 1969; the condition in the President's order of commutation barred parole at any time.In 1971, while appeals challenging the validity of the death penalty were pending in this Court, petitioner filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require the members of the United States Board of Parole to consider him for parole. The District [419 U.S. 256, 259] Court granted the Board of Parole's motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, unanimously upholding the President's power to commute a sentence upon condition that the prisoner not be paroled. In addition, it rejected by a 2-1 vote petitioner's argument that Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , decided on June 29, 1972, requires that he be resentenced to a simple life term, the alternative punishment for murder under Art. 118. 157 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 483 F.2d 1266. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
When the death sentence was imposed in 1954 it was, as petitioner concedes, valid under the Constitution of the United States and subject only to final action by the President. Absent the commutation of March 25, 1960, the sentence could, and in all probability would, have been carried out prior to 1972. Only the President's action in commuting the sentence under his Art. II powers, on the conditions stipulated, prevented execution of the sentence imposed by the court-martial.
The essence of petitioner's case is that, in light of this Court's holding in Furman v. Georgia, supra, which he could not anticipate, he made a "bad bargain" by accepting a no-parole condition in place of a death sentence. He does not cast his claim in those terms, of course. Rather, he argues that the conditions attached to the commutation put him in a worse position than he would have been in had he contested his death sentence - and remained alive - until the Furman case was decided 18 years after that sentence was originally imposed.
It is correct that pending death sentences not carried out prior to Furman were thereby set aside without conditions such as were attached to petitioner's commutation. However, petitioner's death sentence was not pending in 1972 because it had long since been commuted. [419 U.S. 256, 260] The question here is whether Furman must now be read as nullifying the condition attached to that commutation when it was granted in 1960. Alternatively, petitioner argues that even in 1960 President Eisenhower exceeded his powers under Art. II by imposing a condition not expressly authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
In sum, petitioner's claim gives rise to three questions: First, was the conditional commutation of his death sentence lawful in 1960; second, if so, did Furman retroactively void such conditions; and third, does that case apply to death sentences imposed by military courts where the asserted vagaries of juries are not present as in other criminal cases? Our disposition of the case will make it unnecessary to reach the third question.
II
The express power of Art. II, 2, cl. 1, from which the Presidential power to commute criminal sentences derives, is to "grant Reprieves and Pardons . . . except in Cases of Impeachment." Although the authors of this clause surely did not act thoughtlessly, neither did they devote extended debate to its meaning. This can be explained in large part by the fact that the draftsmen were well acquainted with the English Crown authority to alter and reduce punishments as it existed in 1787. The history of that power, which was centuries old, reveals a gradual contraction to avoid its abuse and misuse. 1 Changes were made as potential or actual abuses were perceived; for example, Parliament restricted the power to grant a pardon to one who transported a prisoner overseas to evade the Habeas Corpus Act, because to allow such pardons would drain the Great Writ of its vitality. There [419 U.S. 256, 261] were other limits, but they were few in number and similarly specifically defined. 2
At the time of the drafting and adoption of our Constitution it was considered elementary that the prerogative of the English Crown could be exercised upon conditions:
"It seems agreed, That the king may extend his mercy on what terms he pleases, and consequently may annex to his pardon any condition that he thinks fit, whether precedent or subsequent, on the performance whereof the validity of the pardon will depend." 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 557 (6th ed. 1787).
Various types of conditions, both penal and nonpenal in nature, were employed. 3 For example, it was common for a pardon or commutation to be granted on condition that the felon be transported to another place, and indeed our own Colonies were the recipients of numerous subjects of "banishment." This practice was never questioned despite the fact that British subjects generally could not be forced to leave the realm without an Act of Parliament and banishment was rarely authorized as a punishment for crime. The idea later developed that the subject's consent to transportation was necessary, but in most cases he was simply "agreeing" that his life should be spared. Thus, the requirement of consent was a legal fiction at best; in reality, by granting pardons or commutations conditional upon banishment, the Crown was exercising a power that was the equivalent and completely [419 U.S. 256, 262] independent of legislative authorization. 4 11 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 569-575 (1938). In short, by 1787 the English prerogative to pardon was unfettered except for a few specifically enumerated limitations.The history of our executive pardoning power reveals a consistent pattern of adherence to the English commonlaw practice. The records of the Constitutional Convention, as noted earlier, reveal little discussion or debate on 2, cl. 1, of Art. II. The first report of the Committee on Detail proposed that the pertinent clause read: "He [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons; but his pardon shall not be pleadable in bar of an impeachment." 5 This limitation as to impeachments tracked a similar restriction upon the English royal prerogative which existed in 1787. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *399-400. An effort was made in the Convention to amend what finally emerged as 2, cl. 1, and is reflected in James Madison's Journal for August 25, 1787, where the following note appears:
"Mr. Sherman moved to amend the `power to grant reprieves and pardons' so as to read `to grant reprieves until the next session of the Senate, and pardons with consent of the Senate.'" 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 419 (1911). [419 U.S. 256, 263] The proposed amendment was rejected by a vote of 8-1. Ibid. This action confirms that, as in England in 1787, the pardoning power was intended to be generally free from legislative control.Later Edmund Randolph proposed to add the words "`except cases of treason.'" Madison's description of Randolph's argument reflects familiarity with the English form and practice: "The prerogative of pardon in these [treason] cases was too great a trust." Id., at 626 (emphasis added). Randolph's proposal was rejected by a vote of 8-2, and the clause was adopted in its present form. Thereafter, Hamilton's Federalist No. 69 summarized the proposed 2 powers, including the power to pardon, as "resembl[ing] equally that of the King of Great-Britain and the Governor of New-York." The Federalist No. 69, p. 464 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). 6
We see, therefore, that the draftsmen of Art. II, 2, spoke in terms of a "prerogative" of the President, which ought not be "fettered or embarrassed." In light of the English common law from which such language was [419 U.S. 256, 264] drawn, the conclusion is inescapable that the pardoning power was intended to include the power to commute sentences on conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution, but which are not specifically provided for by statute.
The few cases decided in this area are consistent with the view of the power described above. In United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 (1833), this Court was confronted with the question of whether a pardon must be pleaded in order to be effective. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall held for the Court that it must, because that was the English common-law practice:
"As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it." Id., at 160.
Similarly, in Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856), the petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged. President Fillmore granted a pardon "`upon condition that he be imprisoned during his natural life; that is, the sentence of death is hereby commuted to imprisonment for life in the penitentiary of Washington.'" Id., at 308. Later, Wells sought release by habeas corpus, contending that the condition annexed to the pardon and accepted by him was illegal. His argument was remarkably similar to that made by petitioner here:"[A] President granting such a pardon assumes a power not conferred by the constitution - that he legislates a new punishment into existence, and sentences [419 U.S. 256, 265] the convict to suffer it; in this way violating the legislative and judicial powers of the government, it being the province of the first, to enact laws for the punishment of offences . . ., and that of the judiciary, to sentence . . . according to them." Id., at 309.However, the Court was not persuaded. After an extensive review of the English common law and that of the States, which need not be repeated here, it concluded:"The real language of [Art. II, 2, cl. 1] is general, that is, common to the class of pardons, or extending the power to pardon to all kinds of pardons known in the law as such, whatever may be their denomination. We have shown that a conditional pardon is one of them. . . .
"In this view of the constitution, by giving to its words their proper meaning, the power to pardon conditionally is not one of inference at all, but one conferred in terms.
. . . . .
". . . [T]he power to offer a condition, without ability to enforce its acceptance, when accepted by the convict, is the substitution, by himself, of a lesser punishment than the law has imposed upon him, and he cannot complain if the law executes the choice he has made.
"`. . . And a man condemned to be hung cannot be permitted to escape the punishment altogether, by pleading that he had accepted his life by duress per minas.'" Id., at 314-315.
In other words, this Court has long read the Constitution as authorizing the President to deal with individual cases by granting conditional pardons. The very essence of the pardoning power is to treat each case individually. [419 U.S. 256, 266] The teachings of Wilson and Wells have been followed consistently by this Court. See, e. g., Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) (upholding a Presidential pardon of a contempt of court against an argument that it violated the principle of separation of powers); Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867). Additionally, we note that Presidents throughout our history as a Nation have exercised the power to pardon or commute sentences upon conditions that are not specifically authorized by statute. Such conditions have generally gone unchallenged and, as in the Wells case, attacks have been firmly rejected by the courts. See 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 251 (1955). These facts are not insignificant for our interpretation of Art. II, 2, cl. 1, because, as observed by Mr. Justice Holmes: "If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case" to overturn it. Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922).
III
A fair reading of the history of the English pardoning power, from which our Art. II, 2, cl. 1, derives, of the language of that clause itself, and of the unbroken practice since 1790 compels the conclusion that the power flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and that it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress. Additionally, considerations of public policy and humanitarian impulses support an interpretation of that power so as to permit the attachment of any condition which does not otherwise offend the Constitution. The plain purpose of the board power conferred by 2, cl. 1, was to allow plenary authority in the President to "forgive" the convicted person in part or entirely, to reduce a penalty in terms of a specified number of years, or to alter it with conditions which are in themselves constitutionally unobjectionable. If we were [419 U.S. 256, 267] to accept petitioner's contentions, a commutation of his death sentence to 25 or 30 years would be subject to the same challenge as is now made, i. e., that parole must be available to petitioner because it is to others. That such an interpretation of 2, cl. 1, would in all probability tend to inhibit the exercise of the pardoning power and reduce the frequency of commutations is hardly open to doubt. We therefore hold that the pardoning power is an enumerated power of the Constitution and that its limitations, if any, must be found in the Constitution itself. It would be a curious logic to allow a convicted person who petitions for mercy to retain the full benefit of a lesser punishment with conditions, yet escape burdens readily assumed in accepting the commutation which he sought.
Petitioner's claim must therefore fail. The no-parole condition attached to the commutation of his death sentence is similar to sanctions imposed by legislatures such as mandatory minimum sentences or statutes otherwise precluding parole; 7 it does not offend the Constitution. Similarly, the President's action derived solely from his Art. II powers; it did not depend upon Art. 118 of the UCMJ or any other statute fixing a death penalty for murder. It is not correct to say that the condition upon petitioner's commutation was "made possible only through the court-martial's imposition of the death sentence." Post, at 269-270. Of course, the President may not aggravate punishment; the sentence imposed by statute is therefore relevant to a limited extent. But, as shown, the President has constitutional power to attach conditions to his commutation of any sentence. Thus, even if Furman v. Georgia applies to the military, a matter which we need not and do not decide, it could [419 U.S. 256, 268] not affect a conditional commutation which was granted 12 years earlier.
We are not moved by petitioner's argument that it is somehow "unfair" that he be treated differently from persons whose death sentences were pending at the time that Furman was decided. Individual acts of clemency inherently call for discriminating choices because no two cases are the same. Indeed, as noted earlier, petitioner's life was undoubtedly spared by President Eisenhower's commutation order of March 25, 1960. Nor is petitioner without further remedies since he may, of course, apply to the present President or future Presidents for a complete pardon, commutation to time served, or relief from the no-parole condition. We hold only that the conditional commutation of his death sentence was lawful when made and that intervening events have not altered its validity.
Affirmed.
Footnotes[ Footnote 1 ] See generally 6 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 203 (1938).[ Footnote 2 ] See 3 E. Coke, Institutes 233 (6th ed. 1680); 5 J. Comyns, Digest of the Laws of England 230 (5th ed. 1822); J. Chitty, Prerogatives of the Crown 90-91 (1820); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *398.
[ Footnote 3 ] Typical conditions were that the felon be confined at hard labor for a stated period of time, 4 Blackstone, supra, n. 2, at *401, or that he serve in the Armed Forces. 2 D. Hume, Crimes 481 (2d ed. 1819).
[ Footnote 4 ] In Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856), this Court expressed the view that legislative authorization was essential to the use of banishment from the realm as a commutable punishment by the English Crown. Id., at 313. However, that conclusion was no more than dictum and is historically incorrect. Indeed, about the time that Wells was decided Parliament abolished banishment as a penalty in England, but the Crown retained and continued to exercise the power to annex such conditions to pardons. 11 Holdsworth, supra, n. 1, at 575.
[ Footnote 5 ] 2 M. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 185 (1911).
[ Footnote 6 ] In the Federalist No. 74 Hamilton enlarged on this point: "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives, which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations, which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection, that the fate of a fellow creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution: The dread of being accused of weakness or connivance would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind." The Federalist No. 74, pp. 500-501 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
[ Footnote 7 ] See, e. g., 21 U.S.C. 848 (c); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 265, 2 (1970); Nev. Rev. Stat., Tit. 16, c. 200.030, 6, c. 200.363, 1 (a) (1973).
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting.
The Court today denies petitioner relief from the no-parole condition of his commuted death sentence, paying only lip service to our intervening decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Because I believe the retrospective application of Furman requires us to vacate petitioner's sentence and substitute the only lawful alternative - life with the opportunity for parole, I respectfully dissent.
I
The Court misconstrues petitioner's retroactivity argument. Schick does not dispute the constitutional validity of the death penalty in 1954 under then-existing case law. Nor does he contend that he was under sentence of death 1 [419 U.S. 256, 269] in 1972 when the decision issued in Furman, invalidating "the imposition and carrying out" of discretionary death sentences. Id., at 239. Rather, he argues that the retroactive application of Furman to his no-parole commutation is required because the imposition of the death sentence was the indispensable vehicle through which he became subject to his present sentence. In other words, the no-parole condition could not now exist had the court-martial before which Schick was tried not imposed the death penalty.
The relationship between the death sentence and the condition is clear. Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 2 authorizes only two sentences for the crime of premeditated murder: death or life imprisonment which entails at least the possibility of parole. Confinement without possibility of parole is unknown to military law; 3 it is not and has never been authorized for any UCMJ offense, 10 U.S.C. 877-934; Manual for Courts-Martial, 34 Fed. Reg. 10502 (1969). In short, the penal restriction of the commutation was a creature of Presidential clemency made possible only [419 U.S. 256, 270] through the court-martial's imposition of the death sentence.
The retroactivity of Furman is equally unclouded. The Court "[has] not hesitated" to give full retroactive effect to the Furman decision. Robinson v. Neil, 409 U.S. 505, 508 (1973). See Stewart v. Massachusetts, 408 U.S. 845 (1972); Marks v. Louisiana, 408 U.S. 933 (1972); Walker v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 936 (1972). The per curiam decision struck down both "the imposition and the carrying out" of discretionary death sentences as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 408 U.S., at 239 . The opinion specifically held that the "judgment . . . is . . . reversed insofar as it leaves undisturbed the death sentence imposed . . . ." Id., at 240. The retroactive application of Furman results in more than the simple enjoining of execution; it nullifies the very act of sentencing. In effect a post-Furman court must ensure a prisoner the same treatment that he would have been afforded had the death penalty not been imposed initially. 4
The full retroactivity of a constitutional ruling is aimed at the eradication of all adverse consequences of prior violations of that rule. We have recognized the importance of erasing "root and branch" the adverse legal consequences, both direct and indirect, of prior constitutional violations. See, e. g., McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2, 3 (1968); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 639 (1965). The effective operation of this procedure was demonstrated [419 U.S. 256, 271] in the decisions on the right to counsel in state felony trials. See Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, 375 U.S. 2 (1963); Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U.S. 847 (1971); Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972).
Since Furman is fully retroactive petitioner's case should be simple to resolve. The terms of Art. 118 of the UCMJ provide that a person convicted of premeditated murder "shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct." A death sentence was imposed by the court-martial and affirmed by the Board of Review and the United States Court of Military Appeals, 7 U.S.C. M. A. 419, 22 C. M. R. 209 (1956). The death sentence so imposed was declared unconstitutional by Furman and is therefore null and void as a matter of law. The only legal alternative - simple life imprisonment - must be substituted. Concomitantly, the adverse consequence of the death sentence - the no-parole condition of petitioner's 1960 commutation - must also be voided, as it exceeds the lawful alternative punishment that should have been imposed. Petitioner should now be subject to treatment as a person sentenced to life imprisonment on the date of his original sentence and eligible for parole. 5 [419 U.S. 256, 272]
The Court today suggests that petitioner cannot claim any benefit from Furman because no death penalty was pending against him at the time of the decision. The 1960 commutation is touted as the panacea for the constitutional defects of petitioner's original sentence. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
The imposition of the death sentence was the indispensable vehicle through which petitioner became subject to his present sentence. The commutation of the sentence did not cure the constitutional disabilities of the punishment. A noted expert on the subject of Presidential clemency states:
"Unlike a pardon, a commutation does not absolve the beneficiary from most of the legal consequences of an offense." 6 Although petitioner is not under direct threat of the death sentence, "he has suffered and continues to suffer enhanced punishment - the loss of his statutory right to [419 U.S. 256, 273] be considered for parole - as a result of an illegally imposed death sentence" 7 The full retrospective application of Furman requires the eradication of this vestige of the prior constitutional violation. If petitioner had been granted stays of execution until Furman was decided, there is no doubt that his sentence would have to be vacated and a life sentence imposed instead. The situation should be no different simply because the Chief Executive commuted his sentence - in effect granting a permanent stay of execution. Nullification of the no-parole provision would relieve petitioner of this unconstitutional burden and clear the way for lawful resentencing with eligibility for parole.II
Since the majority devotes its opinion to a discussion of the scope of Presidential power, I am compelled to comment. I have no quarrel with the proposition that the source of the President's commutation power is found in Art. II, 2, cl. 1, of the Constitution, which authorizes the President to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except for cases of impeachment. Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927). Commutation is defined as the substitution of a lesser type of punishment for the punishment actually imposed at trial. 8 [419 U.S. 256, 274]
The issue here is whether the President's expansion of an unencumbered life term by addition of a condition proscribing Schick's eligibility for parole went beyond the authority conferred by Art. II. Article 118 of the UCMJ and the implementing court-martial regulations prescribe mandatory adjudication of either death or life imprisonment for the crime of premeditated murder. 10 U.S.C. 918; 34 Fed. Reg. 10704. I take issue with the Court's conclusion that annexation of the "no-parole condition . . . does not offend the Constitution." Ante, at 267. In my view the President's action exceeded the limits of the Art. II pardon power. In commuting a sentence under Art. II the Chief Executive is not imbued with the constitutional power to create unauthorized punishments.
The congressionally prescribed limits of punishment mark the boundaries within which the Executive must exercise his authority. 9 By virtue of the pardon power the Executive may abstain from enforcing a judgment by judicial authorities; he may not, under the aegis of that power, engage in lawmaking or adjudication. Cf. United States v. Benz, 282 U.S. 304, 311 (1931) (an act of clemency is an exercise of executive power which abridges the enforcement of the judgment, but does not alter it qua judgment); United States ex rel. Brazier v. Commissioner of Immigration, 5 F.2d 162 (CA2 1924) (pardon power does not embrace right to bar congressionally prescribed deportation of prisoners).
While the clemency function of the Executive in the [419 U.S. 256, 275] federal criminal justice system 10 is consistent with the separation of powers, the attachment of punitive conditions to grants of clemency is not. Prescribing punishment is a prerogative reserved for the lawmaking branch of government, the legislature. As a consequence, President Eisenhower's addition to Schick's commutation of a condition that did not coincide with punishment prescribed by the legislature for any military crime, 11 much less this specific offense, was a usurpation of a legislative function. While the exercise of the pardon power was proper, the imposition of this penal condition was not embraced by that power. 12 [419 U.S. 256, 276]
The Court today advances the antecedent English pardon power and prior holdings of this Court in support of the legality of the no-parole condition. Neither body of law has established an Executive right to define extra-legislative punishments. 13 Nor does the historical status of the pardon power in England or analysis of prior non-penal conditions supply any relevance here.
A
The English annals offer dubious support to the Court. The majority opinion recounts in copious detail the historical evolution of the pardon power in England. Ante, at 260-262. See also Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307, 309-313 (1856). The references to English statutes and cases are no more than dictum; as the Court itself admonishes, "the [pardon] power flows from the Constitution alone." Ante, at 266. Accordingly, the primary resource for analyzing the scope of Art. II is our own republican system of government. See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 248 -249 (1936). The separation of powers doctrine does not vest the Chief Executive with an unrestrained clemency power, supra, at 274-275, but views his functions as distinct from the other coordinate branches. Ante, at 262-264. The references to the early American experience are not dispositive. 14 [419 U.S. 256, 277]
Indeed, history recounts that even the pardon power of the King to "annex [a condition] to his bounty" was subject to statutory limitation. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *401. As noted in the Wells case:
"The sovereign of England, with all the prerogatives of the crown, in granting a conditional pardon, cannot substitute a punishment which the law does not authorize." 18 How., at 323 (McLean, J., dissenting).
Even the authority quoted by Blackstone in support of the proposition, 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 547 (8th ed. 1824), does not actually support the suggestion of unlimited power in the King. In fact, the conditions discussed were either imposed pursuant to statute or of a nonpunitive nature. See Coles Case, Moore K. B. 466, 72 Eng. Rep. 700 (1597); E. Coke, A Commentary upon Littleton 274b (19th ed. 1832). The Court acknowledges instances in which statutory authority placed restrictions on the monarch's power. Ante, at 260. The critical role of statutes in the imposition of the condition of banishment on pardons of convicted felons was recognized in a letter addressed to a member of the House of Lords:"There is hardly anything to be found respecting conditional pardons in the old English law-books; but the authority of the Crown to grant a conditional pardon in capital cases is . . . recognized in statute 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 2 . . . ." W. Forsyth, Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law 460 (1869). [419 U.S. 256, 278] The King's prerogative was thus not as broad as the majority's reading of Blackstone indicates. The great discretion available to the King to dispense mercy did not incorporate into the pardoning power the royal right to invade the legislative province of assessing punishments.B
Contrary to the Court's suggestion, limitation of Executive action to the statutory framework is not undermined by earlier decisions of this Court. In Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480, 483 (1927), the Solicitor General expressly noted that "[a] commutation is the substitution of a milder punishment known to the law for the one inflicted by the court." Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded on a related matter that consent to commutation was unnecessary since "[b]y common understanding imprisonment for life is a less penalty than death." Id., at 487. The Court held that the "only question is whether the substituted punishment was authorized by law . . . ." Ibid. While Holmes' specific reference is to the law of the Constitution, he then proceeds with a discussion of the statutory sanctions. Commutation to life imprisonment without any opportunity for parole would penalize the prisoner here beyond the terms of the UCMJ sanctions.
The requirement that the substituted sentence be one provided by law is not hampered by Ex parte Wells, supra, in which this Court upheld conditional commutation from a death sentence to a simple life term. The validity of mitigation of a sentence without depriving the prisoner of any additional rights is not inconsistent with rejection of unauthorized penal conditions. In Wells the Court acknowledged that limitations on the pardon power mandated its exercise "according to law; that is, as it had been used in England, and these States." 18 How., at 310. Although the Wells Court was not faced with the question [419 U.S. 256, 279] whether all possible conditions were in the ambit of Art. II, it addressed the specific limitation on penal conditions attached to commutations:
"So, conditional pardons by the king do not permit transportation or exile as a commutable punishment, unless the same has been provided for by legislation." Id., at 313.
The remaining cases on which the Court relies to sustain the condition offer minimal support and are easily distinguished. 15 In conclusion I note that where a President chooses to exercise his clemency power he should be mindful that
"[t]he punishment appropriate for the diverse federal offenses is a matter for the discretion of Congress, subject only to constitutional limitations, more particularly the Eighth Amendment." Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 82 (1955).See Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 42 (1916). The Congress has not delegated such authority to the President. I do not challenge the right of the President to issue pardons on nonpenal conditions, but, where the Executive elects to exercise the Presidential power for commutation the clear import of the Constitution mandates that the lesser punishment imposed be sanctioned by the legislature. 16 [419 U.S. 256, 280] In sum, the no-parole condition is constitutionally defective in the face of the retrospective application of Furman and the extra-legal nature of the Executive action. I would nullify the condition, and direct the lower court to remand the case for resentencing to the only alternative available - life with the opportunity for parole - and its attendant benefits.
[ Footnote 1 ] But see Part II, infra.
[ Footnote 2 ] Article 118, 10 U.S.C. 918, reads: "Any person subject to this code who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he - "(1) has a premeditated design to kill; . . . . . "shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct." May 5, 1950, c. 169, 1, 64 Stat. 140.
[ Footnote 3 ] Military prisoners incarcerated in federal penitentiaries are governed by the same parole statutes and regulations applicable to all federal prisoners. Under the federal parole eligibility statute, 18 U.S.C. 4202-4203 (1970 ed. and Supp. II), petitioner, an inmate for 20 years at Lewisburg, now has satisfied the 15-year prerequisite for parole consideration. See 10 U.S.C. 858. Likewise, if Schick had been confined in a military facility he would now be eligible for parole under 10 U.S.C. 952-953.
[ Footnote 4 ] Where only one alternative punishment is available to the trial court, that punishment has been automatically imposed either by the appellate court itself, e. g., State v. Johnson, 31 Ohio St. 2d 106, 285 N. E. 2d 751 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bradley, 449 Pa. 19, 295 A. 2d 842 (1972); Anderson v. State, 267 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1972); or by the trial judge on direction from the appellate court, e. g., Capler v. State, 268 So.2d 338 (Miss. 1972); State v. Square, 263 La. 291, 268 So.2d 229 (1972); Garcia v. State, 501 P.2d 1128 (Okla. Crim. 1972).
[ Footnote 5 ] Nothing in Furman suggests that it is inapplicable to the military. The per curiam carves out no exceptions to the prohibition against discretionary death sentences. The opinions of the five-member majority recognize no basis for excluding the members of the Armed Forces from protection against this form of punishment. Even the list of four capital punishment statutes not affected by the Court's decision, provided by my Brother STEWART, does not include the federal military statutes. 408 U.S. 238, 307 (1972). Even more persuasive is the language of my Brother POWELL in dissent which states that "numerous provisions of . . . the Uniform Code of Military Justice are also voided." Id., at 417-418. Beyond the language of Furman the Court has made clear in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), that the Eighth Amendment is applicable [419 U.S. 256, 272] to the military. While the Court divided on the penal nature of the statute which provided additional sanctions for servicemen convicted of wartime desertion, there was no disagreement on the application of the Amendment. I would also note that the UCMJ, enacted in 1950, has by decision and practice incorporated the Bill of Rights and afforded its protection to the members of the Armed Forces. See, e. g., United States v. Tempia, 16 U.S.C. M. A. 629, 634, 37 C. M. R. 249, 254 (1967); United States v. Jacoby, 11 U.S.C. M. A. 428, 430-431, 29 C. M. R. 244, 246-247 (1960); United States v. Jobe, 10 U.S.C. M. A. 276, 279, 27 C. M. R. 350, 353 (1959). The fact that a court-martial rather than a jury imposes the death sentence is irrelevant. In my view the penalty is equally severe, and in my view equally offensive to the Eighth Amendment for that reason, see Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S., at 314 -374 (MARSHALL, J., concurring). Moreover, the potential for abuse and discrimination with which my Brethren were concerned in Furman is as evident here as in the civilian courts.
[ Footnote 6 ] W. Humbert, The Pardoning Power of the President 27 (1941).
[ Footnote 8 ] Although pardon and commutation emanate from the same source, they represent clearly distinct forms of clemency. Whereas commutation is a substitution of a milder form of punishment, pardon is an act of public conscience that relieves the recipient of all the legal consequences of the conviction. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Brazier v. Commissioner of Immigration, 5 F.2d 162 (CA2 1924); Chapman v. Scott, 10 F.2d 156, 159 (Conn. 1925), aff'd, 10 F.2d 690 (CA2), cert. denied, 270 U.S. 657 (1926); Note, Executive Clemency in Capital Cases, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 136, 138 (1964); [419 U.S. 256, 274] Humbert, supra, n. 6, at 27; Black's Law Dictionary 351, 1268-1269 (4th ed. 1968).
[ Footnote 9 ] Indeed, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall expanded on the notion of separation of powers, stating: "[T]he power of punishment is vested in the legislative . . . department. It is the legislature . . . which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).
[ Footnote 10 ] Article 71 (a) of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 871 (a), outlines the Presidential role in the review of military convictions. With the exception of premeditated murder and felony murder the UCMJ authorizes punishment at the discretion of the court-martial. Thus, in the majority of cases the President would not be limited to only two alternatives but could commute to any lesser sentence than that imposed by the court-martial consistent with the statutory authorization. It is only in the face of the mandate of Art. 118, limiting the alternatives to death or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, that the restriction to the statutory alternatives may appear at first blush unduly Draconian.
[ Footnote 11 ] As already indicated, confinement without opportunity for parole is unknown to military law. See text accompanying n. 3, supra. Moreover, the only federal-law recognition of this punishment in a civilian context is found in the very limited no-parole provisions dealing with continuing narcotics enterprises. 21 U.S.C. 848. Guided by the special nature of drug offenses and drug offenders the Congress enacted this narrow exception to universal eligibility for parole. See H. R. Rep. No. 2388, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 4, 8, 11, 64 (1956).
[ Footnote 12 ] The Court cites Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307 (1856), and an opinion of Attorney General Brownell, 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 251 (1955), in support of the statement that "Presidents . . . have [frequently] exercised the power to pardon or commute sentences upon conditions that are not specifically authorized by statute." Ante, at 266. Wells involved the simple substitution of the lesser penalty of life imprisonment for death; no separate punitive condition was attached [419 U.S. 256, 276] to the Executive action. A legal opinion from the Attorney General supplies reasoned interpretations but hardly bears the force of law.
[ Footnote 13 ] The King's pardon power, from which the President's Art. II power derives, also was subject historically to statutory limitations. See Ex parte Wells, supra, at 312-313; id., at 322 (McLean, J., dissenting).
[ Footnote 14 ] With few exceptions conditional pardons were not granted by state governors except where authorized by law, Ex parte Wells, supra, at 322 (McLean, J., dissenting). The Court's references to the Framers' writings on the pardon power fail to take account of the separation of powers doctrine so fervently embraced by the constitutional drafters. National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer [419 U.S. 256, 277] Co., 337 U.S. 582 (1949); The Federalist No. 47 (J. Madison) (J. Cooke ed. 1961); E. Corwin, The President: Office and Powers 140 (1940). In fact Corwin notes: "[T]he President is not authorized to add to sentences imposed by the courts [pursuant to legislative direction] - he may only mitigate them . . . ." Ibid. (emphasis in original).
[ Footnote 15 ] United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150 (1833), turned on the technical question of whether a pardon must be pleaded and only referred in dictum to the possibility that the President could condition a pardon. In Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867), and Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), the Court focused on the discretionary aspect of the pardon power which is here unchallenged. The emphasis was on the right of the President to grant a pardon to any criminal, for any offense, at any time. The question of conditional action was raised in only a tangential manner.
[ Footnote 16 ] The Court likens the no-parole condition to "sanctions imposed by legislatures such as mandatory minimum sentences . . . ." The [419 U.S. 256, 280] similarity is all too close, in my view. Indeed, it is precisely because the President has invaded the legislative domain that the condition must fail. [419 U.S. 256, 281]
Ex parte Garland :: 71 U.S. 333 (1866) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
1. The act of Congress of January 24th, 1865, providing that, after its passage, no person shall be admitted as an attorney and counselor to the bar of the Supreme Court, and, after March 4th, 1865, to the bar of any Circuit or District Court of the United States, or Court of Claims, or be allowed to appear and be heard by virtue of any previous admission, or any special power of attorney, unless he shall have first taken and subscribed to the oath prescribed in the act of July 2d, 1862 -- which latter act requires the affiant to swear or affirm that he has never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since he has been a citizen thereof, that he has voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto, that he has neither sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States, and that he has not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States hostile or inimical thereto -- operates as a legislative decree excluding from the practice of the law in the courts of the United States all parties who have offended in any of the particulars enumerated.
2. Exclusion from the practice of the law in the Federal courts, or from any of the ordinary avocations of life for past conduct is punishment for such conduct. The exaction of the oath is the mode provided for ascertaining the parties upon whom the act is intended to operate.
3. The act being of this character partakes of the nature of a bills of pains and penalties, and is subject to the constitutional inhibition against the passage of bills of attainder, under which general designation bills of pains and penalties are included.
4. In the exclusion which the act adjudges, it imposes a punishment for some of the acts specified which were not punishable at the time they were committed, and for other of the acts, it adds a new punishment to that before prescribed, and it is thus within the inhibition of the Constitution against the passage of an ex post facto law.
5. Attorneys and counselors are not officers of the United States; they are officers of the court, admitted as such by its order upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning and fair private character.
6. The order of admission is the judgment of the court that the parties possess the requisite qualifications and are entitled to appear as attorneys and counselors and conduct causes therein. From its entry, the parties become officers of the court, and are responsible to it for professional misconduct. They hold their office during good behavior, and can only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by the judgment of the court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded. Their admission and their exclusion are the exercise of judicial power.
Page 71 U. S. 334
7. The right of an attorney and counselor, acquired by his admission, to appear for suitors and to argue causes, is not a mere indulgence -- a matter of grace and favor -- revocable at the pleasure of the court, or at the command of the legislature. It is a right of which he can only be deprived by the judgment of the court, for moral or professional delinquency.
8. The admitted power of Congress to prescribe qualifications for the office of attorney and counselor in the Federal courts cannot be exercised as a means for the infliction of punishment for the past conduct of such officers, against the inhibition of the Constitution.
9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.
10. A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It gives him a new credit and capacity. There is only this limitation to its operation: it does not restore offices forfeited, or property of interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment.
11. The petitioner in this case, having received a full pardon for all offences committed by his participation, direct or implied, in the Rebellion, is relieved from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offence of treason, committed by such participation. For that offence, he is beyond the reach of punishment of any kind. He cannot, therefore, be excluded by reason of that offence from continuing in the enjoyment of a previously acquired right to appear as an attorney and counselor in the Federal courts.
On the 2d of July, 1862, Congress, by "An act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," [Footnote 1] enacted:
"That hereafter every person elected or appointed to any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such office, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:"
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to
Page 71 U. S. 335
persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted, not attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution with the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God;"
&c.
"Any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offence, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after of holding any office or place under the United States."
On the 24th of January, 1865, [Footnote 2] Congress passed a supplementary act extending these provisions so as to embrace attorneys and counselors of the courts of the United States. I t is as follows:
"No person, after the date of this act, shall be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, or at any time after the fourth of March next, shall be admitted to the bar of any Circuit or District Court of the United States, or of the Court of Claims, as an attorney or counselor of such court, or shall be allowed to appear and be heard in any such court, by virtue of any previous admission, or any special power of attorney, unless he shall have first taken and subscribed the oath prescribed in 'An act to prescribe an oath of office and for other purposes,' approved July 2d, 1862. And any person who shall falsely take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and, on conviction,"
&c.
By the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court has power to make rules and decide upon the qualifications of attorneys.
At the December Term of 1860, A. H. Garland, Esquire, was admitted as an attorney and counselor of the court, and took and subscribed the oath then required. The second rule, as it then existed, was as follows:
Page 71 U. S. 336
"It shall be requisite to the admission of attorneys and counselors to practise in this court that they shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Courts of the States to which they respectively belong, and that their private and professional character shall appear to be fair."
"They shall respectively take the following oath or affirmation, viz.:"
"I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will demean myself as an attorney and counselor of this court, uprightly, and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
There was then no other qualification for attorneys in this court than such as are named in this rule.
In March, 1865, this rule was changed by the addition of a clause requiring an oath, in conformity with the act of Congress.
At the same term at which he was admitted, Mr. Garland appeared, and presented printed argument in several cases in which he was counsel. His name continued on the roll of attorneys from then to the present time. but the late Rebellion intervened, and all business in which he was concerned at the time of his admission remained undisposed of. In some of the cases alluded to, fees were paid, and in others, they were partially paid. Having taken part in the Rebellion against the United States by being in the Congress of the so-called Confederate States from May, 1862, until the final surrender of the forces of such Confederate States -- first in the lower house and afterwards in the Senate of that body as the representative of the State of Arkansas, of which he was a citizen -- Mr. Garland could not take the oath prescribed by the acts of Congress before mentioned and the rule of the court of March, 1865.
The State, in May, 1862, passed an ordinance of secession, purporting to withdraw herself from the Union, and afterwards, in the same year, by another ordinance, attached herself to the so-called Confederate States.
In July, 1865, Mr. Garland received from the President
Page 71 U. S. 337
a pardon, by which the chief magistrate, reciting that Mr. Garland, "by taking part in the late Rebellion against the government, had made himself liable to heavy pains and penalties," &c., did thereby
"Grant to the said A. H. Garland a FULL PARDON AND AMNESTY for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the said Rebellion, conditioned as follows: this pardon to begin and take effect from the day on which the said A. H. Garland shall take the oath prescribed in the proclamation of the President, dated May 29th, 1865, and to be void and of no effect if the said A. H. Garland shall hereafter at any time acquire any property whatever in slaves, or make use of slave labor, and that he first pay all costs which may have accrued in any proceedings hitherto instituted against his person or property. And upon the further condition that the said A. H. Garland shall notify the Secretary of State in writing that he has received and accepted the foregoing pardon."
The oath required was taken by Mr. Garland and annexed to the pardon. It was to the purport that he would thenceforth
"faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the union of the States thereunder, and that he would in like manner abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which had been made during the existing Rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves."
Mr. Garland now produced this pardon, and, by petition filed in court, asked permission to continue to practise as an attorney and counselor of the court, without taking the oath required by the act of January 24th, 1865, and the rule of the court. He rested his application principally upon two grounds:
1st. That the act of January 24th, 1865, so far as it affected his status in the court, was unconstitutional and void, and,
2d. That, if the act were constitutional, he was released from compliance with its provisions by the pardon of the President.
Page 71 U. S. 374
Ex parte Garland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ex parte GarlandArgued December 15, 22, 1865Reargued March 13''15, 1866Decided January 14, 1867Full case nameEx parte GarlandCitations71 U.S.333 (more)HoldingCongress cannot punish a person for a crime for which the person has been pardoned.Court membershipCase opinionsMajorityField, joined by Wayne, Nelson, Grier, CliffordDissentMiller, joined by Chase, Swayne, DavisEx parte Garland, 71U.S.333 (1866), was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the disbarment of former Confederate officials.
In January 1865 the Congress of the United States passed a law that effectively disbarred former members of the Confederate government by requiring a loyalty oath be recited by any Federal court officer affirming that the officer had never served in the Confederate government.
Augustus Hill Garland, an attorney and former Confederate Senator from Arkansas, had previously received a pardon from President Andrew Johnson. Garland came before the court and pleaded that the act of Congress was a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law which unfairly punished him for the crime for which he had been pardoned and was therefore unconstitutional.
Decision[edit]In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the law was indeed a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. The court ruled that Garland was beyond the reach of punishment of any kind due to his prior presidential pardon. The court also stated that counselors are officers of the court and not officers of the United States, and that their removal was an exercise of judicial power and not legislative power. The law was struck down, opening the way for former Confederate government officials to return to positions within the federal judiciary.
External links[edit]
Why President Obama Won't, and Shouldn't, Pardon Snowden - Lawfare
A ''pardon Snowden'' campaign was launched Wednesday, in conjunction with the Snowden film. Snowden himself made the ''moral case'' case for why he should be pardoned, and Tim Edgar made a much more powerful case. I remain unconvinced. I don't think the President will, or should, pardon Snowden.
I say this even though I agree with Tim about many of the upsides to Snowden's theft and leak of documents from NSA databases. On the third anniversary of the Snowden disclosures, I wrote about how, despite their many costs, the disclosures strengthened the intelligence community. They forced the NSA to be more transparent and to better explain itself, demonstrated that it was acting with the full knowledge and support of all three branches, resulted in its authorities being strengthened and its collection practices barely narrowed (and in some respects expanded), and overall enhanced its domestic legitimacy going forward. I was not kidding when I said that ''[t]hese are but some of the public services for which the U.S. government has Snowden to thank.'' This was not a new theme with me. I have made similar points for years. (See here and here and here and here.)
But to say that the intelligence community benefited from the Snowden leaks is not to say that the President should pardon Snowden, for the price of the benefits were enormously high in terms of lost intelligence and lost investments in intelligence mechanisms and operations, among other things. Many Snowden supporters pretend that these costs are zero because the government, understandably, has not documented them. But it is na¯ve or disingenuous to think that the damage to U.S. intelligence operations was anything but enormous. (To his credit, Tim acknowledges that ''Snowden's actions caused great damage to national security.'') Much remains unknown regarding the extent of the damage (because the intelligence community cannot publicly say much beyond generalities) and the specifics of Snowden's actions and motivations (because DOJ is preserving a criminal prosecution). I imagine we would learn considerably more information'--from both sides, but especially from the government'--if a criminal trial ever took place. And indeed it is hard for the public to even assess the case for a pardon until we know the full extent of Snowden's crimes and the harms they caused. But I have no doubt that the harms from his actions were very significant.
Another difficulty in determining whether a pardon is warranted for Snowden's crimes is that the proper criteria for a pardon are elusive. Oliver Wendell Holmes once declared that a pardon ''is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less'' than what the criminal law specified. But how to measure or assess the elusive public welfare? The Constitution delegates that task exclusively to the President, who can use whatever criteria he chooses. Many disagreements about whether a pardon is appropriate are at bottom disagreements about what these criteria should be. Some will question whether Snowden should be pardoned even if his harms were trivial and the benefits he achieved were great. Indeed, presidents don't usually grant pardons because a crime brought benefits. My own view is that in this unusual context, it is best to examine the appropriateness of a pardon in the first instance through an instrumental lens, and also to ask how well Snowden's stated justification for his crimes matches up with the crimes he actually committed.
A good place to begin is with my former colleague Geoffrey Stone's analysis:
I think if [Snowden] had only disclosed the existence of the second 215 metadata program, then one might be able to make the case he did more good than harm because there were reforms adopted because of his disclosures. That's a good thing. And the program itself had not been up to this point all that valuable, and therefore even though its disclosure makes it largely ineffective going forward '' they work in part because the person you're surveilling doesn't know they exist '' the cost was pretty modest because the program wasn't that valuable'.... The problem is he disclosed vastly more than that, involving foreign intelligence not of Americans but of individuals who aren't American citizens in other countries. No changes were generally made in those programs and Americans don't really care. But disclosing those programs has had a serious impact on their being as effective as they had been. I think he did a lot more harm than good.
Let me say a few more words about this. Snowden has long claimed that he took an oath to ''support and defend the Constitution'' (see here and here) and he has implied that he was fulfilling this oath when he stole and distributed the documents. ''The oath of allegiance is not an oath of secrecy,'' he told Bart Gellman. ''That is an oath to the Constitution. That is the oath that I kept that Keith Alexander and James Clapper did not.'' Let's assume that Snowden is right that his oath to the Constitution trumps his employment agreement secrecy duties (but see here; cf. here.). Snowden might plausibly argue that his exposure of the 215 program was genuine whistleblowing in support of the Constitution. Even though the program was vetted by the three branches of government, its revelation sparked legal controversy and subsequent substantial reforms. His exposure of the 702 programs (PRISM and upstream collection) is harder to justify on these grounds, because these programs were clearly authorized by public law and have not sparked nearly the same criticism, pushback, or reform. For this reason Stone implies that the 702 leaks were not justified. I tend to agree, but for purposes of argument I will assume (but only assume) that this and every example of Snowden leaks that involved unknown collection inside the United States or of U.S. persons were examples of admirable whistleblowing.
What I do not get, and what I have never seen Snowden or anyone explain, is how his oath to the U.S. Constitution justified the theft and disclosure of the vast number of documents that had nothing to do with operations inside the United States or U.S. persons. (Every one of the arguments I read for Snowden's pardon yesterday focused on his domestic U.S. revelations and ignored or downplayed that the vast majority of revelations that did not involve U.S. territory or citizens.) To take just a few of hundreds of examples, why did his oath to the Constitution justify disclosure that NSA had developed MonsterMind, a program to respond to cyberattacks automatically; or that it had set up data centers in China to insert malware into Chinese computers and had penetrated Huawei in China; or that it was spying (with details about how) in many other foreign nations, on Bin Laden associate Hassam Ghul's wife, on the UN Secretary General, or on the Islamic State; or that it cooperates with intelligence services in Sweden and Norway to spy on Russia; and so on, and so on. These and many other disclosures (see here for many more) concern standard intelligence operations in support of national security or foreign policy missions that do not violate the U.S. Constitution or laws, and that did extraordinary harm to those missions.
The losses of intelligence that resulted are not small things, since intelligence information, and especially SIGINT, is a core element of American strength and success (and not just, as many seem to think, related to counterterrorism). It doesn't matter that leaks in this context sparked modest reforms (e.g., PPD 28). The Constitution clearly permits foreign intelligence surveillance, and our elected representatives wanted these obviously lawful practices to remain secret.
There is such a disconnect between Snowden's constitutional oath and the scale and type of sensitive intelligence information that he disclosed that it makes me question whether the Constitution had anything to do with the leaks. And indeed, when Snowden ''set out the case'' for his pardon on Wednesday, he did not (at least in the stories I read) argue from the Constitution. Rather, he now says of the disclosures: ''when we look at them morally, when we look at them ethically, when we look at the results, it seems these were necessary things, these were vital things.'' Let us set aside the ''results'' of having blown numerous intelligence operations against adversaries and many other legitimate intelligence targets. What might be the moral and ethical case for disclosing U.S. intelligence techniques against other countries and institutions? (I will ignore possible cosmopolitan impulses for Snowden's theft and leaks, which I think damage the case for a pardon for violations of U.S. law.) I think the most charitable moral/ethical case for leaking details of electronic intelligence operations abroad, including against our adversaries, is that these operations were harming the Internet, were hypocritical, were contrary to American values, and the like, and Snowden's disclosures were designed to save the Internet and restore American values. This is not a crazy view; I know many smart and admirable people who hold it, and I believe it is ethically and morally coherent.
But it is also not a crazy view, and it is also ethically and morally coherent, to think that U.S. electronic intelligence operations abroad were entirely lawful and legitimate efforts to serve U.S. interests in a complex and dangerous world, and that Snowden's revelations violated his secrecy pledges and U.S. criminal law and did enormous harm to important American interests and values. Unfortunately for Snowden's pardon gambit, President Obama, and any one who sits in the Oval Office charged with responsibility for American success around the globe, will (and should) embrace the second moral/ethical perspective, and will not (and should not) countenance the first moral/ethical perspective, which I take to be Snowden's. Snowden can act on whatever conception of American values he likes, but when he acts in massive violation of criminal laws in ways that reveal lawful intelligence activities against adversaries and other legitimate intelligence targets, he cannot expect a pardon.
Another reason why Snowden won't and shouldn't be pardoned for his actions is that doing so would have a demoralizing effect on the thousands of intelligence community personnel who devote (and in some cases risk) their lives to U.S. national security, and who follow the rules laid down by Congress and the President, and whose work was diminished, and whose jobs were made much harder, as a result of Snowden's non-U.S. related disclosures. I disagree with Tim that ''a pardon sets no precedent and so creates no incentives.'' Pardoning the perpetrator of the most damaging leak by far in American history would send a clear signal of approval for what Snowden did and a clear signal about a lack of seriousness on the part of the government about its truly most important secrets. Those signals would affect the attitude of everyone in the intelligence community about the value of our most important secrets and would have a terrible impact on the government's already-difficult ability to keep such secrets. In saying this, I do not detract from the importance of the greater transparency that Snowden brought to the intelligence community. That community was self-defeatingly secretive and insular, and terrible at explaining what it was doing and why. But to say that it needed to open up a great deal, especially about the extent of and legal bases of its domestic operations, is not to say the government should countenance disclosure of details about its lawful electronic intelligence operations abroad against non-U.S. citizens, which is what the pardon Snowden seeks would do.
In sum, I can imagine a pardon for Snowden for the smidgen of his revelations about possibly unlawful domestic surveillance or collection against U.S. persons. But the possible case for a pardon extends only to that smidgen of the leaks. It is hard to see how the President could pardon the manifold violations of U.S. criminal law that the broader leaks about obviously lawful operations, given the costs to the United States in terms of lost intelligence, compromised techniques, and destroyed investments, among others.
No Pardon for Snowden but a Commutation for Chelsea Manning - Lawfare
Let's start with an obvious point: AsJack Goldsmith pointed out last week, President Obama is not going to pardon Edward Snowden. It's just not going to happen. Period. And everyone involved in the campaign for a pardon for the Moscow-based fugitive is fully aware there is no hope it will come to fruition.
Given this reality, let's be candid about the point of this campaign: It is not designed to achieve its ostensible ends. The point, rather, is to provide a vehicle for people to talk about Snowden in heroic terms again. A cynic might note that the campaign also provides an opportunity for the related organizations to use the release of Oliver Stone's Snowden biopic to raise money and attention for their causes and fund similar work in the future.
It is important to understand the discussion in that context. Jack andTim Edgar have debated the question of a Snowden pardon in considerable detail, as have the Washington Post and the inevitable Glenn Greenwald and many others. But all seem to be engaging the subject as though there is some serious actual live question at play and as though the precise legal equities and practical policy consequences are thus the real issue here. There isn't. And they aren't.
Our certainty that President Obama will not pardon Snowden flows not just from theWhite House's repeated statements that he won't. Beyond those unambiguous statements from the administration, it is important to recognize that Snowden doesn't fall into any of the categories of individuals for whom presidents tend to consider pardons. And he does fall into several categories of people who almost never receive clemency.
The pardon power is highly idiosyncratic, one of the few truly unreviewable powers the president has. Its use over the years thus reflects the huge diversity of presidential attitudes and the similar diversity of presidents' political tactics and aspirations. Still, there are some discernable general categories of people who receive clemency.
Most often, the pardon power is the power to forgive those who have moved beyond their criminality'--to extend a second chance not otherwise available under the formalities of federal law. This application of the pardon power'--generally the most numerous exercise of the power in modern presidencies'--simply does not apply to Snowden. Snowden has prevented his criminality even from being established legally, let alone moved beyond. Snowden revels in his acts. He doesn't ask forgiveness for them, not even the most questionable aspects of his conduct. Instead, he asks for congratulations.
Exercises of the pardon power sometimes also remedy miscarriages of justices. There are cases in which a prisoner's appeals are exhausted or unlikely to succeed, yet a reasonable person would understand that the individual is factually innocent. This is a bigger deal at the state level, where procedural rules can gravely impede post-conviction remedies, than it is at the federal level; Sen. Tim Kaine, while governor of Virginia, was involved in one of them. But again, this category has no application to Snowden, to whom justice has not yet been applied. A miscarriage of justice requires a delivery of justice in the first instance.
Relatedly, presidents sometimes use the power of clemency'--typically in the form of commutation'--as a way of remediating grossly disproportionate punishments. Obama, for example, has made term commutations for drug offenses a central part of his criminal justice reform efforts. Hold this thought, which has clearer application to a case somewhat related to Snowden. But it has no application to Snowden himself. Snowden fears a sentence that would be, in his view, disproportionate. But he has not actually received one.
The pardon also sometimes absolves individuals who have unequivocally violated a law but whose moral stance we admire. Think of Martin Luther King'sletter from the Montgomery jail:
One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
A president who agrees with a convict that the convict had taken a righteous stand in violation of an unjust law'--unjust at least as applied to him'--might exercise the power of the pardon to nullify the injustice. These pardons are actually very rare. George W. Bush posthumously pardoned Charles Winters, who was convicted of violating the Neutrality Act by smuggling B-17 bombers to the newly-formed state of Israel. The pardon, which was advocated by Israel and prominent American Jews, served as a symbolic expression of the supposed injustice of the law as applied to Winters, considering the ultimate change in the relationship between Israel and the US.
Finally, in certain instances, the pardon power operates to try to settle matters of national controversy, sometimes even in the presence of undoubted guilt and serious crimes. The most famous of these is President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, but there are others too. President Carter pardoned Vietnam draft resisters. And both Carter and President Clinton commuted the sentences of violent Puerto Rican terrorists who either planted bombs or shot up the House of Representatives.
It is these last two categories of pardons into which Snowden's advocates are trying to cram Snowden's case. But he fits well into neither. It is true, after all, that some people admire his actions and consider the laws unjust under which the government would try him, either in general or because'--as Snowden himself whines'--there is no affirmative defense available on the basis of righteousness. The problem is that these are far from consensus views, and critically, there is one person who clearly does not share them: President Barack Hussein Obama. One of the features of this plenary power vested in a unitary executive it is that Obama alone, and not Glenn Greenwald, who gets to decide for purposes of the pardon power whether Snowden is Martin Luther King Jr. in the Montgomery jail or whether he is a reckless fugitive who can rot in Moscow if he's not willing to face the music.
The best fit for Snowden is the last category, what we might call the national unity pardon. This is, in part, the basis for Tim Edgar's case for a Snowden pardon. The trouble, once again, is Snowden's status as a fugitive. It is very hard to put behind us as a nation what we have not been allowed to face as a nation. Keep in mind that the facts in the Snowden case are deeply contested, both about what precisely Snowden did and about how bad the damage from his acts really was. The reason we don't know the answers to these questions is that Snowden is accepting the hospitality of Vladimir Putin, rather than facing the justice system of the United States, from which he now asks for mercy. The government has been reticent to discuss the specifics of Snowden's conduct, as well as the resulting harms, in part because it is preserving that information for an eventual criminal prosecution. That is why, for example,the recent HPSCI report condemning Snowden is based off of ''secondary witnesses'' whom the government does not intend to call at trial.
Many in the government very much welcome the opportunity to prove their claims in court. And it is difficult to imagine how the American public could form a final assessment of Snowden's genuine motivations and moral culpability without having those questions answered. Asking the President'--who is the chief victim of Snowden's crimes, by the way'--to prevent the airing of these questions will, we suspect, seem a bit cheeky to Obama.
While Snowden does not fit in any category of criminal who normally gets a pardon, he does fit into at least a few that almost never do.
For one thing, presidents don't normally pardon fugitives. There are exceptions to this rule: Carter pardoned draft resisters, some of whom were abroad, though he did so as a class, which is rather different. The most famous modern exception to this rule'--Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich'--was a political disaster for Clinton and for good reason. Fugitives are, as a general matter, thumbing their noses at our justice system. The president is in charge of the justice system and when a president helps an alleged criminal thumb his nose at that system, people rightly get annoyed. Individuals accused of crimes are expected to stand trial, to allow for the airing and determination of the relevant facts and the assessment of culpability in light of them all. All individuals accused of crimes are entitled a fair trial, but they are not entitled to avoid a trial outright.
Presidents also don't pardon people simply because lots of people believe their crimes resulted in a positive effect, or even more positive than negative effects. This sort of post-hoc utilitarian analysis is key to the arguments for a Snowden pardon. But even if you accept the premise the Snowden's disclosures led to net good, a highly-contested assertion, this view is still highly problematic. Think about it for a moment: A lot of crime produces positive effects. If that were enough to convey a pardon, we'd expect pardons for gang members who kill other gang members who would have undoubtedly overseen future violence. We'd also routinely pardon vigilantes.
To sum up, take a moment to consider this whole question from Obama's point of view. You have before you a demand for a pardon from an unrepentant fugitive who is proud of what he did, who did great damage that his supporters consistently deny to your own intelligence capability, and whose supporters insist that a pardon is necessary because of some combination of the moral stance he took, the good effects of the leaks, and the need to move on. You, on the other hand, believe that the good did not outweigh the harm. And you and your intelligence services have already moved on. And then they, as Edgar did in his piece, trot out what must seem to you like the worst possible argument for a pardon: Snowden continues to embarrass us from abroad. To capitulate on these grounds would seem like a kind of blackmail: Pardon me or I'll continue to operate as a PR foil for an adversary nation and its dictator. Why would you even momentarily entertain the idea?
There is, ironically, a controversial leaker case in which executive clemency is worth considering, but it isn't Snowden's case. It's the case of Chelsea Manning. Manning, unlike Snowden, faced the consequences of her actions. She faced trial. She allowed the facts to come out about what she did'--which has allowed a serious assessment of the relative good and bad of the disclosures. She also was, at least in part, responding to a genuinely horrifying killing by US troops in Iraq. Manning's case also presents mitigating circumstances related to mental health in a vulnerable personal period. Critically, she also received a sentence of 35 years in prison that many people'--including the two of us'--regard as excessive and disproportionate.
If there is a case in which to exercise executive prerogative to heal a rift regarding the treatment of self-proclaimed whistleblowers, Manning's is infinitely more deserving than Snowden. We do not argue that Obama should consider a pardon: Manning committed serious and consequential crimes and was properly convicted. But the President should consider commuting the sentence either to time served or to some reasonable period of additional years. Manning has been imprisoned for more than six years; she could be eligible for parole in the next several years with good behavior. She clearly presents no ongoing security risk and it's hard to imagine how her circumstances would inspire others in the military to believe they can disclose classified information without consequence.
And from a pragmatic standpoint, the Manning case continues to generate divisive headlines which highlight the current inability of the US military to facilitate compassionate and humane in-service transition for transgender people. As the military struggles to modernize its policies, it would be well-served to not have the most high-profile example be in the highly-complex context of detention. All things considered, Manning has a potentially serious case for mercy and the President should at least consider commuting her sentence.
Edward Snowden is welcome to return to the United States and account for his actions. But as long as the oaths of our executives, the laws of our Congress, and indeed the central assurances of our very system of justice are not enough for Mr. Snowden, any talk of a pardon should wait until he does. Until then, we should allow him to fade into obscurity in Russia, a punishment we suspect may be the most painful to Snowden himself.
Obama Plans Pardon for Alleged Traitor Bergdahl ' UFP NEWS
In yet another move to ruin moral and suppress the truth, the trial of the U.S. Army Sgt., Bowe Bergdahl, who is alleged to have walked off his combat outpost in Afghanistan and supposedly spent five years in captivity after he attempted to join the Taliban, will be court-martialed under a new commander-in-chief. But the real question is ''will he even be tried?'' A military judge decided Tuesday to delay Bergdahl's trial from August until February to provide time for resolving disputes over the defense team's access to classified documents.
Bergdahl, now 30, sat attentively in his dress blue formal uniform, his infantry cord looped under the epaulet on his right shoulder, during the brief hearing. The soldier from Hailey, Idaho, faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The latter charge is relatively rare and carries the potential of life in prison.
He was exchanged in a controversial swap arranged by direct order of President Obama, for five high-ranking Taliban terrorist commanders from Guantanamo Bay in 2014. The trade has be a source of contention among lawmakers because Congress received no prior notification of the impending trade as required by law and in addition there was an unknown amount of money that was given to the terrorists that reports say was as much as 5 million dollars.
Very little information about the trade has ever been made public and a February start would mean the court-martial would not make any new information public prior to the upcoming presidential election. Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time of the trade, so the postponement would sweep any possible embarrassment to her under the carpet until well after the election.
Related: [WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES] Horror In Thailand- Skeletons Found In Jungle Human Trafficking Camp
The judge, Col. Jeffrey Nance, also ruled that media organizations could hire a stenographer to capture courtroom discussions during the trial, and he gave Army prosecutors one week to provide reporters covering the case with online access to court documents. The judge postponed deciding a dispute that could influence how much punishment Bergdahl could face if convicted.
The first attempt at covering up the Bergdahl fiasco came last year, when the Army's primary investigating officer recommended that Bergdahl should not face any jail time, because ''there is no evidence that any service members were killed or wounded searching for him in Afghanistan,'' but that recommendation was scrapped in December by the general overseeing the case. Gen. Robert Abrams, who leads the Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, instead sided with an Army lawyer's recommendation for a general court-martial.
Obama's decision to trade five high ranking prisoners, who have since returned to the fighting against America, was harshly criticized at the time, and Obama has never opened up to the American military or public as to why he decided to take that action. Some members of Congress said it jeopardized national security.
Now, it has been leaked by a source close to the White House that Obama has decided, ''in the interest of Healing the Nation and putting this event behind us all'' to issue a last minute Pardon to Bergdahl just as he is leaving office. Such an act on the part of the president would effectively block any legal action the military was going to take and forever hide any embarrassing information that could harm the Presidents legacy or any guilt by association on the part of Mrs. Clinton.
Related: ISIS Sends Message to Putin, New Video of Russian Spy Beheading [IMAGES]
Currently, Bergdahl can come and go the same as any other soldier from Fort Sam Houston, where he works a desk job in a headquarters unit, handling ''a lot of administrative work that needs to be done. Paperwork, moving stuff from place to place, things like that,'' Howard said.
Fox News and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
(C)2016 R. L. Grimes
Richard is a freelance Journalist, who served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War. After his discharge he worked in Law Enforcement and Corrections for several years and was a member of SWAT before earning a degree in Computer Science. He was a consultant to government agencies including DEA, FBI, NRC, DOD and NASA. In the 90's he received a Business Management Degree and became a Consulting Analyst to several Fortune 100 companies. Later he taught G.E.D at Florida State Prison. He is married and has several grandchildren and great grandchildren. You can follow Richard on UniversalFreePress.com
Standards for Consideration of Clemency Petitioners | PARDON | Department of Justice
Reproduced from the United States Attorneys' Manual, last in September 1997. See this document in its original context.Section 1-2.110 Office of the Pardon AttorneySection 1-2.111 Role of the United States Attorney in Clemency MattersSection 1-2.112 Standards for Considering Pardon PetitionsSection 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions
Section 1-2.110 Office of the Pardon Attorney
The Pardon Attorney assists the President in the exercise of his power under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution (the Pardon Clause). See Executive Order dated June 16, 1893 (transferring clemency petition processing and advisory functions to the Justice Department), the Rules Governing the Processing of Petitions for Executive Clemency (codified in 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq.), and 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.35 and 0.36 (relating to the authority of the Pardon Attorney). The Pardon Attorney, under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General, receives and reviews all petitions for executive clemency (which includes pardon after completion of sentence, commutation of sentence, remission of fine and reprieve), initiates and directs the necessary investigations, and prepares a report and recommendation for submission to the President in every case. In addition, the Office of the Pardon Attorney acts as a liaison with the public during the pendency of a clemency petition, responding to correspondence and answering inquiries about clemency cases and issues. The following sets forth guidance on clemency matters.
Section 1-2.111 Role of the United States Attorney in Clemency Matters
The Pardon Attorney routinely requests the United States Attorney in the district of conviction to provide comments and recommendations on clemency cases that appear to have some merit, as well as on cases that raise issues of fact about which the United States Attorney may be in a position to provide information. Occasionally, the United States Attorney in the district in which a petitioner currently resides also may be contacted. In addition, in cases in which the petitioner seeks clemency based on cooperation with the government, the Pardon Attorney may solicit the views of the United States Attorney in the district(s) in which the petitioner cooperated, if different from the district of conviction. While the decision to grant clemency generally is driven by considerations that differ from those that dictate the decision to prosecute, the United States Attorney's prosecutive perspective lends valuable insights to the clemency process.
The views of the United States Attorney are given considerable weight in determining what recommendations the Department should make to the President. For this reason, and in order to ensure consistency, it is important that each request sent to the district receive the personal attention of the United States Attorney. Each petition is presented for action to the President with a report and recommendation from the Department, and the recommendation by the United States Attorney is included in this report.
The United States Attorney can contribute significantly to the clemency process by providing factual information and perspectives about the offense of conviction that may not be reflected in the presentence or background investigation reports or other sources, e.g., the extent of the petitioner's wrongdoing and the attendant circumstances, the amount of money involved or losses sustained, the petitioner's involvement in other criminal activity, the petitioner's reputation in the community and, when appropriate, the victim impact of the petitioner's crime. On occasion, the Pardon Attorney may request information from prosecution records that may not be readily available from other sources.
As a general matter, in clemency cases the correctness of the underlying conviction is assumed, and the question of guilt or innocence is not generally at issue. However, if a petitioner refuses to accept guilt, minimizes culpability, or raises a claim of innocence or miscarriage of justice, the United States Attorney should address these issues.
In cases involving pardon after completion of sentence, the United States Attorney is expected to comment on the petitioner's post-conviction rehabilitation, particularly any actions that may evidence a desire to atone for the offense, in light of the standards generally applicable in pardon cases as discussed in the following section. Similarly, in commutation cases, comments may be sought on developments after sentencing that are relevant to the merits of a petitioner's request for mercy.
In pardon cases, the Pardon Attorney will forward to the United States Attorney copies of the pardon petition and relevant investigative reports. These records should be returned to the Pardon Attorney along with the response. In cases involving requests for other forms of executive clemency (i.e., commutation of sentence or remission of fine), copies of the clemency petition and such related records as may be useful (e.g., presentence report, judgment of conviction, prison progress reports, and completed statement of debtor forms) will be provided.
The Pardon Attorney also routinely requests the United States Attorney to solicit the views and recommendation of the sentencing judge. If the sentencing judge is retired, deceased, or otherwise unavailable for comment, the United States Attorney's report should so advise. In the event the United States Attorney does not wish to contact the sentencing judge, the Pardon Attorney should be advised accordingly so that the judge's views may be solicited directly. Absent an express request for confidentiality, the Pardon Attorney may share the comments of the United States Attorney with the sentencing judge or other concerned officials whose views are solicited.
The United States Attorney may support, oppose or take no position on a pardon request. In this regard, it is helpful to have a clear expression of the office's position. The Pardon Attorney generally asks for a response within 30 days. If an unusual delay is anticipated, the Pardon Attorney should be advised when a response may be expected. If desired, the official views of the United States Attorney may be supplemented by separate reports from present or former officials involved in the prosecution of the case. The United States Attorney may of course submit a recommendation for or against clemency even if the Pardon Attorney has not yet solicited comments from the district. The Pardon Attorney informs the United States Attorney of the final disposition of any clemency application on which he or she has commented.
Section 1-2.112 Standards for Considering Pardon Petitions
In general, a pardon is granted on the basis of the petitioner's demonstrated good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction and service of sentence. The Department's regulations require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application (28 C.F.R. § 1.2). In determining whether a particular petitioner should be recommended for a pardon, the following are the principal factors taken into account.
1. Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation.
An individual's demonstrated ability to lead a responsible and productive life for a significant period after conviction or release from confinement is strong evidence of rehabilitation and worthiness for pardon. The background investigation customarily conducted by the FBI in pardon cases focuses on the petitioner's financial and employment stability, responsibility toward family, reputation in the community, participation in community service, charitable or other meritorious activities and, if applicable, military record. In assessing post-conviction accomplishments, each petitioner's life circumstances are considered in their totality: it may not be appropriate or realistic to expect "extraordinary" post-conviction achievements from individuals who are less fortunately situated in terms of cultural, educational, or economic background.
2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.
When an offense is very serious (e.g., a violent crime, major drug trafficking, breach of public trust, or white collar fraud involving substantial sums of money), a suitable length of time should have elapsed in order to avoid denigrating the seriousness of the offense or undermining the deterrent effect of the conviction. In the case of a prominent individual or notorious crime, the likely effect of a pardon on law enforcement interests or upon the general public should be taken into account. Victim impact may also be a relevant consideration. When an offense is very old and relatively minor, the equities may weigh more heavily in favor of forgiveness, provided the petitioner is otherwise a suitable candidate for pardon.
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement.
The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to its victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication. While the absence of expressions of remorse should not preclude favorable consideration, a petitioner's attempt to minimize or rationalize culpability does not advance the case for pardon. In this regard, statements made in mitigation (e.g., "everybody was doing it," or "I didn't realize it was illegal") should be judged in context. Persons seeking a pardon on grounds of innocence or miscarriage of justice bear a formidable burden of persuasion.
4. Need for relief.
The purpose for which pardon is sought may influence disposition of the petition. A felony conviction may result in a wide variety of legal disabilities under state or federal law, some of which can provide persuasive grounds for recommending a pardon. For example, a specific employment-related need for pardon, such as removal of a bar to licensure or bonding, may make an otherwise marginal case sufficiently compelling to warrant a grant in aid of the individual's continuing rehabilitation. On the other hand, the absence of a specific need should not be held against an otherwise deserving applicant, who may understandably be motivated solely by a strong personal desire for a sign of forgiveness.
5. Official recommendations and reports.
The comments and recommendations of concerned and knowledgeable officials, particularly the United States Attorney whose office prosecuted the case and the sentencing judge, are carefully considered. The likely impact of favorable action in the district or nationally, particularly on current law enforcement priorities, will always be relevant to the President's decision. Apart from their significance to the individuals who seek them, pardons can play an important part in defining and furthering the rehabilitative goals of the criminal justice system.
Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions
A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.
The President may commute a sentence to time served or he may reduce a sentence, either merely for the purpose of advancing an inmate's parole eligibility or to achieve the inmate's release after a specified period of time. Commutation may be granted upon conditions similar to those imposed pursuant to parole or supervised release or, in the case of an alien, upon condition of deportation.
Generally, commutation of sentence is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted. Appropriate grounds for considering commutation have traditionally included disparity or undue severity of sentence, critical illness or old age, and meritorious service rendered to the government by the petitioner, e.g., cooperation with investigative or prosecutive efforts that has not been adequately rewarded by other official action. A combination of these and/or other equitable factors may also provide a basis for recommending commutation in the context of a particular case.
The amount of time already served and the availability of other remedies (such as parole) are taken into account in deciding whether to recommend clemency. The possibility that the Department itself could accomplish the same result by petitioning the sentencing court, through a motion to reward substantial assistance under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion for modification or remission of fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3573, or a request for compassionate relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), will also bear on the decision whether to recommend Presidential intervention in the form of clemency. When a commutation request is based on the serious illness of the petitioner, transmission of the United States Attorney's response by facsimile in advance of mailing the original is always appreciated.
When a petitioner seeks remission of fine or restitution, the ability to pay and any good faith efforts to discharge the obligation are important considerations. Petitioners for remission also should demonstrate satisfactory post-conviction conduct.
On January 21, 1977, the President by Proclamation 4483 granted pardon to persons who committed non-violent violations of the Selective Service Act between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 and who were not Selective Service employees. Although a person who comes within the described class was immediately pardoned by the proclamation, the Pardon Attorney issues certificates of pardon to those within the class who were actually convicted of a draft violation and who make written application to the Department on official forms. When these applications are received by the Pardon Attorney, they are forwarded to the United States Attorney for the district in which the applicant was convicted to verify the facts of the case. The verification should be returned to the Pardon Attorney promptly.
Edward Snowden, the Constitution and presidential pardons
Former government contractor Edward Snowden is lobbying President Barack Obama for a pardon. So under the Constitution, how does the President get his pardon powers and who can the President actually pardon?
Snowden has been living in Russia ever since he sent a huge cache of documents from the National Security Agency to journalists back in 2013. After the massive security leak, the Justice Department filed espionage charges against Snowden.
On Tuesday, Snowden told The Guardian he wants a pardon from President Obama.
''There are laws on the books that say one thing, but perhaps this is why the pardon power exists '-- for the exceptions, for the things that may seem unlawful in letters on a page but when we look at them morally, when we look at them ethically, and when we look at the results, it seems obvious that these were necessary things,'' Snowden said in an interview via a video connection to Moscow.
The White House wants Snowden to return to the United States to face the espionage charges. Snowden is reluctant to do so, since he believes he won't get a fair trial.
The President has pardon or clemency power under Article II, Section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution, under the Pardon Clause. The clause says the President ''shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.''
The Office of the Pardon Attorney, which is part of the Justice Department, has handled such matters for the President since 1893, and it has a detailed description of the pardon and clemency process on its website.
Although the terms clemency and pardon seemed to be interchangeable in the Snowden discussion, in general terms executive federal clemency is granted after someone had allegedly committed a crime. In most cases, that person is convicted of a crime, and then granted a form of clemency.
In the case of President Richard Nixon, he was granted a pardon for any crimes he might have committed during the Watergate scandal, even though Nixon wasn't charged with or convicted of federal crimes. (This is known as a pre-emptive pardon.) Another way a person can receive clemency after a conviction is through a commutation of a sentence.
''A commutation of sentence reduces a sentence, either totally or partially, that is then being served, but it does not change the fact of conviction, imply innocence, or remove civil disabilities that apply to the convicted person as a result of the criminal conviction,'' says the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
A pardon allows a convicted person to reclaim lost civil rights after a conviction. ''A pardon is an expression of the President's forgiveness and ordinarily is granted in recognition of the applicant's acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or completion of sentence,'' says the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
In the case of President Nixon, he was able to receive a pardon under the precedent of an 1866 Supreme Court ruling called Ex parte Garland, which allowed for a pardon granted by President Andrew Johnson to remain in force for a former Confederate politician.
Pre-emptive pardons remain rare. In addition to Ford's Nixon pardon, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and former CIA official Duane Clarridge in late 1992 before they were tried on Iran-contra Affair charges. (Four others were convicted in the case and also pardoned.)
In general, President Obama has issued fewer pardons than other recent Presidents. Last month, Obama also told USA Today that he wouldn't make last-minute, politically motivated pardons and he thought pardon-seekers should follow Justice Department guidelines that require a five-year wait after a conviction.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Monday that the Obama administration wanted Snowden to return to the United States to face charges.
''He, of course, will be afforded due process, and there are mechanisms in our criminal justice system to ensure that he's treated fairly and consistent with the law. And that's what the President believes,'' Earnest said.
Recent Stories on Constitution Daily
Does conviction of a serious crime always mean the loss of gun rights?
Supreme Court acts on Ohio early voting, web ads
Constitution Check: Do online publishers have a right to gather news?
Commentscomments
EuroLand
Jungle>> de Calais: le gouvernement promet une (C)vacuation humanitaire>> - Lib(C)ration
Jungle>> de Calais: le gouvernement promet une (C)vacuation humanitaire>> - Lib(C)rationSearchDirectUser100ZoomQuizLib(C)ration Diamondclockxmlnetvibesliveanciens-numerosdatadesintoxdiapoeditoelection-2017electionessentielgeneriqueideejonextportraitradiosonalertetop-100starunevideoscrollFacebookWhatsappTwitterinstavinelaterglassMailprintFacebookInstagramTwitterCalendardownloadcrosszoom-inzoom-outpreviousnexttruckvisamastercarduser-libeuser-docuser-doc-listuser-mailuser-securityuser-settingsuser-shopuser-starRuban aboLosange orangeList checkMost readPtit Lib(C)sportblogvoyage?
Using money raised by government incentives and private investors to help fight global warming, the Alternative Energy Solar Project goal is to get solar panels on the roofs of those who cannot afford to pay the upfront cash. According to recent news, the plan is to use the rebates set aside for solar and the money raised by companies who want to lower the per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
The cost for the installation to the families: nothing. The homeowner gets solar panels on their roof and a new reduced electric rate from the power produced by the solar panels. Alternative Energy Solar Project predicts that it could save individual families up to $2,400 a year, which they hope could then be spent on other essential bills.
Alternative Energy Solar Project has beenmade promotional managerover the Solar Affordable Verified Establishment (S.A.V.E. NJ), one of the country's first dedicated solar repayment system for home owners. The goal is to install solar arrays to over 32,000 homes by the end of next year. One of the benefits to this reduced electric rate program is the homeowner isn't responsible for the installation costs, maintenance costs, or upkeep costs as they are not the owners of the panels. Additionally, if you are interested in owning the panels, there are programs where the homeowner can purchase the panels with no money out of pocket and own them outright.
The state government in New Jersey has talked about how they can contribute through raising money to be able to provide more rebates in the attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and move toward installing solar arrays. In total, the solar program has totted up to an impressive movement.
By ploughing at least 30% of the money from government incentives and using private investors to back the solar installation, the project aims to kill two birds with one stone '' saving families money, while also making big fossil fuel polluting companies help to cut energy emissions in the state even further.
Anyone who is currently living in a neighborhood in New Jersey is invited to apply and see if their home qualifies. The sun sets on the initiative as the year ends in 2016, so if you're living in the state, you might want to jump on board soon.
Alternative Energy Solar Project invites everyone to find out if they qualify by signing up for a free visit. To increase the ease of finding out if you're in the middle-class and qualified they specifically created a new website solarvisit.com. They hope that the funding put towards this new site will be well spent, if they can get interested homeowners reaching out to them, they estimate that they'll be able hit their goal of 32,000 homes by the end of the year 2016.
Update September 21, 2016:
We've been notified that panels are still available for homes, you can see if you qualify for the program by filling out the form below. For faster results you can call right now '' the phone number is: 1-844-481-2888
Earth Smashes Yet Another Heat Record, 16th Month in a Row - ABC News
Another month, another global heat record smashed.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday said August's temperature of 61.74 degrees (16.52 Celsius) was .09 degrees (.05 Celsius) warmer than the old August record set last year, and was the 16th consecutive month of record-breaking heat. NOAA monitoring chief Deke Arndt said it was also the hottest summer, with 2016 on pace to smash last year's record for the hottest year.
August 2016 was also 1.66 degrees (0.92 Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average. It was the fifth hottest month of any kind recorded, going back to 1880. Six of the 17 hottest months on record have been the summer months of 2015 and 2016.
The June-through-August summer was 2.18 degrees (1.21 Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average and beat the old summer heat record, set last year, by one-fifth of a degree (0.11 Celsius), NOAA said.
"The needle has been shoved all the way over into the red by greenhouse gases," Arndt said.
NOAA's announcement came on a day when 375 members of the National Academy of Sciences, including Stephen Hawking and 30 Nobel laureates, released an open letter urging American leaders not to pull out of an international agreement to curb global warming.
Organizer and MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said the scientists wrote the letter in response to the Republican party platform that rejects the Paris climate agreement reached last December. The letter said presidential nominee Donald Trump's advocacy of withdrawing from that agreement would "send a clear signal to the rest of the world: The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change."
Pulling out of the Paris accord, Emanuel said, "will accelerate our headlong plunge into a riskier and riskier climate."
"Everywhere we look we see signs that the climate really is changing," Emanuel said. "We're getting wake-up calls more frequently, and we really have to do something about this."
MIC
The story behind Israel's shady military exports | +972 Magazine
Why doesn't the Foreign Ministry care whether Israeli weapons end up in the hands of serial human rights violators such as South Sudan?
South Sudanese Soldiers. Israel has been arming the government of South Sudan, which has been committing human rights violations since civil war erupted in the country. (Steve Evans/CC BY-SA 2.0)
Israel's greatest champions pride themselves on supporting a flourishing country based on start-up ingenuity that respects democracy and human rights. But do those who call Israel the ''start-up nation'' and the ''only democracy in the Middle East'' know just how embroiled the Jewish state is in selling arms to serial human rights violators?
Israel's shadowy relationship with tyrannical regimes the world over reared its head Sunday morning when the Foreign Ministry announced its objection to a new amendment to a law that would restrict sales of Israeli arms to countries involved in human rights violations.
The Law For Oversight of Defense Exports, passed in 2007, forces the Defense Ministry to consult with the Foreign Ministry prior to selling arms to a foreign country. According to the amendment '-- sponsored by Meretz's Zehava Galon and Tamar Zandberg '-- the Foreign Ministry would have near-total veto power over weapons sales '-- with only the security cabinet maintaining the sole authority to override the ministry's objection.
According to the ministry's legal opinion, the monitoring of human rights violations by foreign security forces is ''important and deserves continual attention by the Foreign Ministry and all the bodies participating in the oversight,'' but it is not important enough to set in law.
So why the opposition from the Foreign Ministry? The goal of the original law was to allow the ministry to act as a check on arms dealers who likely prefer to turn a blind eye to the implications of the very deals they strike. At a time when Israel's name isn't exactly synonymous with the great defenders of human rights, one would expect its government to do the bear minimum '-- even if for the sake of outside appearance '-- to make a painstaking effort and ensure that Israeli weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.
It's not only Israel's current standing in the world that should affect such a decision '-- the state has and continues to supply weapons to some of the worst human rights violators imaginable. In a recent interview with Haaretz's Ayelett Shani, Chilean-born Lily Traubman described her efforts to demand the disclosure of Israel's security and foreign relations with the brutal regime of Augusto Pinochet, responsible for the kidnapping, murder and tortured of tens of thousands of citizens '-- including that of her father.
All the weapons of the Chilean police and army were Israeli. In Chile I went around with a photograph of my brother in uniform. At checkpoints and in searches I would take out the picture and tell them that this was my brother, who was an officer in the IDF '' even though he was a regular soldier '' and that did the trick. The Chilean army greatly admired the Israeli army. When Pinochet wanted to visit Israel, he threatened that if he were not received here he would cancel a large arms deal. No dictator in the world, however bad he may be, can exist without international support. The dictatorship in Chile lasted as long as it did because there were countries that supported it, and Israel was one of them.
'...It's clear that there is documentation of arms sales, and also obviously of the training provided to Chilean intelligence. There is information about the fate of the missing Jews in Chile. Maybe there is even information about my father. The people who tortured him, who killed him '' who are they? Maybe they were here, in Israel? Maybe they received training from the Shin Bet [security service] here? When the documents are uncovered, we will be able to understand how the infrastructure of the dictatorship worked and how deeply involved Israel was.
Israel also sold weapons to the government of South Africa during apartheid; it sold arms to El Salvador during the civil war, where systemic and widespread human rights violations by the Salvadoran military were commonplace; and there is evidence that it sold weapons to the Hutu government as it was carrying out genocide against the Tutsi population of Rwanda (A Tel Aviv court rejected a petition to reveal documentation of arms exports to the Hutus).
Nyamata Memorial Site, Nyamata, Rwanda. (photo: I, Inisheer)
Most recently, however, the spotlight has been on South Sudan, where Israel has continuously sent weapons and trained government forces since the country declared its independence in 2011. Itay Mack, an attorney and expert on the Israeli arms industry, appealed to the Defense Ministry to stop military exports to the country. His appeal was rejected.
In fact, in 2014 alone, Israeli arms companies registered a 40 percent increase in exports to African countries alone, raising further concerns that weapons may end up in the hands of either repressive governments or militants. The Israeli government does not publish details of all its weapons deals.
In a recent interview with Haaretz, Mack described how Israel is now filling in the gap that the United States and Europe left behind:
We know Israel is selling arms to Azerbaijan, South Sudan and Rwanda. Israel is training units guarding presidential regimes in African states. According to reports, this is happening in Cameroon, Togo and Equatorial Guinea '' nondemocratic states, some of them dictatorships, that kill, plunder and oppress their citizens.
Israel's competitive advantage in the arms trade is that it can sell combat-tested weapons, and military know-how, due to the fact that it has been holding a civilian population under military rule for almost 50 years. Or as Mack puts it: ''The generals in Guatemala grasped that their confrontation with the [local] Indian population is very similar to the situation in Israel.''
Will that demand continue to outweigh the world's growing impatience with the source of Israel's expertise, the occupation, which Israel assures us is a temporary state of affairs? What will happen to Israel if its defense exports market is limited to rogue, dictatorial regimes?
For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.
Elite$
Bahama Leaks: Neelie Kroes in de fout met bestuursfunctie | Nieuwsuur
Neelie Kroes was tijdens haar periode als Eurocommissaris van Mededinging bestuurder van een bedrijf op de Bahama's. Dat blijkt uit onderzoek van het Financieele Dagblad en Trouw.
Ruim een miljoen documenten van de Kamer van Koophandel op de Bahama's zijn gelekt naar een internationale groep onderzoeksjournalisten. In Nederland onderzochten journalisten van het FD en Trouw de documenten.
In overtredingUit de documenten blijkt dat Kroes van 2000 tot 2009 bestuurder was van een vennootschap op de Bahama's. Volgens de gedragscode van de Europese Commissie is dat verboden en had ze het moeten melden. Iets wat ze verzuimde.
Aan het FD erkent Kroes, via haar advocaat Oscar Hammerstein, dat ze formeel in overtreding was met de gedragscode voor Eurocommissarissen.
Het bedrijf Mint Holdings Ltd werd in 2000 opgericht door een aantal Arabische ondernemers om voor zes miljard dollar aandelen van het Amerikaanse energiebedrijf Enron op te kopen. Kroes werd gevraagd medebestuurder te zijn. De overname mislukte, maar de holding bleef bestaan.
Bahama LeaksNa de Panama Papers zijn er opnieuw documenten gelekt aan de journalisten van de S¼ddeutsche Zeitung. Het gaat om 1,3 miljoen documenten van de Kamer van Koophandel van de Bahama's over de periode van 1990-2016. Ze zijn onderzocht door onderzoeksjournalisten van het International Consortium of Investigative Journalistis (ICIJ). In Nederland keken journalisten van het FD en Trouw naar de documenten.
Kroes noemt het in een reactie aan het FD een "administratieve fout". Ze was ervan uitgegaan dat ze was uitgeschreven op de Bahama's. Omdat Mint Holdings volgens haar niet operationeel is geworden, heeft ze de bestuursfunctie nooit gemeld bij de Europese Commissie.
Dat Kroes haar bestuursfunctie op de Bahama's niet meldde is volgens data-journalist Gaby de Groot van het FD opmerkelijk. "Tijdens haar aantreden in de commissie in 2004 was er veel aandacht voor haar mogelijke banden met het bedrijfsleven. Nu blijkt dat er toch een zaak speelde in die tijd."
Kroes zegt tegen de krant de voorzitter van de Europese Commissie Jean-Claude Juncker op de hoogte te brengen en "de consequenties te aanvaarden". Wat in dit geval de consequenties voor een oud-Eurocommissaris zijn, is onduidelijk. Volgens de S¼ddeutsche Zeitung kan Kroes mogelijk haar pensioen kwijtraken.
Hoe kwam Neelie Kroes bij Mint Holdings?Een van de Arabische ondernemers die ook bestuurder was bij Mint Holdings, is Amin Badr-El-Din. Kroes en Badr-El-Din kennen elkaar sinds 1994. In dat jaar probeert Kroes namens Nederlandse bedrijven zes fregatten te verkopen aan de Verenigde Arabische Emiraten.
Door de inmenging van Kroes mislukt de deal, blijkt later uit een reconstructie van NOVA. Badr-El-Din en Kroes raken echter bevriend. In 2000 wordt Kroes volgens het FD gevraagd mee te doen aan Mint Holdings.
SkyNet
DARPA's plan for total surveillance of low-flying drones over cities | KurzweilAI
An artist's concept of Aerial Dragnet system: several UAS carrying sensors form a network that provides wide-area surveillance of all low-flying UAS in an urban setting (credit: DARPA)
DARPA's recently announced Aerial Dragnet program is seeking innovative technologies to ''provide persistent, wide-area surveillance of all unmanned aerial systems (UAS), such as quadcopters, operating below 1,000 feet in a large city.
UAS devices can be adapted for terrorist or military purposes, so U.S. forces will ''increasingly be challenged by the need to quickly detect and identify such craft '-- especially in urban areas, where sight lines are limited and many objects may be moving at similar speeds,'' DARPA said.
While Aerial Dragnet's focus is on protecting military troops operating in urban settings overseas, the system could ultimately find civilian application to help protect U.S. metropolitan areas from UAS-enabled terrorist threats, DARPA said.
AI-controlled armed, autonomous UAVs may take over when things start to happen faster than human thought in future wars. From Call of Duty Black Ops 2. (credit: Activision Publishing)
DARPA envisions a network of surveillance nodes, each providing coverage of a neighborhood-sized urban area, perhaps mounted on tethered or long-endurance UAS. Sensors could look over and between buildings, the surveillance nodes would maintain UAS tracks, even when the craft disappear from sight around corners or behind objects.
The Aerial Dragnet program seeks teams with expertise in sensors, signal processing, and '-- interestingly '-- ''networked autonomy.'' A Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) solicitation detailing the goals and technical details of the program is available here.
ARGUS view from 20,000 feet (credit: DARPA)
Aerial Dragnet could conceivably link with ARGUS-IS '-- a 1.8-gigapixel video surveillance platform that can resolve details as small as six inches from an altitude of 20,000 feet (probably the highest-resolution camera in the world).
It could also tie in with a system being developed at NASA Ames Research Center for drone traffic management called UAS traffic management (UTM). Designed to enable safe low-altitude civilian UAS operations, it would provide [drone] pilots information needed to maintain separation from other aircraft by reserving areas for specific routes, with consideration of restricted airspace and adverse weather conditions.
The dynamic drone scene may get even more interesting on Monday Sept. 19, when GoPro plans to announce the much-anticipated high-maneuverability Karma camera drone and Hero 5.
GoPro: Karma Is Out There
Drone Compilations: Top 5 Drone Inventions of 2016
War on Kratom
Big Pharma's Patents on Kratom Alkaloids Expose Real Reason DEA is Banning this Plant
Washington, D.C. '' As the Free Thought Project reported last week, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) just announced they will ban the popular pain relief supplement kratom by placing it on the Schedule 1 list, which denotes ''no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse'' '' the most restrictive classification under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
This move to ban yet another highly beneficial plant by the DEA has been met with heavy backlash and multiple petitions. The backlash is entirely justified as this plant has many amazing benefits '-- including a potential cure for opioid addiction.
A notice of intent to classify kratom was placed on the Federal Register on August 31, with plans to temporarily categorize the supplement as a Schedule I substance on September 30, according to a filing by the DEA:
Notice of Intent
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this notice of intent to temporarily schedule the opioids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are the main active constituents of the plant kratom, into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these opioids into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. Any final order will impose the administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions and regulatory controls applicable to schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act on the manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation of, and research and conduct of instructional activities of these opioids.
This ''imminent hazard,'' as cited by the DEA, is all but non-existent. Yes, the CDC reported in July that kratom can be abused and that poison control centers have received over 660 calls between 2010 and 2015 regarding kratom intoxication. However, these numbers pale in comparison to the extreme death that follows prescription opioids, and, there has yet to be any conclusive evidence showing kratom to be deadly.
So why would the DEA worry about a beneficial plant that is pretty much harmless? The answer is quite clear '-- Big Pharma.
Cannabis is a schedule one substance but the pharmaceutical industry can manufacture a synthetic version of the same active ingredient in cannabis, THC, and it magically becomes legal.
Currently, the pharmaceutical industry is using kratom alkaloids to manufacture synthetic opioids.
As Cassius Kamarampi points out, three synthetic opioids, in particular, were synthesized from the alkaloids in kratom from 2008- 2016: MGM-9, MGM-15, and MGM-16.
They were synthesized from kratom's alkaloids Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine: to make what is essentially patentable, pharmaceutical kratom.
The first study, published in 2008, took Mitragynine and used it to synthesize ''MGM-9''. The study says:
''Mitragynine is a major indole alkaloid isolated from the Thai medicinal plant Mitragyna speciosa that has opium-like properties, although its chemical structure is quite different from that of morphine. We attempted to develop novel analgesics derived from mitragynine, and thus synthesized the ethylene glycol-bridged and C10-fluorinated derivative of mitragynine, MGM-9 [(E)-methyl 2-(3-ethyl-7a,12a-(epoxyethanoxy)-9-fluoro-1,2,3,4,6,7,12,12b-octahydro-8-methoxyindolo[2,3-a]quinolizin-2-yl)-3-methoxyacrylate].''
The second study published in 2014 synthesized MGM-15 and MGM-16 from kratom's other primary alkaloid, 7-Hydroxymitragynine. The study says:
''In this study, we developed dual-acting μ- and δ-opioid agonists MGM-15 and MGM-16 from 7-hydroxymitragynine for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.''
One can find dozens of studies from the past few years, in which researchers synthesized new opioid compounds and tested them on monkeys (primates). This is a huge market.
From one of many studies, testing the opioid ''TH-030418'':
''Numerous efforts have been made on the chemical modification of opioid compounds, with the ultimate goal of developing new opioid analgesics that is highly potent and low/non-addictive. In a search for such compounds, TH-030418 [7α-[(R)-1-hydroxy-1-methyl-3-(thien-3-yl)-propyl]-6,14-endo-ethanotetrahydrooripavine] was synthesized.''
From another study testing an opioid called ''SR 16435'':
''We identified a novel nociceptin/orphanin FQ (NOP)/mu-opioid receptor agonist, SR 16435 [1-(1-(bicyclo[3.3.1]nonan-9-yl)piperidin-4-yl)indolin-2-one], with high binding affinity and partial agonist activity at both receptors.''
From another study testing an opioid called ''Cebranopadol'':
''Cebranopadol (trans-6'²-fluoro-4'²,9'²-dihydro-N,N-dimethyl-4-phenyl-spiro[cyclohexane-1,1'²(3'H)-pyrano[3,4-b]indol]-4-amine) is a novel analgesic nociceptin/orphanin FQ peptide (NOP) and opioid receptor agonist.''
Another one of the plant's alkaloids is Speciofoline. It just so happens that a patent was filed for Speciofoline on August 10, 1964. The patent claims the ''alkaloid has useful pharmacodynamic activity, particularly analgetic and antitussive activity.''
The patent was filed by Smith Kline, of Glaxo Smith Kline, & French Laboratories.
Aside from a patent on Speciofoline, US 20100209542 A1 is an application that was entered for University Of Massachusetts Medical School, University Of Mississippi in 2010. The application recognizes kratom as a treatment for opioid withdrawal. US 20100209542 A1 goes on to claim that kratom could be used to help withdrawals from other drugs as well.
See the pattern yet?
As the legal pain medication epidemic sweeps the nation killing thousands every year and converting its users into heroin addicts, the pharmaceutical companies are scrambling to find an alternative. Kratom could be that alternative.
However, since kratom can be grown in your backyard, pharmaceutical companies can't monopolize it '-- unless the government outlaws it.
On September 30, kratom will be illegal, but the synthetic patented and monopolized version will not.
While the mainstream media often acknowledges that these drug companies charge exorbitant prices for their medications, they conveniently leave out the reason they can do so is because they have the full support of Uncle Sam.
Instead of looking at the corrupt government, who has the unique ability to create and sustain monopolies, the evil drugs and the market are blamed.
How many more people will have to die of opioid overdose before Americans stand up to the DEA and refuse to obey their tyrannical and corrupt laws?
Please share this article to wake other people up to the fact that the DEA is only operating as the guardians of the big pharma monopoly!
h/t Era of Wisdom
F-Russia
Amal Clooney wants to prosecute Syria's president for war crimes - Business Insider
Renowned human rights lawyer Amal Clooney has said that if Syrian President Bashar Assad is prosecuted for war crimes, she wants to be on the team.
Amal, who is married to actor George Clooney, has done work in the past advocating for Yazidi women, a religious minority in the Middle East that has been subjected to genocide at the hands of the terrorist group ISIS.
"If there is a prosecution of President Assad I would be delighted to work on it," Amal told Channel 4 News.
"I think the UN has concluded that the Syrian government has committed crimes against humanity and war crimes. They are not the only ones, there are other actors who have committed the same crimes. But I think there's little doubt that that's what we're dealing with."
Assad and the Syrian Army have been accused of various war crimes, including using chemical weapons against civilians and dropping barrel bombs indiscriminately.
It's unclear if an international criminal court will prosecute him for his alleged crimes.
Russia Calls Hopes for Restoring Syria Cease-Fire 'Very Weak'
The U.S. hasn't fulfilled a commitment to separate moderate opposition groups in Syria from terrorists within the agreed period, Peskov said.
John Kerry, U.S. secretary of state, listens as U.S. President Barack Obama, not pictured, speaks during a nomination announcement of Jeh Johnson, former Pentagon general counsel and U.S. President Barack Obama's nominee as secretary of Homeland Security, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Oct. 18, 2013. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
MoreRussia said it's pessimistic about restoring a collapsed week-old cease-fire in Syria as it pledged to investigate reports of a deadly attack on a humanitarian aid convoy.
Hopes of renewing the truce ''are very weak for the moment,'' President Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call on Tuesday. ''We're extremely concerned about the situation.''
Syrian state television on Monday cited the country's military as saying the cease-fire had ended. This came amid reports that President Bashar al-Assad's forces launched fresh attacks on Aleppo and targeted an aid convoy west of the city after scores of his troops died in a U.S.-led bombing.
More from Bloomberg.com: Rush to Take Advantage of a Dull iPhone Started Samsung's Battery Crisis
The cease-fire is the latest effort by Russia and the U.S. to ease the 5 1/2-year conflict in Syria. The war has killed at least 280,000 people and caused millions to flee, provoking the worst refugee crisis in Europe since World War II and helping to create a haven for Islamic State to conduct a global terror campaign.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry who announced the accord with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva Sept. 9, said Monday in New York that the onus was on Moscow to rein in Assad's forces. The cease-fire went into force last week and was supposed to pave the way for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate on targeting Islamic extremist groups in the Middle Eastern country.
More from Bloomberg.com: That $100,000 Painting Bought to Flip Is Now Worth About $20,000
For a QuickTake on Syria's civil war, click here
The remarks suggested a more downbeat outlook after Kerry had insisted earlier in the day that the cease-fire was holding and that humanitarian goods had begun to flow into the area around Aleppo after days of delay.
The U.S. hasn't fulfilled a commitment to separate moderate opposition groups in Syria from terrorists within the agreed period, Peskov said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based opposition monitoring group, said Syrian or Russian jets had targeted Aleppo and the surrounding region more than 40 times, including by hitting the aid convoy in the town of Urem al-Kubra. The strike killed 12 people, mostly truck drivers and staff of the Syrian Red Crescent, according to SOHR, which monitors the conflict through activists on the ground. In total more than 30 people died and dozens were injured in Monday's attacks, the group said.
More from Bloomberg.com: Police Capture Suspect in New York-area Bombings After Shootout
After sporadic violations in recent days, the deal suffered a grievous blow over the weekend when U.S.-led coalition planes struck a Syrian army base, killing 62 soldiers and wounding more than 100. Russia then called the agreement ''meaningless'' because the U.S. had been unable to influence moderate opposition groups in the country.
The U.S. and Russian accord had sought to bring seven days of calm and fresh relief to civilians in the besieged northern city of Aleppo. After that, the goal was for Moscow and Washington to begin an unprecedented joint effort to coordinate air strikes on Islamic extremist groups in Syria while grounding Assad's air force in those areas.
More from Bloomberg.com
Read Russia Calls Hopes for Restoring Syria Cease-Fire 'Very Weak' on bloomberg.com
Depression
That $100,000 Painting Bought to Flip Is Now Worth About $20,000 - Bloomberg
Art dealer and collector Niels Kantor paid $100,000 two years ago for an abstract canvas by Hugh Scott-Douglas with the idea of quickly reselling it for a tidy profit. Instead, he is returning the 28-year-old artist's work to the market this week at an 80 percent discount.
Such is the new art season. At auction houses in London and New York, sellers are preparing to bail on their investments after the emerging-art bubble burst and the resale market for once sought-after artists dried up.
Untitled by Hugh Scott-Douglas
Source: Phillips
''I'd rather take a loss,'' said Kantor, who is offering the Scott-Douglas work at the Phillips auction in New York on Sept. 20. ''I feel like it can go to zero. It's like a stock that crashed.''
Prices for works by young artists such as Scott-Douglas and Lucien Smith soared with the auction market in 2014, sometimes reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars, when they were traded like bull-market tech stocks. But since auction sales began to drop in late 2015, the emerging names have been hit especially hard. Sales by some artists are down 90 percent or more as the glut of work and nosebleed prices scare away buyers.
That's because speculators purchase art to resell it, not to keep it.
'Economics 101'''When those speculators realize that there is no end user at a higher price, then they scramble to sell the work before they lose everything,'' said Todd Levin, director of Levin Art Group, who advises collectors. ''The demand is driven by greed, the selloff by fear. It's Economics 101.''
Today's market is a far cry from a few years ago, when young artists churning out process-based abstract work presented opportunities for outsize returns.
The works were often created by artists still in their 20s. Smith saw a painting he made while an undergraduate at New York's Cooper Union fetch $389,000 at Phillips in 2013, two years after it was purchased for $10,000.
Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered 3 by Lucien Smith
Photographer: CLX Europe
This week, estimates for three Smith pieces are as low as $7,000. One, from the series he made by spraying more than 200 canvases with paint from a fire extinguisher, is estimated at $12,000 to $18,000. A bigger spray work sold for $372,120 two years ago.
''This whole year has been a big readjustment, a much-needed one, like a chiropractic session,'' said Timothy Blum, co-owner of Blum & Poe Gallery in Los Angeles, New York and Tokyo. ''It can hurt, but you come out on the other end better than before.''
Scott-Douglas's untitled canvas, one of several resembling a sheet of blueprint grid paper, is estimated at $18,000 to $22,000 at Phillips's ''New Now'' sale. The work was part of the artist's sold-out exhibition at Blum & Poe in 2013, when it garnered $25,000.
'Drunk' TradersKantor acquired the work privately in July 2014. Four months later, a similar piece from the series went for $100,000 at Christie's. Kantor expected the prices to keep surging, but in February 2015 another canvas from the same series failed to sell at auction.
''I feel like we were a little bit drunk and didn't think of the consequences,'' he said. ''Then the bottom fell out. Everyone got stuck with their pants down.''
Before consigning his piece to Phillips, Kantor tried selling it privately for a year -- through Blum & Poe, the work's former owner, even on EBay. At one point he was asking $50,000 but couldn't get an offer.
''There are certainly some cases where people have paid more at the height of the market,'' said Rebekah Bowling, head of the Phillips sale. ''We are in a market where we have to be conservative. Everyone is very price conscious.''
As a result, auction estimates often not only are down from the heyday, but also below primary market prices. At Phillips, more than half of the 204 lots are estimated below $10,000.
Still, dealers representing Scott-Douglas in the U.S., the U.K. and Hong Kong say they continue placing his newer works through the gallery market, which is more stable. His collectors include billionaires Francois Pinault and Japanese artist Takashi Murakami. The artist's works are also in the collections of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Art Museum at Michigan State University, according to the Blum & Poe website.
''No one is folding tent because auction prices have declined,'' said Casey Kaplan, whose gallery is opening the artist's solo exhibition in New York next month. Prices for fresh works by Scott-Douglas range from $25,000 to $80,000.
There are several reasons to sell low, according to Kantor.
'Supply Chain'''Some people are looking for a tax loss. Some people didn't pay much. Some people bought for an investment,'' he said from Los Angeles. ''These are large works. You are paying storage and insurance.''
Unwound Rope Wall Piece by Dodd
Source: Phillips
Keeping estimates modest could help set up a new bullish cycle, said Stefan Simchowitz, the Los Angeles entrepreneur known for buying in bulk from young artists on behalf of clients and for his own collection.
''I am going to be extremely active in the auction market as a seller and a buyer,'' said Simchowitz, who owns 3,500 artworks.
At Phillips, Simchowitz is parting with a piece by Lucy Dodd, an artist he said he isn't able to collect in depth. The work, made of rope strands hanging off a horizontal wooden bar like a curtain, may bring $10,000 to $15,000. Dodd's auction record of $37,500 was set in May, shortly after the Whitney Museum of Art displayed her large-scale paintings made with materials such as fermented walnuts.
''I want to create a supply chain of work at lower price points so that people can come in again and start buying opportunistically,'' Simchowitz said. ''People can say: 'I don't have to worry about losing this money.'''
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.LEARN MORE
Most new houses are part of homeowners associations, covenants, or have other restrictions on the deed that dictate what color you can paint your house, the front door, or what type of mailbox is acceptable. For amateur radio operators, that means neighbors have the legal means to remove radio antennas, whether they're unobtrusive 2 meter whips or gigantic moon bounce arrays. Antennas are ugly, HOAs claim, and drive down property values. Thousands of amateur radio operators have been silenced on the airwaves, simply because neighbors don't like ugly antennas.
Now, this is about to change. The US House recently passed the Amateur Radio Parity Act (H.R. 1301) to amend the FCC's Part 97 rules of amateur stations and private land-use restrictions.
The proposed amendment provides, ''''Community associations should fairly administer private land-use regulations in the interest of their communities, while nevertheless permitting the installation and maintenance of effective outdoor Amateur Radio antennas.'' This does not guarantee all antennas are allowed in communities governed by an HOA; the bill simply provides that antennas, 'consistent with the aesthetic and physical characteristics of land and structures in community associations' may be accommodated. While very few communities would allow a gigantic towers, C-band dishes, or 160 meters of coax strung up between trees, this bill will provide for small dipoles and inconspicuous antennae.
The full text of H.R. 1301 can be viewed on the ARRL site. The next step towards making this bill law is passage through the senate, and as always, visiting, calling, mailing, faxing, and emailing your senators (in that order) is the most effective way to make views heard.
Team of hackers take remote control of Tesla Model S from 12 miles away | Technology | The Guardian
Now that cars such as Tesla's are increasingly high-tech and connected to the internet, cybersecurity has become as big an issue as traditional safety features. Photograph: Jim Dyson/Getty Images
Three months since the first fatal crash involving a Tesla driving in autopilot mode, hackers have taken remote control of a Tesla Model S from a distance of 12 miles, interfering with the car's brakes, door locks, dashboard computer screen and other electronically controlled features in the high-tech car.
A team of Chinese security researchers '' Samuel LV, Sen Nie, Ling Liu and Wen Lu from Keen Security Lab '' were able to target the car wirelessly and remotely in an attack that could cause havoc for any Tesla driver.
The hack targeted the car's controller area network, or Can bus, the collection of connected computers found inside every modern vehicle that control everything from its indicators to its brakes. In a video demonstrating the vulnerability, the hackers targeted both the Tesla Model S P85 and Model 75D, although they said it would work on other models too.
By hijacking the car's Can bus, the hackers could move the seats back and forth, trigger the indicators, wing mirrors and windscreen wipers, and open the sunroof and boot while the car was driving and in parking mode. More worryingly, the hackers could also control the car's brakes, which could be dangerous if deployed suddenly while the vehicle was traveling at high speed on a motorway.
The attack requires the car to be connected to a malicious Wi-Fi hotspot set up by the hacking team, and this can only be triggered when the car's web browser is used.
The researchers acted responsibly in disclosing the vulnerabilities they had discovered to Tesla, and the company created a software update that it delivered over-the-air.
Tesla said of the vulnerability: ''The issue demonstrated is only triggered when the web browser is used, and also required the car to be physically near to and connected to a malicious Wi-Fi hotspot. Our realistic estimate is that the risk to our customers was very low, but this did not stop us from responding quickly.''
The hackers said in a blogpost that it ''appreciates the proactive attitude and efforts'' of Tesla's security team on fixing the problems efficiently.
This is not the first time that Tesla has been hacked. A group of researchers at the University of South Carolina were able to fool the Tesla Model S's autopilot system into perceiving objects where none existed or in other cases to miss a real object in Tesla's path.
Now that cars are increasingly high-tech and connected to the internet, cybersecurity has become as big an issue as more traditional safety features.
Tesla is known for its commitment to this challenge and has hired dozens of security researchers to test its cars. The company also runs a bug bounty program, which invites other hackers to point out vulnerabilities '' as happened with Keen Security Lab '' in return for cash prizes.
Twentieth Century Fox filed a lawsuit Friday accusing Netflix of poaching two of its executives.
Netflix recently hired Marcos Waltenberg, Twentieth Century Fox's vice president of promotions, and Tara Flynn, who was a creative executive at Fox 21. The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Netflix has embarked on a strategy of stealing Fox's executives.
The suit accuses the streaming company of ''a brazen campaign to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives by illegally inducing them to break their employment contracts with Fox to work at Netflix.''
Netflix hired Flynn in August, and Waltenberg in January. According to the suit, Flynn was under contract at Fox through November 2019. Waltenberg's Fox contract was set to expire at the end of 2016, though Fox had an option to extend it for an additional two years.
As a result of the poaching, the suit contends, ''Fox has suffered great and irreparable harm, including loss of Fox's ability to contract for a stable workforce, for the disruption to Fox's corporate planning, and for the injury to Fox's business reputation and goodwill.''
''As our complaint explains, we filed this lawsuit because we believe Netflix is defiantly flouting the law by soliciting and inducing employees to break their contracts,'' a Fox spokesman said in a statement. ''We intend to seek all available remedies to enforce our rights and hold Netflix accountable for its wrongful behavior.''
Netflix vowed to fight the lawsuit ''vigorously.''
''We do not believe Fox's use of fixed term employment contracts in this manner are enforceable,'' a Netflix spokesman said. ''We believe in employee mobility and will fight for the right to hire great colleagues no matter where they work.''
Millennials
Colleges turn to coloring books to de-stress students - The College Fix
Colleges turn to coloring books to de-stress students
In the age of safe spaces and trigger warnings comes another new trend to the college repertoire: coloring books. This fall, campuses nationwide are offering coloring books to students to help them de-stress.
At American University on Monday, its counseling center provided coloring sheets in honor of Healthy Campus Week, noting on its Facebook page that adult coloring books ''can help with a number of emotional and mental health issues.'' Conditions cited include obsessive-compulsive, eating, anxiety and depressive disorders, as well as anger management and substance abuse issues.
''The time and focus that adult coloring takes helps the individual remove the focus from the negative issues and habits, and focus them in a safe and productive way,'' the AU center stated.
Likewise, the University of Wyoming offers an ''Art-Well'' program, designed to ''color your stress away,'' its website states, adding ''Coloring pages and colors are provided. We offer scheduled Art-Well times, but if you can't make those, come to the Wellness Center Zen Den any time on your own.''
On tap at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth is ''StressLess Days.'' Held monthly on Wednesdays, the university will provide coloring in addition to other ''crafts and games'' to help students unwind.
According to Northcentral University Professor Mary Jill Blackwell, ''Coloring is like meditation because it encourages engagement with the present moment. When we focus on the present moment, we do not worry about the future, ruminate about the past, or engage in negative self talk.''
Adult coloring books have taken off recently, becoming a trend outside campus first. An estimated 12 million were sold in 2015, up from the 1 million sold the previous year, The Washington Postreports.
Now several universities '-- which have also been known to offer napping rooms, opportunities to frolic with puppies, yoga, chair massages and other de-stressers '-- have added coloring books to the mix.
Brown University notoriously offered coloring books as part of its safe space room in 2015. But now coloring books are just another way to de-stress students.
Before finals last semester, UC San Diego offered ''De-Stress Coloring Night.'' All the materials were provided to students who sought ''a night full of relaxation and coloring,'' its Facebook page stated.
And ''Color Me Calm: Adult Coloring in the University Library'' at the University of Nebraska-Omaha during last school year saw a huge turnout, according to organizers.
''We went from 63 participants and no partnerships to 110 participants and collaborations with 10 other campus programs within theacademic year,'' organizers reported. ''Our future coloring events include participating in DeStress Fest at scheduled times as well as leaving the supplies out for people to use at the make-n-take stations during other library events.''
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
Big Oil
Company restarts gasoline pipeline after leak in Alabama | Fox News
ATLANTA '' Colonial Pipeline has restarted the gasoline pipeline in Alabama that was shut down after a major leak, which caused shortages and surging fuel prices across the South.
Company officials say in a statement that the pipeline reopened Wednesday evening. The pipeline leak was discovered Sept. 9 near Helena, Alabama, when state workers noticed a strong gasoline odor and sheen on a man-made retention pond.
The company has estimated that 252,000 to 336,000 gallons of gasoline leaked from the line. The shutdown of the pipeline led to dry pumps at gas stations in Georgia, Tennessee and the Carolinas.
The company says it will take several days for fuel supplies to return to normal in markets served by the pipeline. More than 800 personnel were on site in the restart efforts.
Gasoline shortages, price hikes coming to East Coast after pipeline leak - Sep. 16, 2016
A section of the Colonial Pipeline, which runs from Houston to New York, has been closed since Sept. 9 after a spill of roughly 250,000 gallons was discovered in rural Shelby County, Ala.
The major pipeline, one pipe of which has been severed, provides gasoline for an estimated 50 million people on the East Coast each day, according to company estimates. The cause of the leak has yet to be determined, according to the company's most recent statement.
The pipeline's operator has said full service will not be restored until at least next week. The closure has set off an industry-wide scramble as suppliers seek alternative ways to transport gasoline to the East Coast.
Prices have yet to move much. They're only up a penny or two in the last week in states such as Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee, according to AAA.
But gas prices could spike by as much as 15 cents per gallon or more in those three states, as well as North Carolina and Virginia, in the next week according to GasBuddy.com analyst Patrick DeHaan.
Ships have already been dispatched to carry fuel from Texas to New York as part of the effort. There are also likely to be far more tanker trucks on the road carrying gasoline than normal said Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst with the Oil Price Information Service. But pipelines are by far the cheapest way to move gasoline or oil, so any alternative will raise costs. And not every station will be able to get the gasoline it needs, he said.
"You're going to see some places without gasoline," he said. "It's like a mini-hurricane."
The pipeline operator said that based on its current projections, parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be the first markets to suffer potential supply disruptions.
The governors of Alabama and Georgia have already declared states of emergency.
The Northeast markets such as New Jersey at the end of the pipeline are less likely to see an impact because they can get gas from other locations, said Kloza.
Repair work underway at site of the gasoline spill.Gas prices typically fall at this time of year. Thursday was the day that stations in most of the country could start using the cheaper winter blend of gasoline rather than the summer blend, which is formulated to combat smog.
"People are going to be seeing a 5 to 10 cent a gallon increase at a time they're normally seeing a 5 to 10 cent a gallon price drop," said Kloza.
Related: Global glut forecast puts pressure on oil prices
Mansfield Oil, a fuel distributor, has warned its customers to take fuel savings measures and to place their orders early. The company said the supply of gasoline is currently very thin along the closed pipeline, and that it was trucking in supplies from the coast to meet demand.
The company said it was treating the situation "with the same importance and urgency as a natural disaster."
CNNMoney (New Delhi)First published September 16, 2016: 3:10 AM ET
Vaccine$
A mysterious polio-like illness that paralyzes people may be surging this year - The Washington Post
Before dinner on July 29, 3-year-old Carter Roberts of Chesterfield, Va., seemed perfectly healthy. That evening, he vomited. When he woke up the next morning with a slight fever of 99 degrees, his mother, Robin Roberts, figured that he was coming down with a cold. The next morning, she found him collapsed on his bedroom floor.
''Mommy,'' she recalls him saying. ''Help me, help me.''
Carter could barely stand when she picked him up, and his neck was arched backward. ''What was most alarming,'' she said, ''is he had no control over his right arm whatsoever.''
In the hospital, Carter lost control of his right arm, then over his legs and other muscles within a few days. He now can only wiggle a toe and move the left side of his face. He has been diagnosed with a mysterious, polio-like illness called acute flaccid myelitis, a condition that seems to be surging this year.
Through July, 32 new cases of AFM have been confirmed across the United States this year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a sharp rise compared with last year, when just seven cases had been confirmed by that month. The numbers have risen steadily since April. In past years, most cases have occurred between August and December, with a peak in October.
[Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's $3 billion scientific effort aims to rid world of major diseases by end of century]
Among the many unanswered questions about the condition are what causes it, how best to treat it and how long the paralysis lasts. Although most cases occur in children, AFM occasionally affects adults.
The CDC official who leads the surveillance efforts said that confirmed numbers for August will not be available until the end of this month, but the number of reports she is receiving from doctors around the country continues to rise.
''CDC is looking at these trends very carefully,'' Manisha Patel said. ''We have sent out several health alerts to states to let them know we are seeing an increase in reporting and to encourage them to communicate with doctors to report these cases in a timely fashion.''
The CDC began tracking AFM in 2014, when 121 cases were confirmed. That year, the CDC counted only children affected by the disease. Their average age was 7. Most had a fever or a respiratory illness a few days before developing paralysis. Many had to be placed on respirators. Although 85 percent of the children recovered partially, only three of them recovered fully.
Five-year-old Braden Scott sits up unassisted at a rehab facility two months after he was struck with acute flaccid myelitis. It's a major improvement for someone with this polio-like illness. (Facebook/Team Braden Luke)
Health officials and physicians around the country said they are concerned that the rising number of cases through July could foretell a repeat of 2014.
''You hate to be an alarmist, but there's reason to have some concern,'' said Avindra Nath, chief of the section of infections of the nervous system at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. ''What we don't know is where are these cases. Are they clustered? Do they all look alike? Getting more information on these cases would be helpful.''
Beyond saying that confirmed cases have been reported in 17 states through July, Patel declined to reveal which states have been involved. But conversations and emails with physicians around the country indicate that at least four cases have occurred in California and at least three in Massachusetts, and that others have been seen in Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and New York, as well as Virginia.
''We are definitely hearing of cases from our colleagues across the country,'' said Teri Schreiner, a neurologist at the University of Colorado and Children's Hospital Colorado. ''It's a trend that's worrisome '... what I'm hearing from others seems to be coming at a tempo similar to what happened in 2014.''
Jean-Baptiste Le Pichon of Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Mo., said that doctors on a U.S. email list for pediatric neurologists reported five new cases of AFM in just the past few days. ''There is definitely an explosion of cases,'' Le Pichon said.
No treatment other than physical therapy has yet been shown to markedly improve outcomes, although some doctors have reported that treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), used to treat some other viral infectious diseases afflicting the nervous system, might help. It's also been suggested that Prozac could prove beneficial. The degree of paralysis in the first month has generally improved only slightly over the course of a year.
''After about a year or so, what you've got is what you've got,'' said Max Wiznitzer, a pediatric neurologist at Case Western Reverse University in Cleveland.
Most perplexing is what causes the disease. The 2014 outbreak of AFM occurred at the same time as a far larger outbreak of enterovirus D68 across the United States. The vast majority of patients infected with the virus developed only a respiratory illness. Some physicians were convinced that EV-D68 was the cause, not only because both outbreaks occurred at the same time but also because of a study that identified a particular strain of EV-D68 in the airways of children with AFM. But officials at the CDC and some doctors, including Wiznitzer, insist that the cause remains unproved.
So far this year, no similarly widespread outbreak of EV-D68 respiratory infections has been reported, although cases of it and other enteroviruses have been seen in some areas.
On Friday, Le Pichon, in Kansas City, said, ''I just got confirmation that we have an epidemic of enterovirus breaking out here and at least a few cases [of enterovirus] have typed positive for EV-D68.''
Carol Glaser, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, Calif., said: ''If the theory is right that it's caused by EV-D68, which some of us believe more than others, this would be the time of year we start seeing it. It's an enterovirus, and they tend to peak in late summer and early fall.''
Because the CDC's surveillance of AFM is less than two years old, it remains unclear if some of this year's apparent rise in confirmed cases is due simply to more doctors sending in case reports, Patel said. And Wiznitzer emphasized that with just 32 confirmed cases across the United States so far, AFM remains extremely rare
Glaser, however, said she is convinced that the condition is new. She worked at the California Department of Public Health when, in 2012, some of the first reports of AFM anywhere in the country came in from physicians there.
''I was there for 15 years and talked to neurologists every single day,'' she said. ''It wasn't until the fall of 2012 when the first physician called in and wanted a test for polio on one of his patients. One of my colleagues in the office chuckled and said to me, 'We don't have polio in the United States.' But in the next two weeks, I got two very similar phone calls. We had never had a report like that. I do think there was something new going on. Fortunately, it's still rare.''
If EV-D68 does somehow cause AFM, studying the virus may lead to prevention or treatment. One glimmer of good news came from Kenneth Tyler, chair of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. He and his colleagues have been conducting experiments to infect mice with EV-D68 and have them develop loss of muscle control like that seen in AFM. He says he has submitted a paper to a peer-reviewed medical journal describing his success in doing so.
The goal, he said, is to use mice to study how EV-D68 causes harm to the spinal cord and muscles, and to test potential therapies, such as IVIG.
''It looks like we're seeing protection with IVIG in the mouse model,'' he said.
Robin Roberts said she wishes more was known about the condition that has harmed her son. ''In this day and age to not have information about something like this is very frustrating. There needs to be more done about it, and for more parents and doctors to know about it,'' she said.
Angie Andersen said that her daughter McKenzie was sent home from the hospital twice in the first two weeks of her illness because doctors did not understand the severity of what was happening. Finally her pediatrician told Andersen to bring McKenzie to another hospital.
McKenzie was 6 years old when she developed sniffles in December 2014. ''Within 12 days,'' Andersen said, ''she was paralyzed from the neck down, on a ventilator to breathe for her. She was left with her left hand and her feet and toes that move.''
''You know you could understand the bad that comes from a car wreck, or if she got cancer,'' Andersen said. ''How do you ever wrap your brain around the fact that she got a cold, and now she's a quadriplegic on a ventilator? It's a nightmare you never wake up from.''
Still, she said, McKenzie can now speak and even sing softly despite having a tracheotomy. ''She has a lot of spunk, and that is helping her through,'' Andersen said.
Correction: This article originally misnamed Robin Roberts as Robin Carter.
Read more:
Doctors are stumped by toddler's painful legs, rash and bleeding gums
Lifelong care, heartaches ahead for babies born with Zika in the U.S.
Odd teeth: A mother's Internet sleuthing led to her daughter's troubling diagnosis
Cuddling a kitten may always make you feel better - but it could be dangerous to your health, according to experts.
Doctors from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US conducted a large-scale survey of the cat-borne bacterial disease cat scratch fever.
They found the scope and impact of the potentially deadly disease was larger than they thought.
The disease causes fever, pustules and in extreme cases, the complications from the illness can cause death.
The doctors have warned that hands should always be washed after touching cats, and to avoid kissing felines where possible.
They also advised cat owners ensure their pet is protected from fleas.
Dr. Christina Nelson of the CDC said: "The scope and impact of the disease is a little bit larger than we thought,
"Cat-scratch is preventable. If we can identify the populations at risk and the patterns of disease, we can focus the prevention efforts."
Kittens and strays are more likely to carry the disease. The disease is spread when you are scratched by an infected cat, or when you don't wash your hands and touch your mouth after stroking an infected cat.
Kissing and rough play with stray cats and kittens should also be avoided where possible.
Cat owners should also be careful about their animals interacting with stray cats where possible.
However, the disease is relatively rare, with the survey finding that annual incidence was 4.5 outpatient diagnoses/100,000 population.
This is more than expected, but is rare enough to mean you aren't putting your life hugely at risk by kissing a kitten.
CLIPS AND DOCS
VIDEO-Mint worker smuggled $180K worth of gold in his rectum, police say - YouTube
MYSTERY: What was going on with Hillary's eyes during Philly speech? - The American MirrorThe American MirrorDuring a speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton appeared to have something quite off about her appearance.
Check it out here:
Hillary's eyes appeared not in-sync with one another, as the left eye looked to be cock-eyed and displaced, especially as she looked towards the left.
A montage of Hillary's eye-catching moments before a small group of Temple University students can be seen below in footage by The American Mirror.
Do you see Hillary's cock-eyed moments?
.
(C) The American Mirror 2016
VIDEO-Pilot killed in Northern California U-2 plane crash IDd - SFGate
Lt. Col. Ira S. Eadie died in a plane crash after leaving the Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County for a training mission, officials said.
Lt. Col. Ira S. Eadie died in a plane crash after leaving the Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County for a training mission, officials said.
Photo: 9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs / /Image2of32
The wreckage of a U-2 spy plane that crashed after taking off from Beale Air Force Base on a training mission in Northern California, is seen Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. The U.S. Air Force says one pilot was killed, and one was injured after they ejected from the plane. (Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee via AP) lessThe wreckage of a U-2 spy plane that crashed after taking off from Beale Air Force Base on a training mission in Northern California, is seen Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. The U.S. Air Force says one pilot was ... morePhoto: Hector Amezcua, APImage3of32
A firefighter puts water on the flames of a fire caused when a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another injured when they ejected from the plane shortly after taking off from Beale Air Force base on a training mission. lessA firefighter puts water on the flames of a fire caused when a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage4of32
Colonel Larry Broadwell, commander of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing and Beale Air Force base, near Marysville, Calif., pauses while talking to reporters about the crash of a U-2 spy plane Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. One pilot was killed and another injured when they ejected from the plane shortly after taking off from Beale, on a training mission. lessColonel Larry Broadwell, commander of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing and Beale Air Force base, near Marysville, Calif., pauses while talking to reporters about the crash of a U-2 spy plane Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage5of32
A U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another injured when they ejected from the plane shortly after taking off from Beale Air Force base on a training mission. lessA U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage6of32
A U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another injured when they ejected from the plane shortly after taking off from Beale Air Force base on a training mission. lessA U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage7of32
A U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another injured when they ejected from the plane shortly after taking off from Beale Air Force base on a training mission. lessA U.S. Air Force Hazmat team inspects the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. One pilot was killed and another ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage8of32
A California Highway Patrol helicopter drops water on a fire caused by the crash of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane in the Sutter Butte Mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a training mission from nearby Beale Air Force Base. The two pilots ejected before the crash. lessA California Highway Patrol helicopter drops water on a fire caused by the crash of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane in the Sutter Butte Mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage9of32
Authorities look over part of the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a training mission from nearby Beale Air Force Base. The two pilots ejected before the crash. lessAuthorities look over part of the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a ... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli, APImage10of32
A California Highway Patrol helicopter drops water on a fire caused by the crash of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane in the Sutter Butte Mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a training mission from nearby Beale Air Force Base. The two pilots ejected before the crash. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
lessA California Highway Patrol helicopter drops water on a fire caused by the crash of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane in the Sutter Butte Mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had
... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli/APImage11of32
An Air Force senior airman stands guard in front of the burnt U-2 spy plane assigned to the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron at Beale Air Force Base on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. Authorities say two pilots ejected before the crash Tuesday morning in the Sierra Buttes about 60 miles north of Sacramento. The plane was destroyed and a resulting fire scorched several acres. (Hector Amezcua/The Sacramento Bee via AP)
lessAn Air Force senior airman stands guard in front of the burnt U-2 spy plane assigned to the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron at Beale Air Force Base on Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016. Authorities say two pilots ejected
... morePhoto: Hector Amezcua/APImage12of32
Authorities look over part of the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a training mission from nearby Beale Air Force Base. The two pilots ejected before the crash. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
lessAuthorities look over part of the wreckage of a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane that crashed in the Sutter Butte mountains, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2016, near Yuba City, Calif. The plane had just taken off on a
... morePhoto: Rich Pedroncelli/APImage13of32
FILE - The last crash of a U-2 happened in 1996 in Oroville, Calif. The pilot and one person on the ground were killed.
FILE - The last crash of a U-2 happened in 1996 in Oroville, Calif. The pilot and one person on the ground were killed.
Photo: DENNIS ANDERSON/Associated PressImage14of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady flies over the Golden Gate Bridge near San Francisco, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is capable of flying at altitudes exceeding 70,000 ft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady flies over the Golden Gate Bridge near San Francisco, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is capable of flying at altitudes exceeding 70,000 ft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M.
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage15of32|Flying the U-2
A view of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from a U-2 Dragon Lady, flying over California, Mar. 23, 2016. The original U-2A first flew in August 1955. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
A view of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range from a U-2 Dragon Lady, flying over California, Mar. 23, 2016. The original U-2A first flew in August 1955. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
Photo: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage16of32|Flying the U-2
A U- 2 Dragon Lady approaches an altitude near 70,000 ft. above California, Mar. 23, 2016. The pilot must wear a full-pressure suit similar to NASA astronaut suits. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
lessA U- 2 Dragon Lady approaches an altitude near 70,000 ft. above California, Mar. 23, 2016. The pilot must wear a full-pressure suit similar to NASA astronaut suits. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M.
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage17of32|Flying the U-2
Maintainers from the 9th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron salutes U-2 pilot Capt. Travis as he prepares for a "high flight."
Maintainers from the 9th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron salutes U-2 pilot Capt. Travis as he prepares for a "high flight."
Photo: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage18of32|Flying the U-2
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis prepares to enter the cockpit of a U-2 Dragon Lady as Staff Sgt. Heather Doyle assists in the "hook up."
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis prepares to enter the cockpit of a U-2 Dragon Lady as Staff Sgt. Heather Doyle assists in the "hook up."
Photo: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage19of32|Flying the U-2
Maintenance personnel from the 9th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron standby as Capt. Travis and Staff Sgt. Heather Doyle prepare the cockpit of a U-2 Dragon Lady, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. It takes dozens of personnel to prepare, launch and recover each of the 33 U-2s assigned to Beale Air Force Base. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Drew Buchanan/Released)
lessMaintenance personnel from the 9th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron standby as Capt. Travis and Staff Sgt. Heather Doyle prepare the cockpit of a U-2 Dragon Lady, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. It
... morePhoto: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage20of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2S Dragon Lady prepares to taxi from the Beale Air Force Base flightline, Jan. 8, 2013. While the first U-2 was built in 1955, the aircraft has evolved over the nearly 60 years it has been in service. The current model U-2S models were built in the late 1980s and are over 30 percent larger than the original U-2A. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Drew Buchanan/Released)
lessA U-2S Dragon Lady prepares to taxi from the Beale Air Force Base flightline, Jan. 8, 2013. While the first U-2 was built in 1955, the aircraft has evolved over the nearly 60 years it has been in service. The
... morePhoto: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage21of32|Flying the U-2
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis utilizes a specialized bottle to drink an energy drink prior to flight in a U-2, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. Due to the long duration of flights, U-2 pilots must utilize specialized equipment to drink and eat. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Drew Buchanan/Released)
lessU-2 pilot Capt. Travis utilizes a specialized bottle to drink an energy drink prior to flight in a U-2, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. Due to the long duration of flights, U-2 pilots must utilize
... morePhoto: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage22of32|Flying the U-2
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis prepares to exit a physiological support vehicle on the flightline, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. Beale is home to the Air Force's fleet of 33 U-2 high-altitude Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Drew Buchanan/Released)
lessU-2 pilot Capt. Travis prepares to exit a physiological support vehicle on the flightline, Jan. 8, 2013, at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. Beale is home to the Air Force's fleet of 33 U-2 high-altitude
... morePhoto: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage23of32|Flying the U-2
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis dawns the sun visor on his pressure suit helmet during pre-flight suit dawning in preparation for a "high flight."
U-2 pilot Capt. Travis dawns the sun visor on his pressure suit helmet during pre-flight suit dawning in preparation for a "high flight."
Photo: Senior Airman Andrew Buchanan/U.S. Air ForceImage24of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady flies above the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is a single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude/near space reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft which delivers critical imagery and signals intelligence to decision makers throughout all phases of conflict, including peacetime indications and warnings, low-intensity conflict, and large-scale hostilities. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady flies above the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is a single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude/near space reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft which
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage25of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady flies over the Golden Gate Bridge near San Francisco, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is capable of flying at altitudes exceeding 70,000 ft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady flies over the Golden Gate Bridge near San Francisco, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is capable of flying at altitudes exceeding 70,000 ft. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M.
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage26of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady flies above the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is a single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude/near space reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft which delivers critical imagery and signals intelligence to decision makers throughout all phases of conflict, including peacetime indications and warnings, low-intensity conflict, and large-scale hostilities. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Robert M. Trujillo)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady flies above the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, California, Mar. 23, 2016. The U-2 is a single-seat, single-engine, high-altitude/near space reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft which
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Robert Trujillo/9th Reconnaissance WingImage27of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to touch down at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. During a landing, pilots stall the plane two feet off the ground to avoid damaging the aircraft upon impact. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jarad A. Denton/Released)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to touch down at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. During a landing, pilots stall the plane two feet off the ground to avoid damaging the
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Jarad Denton/501st Combat Support WingImage28of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to land at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sept. 17, 2015. The aircraft was on display during an air show Sept. 19, 2015. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the U-2, one of the oldest operational aircraft in the Department of Defense.
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to land at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Sept. 17, 2015. The aircraft was on display during an air show Sept. 19, 2015. This year marks the 60th
... morePhoto: Senior Airman Bobby Cummings/9th Reconnaissance WingImage29of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to land at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. U-2 pilots have a small margin of space to effectively land the plane without causing damage to the aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jarad A. Denton/Released)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., prepares to land at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. U-2 pilots have a small margin of space to effectively land the plane without causing damage
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Jarad Denton/501st Combat Support WingImage30of32|Flying the U-2
U.S. Air Force airmen push down on the wing of a U-2 Dragon Lady after its landing at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. If the aircraft lands slightly off balance, it has the potential to tilt to one side or another. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jarad A. Denton/Released)
lessU.S. Air Force airmen push down on the wing of a U-2 Dragon Lady after its landing at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. If the aircraft lands slightly off balance, it has the potential to tilt to one
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Jarad Denton/501st Combat Support WingImage31of32|Flying the U-2
A U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., taxis down the flightline at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. During a landing, pilots stall the plane two feet off the ground to avoid damaging the aircraft upon impact. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jarad A. Denton/Released)
lessA U-2 Dragon Lady, from Beale Air Force Base, Calif., taxis down the flightline at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, June 9, 2015. During a landing, pilots stall the plane two feet off the ground to avoid damaging
... morePhoto: Staff Sgt. Jarad Denton/501st Combat Support WingImage32of32
Pilot killed in Northern California U-2 plane crash IDd
1 / 32
Back to Gallery
An Air Force pilot killed after a U-2 spy plane he was in crashed about 50 miles north of Sacramento during a routine exercise was identified by military officials Wednesday as a field grade officer.
Lt. Col. Ira S. Eadie died in a Tuesday morning crash that left another pilot with non-life-threatening injuries after both ejected from a plane that had left Beale Air Force Base in Yuba County.
Officials at the base, east of Marysville, said the two-seat training plane had taken off shortly before the wreck, which occurred about 9 a.m. The impact sparked a blaze that consumed a little more than 250 acres of vegetation, authorities said.
The plane was in the middle of a training mission at the time, said Brooke Brzozowske, a spokeswoman for the Air Force. Officials said at a Wednesday news conference the crash was under investigation and further details would not be released.
The surviving pilot was ''in good condition at a local medical facility,'' authorities said.
The last U-2 plane that crashed out of Beale was in 1996, when the aircraft landed in a busy commercial area of Oroville, killing the pilot and a person on the ground.
U-2s can reach speeds in excess of 400 mph and fly as high as 70,000 feet, or more than 13 miles. The military uses them to collect imagery and signals for intelligence analysts.
Chronicle staff writer Kimberly Veklerov contributed to this report.
Jenna Lyons is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jlyons@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @JennaJourno
VIDEO-CNN: ISIS Chemical Attack On U.S. Air Base In Iraq - YouTube
If Deputy Kyle Dinkheller stops a ''black'' Andrew Brannan tomorrow and shoots him going back to his car, he is a living a nightmare similar to Tulsa Police Officer Betty Shelby.
Deputy Dinkheller would be the face of ''police racism'' despite a difficult, tense and stressful situation.
Unfortunately, the Dinkheller murder is forever seared in the minds of police officers across the world. A combative subject, not following commands, goes back to his vehicle and kills the deputy.
Much has been said about the Tulsa Police Shooting that killed Terence Crutcher last Friday night but few have acknowledged what happened prior to the officer shooting Crutcher as he goes back to his car.
The Tulsa World has reported that Officer Shelby, a drug recognized expert, recognized his behavior as being on ''PCP''. A 911 caller indicated Crutcher was acting very strange and stating that the car was going to ''blow''.
Now some will say the Dinkheller murder is different based on the fact that the suspect had a gun in the car but that thought flies in the face of Graham v. Connor that cautions the use of ''20/20 hindsight.'' I know the law gets in the way of the arm chair experts but simply put, the incident in Tulsa is much more complicated than a man and his broke down car.
These complexities require a patience and maturity that very few seem to have in 2016.
We don't have the video of the initial encounter with Officer Betty Shelby and Terence Crutcher but could it look like what you saw Deputy Dinkheller deal with that fateful night in 1998?
If it looks anything like what most cops have to deal with when it comes to suspects on PCP, it was likely wild, chaotic and extremely dangerous'....A scene that played out in a deadly way for Deputy Kyle Dinkheller almost two decades ago.
VIDEO-Coloring your way to a healthy mind | News for College Students | USA TODAY College
If you think coloring is just child's play, think again.
A growing number of adults, from Millennials to senior citizens, are dusting off their colored pencils and opening up new coloring books '-- books that have been flying off the shelves and topping the bestseller lists for well over a year. In January 2016 alone, all of the titles on The New York Times' Games and Activities bestseller list were adult coloring books, including Johanna Basford's Lost Ocean (shoals, reefes and shipwrecks!) and Zing Books' Adult Coloring Books, featuring Mandalas and paisley patterns.
An accumulation of research shows that creative activities like coloring can help lessen stress, reports USA TODAY. The studies show that activities like coloring (also, knitting, quilting and more) helps create a ''meditative state of mind that allows you to push away negative thoughts and worries.''
''Coloring books are a great way to relieve stress, mainly because it's engaging, it's structured and it's portable,'' art therapist Roselynn Vanderpool says.
Studies affirming coloring's mental health benefits have been around for over a decade, but Donna Betts of the American Art Therapy Association says the current phenomenon might have to do with people looking for a way to ''break from their screens.'' More than ever, she says, adults want activities that allow them to engage with tactile objects.
USA TODAY College sits down with coloring enthusiasts at the University of Maryland to discuss the coloring book phenomenon.
Sara Dignan is a University of Maryland student and a USA TODAY College correspondent.
VIDEO-Bomb suspect Rahami a deadbeat, hated America, says his daughter's mother | Fox News
The man who police nabbed and shot Monday after a day-long dragnet in connection with a series of terror attacks in and around New York was a bad father who disliked America, hated gays and took long trips to his homeland of Afghanistan, according to the mother of his young daughter.
Maria, whose full name is being withheld by FoxNews.com, said her high school sweetheart, Ahmad Khan Rahami, didn't pay child support and often railed against American culture. The 26-year-old, who spoke after her grandmother called her for a reporter who produced his press credential and identified himself at the grandmother's home in Elizabeth, said she had not seen Rahami in two years.
"He would speak often of Western culture and how it was different back home,'' she said. ''How there weren't homosexuals in Afghanistan.
"He seemed standoffish to American culture, but I never thought he would cross the line," she added.
Rahami, 28, was identified by authorities early Monday, following a weekend of possibly related bombings in Seaside Park, N.J., and the Chelsea section of Manhattan. In addition, five homemade bombs were found in Elizabeth late Sunday, including one that was detonated by police. Authorities told Fox News Rahami's fingerprint was found on an unexploded bomb discovered in Manhattan Saturday night, and it is believed the same person or persons were behind the bombs, none of which caused fatalities.
Five men detained in connection with the probe after a traffic stop in Brooklyn were released Monday, and authorities said they do not believe the bombs were the work of a terror cell.
Maria recalled one chilling exchange in which the father of her child '' a ''class clown'' in high school '' demonstrated his hatred for the U.S. military.
"One time, he was watching TV with my daughter and a woman in a [military] uniform came on and he told [their daughter], 'That's the bad person,'" she said.
It was not clear when Rahami's family came to the U.S., but officials said Rahami, who worked at one of his family's restaurants, First American Fried Chicken, in Elizabeth, is a U.S. citizen. That restaurant is now closed after long-running code-enforcement problems with city inspectors, according to Elizabeth officials.
Rahami was taken into custody late Monday morning after a shootout with police in Linden, N.J., near Elizabeth after the FBI circulated a wanted poster. No one was killed in the shootout, and Rahami was seen being placed in an ambulance just before noon.
At Edison High School, where Rahami and Maria met, Rahami got along with classmates and was known as the class clown, she said. But he often criticized American culture, comparing it to the strict Islamic code of his homeland.
"I never thought he would do something like this,'' she said through tears. ''I think he was brainwashed.''
Maria recalled that Rahami would often go back to Afghanistan to see family, and would stay for weeks, or even months. Right before their daughter was born, Rahami was in Afghanistan and had trouble returning because authorities in Afghanistan confiscated his passport for unknown reasons, Maria said. The last time Maria knows that Rahami visited his homeland was nine years ago. He brought back a wife and another child, she said.
Maria did not say what prompted their breakup, and cut the interview short saying she did not want to speak to a reporter. But she did say she did not want Rahami around their daughter, whom she did not name.
"I didn't want him to see my daughter,'' she said. ''If he loved her, he would have paid child support. My greatest fear is that he would try to take my daughter."
Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @perrych
VIDEO-DEA to ban Kratom by the end of the month | KTVB.COM
Gretchen Parsons, KTVB6:44 PM. MDT September 20, 2016
Kratom
BOISE - A little-known drug that some use for pain and others use for recreation is legal only until the end of the month.
It is known as Kratom and those who use it are fighting the ban.
The substance will soon be a Schedule 1 drug -- meaning it has absolutely no medical value. But some that use it claim Kratom can be taken as an alternative to pain medications and to heroin.
"The reward knocks it out of the ball park, the risk is really minimal and I swear by it," said Christopher Deoudes.
Deoudes uses Kratom, a legal drug sold locally but soon to be classified as a Schedule 1 drug.
"Most people will use it for pain, depression, anxiety, and PTSD," claims Deoudes.
Kratom has yet to be evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and is labeled "Not for Human Consumption" when sold. Deoudes began using the substance after a car accident left him in pain and says the drug helped him kick his dependence on strong pain medications.
"First day I took it I didn't wake up with any cold sweat," said Deoudes. "I got off the Oxycodone right away and I got back to my normal life literally within six days."
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, Kratom is a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia. The DEA has reported several cases in which the substance has caused psychosis in users, in addition to other dangerous side effects.
"Kratom can have some opiod effects, where it creates a sense of pain relief but on the other hand it has stimulant effects which can cause people to have a really high heart rate and can also cause them to have really high blood pressure," said Rachel Porter, a captain with Ada County Paramedics.
Users like Deoudes argue that the drug should be researched more before being thrown into the same Schedule 1 category as heroin, LSD, ecstacy and marijuana. However, Porter doesn't recommend taking anything unless it is prescribed by a doctor. Whether claims of Kratom's health benefits are true or not, the drug will no longer be for sale after September 30th.
Copyright 2016 KTVB
VIDEO-Hillary FAKE TV Speech? Green Screen in Greensboro? Clinton Dead? - YouTube
Political analysts at Citi led by the bank's Chief Global Political Analyst Tina Fordham said in a note on Sunday that the narrowing of the polls at this stage of the campaign was "typical" yet she warned that Clinton could suffer from what she called an "enthusiasm gap."
Despite having a loyal following of Democratic voters, Clinton does not enjoy the broad appeal of her former boss, President Barack Obama, and she could suffer from apathy among voters who might lean toward a Democratic vote but aren't overly enthusiastic about Clinton herself.
Meanwhile, as divisive as Trump is for American voters, he has a robust following certain to make their dissatisfaction with the political status quo known come November.
Fordham and her colleagues, Graham Bishop, Jeremy Hale, Tiia Lehto and Dana Peterson, said in their "U.S. election countdown" note that Trump voters were "significantly more likely to say they intend to vote."
"Narrowing of polls is typical of this stage of the campaign, yet in the wake of Brexit and heightened Vox Populi risk in Advanced Economies plus concerns that polling methods may not capture marginalized voters, we reduce the probability of a Clinton victory to 60 percent from 65 percent, with a 40 percent probability of a Trump win. Hillary Clinton still has a much more mathematically straightforward path to victory in the Electoral College vote, but suffers from an "enthusiasm gap" that may affect support at the polls on November 8th, with Trump voters significantly more likely to say they intend to vote."
The Citi team also highlighted "a range of sub-indicators historically correlated with predicting presidential outcomes. Improvements in the economy, Obama's approval ratings and support from college-educated voters support Clinton, while voters with low trust in the political system and confidence in the U.S. economy support Trump."
VIDEO-alex thomson on Twitter: "Failure of UN, @theresa_may's role in migration crisis and prosecuting President Assad.@Channel4News 7pm https://t.co/6QZyAKokAj"
The father of Ahmad Rahami, the Afghan-born man arrested after bombings in New York and New Jersey, says he reported concerns about his son to the FBI in 2014. (Reuters)
NEW YORK '-- Federal authorities said Tuesday that the man accused of carrying out bombings here and in New Jersey over the weekend hoped to stage a suicide attack and worried he would be captured first.
In a journal found on him after he was captured, Ahmad Rahami, the 28-year-old suspected bomber, had written about his hopes for martyrdom and wrote that God willing, ''the sounds of the bombs will be heard in the streets,'' according to an FBI complaint.
For the first time since the bombings, authorities offered the first indications of a possible motive, with the FBI complaint saying that Rahami had praised a former top al-Qaeda leader, referenced the islamic State, touched on extremist ideologies and decried the United States for its military actions in countries like Afghanistan and Syria.
Rahami, who remained hospitalized after a shootout with police, was charged in two federal courts '-- in Manhattan and in Newark '-- with nine counts stemming from the attacks, including using weapons of mass destruction and bombing a public place, and could face up to life in prison.
Rahami bought the Glock 9 mm handgun that he used to shoot two New Jersey police officers from a gun dealer in Salem, Virginia in July, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the investigation.
To buy a handgun in Virginia, one must be a resident of the state. Officials have said that Rahami's last known address was in Elizabeth, New Jersey, about 15 miles outside of New York City. But he was able to legally purchase the gun in Salem because he presented to the dealer a valid Virginia state ID with an address in Roanoke on July 7 when he bought the gun, according to the officials.
Federal officials traced the handgun to the federally licensed gun dealer in Salem, but they have not released the name of the store.
Rahami also passed the legally required federal background check to buy his gun. The FBI had opened up an ''assessment'' on Rahami in 2014 after his father called the FBI and said his son was a terrorist. His father later recanted his statement and the FBI found no evidence of terrorist ties. That ''assessment'' would not show up on a federal background check for a gun.
FBI spokeswoman Susan McKee said that ''being the subject of an 'assessment''' is not sufficient grounds to stop someone from purchasing a firearm. In fact, even if Rahami had been on the government's terrorist watch list, he would not have been disqualified from buying a gun under federal law.
Rahami was once accused of domestic violence involving a family member, but he was never convicted of that crime. A person convicted of domestic violence cannot purchase a firearm.
Investigators have said they are still trying to determine whether Rahami had any outside help. Since Rahami was captured in Linden, N.J., officials have said they found signs of his interest in extremist thoughts, ranging from comments they said he wrote to videos he liked online.
A handwritten journal was found on Rahami after the shootout, according to the complaint filed in Manhattan, and included an initial glimpse at what authorities said was his mindset after the bombings.
Included in the journal was a reference to Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric who was a top leader for al-Qaeda in Yemen, said the complaint, filed Tuesday night in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Another complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
During a hearing Wednesday discussing how to prevent future attacks, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.) who chairs the House Committee on Homeland Security, displayed what he said was a copy of the journal found on Rahami, which appears tinged with blood and was apparently pierced by a bullet.
The journal included notes that the FBI was looking for him, discussed shooting police and said he was praying to Allah ''to not take JIHAD away.'' According to the complaint, the journal was damaged during the exchange of gunfire. This journal also included references to the Boston Marathon bombings, the 2009 Fort Hood shooting in Texas and ''Brother Osama Bin Laden.''
When McCaul showed what he said was an image from the journal at the hearing, it included what appeared to be references to the Islamic State, the militant group that claimed responsibility for stabbings in a Minnesota mall last weekend but has been silent about the New York bombing.
The writing displayed by McCaul mentions ''Brother Adnani,'' an apparent reference to Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, who was killed last month, and the word ''Dawla,'' an Arabic word for ''state.'' The page McCaul showed included the same language mentioned in the FBI complaint about attacking the kuffar '-- or non-believers '-- ''in their backyard.''
The FBI said Wednesday afternoon that it was seeking ''two unknown individuals'' '-- the two men viewed on surveillance footage encountering the bomb that did not detonate in Manhattan on Saturday night. In this footage, the two men are seen finding a suitcase, removing the explosives from it and then leaving with just the suitcase, officials said.
Police have said that the two men are being viewed as witnesses, not suspects. But in an announcement sent out, the FBI said agents are ''interested in speaking to these individuals and recovering the luggage.''
''We have no reason to believe that they're connected,'' James R. Waters, the New York Police Department's chief of counterterrosim, said. ''I cannot stress enough. They are witnesses at this time. ''
Waters said investigators have pursued more than 100 leads in the case. He said the improvised explosive removed from the suitcase ''was a very shock sensitive device,'' adding of the two men who removed it: ''They're very, very lucky.''
Even as investigators continue to seek more surveillance footage as they probe the bombings, the criminal cases related to the attacks have gotten underway.
On Wednesday morning, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said the federal charges against Rahami ''reflect the Justice Department's unwavering determination to find, capture and prosecute all those who attempt to commit or commit acts of terror against our nation.''
Lynch, speaking at a conference in Washington, praised law enforcement for their efforts and also singled out the ''crucial role'' played by citizens who found un-exploded bombs and alerted authorities.
David E. Patton, the top federal defender in New York, asked for Rahami to have a first court hearing Wednesday, suggesting that the suspected bomber could participate from his hospital bed.
[Bomb suspect's family life shadowed by financial troubles and violence]
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Wednesday that the first case to proceed would be the federal case in Manhattan. Prosecutors there, he said, had filed a writ with the U.S. Marshals service and expected Rahami would soon be brought into that district.
Before prosecutors formally filed charges, the FBI had acknowledged Tuesday that more than two years before the recent bombings, agents had investigated Rahami, named as the only suspect in the weekend bombings.
Authorities began looking into him after receiving reports that his father, Mohammad Rahami, said he was a terrorist, though officials said Tuesday that his father later recanted the claim. Agents conducted interviews, checked with other agencies and looked at internal databases, ''none of which revealed ties to terrorism,'' the bureau said in a statement.
The revelation was the second time this year '-- and the fourth time since 2013 '-- that the FBI acknowledged that it had investigated someone who later carried out what officials called an act of terror.
Late Tuesday, Patton, executive director of the Federal Defenders of New York, filed a response to the complaints asking for a hearing Wednesday so that Rahami could be informed of the charges and gain access to legal representation.
Rahami was ''held on extremely state charge in New Jersey for over 36 hours without the benefit of counsel,'' Patton wrote in the filing. In that time, Patton said federal law enforcement agents have questioned Rahami, who was shot multiple times during his gun battle with police Monday morning.
[Read the criminal complaint filed by New Jersey against Rahami]
Patton asked a magistrate judge in New York to schedule a hearing as soon as possible on Wednesday, noting that if Rahami is unable to head into Manhattan due to his injuries, attorneys from his non-profit legal group could head to his hospital room and represent him in a video conference.
The criminal complaints also offered or confirmed additional details about the attacks. Authorities said the pressure-cooker bomb that exploded in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan was left in a dumpster, and that the explosion ''propelled the more-than-100-pound dumpster more than 120 feet.''
''Hundreds'' of ball bearings and steel pieces were found around the explosion area, while the blast ''caused significant injuries and multiple-million dollars of property damage,'' the complaint said.
The complaint also said there were 31 people injured in the blast in Chelsea, two more than the number of injuries authorities had reported since the weekend.
An FBI complaint also said that Rahami had purchased numerous items for the explosives '-- including igniters, circuit boards and citric acid '-- on eBay and had them shipped to his workplace. Investigators also found that a social media account used by Rahami had liked videos relating to jihad.
[The New York and New Jersey explosives were pressure cookers and pipe bombs]
The complaint also said that Rahami had left numerous fingerprints behind on a bomb placed in Chelsea that did not detonate and on materials '-- including unexploded bombs and handwritten documents '-- in a backpack left at an Elizabeth, N.J., train station.
Just two days before the explosions took place in Chelsea and along a charity race path in New Jersey, the complaint says, a cellphone video was recorded of Rahami burning ''a small, black cylindrical object'' in a back yard '-- in an apparent practice run.
A day after Rahami was captured by police, investigators continued to delve into his life and examined his friends, family, records, social-media accounts and phones.
According to friends and court records, many aspects of Rahami's life appeared to begin unraveling after he graduated from high school. As a high school senior in 2007, he got his girlfriend Maria pregnant, and she ''was very pregnant'' by the senior prom, said Chris Konya, a high school classmate from New Jersey.
[Read the criminal complaint filed by New York against Rahami]
Rahami's father was angry about him dating her because she was Dominican and from a different race, said three people who knew him at the time. After graduation, Rahami's father forced him to make a trip back to Afghanistan, even though he didn't want to go, said Imani Podhradsky, a classmate.
After their daughter was born, Rahami and his girlfriend's relationship appeared to be turbulent. Court documents show that she took him to court for not paying child support. On Tuesday, about 24 hours after Rahami was apprehended, she filed an application for full custody, pointing to his involvement in ''possible terrorist related activity'' and the fact that he was charged with attempting to kill police officers.
In 2014, Rahami was accused of stabbing a family member in the leg, court records show. When Rahami's father spoke briefly to a scrum of reporters Tuesday, he said that the younger man was violent toward other family members ''for no reason.''
At some point, he married a Pakistani woman. Two years ago, Rahami was in Islamabad, Pakistan, when he contacted the office of Rep. Albio Sires (D-N.J.). Rahami said he was concerned about getting his wife an immigrant visa while her Pakistani passport has expired.
Sires's office found out that at some point after this, Rahami's wife got her visa, but the congressman doesn't know what happened after.
A Pakistani intelligence officer in Quetta said Tuesday that an initial investigation showed he had visited Quetta, a hub for militant groups, in 2011 and 2013. The intelligence officer said there is evidence Rahami was married there.
According to two federal law enforcement officials, Rahami's wife was overseas when the bombing occurred and heading back to the United States at the time. She was detained in the United Arab Emirates for questioning, these officials said.
The references in Rahami's note to bin Laden, Awlaki and attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing and the absence of any mention of the Islamic State raises the possibility he was perhaps inspired by al-Qaeda, analysts said.
If anything, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, this may be ''an al-Qaeda-inspired or al-Qaeda-linked connection.''
[Explosion that injured 29 in New York 'obviously an act of terrorism,' governor says]
Even after Awlaki was killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen, his rhetoric continues to resonate online. His teachings have been implicated in numerous terrorist attacks, including the Fort Hood shooting in 2009 and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. Authorities say the gunman in Orlando earlier this year and one of the attackers in San Bernardino, Calif., last year had also viewed Awlaki's lectures.
Rahami's travel to Afghanistan and Pakistan between 2011 and 2014 also raises questions about whether Rahami was in some fashion radicalized while he was in South Asia, a possibility investigators are looking into.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, who has been briefed on the New York and New Jersey cases, said the current probe is ''reminiscent'' of the Boston Marathon case.
In 2013, two brothers planted pressure-cooker bombs packed with shrapnel near the marathon's finish line. Investigators did not initially know whether the brothers '-- particularly the elder brother, who died in a confrontation with police '-- had contact with foreign terrorist elements. They were interested in his travel and he had previously come to the attention of the FBI.
''We were looking into whether we had missed something,'' Schiff said in an interview. ''We're asking all those same questions again.''
Schiff said that a takeaway from this is that even the best efforts from intelligence agencies and law enforcement ''can't always catch people who mean to do us harm.''
[Pipe bomb explodes along Jersey Shore charity 5K racecourse, officials say]
''I can't say one way or the other'' whether the suspect had any contact with or direction from a foreign terorist group, U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Tuesday. ''I can't point to external direction at this point.''
The bombings and explosive devices in New York and New Jersey are ''being investigated as an act of terror,'' Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said Wednesday during a speech in Lexington, Ky. She also said that Saturday's Minnesota stabbing attack, in which 10 people were injured, is being investigated as an act of terrorism.
Earlier this year, Lynch also called the shooting rampage in Orlando a terrorist act. The following day, the FBI said it had investigated Omar Mateen, the Orlando gunman, for 10 months, ultimately closing the probe in March 2014 after agents determined he was not a threat. In addition to looking into people later linked to the Orlando attack and the Boston Marathon bombing, the FBI had scrutinized one of the gunman who opened fire at an exhibition of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad last year.
The gun that was found on Rahami after his shootout was a 9mm Glock he bought in July while in Virginia.
It was not immediately clear why Rahami traveled to Virginia or his ties to the state. Police stopped a car Sunday night in New Jersey they said had been at a location associated with Rahami; an official said Tuesday that two of the five people in the car were from Virginia.
Berman and Wan reported from Washington. Sarah Larimer in Elizabeth, N.J.; Pamela Constable in Islamabad, Pakistan; and Sari Horwitz, Greg Miller, Brian Murphy, Matt Zapotosky, Julie Tate, Magda Jean-Louis in Washington contributed to this report, which has been updated since it was first published on Tuesday evening.
VIDEO-Father of Ahmad Rahami told FBI his son was a terrorist - YouTube
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his ideas for America are the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended, according to U2 frontman Bono.
Bono, whose real name is Paul David Hewson, told PBS' Charlie Rose in an interview set to air Tuesday that Trump is ''potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America.''
''Look, America is like the best idea the world ever came up with. But Donald Trump is potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America, potentially,'' Bono said, adding that Trump's version of America could potentially destroy the idea the Founding Fathers had.
What makes the United States stand out from other countries, Bono said, is the fact that it's built upon an idea, whereas countries like Great Britian or Ireland '-- which he said are also great countries '-- are not built around a central idea.
''America is an idea, and that idea is bound up in justice and equality for all '-- equality and justice for all, you know?'' Bono told Rose. ''I think he's hijacked the party, and I think he's trying to hijack the idea of America. And I think it's bigger than all of us.''
''I think it's '-- this is really dangerous,'' the singer added.
'--
Follow the author of this story on Twitter and Facebook:
VIDEO-Audience Immediately Laughs When Democrat Uses This Word to Describe Clinton | Video | TheBlaze.com
A Democratic congressional candidate drew a strong reaction from the audience when he called Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ''honest'' during a debate Monday.
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, currently a Democratic candidate to represent the Sunshine State's 13th Congressional District, was asked during a debate with incumbent Republican Rep. David Jolly if he plans to vote for his party's nominee for president.
''I am proud of Hillary Clinton,'' he said. ''I think she's been a very good secretary of state, a very good senator from the state of New York. The thing I like most about her is I believe she is steady. I believe that she is strong. I believe that she is honest. And I look forward to voting for her.''
When Crist called Clinton ''honest'' the audience began to laugh and boo.
According to a recent Fox News poll, only 34 percent of voters believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while 64 percent believe she is not.
'--
Follow the author of this story on Twitter and Facebook:
VIDEO-Mylan Inc CEO Heather Bresch Testifies EpiPen | Video | C-SPAN.org
September 21, 2016EpiPen Price Increases, Part 1 Following a break for lawmakers to cast votes on the House floor, Mylan, Inc. CEO Heather Bresch continued testifying before the House Oversight and'... read more
EpiPen Price Increases, Part 1 Following a break for lawmakers to cast votes on the House floor, Mylan, Inc. CEO Heather Bresch continued testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on her company's price increase on its anti-anaphylaxis injection medication known as the EpiPen. Lawmakers from both parties questioned Ms. Bresch on the reasons for the price increase, which totaled more than 500 percent over a seven-year period. She defended the price increases, saying the company has boosted EpiPen's availability to consumers of all means, and to public schools. close
Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.
*This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
People in this videoMore PeopleHosting OrganizationMore Videos FromHSE OVERSIGHT - Price Increase/EpiPensRelated VideoUser Created Clips from This VideoView all clips from this video
VIDEO-CEO John Stumpf Testifies Unauthorized Wells | Video | C-SPAN.org
September 20, 2016Unauthorized Wells Fargo Accounts Wells Fargo Chair and CEO John Stumpf appeared before the Senate Banking Committee to discuss his company's settlement with federal'... read more
Unauthorized Wells Fargo Accounts Wells Fargo Chair and CEO John Stumpf appeared before the Senate Banking Committee to discuss his company's settlement with federal officials in which Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million in fines over alleged fraudulent accounts opened without customers' permission. Senators questioned Mr. Stumpf about the corporate behavior and practices related to over 2 million unauthorized accounts, and which led to the termination of over 5,000 Wells Fargo employees nationwide. Following Mr. Stumpf, regulators, including Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray, answered questions about their investigations into Wells Fargo, and what they recommended to not only address wrongdoing within that company, but prevent future abusive practices across the financial services industry. close
Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.
*This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
Related VideoUser Created Clips from This VideoView all clips from this video
VIDEO-State Department: Yup, There Are Terrorist Refugees | Daily Wire
On Wednesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby finally acknowledged a well-known truth: ISIS is attempting to infiltrate the United States via the Obama administration's refugee resettlement program.
"I wouldn't debate the fact that there's the potential for ISIS terrorists to try to insert themselves, and we see that in some of the refugee camps in Jordan and in Turkey, where they try to insert themselves into the population," Kirby told the hosts of "Fox and Friends.''
Many of the refugees the US plans on accepting are supposedly ''vetted'' at these very refugee camps in Jordan and Turkey.
In a moment of unexpected candor, Kirby even went on to confess that the federal government's vetting process isn't ''foolproof."
"Is it perfect? Can it be perfect? Can it be foolproof? Well, probably not, no,'' he admitted.
While the State Department spokesman qualified his revealing remarks by insisting that the process is ''very, very stringent,'' a new report by the Homeland Security Department's Inspector General calls into question the fed's ability to accurately identify immigrants gaining entrance into the United States with forged documents or fake passports.
As The Daily Wire recently reported, 858 immigrants from countries ''of concern to national security'' were mistakenly granted citizenship in the last few months, bypassing the scrutiny of immigration and customs agencies with forged documents.
The Inspector General's report exposed the fact that the FBI's fingerprint database was woefully incomplete, allowing immigrants to enter the United States without being properly identified.
President Obama said that nations will have to give up some of their autonomy and freedom to achieve security on Tuesday during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly.
Obama told the audience that he believes global security can be achieved with the help of international institutions like the U.N. In his remarks, Obama said ''powerful nations'' like the United States will have to accept constraints and give up some of their freedom. The president acknowledged that he has been criticized by his own citizens for this belief, but that he remains convinced he is right. Obama also stated that, while countries will have to accept some limits on their freedom, they should not give up the right to defend themselves.
''We can only realize the promise of this institution's founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints,'' Obama said. ''I'm convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.''
Full remark:
We have to put our money where our mouths are. And we can only realize the promise of this institution's founding to replace the ravages of war with cooperation if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I'm criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions, but I'm convinced in the long run giving up some freedom of action, not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests but binding ourselves to international rules, over the long-term, enhances our security.
VIDEO-"Trump will go 26th" WTF ? Sept. 20, 2016 - YouTube
On the day of the release of the feature film "Snowden," Sandra Smith talked to former CIA Director James Woolsey, who said the NSA whistleblower should face trial for treason.
There have been renewed calls for President Obama to pardon Edward Snowden, but a new House Intelligence Committee report slammed Snowden as a "traitor."
The committee's report said that Snowden betrayed the United States and that the majority of the stolen documents were defense secrets that did not pertain to Americans' privacy.
Woolsey contrasted the Snowden leaks with the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam, which were leaked to the media in the 1970s by Daniel Ellsberg.
He said that Ellsberg leaked papers about U.S. policy, not information about operations or spies.
Woolsey said Ellsberg was "very principled in his own way," coming back to the U.S. to be prosecuted.
"[On] Snowden, words fail me. He ought to be brought back to the United States and be put on trial before a jury of his peers," said Woolsey, saying that if convicted of treason, Snowden should face "death by hanging."
Last night, Bill O'Reilly sat down with Snowden" director Oliver Stone, asking whether he believes presidents know more about national security matters than Snowden did.
"No, I believe governments lie," Stone answered. "I think that they protect their own interests to get re-elected."
Watch the interview above and let us know your opinion on Snowden. Hero or traitor?
Judge Jeanine: 'Deplorables' Remark Is Turning Point for 'Arrogant' Hillary
George W. Bush Visits First TX Elementary School Named After Him
WATCH: Trump Lets Jimmy Fallon Mess Up His Hair
Stay connected with the most-trusted name in cable news through exclusive videos, show highlights and behind-the-scenes details.
VIDEO-CNN intro to Elizabeth Warren butt slamming Wells Fargo CEO - YouTube
Barack Hussein Obama again violated his oath of office (to defend the Bill of Rights) today by telling the UN that the US has to give up freedoms in order to meet UN goals. He was undoubtedly talking about the 2nd Amendment '' as well as others.
He said the exact opposite when he was running for president.
Why isn't Paul Ryan impeaching him?
VIDEO-Woman's tip leads to bombing suspect - YouTube
Did you watch the Emmys last night? Allow me to update those who have lives and whatnot. Jill Soloway won an Emmy. You might know her as the creator of 'Transparent'. Or you might also know her as the not-fat version of Lena Dunham. The latter is an unofficial title.
This isn't the first time we've discussed Jill Soloway (see 'Transparent' (that 'transgender' show) Creator: All Men are Immoral'...). Last night, when she wasn't harping on about ''Toppling the patriarchy,'' she was saying even more moronic things during her acceptance speech. Hard to believe? That's Jill Soloway for you. Breaking glass ceilings.
''[Trump is] the most dangerous monster to ever approach our life time. He's a complete dangerous monster and at any moment that I have to call him out for being an inheritor of Hitler I will.''
''He's otherizing people, he calls women pigs if they don't look like beauty pageant contestants, he blames Muslims and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people,'' she said passionately. 'This is Otherizing with a capital 'O''.... He needs to be called out.'''
Anybody else notice Jeffrey Tambor awkwardly looming in the background like an unsightly wall decoration? I suppose you'd look uncomfortable too if you were a part of the ''patriarchy'' while surrounded by rampant feminists.
Obviously this isn't the first time a liberal celebrity has said something idiotic about the election (see Liberal Hypocrite Amy Schumer: 'Hating Hillary is Sexist'...'). Thankfully though, this is the last award show before Election Day. The opportunity to have a bunch of snotty leftists in the same room is low, unless it's a Hillary Clinton fundraiser'...
1. Hitler called for the extermination of over 6,000,000 people. Donald Trump sometimes says ''mean'' politically incorrect things.
2. Hitler was a liberal socialist. From a policy standpoint, he would most oftenly agree with Hillary Clinton. He was the king of 'mob rule.' The dude was big on socialized health care and abortion. He also blamed the country's woes on a specific segment of the population'... And had unfortunate hair. Sound familiar?
3. ''Otherizing'' isn't a real word. It's a made up leftist word.
4. Donald Trump OPPOSES transgender bathroom bills and supports letting whoever use whatever bathroom they please. You would think if the creator of a show called TRANSPARENT was being intellectually honest'... She'd find Trump agreeable a teensy-weensy bit.
5. Call anyone Hitler, you lose. You know who was 'like Hitler'? Hitler. His crimes against humanity are incomparable. Mean words? Not the same as gas-chambering people for their race. What hearts and minds does she really think she's changing by cheapening the suffering of millions?
Ah right, that would be none. Because this? It's an empty gesture meant to garner feelings of moral superiority. Like most things uttered by liberal gasbags. If Jill Soloway was really concerned with the treatment of transgenders, gays, the disabled, and women'... She might have different talking points (see Dear 'Feminists': You'll Never De Relevant Until You Address Islam's Real Rape Culture).
Similarities between Trump and Hitler? Nein. Liberals and Hitler, on the other hand? There's a few philosophical similarities'...
NOT SUBSCRIBED TO THE PODCAST? FIX THAT! IT'S COMPLETELY FREE ON BOTH ITUNES HERE AND SOUNDCLOUD HERE.
VIDEO-BREAKING: Trump's Taxes Aren't Being Audited '' Campaign Gets Embarrassed On CNN (VIDEO)
Donald Trump's new Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway just completely embarrassed herself on CNN '' as well as the entire Trump Campaign.
When asked if Donald Trump would release his tax returns, she stated that he wouldn't because he was under audit. He's stated this many times in the past, so that's not new.
However '' CNN threw a curve ball her way '' not only did they play a past clip of her before she was on Trump's campaign where she said Donald needed to be ''transparent'' and release his returns (this makes her look like a hypocrite), CNN also released this truth-bomb:
