Some podcasts you just know will be good. MalcolmGladwell's Revisionist History is outstanding. I've listened to at least two hundred of Chris Hardwick's Nerdist podcast; his ability to consistently pull A-list guests is remarkable.
Yet my favorite new podcast comes from what you may consider an unlikely source: Lance Armstrong's The Forward.
Lance's guest list is surprisingly eclectic: musicians like Seal, Ben Harper, Tim Commerford and Ryan Bingham; boxing promoter Bob Arum; tennis legend Chris Evert; Falcons GM Thomas Dimitroff... and just this week, former Green Beret Nate Boyer, who last week stood beside Colin Kaepernick as Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem prior to a preseason game against the Chargers.
But what might be most surprising is how Lance, unlike way too many podcast hosts, doesn't try to force a theme or follow a script. He's smart enough to get out of the way and let his guests take over, like when Seal unexpectedly described his horrific upbringing in heartbreaking yet oddly heartwarming detail. (Heartbreaking because of what he suffered, heartwarming because of how Seal has chosen to deal with it. Check it out; I promise it's worth your time.)
I talked to Lance about his podcast, about WEDU Sport, about the power of suffering, philanthropy, doing good... and about why he isn't willing to be "that guy."
With all the things you could do, why a podcast?
Good question. My long-time manager has been on me for probably three years, and finally I caved and said, "Why not. Let's give it a shot."
The hesitation came from a couple of things. One, I knew that a key to having a successful podcast is to be consistent. You have to come through. Listeners expect consistency and I was nervous that I wouldn't be able to do a podcast every week. There's lining up guests, taking care of logistics, doing the research so I can at least ask some decent questions... Hopefully at some point along the way I'll ask a decent question. (Laughs.)
Plus, I just didn't know if I would be any good at it.
But what I did know was that I could get a lot of very interesting and diverse people on the podcast. I've been lucky to meet some really kick-ass, cool people that have interesting stuff to say. For years many of them have said, "Hey, let's do something together."
So now I just say, "All right, let's sit down and do the podcast."
Seal wasn't someone you already knew, yet he turned out to be an amazing guest. How did you get him?
I was out riding with a friend and this guy goes running by and I thought, "Oh crap, that's Seal." I mean, you don't expect to randomly run into him on a running trail.
So I thought about going after him and asking if he would be on the podcast, but I didn't. I thought about it but I didn't want to be "that guy."
I don't know... I would think you could pull off being "that guy." It's not like it was me riding after him to stop him and ask for an interview.
Later he said it would have been great if I had, but I couldn't do it. I don't have it in me.
The same thing just happened. Anna and I were flying back to Austin because the kids were about to start school. We're on a moving sidewalk and this guy standing in front of us has all these old school tattoos, back pack, boots... he was a hardcore looking dude.
All of a sudden I thought, "I know this guy..." and then I realized it was James Hetfield, the lead singer of Metallica. I wanted to say, "James, I think you're amazing, and if you would ever be willing to come on my podcast I would love it..." but I didn't.
I just don't have it in me to be like that. Even if people wouldn't mind, I just can't. I'm more comfortable doing a little networking and reaching out to people that way.
So why not a cycling podcast?
If I had told a room of 100 people I was going to start a podcast, at least 90 would have assumed it would be a cycling podcast. That's why I've tried so hard to not talk about cycling.
I touch on it briefly in some of the intros but I'm not going to go back and get into that.
The goal is for listeners to think, "I have no idea who this guy will have on next." And we definitely have some cool ones coming up.
I appreciate that you don't try to shoehorn a theme into your podcasts. You just have a conversation with smart people.
I don't have an agenda. I tell people I'm not out embarrass anyone, to be a jerk, to play "gotcha..." I've lived a public life for 25 years. I get it.
I also tell them that if there's something they don't want to talk about, just tell me. And even if they don't say anything is off limits, for me some stuff is because I'm just not interested. With Seal, he said we could talk about anything. But at the beginning of the podcast I say, "If you came here to hear about Heidi Klum, stop listening."
I'm not going to get into anybody's kitchen. Plus I'd just rather the conversation goes to a place the guest wants to go. People are always more interesting when they talk about the things they're really into.
So do you get nervous before you release each episode? I would.
I'm more nervous before we record them. I get super nervous. I'm not projectile sweating or anything, but I'm definitely nervous. But I'm glad I get nervous: if you're excited about something and you want it to be a good product, you should be nervous because that means you care.
As for the response, I went into it thinking that if we put something out and two people listened to it... well, that would suck. But after eight weeks the numbers are way better than I thought they would be.
As long as I continue to get good guests and engage with them, hopefully it will continue to grow.
When you open each podcast you mention WEDU. Tell me about that.
I'm building a new endurance platform called WEDUSport. That will be the over-arching brand.
"WEDU" is actually the answer to a question. Say there's a marathon in 95-degree weather... tons of people are going to look at that and say, "Who would want to do that?"
Go to the start line and there are thousands of people who would answer, "We do."
That's the idea behind the name. To many people, endurance events have this element of crazy to them. Who would want to do that?
Well, "we do." So, WEDU.
Few successful people are patient, but you're clearly taking this slowly.
I'm kicking around a lot of things. I've just had to wait. I'm not patient... but I'm not dumb.
But yeah, it's no secret the podcast the first step in moving forward.
You don't get to the level you achieved without enjoying suffering. Tell me what you get from that.
The WEDU deck runs through the entire brand, the attitude, the heartbeat... and the most important word in all those pages is "suffer." There's no word that's even a close second to "suffer." That's it.
Athletically, I crave that suffering. And sure, I've suffered in many other ways, and not anything I ever wanted or craved, but it happened.
Suffering is a common theme for everyone. Even on the podcast it comes up. Seal clearly suffered. Ryan Bingham was homeless; he didn't want to be there. But he was. It's a hard story but he worked his way through it.
There's power in suffering. What you learn about yourself not only carries you through tough times but also gives you the confidence to know you can do more than you imagine.
Endurance is what gets you through. Endurance is how you last. Endurance is how you keep from breaking down --- not in a marathon, but in life.
I'm definitely not looking for sympathy, but living the last four years of my life and not being curled up in the fetal position...
I wanted to be a big boy about it. I thought, "This is coming, this is coming hard, and I deserve it... so I'm going to stand here and take it and take it and take it until it stops."
And when it stops I'll find something else to do. I'll move forward.
What do you miss most about professional cycling?
What I loved the most about being a pro cyclist was the process. Standing on the podium was great, but what I really loved was the process of getting to the point where you could stand on that top step. It's the hours you were alone and suffering and working it out.
That's what is behind our slogan, "Solidarity for the solitary." It's for people that do this stuff because they love the process.
People who enjoy endurance events are really into the process. They're thinking, they're talking, they're training, they're working all that stuff out so they can perform the way they want to perform, whatever that means to them.
You're no longer involved with Livestrong but you still are active in cancer philanthropy. Tell me about you and Anna's work for Wapiyapi.
For me, it's kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from Livestrong.
Wapiyapi is a small, Colorado-based summer camp for kids with cancer and their siblings. The staff is one full-time person; everyone else is a volunteer. For three weeks they rent a church retreat and hundreds of campers come for free.
Anna was originally a camp counselor and served on their board. It's near and dear to her heart. Every year we do a ride in the morning and a blowout dinner at night. We generate a decent percentage of their annual budget because the people that attend are crazy generous and donate cool auction items.
On the charitable side, that's really all I do other than personal outreach. In Livestrong's eyes I don't think I will ever be welcomed back, and I don't think I would want to go back. I think the way it was all handled was a mistake. I think they do great work, but we're probably not right together and I'm fine with that. I raised half a billion dollars at one time... but it's every bit as gratifying to help out on a much smaller scale.
That's the cool thing about this new project. It's a place where people will be able to improve and be better and stronger and more effective, and the effect of that spills over from endurance sports to impact other aspects of people's lives... so in many ways it also feels like a mission of doing good.
Whether you're raising money or calling people to offer support or helping out whatever cause you feel strongly about, helping people is helping people... and that always feels good.
The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com.
Hillary Clinton with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the backgroundSaeed Khan / AFP / Getty Images
SAN FRANCISCO '-- Russian hackers used emails disguised to look as Gmail security updates to hack into the computers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and members of Hillary Clinton's top campaign staff, according to a report by the SecureWorks cybersecurity company.
The emails, which were sent to DNC and Clinton staff from March 10, appeared almost identical to the standard warnings Gmail users get asking them to reset their passwords, the report found. Once clicked, the links took users to a page that imitated a Google login page, but which was stealing their password information '-- and downloading malware '-- designed by a group of Russian hackers known as Fancy Bear.
The emails were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign and 20 people clicked on them, at least four people clicking more than once, Secureworks' research found. The emails were sent to another 16 people from the DNC and four people clicked on them, the report said.
Researchers found the emails by tracing the malicious URLs set up by Fancy Bear using Bitly, a link shortening service. Fancy Bear had set the URL they sent out to read accounts-google.com, rather than the official Google URL, accounts.google.com, the report said.
''We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time,'' said Phil Burdette, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, explaining how they stumbled upon the the URLs set up by Fancy Bear.
''They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google,'' said Burdette, who added that unless a person was paying clear attention to the URL or noticed that the site was not HTTPS secure, they would likely not notice the difference.
Once Democratic Party officials entered their information into the fake Gmail page, Fancy Bear had access to not just their email accounts, but to the shared calendars, documents, and spreadsheets on their Google Drive. Among those targeted, said Burdette, were the Clinton's national political director, finance director, director of strategic communications, and press secretary. None of Clinton's staff responded to repeated requests for comment from BuzzFeed News.
CORRECTION
The hacks targeted the Democratic National Committee. A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the Democratic National Convention as the target.
Russia Today bank accounts 'frozen in UK' - BBC News
The UK has frozen all bank accounts owned by Russia's state-run broadcaster, Russia Today (RT), its editor-in-chief has claimed.
Margarita Simonyan tweeted: "They've closed our accounts in Britain. All our accounts. 'The decision is not subject to review.' Praise be to freedom of speech!"
RT has previously been sanctioned by Ofcom for biased reporting on the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.
India, Russia agree to build world's costliest gas pipeline worth $ 25 billion
Panaji: India and Russia have agreed to explore building the world's most expensive pipeline costing close to USD 25 billion to ferry natural gas from Siberia to the world's third biggest energy consuming nation.
The pipeline is to connect Russian gas grid to India through a 4,500 km to 6,000 km pipeline, officials said.
The shortest route will entail bringing the pipeline through Himalayas into Northern India, a route which poses several technical challenges.
Alternately, the pipeline can come via Central Asian nations, Iran and Pakistan into Western India. However, the route will be expensive when compared to the long discussed but shorter and cheaper Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. Tehran may suggest India take its gas through IPI rather than building such an expensive pipeline, they said.
The third and the longest alternative is to lay a pipeline through China and Myanmar into North East India bypassing Bangladesh.
According to preliminary cost estimate prepared by state-owned Engineers India Ltd, which yesterday signed an agreement with Russian gas monopoly Gazprom for studying the Russia-India pipeline, the longest route of 6,000 km may cost close to USD 25 billion.
The cost of transporting gas may be USD 12 per million British thermal unit, according to EIL.
The MoU signed in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the India-Russia Annual Summit on sidelines of the 8th BRICS Summit here, also envisages roping in ONGC Videsh Ltd, gas utility GAIL India Ltd and Petronet LNG Ltd for the study.
Sources said natural gas produced in East Siberian fields is to be pumped into Russian gas grid which would be connected to India through the cross-country pipeline network.
While the cost of transporting gas via the long discussed IPI pipeline is less than USD 1 per mmBtu, the same for the Turkeministan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is around USD 2 per mmBtu.
According to industry experts, a realistic transportation cost would be USD 4 per mmBtu for the Russia-India gas pipeline. This excludes the transit fee to be paid to nations through which the pipeline will pass.
Russia is seeking to expand energy ties in Asia amid tensions with the West sparked by Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Indian companies have snapped up stakes in production assets in Siberian fields.
The MoU is being seen as an attempt to strengthen ties between the world's largest oil producer and the world's fastest growing fuel consumer.
Royal Air Force Pilots Ordered To Shoot Down "Hostile" Russian Jets Over Syria | Zero Hedge
As the US officially enters the Yemen military campaign, the UK appears ready and willing to precipiate a catalytic event from which there is no going back. With relations between Russia and the West at post-Cold War lows and deteriorating fast, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war, according to the Sunday Times.
While the RAF's Tornado pilots have been instructed to avoid contact with Russian aircraft while engaged in missions for Operation Shader, the codename for the RAF's anti-Isis work in Iraq and Syria, their aircraft have been armed with air-to-air missiles and the pilots have been given the green light to defend themselves if they are threatened by Russian pilots.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur '-- you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
Where things get tricky is the qualifier "if he believes he is about to be fired on" - since this makes open engagement a function of threat evaluation in real time during stressed conditions, the likelihood of an escalation that could result in two warplanes shooting at each other, just jumped significantly.
The RAF Tornados aircraft will be armed with heat-seeking Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Asraams, also called AIM-132 missiles), the IBT adds. These weapons, which cost £200,000 each, have a longer range than other air-to-air missiles, allowing RAF pilots to shoot down enemy aircraft without being targeted themselves.
Providing cover to the largely underreported, if substantial escalation, according to the Sunday Times report an appraisal carried out by UK defence officials said: "It took six days for Russia to strike any Isis targets at all. Their air strikes have included moderate opposition groups who have been fighting to defend their areas from Isis. Among the targets hit were three field hospitals." In the past 24 hours Russia's Defence Ministry said that it has continued its air strikes on IS positions in Hama, Idlib, Latakia and Raqqa. It reported that the attacks resulted in the "complete destruction" of "53 fortified areas and strong points with armament and military hardware", seven ammunition depots, four field camps of "terrorists", one command centre, and artillery and mortar batteries.
Russia has countered that US airstrikes have failed to make much of an impact on ISIS targets, and as reported last month, a "mistaken" strike by the US coalition forces killed over 60 Syrian soldiers in a move Russia accused of being a provocation to war.
The Sunday Times' report quoted a defence source as saying: "Up till now RAF Tornados have been equipped with 500lb satellite-guided bombs '-- there has been no or little air-to-air threat. But in the last week the situation has changed. We need to respond accordingly."
But another source of the original story summarized the severity of the situation best when he said that "we need to protect our pilots but at the same time we're taking a step closer to war. It will only take one plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape will change."
Google TranslateHTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:18:38 GMT Expires: Fri, 01 Jan 1990 00:00:00 GMT Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate X-Frame-Options: DENY Pragma: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff Content-Encoding: gzip Server: HTTP server (unknown) X-XSS-Protection: 1; mode=block Alt-Svc: quic=":443"; ma=2592000; v="36,35,34" Transfer-Encoding: chunked
My AccountSearchMapsYouTubePlayNewsGmailDriveCalendarGoogle+TranslatePhotosMoreShoppingWalletFinanceDocsBooksBloggerContactsHangoutsEven more from GoogleTranslateFrom:
To:
White Helmets: an Islamist propagandist group and funded arm of U.S. government - Cheri Berens
White Helmets / Syrian Civil Defense'One of the largest sources of propaganda promoting "intervention" in Syria has come from the White Helmets. They have recently changed their name to the ''Syrian Civil Defense'' because investigative reporters have begun to combat the White Helmet's propaganda by exposing them for who they are -- members of the Islamist opposition groups. The White Helmets were not created by Syrian nationals, nor does the White Helmets serve the interests of the Syrian state, or the Syrian people. The White Helmets were created by a collaboration of Islamists inside the US and UK in 2013.
Background
The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood formed the "Free Syrian Army" in 2011. In 2013, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was being driven out of Egypt after a failed attempt to force Islamic Law on the Egyptian people. After their expulsion, the Egyptian Brotherhood then rallied with the Syrian Brotherhood to intensify the removal of the Syrian government in order to replace it with an Islamic one. At the time, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood were also working closely with al-Qaeda in Iraq with a future goal of forming an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. (1)
'The "Free Syrian Army" started out with two primary brigades: the Farouq and the Khalid ibn Walid. The Khalid ibn Walid brigade was funded and armed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The Farouq brigade consisted of Salafists (Saudi Arabian Wahhabists), who were armed and funded by Saudi Arabia and were affiliates of al-Qaeda. From the beginning, the "Free Syrian Army" and al-Qaeda worked together in many of their attacks on civilians in their attempt to take control of Syria. (2)
But, in 2013, the Syrian Armed Forces were winning the battle against the Islamist takeover, and in order to reverse this, the Islamists needed an "intervention" that would assist and support their Islamist armies inside Syria.
Enter the US, UK and George Soros The Free Syrian Army's Farouq brigade was extremely knowledgeable regarding media and social networking. The group already had experts who produced dramatized videos for the television networks of Qatar (al-Jazeera) and Saudi Arabia (al-Arabiya). Hence, from these already experienced creators of "documentary-style" propaganda films, came another outlet of propaganda: The White Helmets. Muslim Brotherhood groups in the UK, the US, and a Syrian 'opposition' group called the "Syrian National Council", a Syrian Muslim Brotherhood group, were all involved in the start up process of the White Helmets. Then, immediately following its creation, $13 million dollars was given to the White Helmets, part of which came from a non-governmental organization (NGO) tied to George Soros. The White Helmets have been repeatedly linked to George Soros through a public relations firm named Purpose Inc., an organization that promotes Western intervention in Syria. The co-founder of Purpose, Jeremy Heimans, also founded Avaaz, another anti-Syria, pro-Islamist group connected to George Soros, and also connected to MoveOn.org (an organization that helps finance Black Lives Matter and the Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood group).
Another major contributor to the White Helmets has been the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID donated $16 million to the White Helmets (3).
In addition to the $13 million given by Soros, and the $16 million given by USAID, the White Helmets also received an additional $23 million dollars from the U.S. State Department (using USAID as a middleman). This was confirmed by State Department Spokesman Mark Toner, on April 27, 2016. (4) Though the White Helmet's website claims they are a non-governmental organization (NGO), this in untrue. Three NATO "governments" have funded the White Helmets. The US government has given $23 million dollars; the UK government $29 million; and the Belgium government has given $4.5 million. That's $ 56.5 million dollars just from those three governments alone, but there has been much speculation that other EU "governments" have also participated in funding the White Helmets. (5)
It is no coincidence that the US State Department began calling for Western intervention in Syria at the exact same time as the White Helmets propaganda began. The White Helmets propaganda campaign made false accusations that gave the U.S. "cause" to support Western intervention in Syria.
The ''rescue workers'' you see in the propaganda videos are only filmed in ''opposition held'' neighborhoods, primarily al-Qaeda and Free Syrian Army held neighborhoods. Give that careful thought.
Why do the White Helmets never show up to "rescue" people in any areas being hit by "opposition" groups?
There are more than 20 "opposition" armies fighting for an Islamist takeover in Syria. They hit civilians neighborhoods every single day. Yet not once have the White Helmets ever shown up to rescue anyone in those areas hit by any opposition group.
FACT: The White Helmets only conduct "rescues" in opposition-held neighborhoods where the opposition has total control -- and where opposition members live and reside.
FACT: Opposition-held neighborhoods have few, if any, civilians living in these neighborhoods because civilians evacuated when they were first being targeted by the Islamist opposition groups. All of the opposition groups immediately enforce Islamic Law when they take a neighborhood. Most Syrians do not want to live under Islamic Law and they leave as soon as it appears their neighborhood is being taken.
FACT: Together, the Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda in Syria (aka al-Nusra), have conducted many massacres of civilians throughout Syria (6) and have targeted many civilian neighborhoods of Damascus and Aleppo with barrel bombing and rocket fire until neighborhoods are completely demolished.
So, why have the White Helmets never, not once, shown up anywhere except areas in which have already been demolished, and where there is no civilian population?
The photos you see of blown out, rubble-ridden neighborhoods, are neighborhoods that were vacated years ago. These areas are perfect places to stage White Helmet "dramatizations".
Additionally, you will rarely see a woman in any of their films because the White Helmets are members of the opposition. Islamists do not like to have their women filmed; you will only occasionally see a woman--and she is always wearing full Islamic garb.
In a real bombing in a real civilian neighborhood, there are many women. And Syrian women are always with their children -- it is an integral part of the Syrian culture. To be uncovering all of these children without any mothers either close by or right next to them, is absurd.
So ask yourself, why is it you are always shown children being rescued out of the rubble? And why is it that every photo of rescued children looks almost identical? Are these "by-chance" cell phone photos and videos, hurriedly taken after an alleged bombing really being taken at real incidents? If so, why do they all look alike--rescuers running towards the camera? These photos are supposedly occurring on different days, different months, even different years--yet they always look the same! These propaganda films primarily use children knowing that you will feel so much compassion that you will forget to use logic and intellect when seeing them. Many White Helmet "rescue" workers have been filmed socializing with opposition members, primarily al-Qaeda in Syria (aka al-Nusra), but also the "Free Syrian Army". They are seen celebrating "wins" with other opposition members, and even participating in executions. Why would they participate in executions? They have even been filmed waving the al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) flag.
The White Helmets are members of the opposition -- terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army.
The White Helmets use their own children for their dramatized photos and videos, and occasionally, their wives (see photos below). The Islamist opposition groups behave exactly like ISIS in that they have never allowed any humanitarian aid of any kind to enter their occupied areas. They never allow in ambulances, medical aid, not even medicine, once they take and occupy a neighborhood. They have never allowed "rescue" workers to enter the neighborhoods they occupy. The White Helmets / Syrian Civil Defense serves as a tool for Western governments to feed their media with false information. By misrepresenting the group as "impartial activists" or as a "humanitarian organization", the media thereby uses them as a reliable "source" to propagandize the western public into believing there is a reason to back the Islamist groups -- the "opposition". And to take down the current secular, democratic government, and replace it with an Islamic one.
~~~~~ Photos below:The same photo is used in February 2015 and then again eight months later in October of 2015, each time after an "alleged" bombing just took place. This is a common tactic of the White Helmets: using the same photos over and over. A White Helmet "rescuer" who is also a member of al-Qaeda. And another White Helmet member who is seen waving an al-Nusra (al-Qaeda) flag in celebration of a recent takeover of a neighborhood. Photos of children being used for the dramatized films:'One is getting her makeup applied; another photo shows dead chickens in which the "blood" will be used for the child's fake death; another with his mother faking injury (and then proudly holding a photo of themselves faking the injury).
For even more photos showing almost identical shots of "rescues" and other evidence: CLICK HERE
The Democrats' Joe McCarthy Moment '' Consortiumnews
Exclusive: To shield Hillary Clinton from criticism of her Wall Street speeches, the Democrats are engaging in a new McCarthyism for the New Cold War, suggesting that Donald Trump is in league with the Russians, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
My first book, Fooling America, examined Washington's excited ''conventional wisdom'' around the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91 when nearly the entire political-punditry elite was thrilled about bombing the heck out of Iraq, inflicting heavy civilian casualties in Baghdad and slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers as they fled from Kuwait.
Ironically, one of the few dissenters from this war lust was right-wing commentator Robert Novak, who actually did some quality reporting on how President George H.W. Bush rejected repeated peace overtures because he wanted a successful ground war as a way to instill a new joy of war among the American people.
Sen. Joe McCarthy with lawyer Roy Cohn (right).
Bush recognized that a brief, victorious ground war would '' in his words '' ''kick the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all,'' i.e. get Americans to forget their revulsion about foreign wars, a hangover from the bloody defeat in Vietnam.
So Novak, the anti-communist hardliner who often had baited other pundits for their ''softness'' toward ''commies,'' became on this occasion a naysayer who wanted to give peace a chance. But that meant Novak was baited on ''The Capital Gang'' chat show for his war doubts.
To my surprise, one of the most aggressive enforcers of the pro-war ''group think'' was Wall Street Journal Washington bureau chief Al Hunt, who had often been one of the more thoughtful, less warmongering voices on the program. Hunt dubbed Novak ''Neville Novak,'' suggesting that Novak's interest in avoiding war in the Middle East was on par with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II.
Months later when I interviewed Hunt about his mocking of Novak's anti-war softness, Hunt justified his ''Neville Novak'' line as a fitting rejoinder for all the times Novak had baited opponents for their softness against communism. ''After years of battling Novak from the left, to have gotten to his right, I enjoyed that,'' Hunt said.
At the time, I found this tit-for-tat, hah-hah gotcha behavior among Washington's armchair warriors troubling because it ignored the terrible suffering of people in various countries at the receiving end of American military might, such as the Iraqi civilians including women and children who were burned alive when a U.S. bomb penetrated a Baghdad bomb shelter, as well as the young Iraqi soldiers incinerated in their vehicles as they fled the battlefield.
In the 100-hour ground war, U.S. casualties were relatively light, 147 killed in combat and another 236 killed in accidents or from other causes. ''Small losses as military statistics go,'' Gen. Colin Powell wrote later, ''but a tragedy for each family.'' In Official Washington, however, the dead were a small price to pay for a ''feel-good'' war that let President Bush vanquish the psychological ghosts of the Vietnam War.
I also had the sickening sense that this ''popular'' war '' celebrated with victory parades and lavish firework displays '' was setting the stage for more horrors in the future. Already, neoconservative pundits, such as The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer, were demanding that U.S. forces must go all the way to Baghdad and ''finish the job'' by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. A dangerous hubris was taking hold in Washington.
As we have seen in the decades since, the euphoria over the Persian Gulf victory did feed into the imperial arrogance that contributed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that moment, when the neocons in George W. Bush's administration were concocting excuses for finally marching to Baghdad, there were almost no voices among the big-shot commentators who dared repeat Robert Novak's ''mistake'' of 1991.
Playing Joe McCarthy
I mention all this now because we are seeing something similar with the Democrats as they lead the charge into a dangerous New Cold War with Russia. The Democrats, who bore the brunt of the Red-baiting during the earlier Cold War, are now playing the roles of Senators Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon in smearing anyone who won't join in the Russia-bashing as ''stooges,'' ''traitors'' and ''useful idiots.''
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
When Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has one of his few lucid moments and suggests that the U.S. should cooperate with Russia rather than provoke more confrontations, he is denounced from many political quarters. But the attacks are most feverish from Democrats looking to give Hillary Clinton a boost politically and a diversionary excuse for her Wall Street speeches that she tried so hard to keep hidden until they were released by WikiLeaks from hacked emails of her longtime adviser John Podesta.
The Obama administration's intelligence community has claimed, without presenting evidence, that Russian intelligence was behind the Democratic Party hacks as a way to influence the U.S. election, a somewhat ironic charge given the long history of the U.S. government engaging in much more aggressive actions to block the election of disfavored politicians abroad and even to overthrow democratically elected leaders who got in Washington's way.
Rather than seeking to explain Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street bigwigs and other special interests, Podesta and other Democrats have simply piled on the Russia-bashing with suggestions that Trump is consorting with America's enemies.
While the Democrats may consider this strategy very clever '' a kind of karmic payback for the Republican red-baiting of Democrats during the Cold War '' it carries even greater dangers than Al Hunt's putting down Robert Novak for trying to save lives in the Persian Gulf War.
By whipping up a new set of whipping boys '' the ''evil'' Russians and their ''ultra-evil'' leader Vladimir Putin '' the Democrats are setting in motion passions that could spin out of control and cause a President Hillary Clinton to push the two nuclear powers into a crisis that '' with a simple misjudgment on the part of either nation '' could end life on the planet.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Hayden calls Russian email hack 'honorable state espionage' -- FCW
Hayden calls Russian email hack 'honorable state espionage'By Matt LeonardOct 18, 2016 Former spymaster Gen. Michael Hayden (Ret.) said that attempts by rivals to hacks into political targets was all in the game of nation-state espionage.
Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency, thinks Russia's actions involving a Democratic party email leak were fair play.
''I have to admit my definition of what the Russians did is, unfortunately, honorable state espionage,'' Hayden, now a principal at the Chertoff Group, told an Oct. 18 audience at The Heritage Foundation. ''A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. I would not want to be in an American court of law and be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the NSA.''
The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement earlier this month that condemned Russia for the attacks. "These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process," the statement asserted. "We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.''
It could be argued Russia has gone beyond espionage and has mounted an influence campaign targeting the presidential race. But Hayden said that's not how he sees it.
''I think they're doing it to mess with our heads, to erode confidence in our political process,'' he said of Russia. ''I think they're doing it because [Putin is] convinced we do this to him all the time. We don't.''
His suggestion for dealing with the cyberthreat from Russia is to contextualize it within the broader conversation of foreign policy.
''Do not drop this in the cyber problem box, drop this in the Russia problem box,'' Hayden suggested, saying the focus should be on the actor, not the means. ''And by the way, that Russian problem box needs a bigger box, there's a lot of stuff going on.''
Hayden also spoke about the relationship between the public and private sector with regards to cybersecurity. It's a space where private industry is and should continue to lead the way, he said. His advice for the next administration was simple: Get out of the way.
Though there are aspects of cybersecurity that only government can handle, most of it will be driven by the private industry, Hayden said. Government can help the private sector by getting out of the way -- removing liability, enabling legal protections, sharing information and redoing the classification system.
And since the government too depends on the private sector for security innovation, Hayden said he sides with Apple regarding whether the company should have to create a back door for the FBI to bypass iPhone encryption.
''One needs to be careful about how hard we make Tim Cook's life,'' he said. Government needs to use private-sector encryption, and putting in a back door will only make the technology less secure, he said.
Hayden argued against the notion that stronger encryption would keep important information from the intelligence community. The cellphone he pulled from his pocket, Hayden said, is always creating ''digital exhaust. ... If one's clever, it does create actionable intelligence.''
This article first appeared on GCN, a sister site to FCW.
Elections 2016
Hillary Fixer Breaks Ranks: I Arranged Sex Trysts For Her '-- With Men & WOMEN | National Enquirer
Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps with both men AND women!
That's the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell 9-page cover story '-- on newsstands Wednesday.
''I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel,'' the man, who was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to cover up their scandals, told The ENQUIRER.
PHOTOS: Revenge! Donald Trump Fighting Back Against Hillary Clinton's Smear Campaign
''She had come to the studio to see the filming of a movie in 1994.''
''While I was there, I helped her slip out of a back exit for a one-on-one session with the other woman. It was made to look casual, leaving quietly [rather] that being caught up in the melee '... but really it was for something presumably more sordid.''
What's more, it wasn't just Hillary's flings with women that the shadowy Mr. Fix It helped to orchestrate!
PHOTOS: Hillary's Lies EXPOSED! Clinton's Top 5 Debate Whoppers
Hillary's former bagman finally confessed to The ENQUIRER just how he helped her to cover up her affair with married lover VinceFoster, too!
The shadowy figure '-- who provided PROOF of his employment for the Clintons '-- also revealed 12 fixes he covered-up, including:
+ How Hillary secretly plotted to a counter-attack on Bill's mistress MonicaLewinsky '-- via a document buried for two decades!
PHOTOS: Leaked Emails Detail Hillary Clinton's Desperate Health Crisis Cover-Ups
+ What crooked reporters were on the take from the Clinton camp!
+ How he covered up Bill's seedy romp with hookers!
+ Which A-list celebrity had a secret affair with Bill during his presidency!
PHOTOS: Crooked Hillary's Lies EXPOSED! Clinton's 13 Most Infamous Scandals '-- So Far
In the bombshell expos(C), The ENQUIRER will reveal the fixer's dossier of smoking gun proof, including 24-years of documents, notes, and journals.
He also tells his ''Confessions of a Clinton bagman!'' story '-- in his own words '-- for the very first time!
Obvious truth: When Donald Trump loses the presidential election, he will start his own Trump TV network.
Educated guess: Trump TV will fail.
We know that Trump and his enablers have been kicking around the idea of a Trump network since June, because that's when Vanity Fair first reported it. Today, the Financial Times says media banker Aryeh Bourkoff had a "brief" conversation with Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, about the notion.
We also know that Trump will try to launch a Trump TV network after the election because it's a blindingly obvious thing for him to try. He has generated huge ratings and audiences for TV networks and digital publishers, but hasn't been able to capitalize on it directly for himself.
In November, he'll get his chance. But Trump will find that running his own celebrity-branded media company is as hard as getting elected.
Let's start with logistics: Trump is a TV creature, but he's not going to be able to launch an actual TV network. Not for some time, at least.
Read More from Recode:The iPhone 7's missing headphone jack has turned out just fineGet inside Donald Trump's brain with the man who first called him a 'short-fingered vulgarian'Mossberg: Why does Siri seem so dumb?
In order for Trump to get his hands on a TV network, he would have to find someone to sell him one, find the cash to buy it and then convince pay-TV distributors to carry it.
All of these things are doable, but hard. Even in 2016, cable TV channels with full distribution, or even close to it, are valuable commodities, and the programmers that own them want to get maximum value for them.
Al Jazeera overpaid dramatically when it spent $500 million to buy Al Gore's Current TV in 2013, but Trump would still need to find a good chunk of that to buy a TV network today.
And owning a network doesn't mean that network will get distributed: As soon as Al Jazeera owned Current TV, it found that big cable distributors like Time Warner Cable no longer wanted to carry it.
At the very least, changing the format of a TV network gives pay TV distributors the chance to renegotiate their contracts, as A&E and Vice found out when they rebranded the H2 Network as Viceland, and AT&T/DirecTV took months to sign on to the deal.
The men who run the country's biggest TV distributors aren't likely to hold up a Trump TV deal solely because they find Trump odious '-- they're in the business of giving TV watchers what they want.
But even if they wanted to fast-track a deal, it could take months, and some of them may want to drag their feet for more than that.
In the meantime, Trump could easily launch a digital network, fueled by subscription sales.
Recode contributor Max Benator laid out the bull case for that strategy last week. Here's the short version: The technology to get a video subscription service up and running is now easy to master, and Trump has a large base of potential subscribers to convert. If he gets a sliver of them, it's a real business, as Glenn Beck once proved with his Blaze network.
The problem with the Glenn Beck model is that it's a model. So far, no one has been able to come close to reproducing the success Beck had at his height, when he claimed that 300,000 people were paying him $10 a month to watch him.
Sarah Palin tried and failed. Howard Stern could have tried it but chose to stick with a guaranteed paycheck from Sirus XM.
Turns out that there's a very small pool of people who can, or want to, work daily to create a product even dedicated fans will pay for. Just being a talented entertainer isn't enough '-- you have to be one who can generate at least a couple of hours of new stuff every day, to keep people coming back for more.
It requires both creativity and willingness to grind things out, day after day '-- and that's very different from dropping in for a few hours to film a reality show or popping up onstage where a crowd of fans can temporarily fuel you.
Trump BFF Sean Hannity, who had an extensive background in radio before he broke big on Fox, has a much better shot of making this work (Beck had the same resume). But Trump can't hope to start a network with his name and then substitute other celebrities for himself: He's going to have to do the work, and he's going to have to show up.
Oprah Winfrey learned the same lessons when she started her own TV network a few years ago but didn't want to spend much time on camera herself. Eventually, she relented.
And even Glenn Beck's plan no longer works for Glenn Beck '-- his audience, revenue and workforce have all shrunk dramatically in the last six years. And that's without losing a national election and the energy the Trump campaign created.
Trump spent more than a year defying every other rational prediction, so it's possible he'll over-perform here and suddenly become a diligent entrepreneur and businessman who's willing to do the hard work it takes to get a new business off the ground and sustainable.
But running a network isn't the same as showing up on a network, and Trump is going to learn the difference.
Naked statue of Hillary Clinton sparks fight in Manhattan - NY Daily News
An artist erected an obscene statue of Hillary Clinton in downtown Manhattan Tuesday morning causing a heated fight between defenders of the profane piece of protest art and women trying to tear it down.
The grotesque caricature of the Democratic candidate appeared outside the Bowling Green station during morning rush hour on Tuesday and shows Clinton with hoofed feet and a Wall Street banker resting his head on her bare breasts.
The statue was up for less than three hours before an enraged woman toppled it over and started yelling at the statue's creator.
''This is obscene!'' shouted Nancy, an employee at the nearby National Museum of the American Indian who would only identify herself by her first name.
Las Vegas gun store runs ad for 'Pre-Hillary Sale' on rifles
''To put something up like this in front of my work place...I shouldn't have to see this,'' she later told the Daily News, fighting back tears as she gestured toward the crude figure.
Video of the dispute shows the museum worker struggling with the artist who erected the statue, who identified himself as 27-year-old Anthony Scioli, as he tried to prop the structure back up. At one point during the tussle, the woman sits down on the statue to prevent Scioli from picking it back up.
84 photos view gallery
New York Daily News front pages on the presidential electionA woman in a hijab steps in to help Nancy and stomps her foot on the statue's face, yelling at Scioli: "Don't! Leave it alone!"
A small crowd of morning commuters hovered around the scene with their phones out, some of whom started hurling insults and picking sides in the debate over the statue.
Hillary Clinton campaign considered Bill, Melinda Gates for VP
''This lady shows up and tips it over and starts assaulting anyone who tried to put it back up!,'' Gene H., 39, an IT worker, told the News, citing his belief in freedom of speech as a reason the statue should stay up.
Around 8:30 a.m. officers with the counterterrorism unit arrived to the scene and ordered Scioli to take the statue down because he failed to get a permit for the demonstration.
A sign on the statue credited Mini Master and Boogie Night Production with its creation and witnesses said it went up sometime before 6 a.m.
In August, an unrelated anarchist collective called INDECLINE, put up a naked statue of Donald Trump in Union Square. The political group also erected statues of the GOP nominee in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cleveland and Seattle.
Lin-Manuel Miranda, more turn out for Broadway for Hillary
Tags:hillary clinton2016 electiondonald trumpSend a Letter to the EditorJoin the Conversation:facebookTweet
Ex-CIA operative, devout Mormon and conservative third-party presidential candidate Evan McMullin has swung into a statistical dead heat with Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton in the once-uncontested GOP bastion of Utah. For a candidate who only declared in early August and boasts only 52% name recognition in Utah it's an impressive result '' that couldupset the national electoral map.
But this result is due to more than just McMullin's unconventional appeal (and the fact that he isn't named Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton). Indeed, much of his financial backing comes courtesy of some very familiar GOP names and faces. This may be why so many Republicans are very comfortable backing McMullin. For all his various conservative upsides and (untested) potential, McMullin represents a triumph for the principled Never Trump movement.
Never Trump was born of the efforts of staunch GOP operators including Erick Erickson, Bill Wichterman, Alex Castellanos, Bob Fischer, a laundry list of understandably anti-Trump members of the Bush, Romney, Paul, and Kaisch camps, and unaffiliated establishment stalwarts. Some founded PACs producing negative Trump ads during the primaries. The more industrious attempted to head off Trump's coronation at the convention stage through a unity ticket or other rules-based strategic moves. Those efforts failed.
As the behind-the-scenes coup melted, the movement splintered with some players gravitating toward Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a few sliding into Hillary's camp, others focusing on down-ticket races, and even more opting to sit on their hands for the rest of the cycle.
But two notable conservative groups still fighting the good fight as July turned into August were Our Principles, a former Rubio funder backed by hedge funders and run by a Romney's deputy campaign manager, and Better for America, a 501(c) run by John Kingston, one of Romney's major bundlers. Our Principles mission was simply to thwart Trump. Better for America actually wanted to replace him.
With no candidate in hand, Better for America began petitioning to have a yet-unnamed independent candidate listed on various ballots across the country even before the convention. With the support and direction of GOP establishment figures such as Lawrence Lessig, Christine Todd Whittman, the professor emeritus of the neoconservative movement, the highly respected columnist Bill Kristol, attempted to draft Romney, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and even National Review staff writer David A. French to fill the gap. They all declined.
Somewhere along the line, however, other GOP operatives were more successful, and former CIA field agent Evan McMullin, a former advisor to the House Republican Conference and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, fell into the mix. With no options available in early August, he was Better for America's man and soon fighting fights his team '' apparently correctly '' thought he could win (hence the big spend in Utah).
So there you have it: An outsider candidate propped up by the some of the most reliably conservative members of the Republican party.
Soros-Connected Company Provides Voting Machines In 16 States | The Daily Caller
Smartmatic, a U.K.-based voting technology company with deep ties to George Soros, has control over voting machines in 16 states including battleground zones like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Other jurisdictions affected are California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin.
Its website includes a flow-chart that describes how the company has contributed to elections in the U.S. from 2006-2015 with ''57,000 voting and counting machines deployed'' and ''35 million voters assisted.''
In 2005, Smartmatic bought-out California-based Sequoia Voting Systems and entered the world of U.S. elections.
According to Smarmatic's website, ''In less than one year Smartmatic tripled Sequoia's market share'' and ''has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States.''
Among the ''case studies'' that Smartmatic lists on its website as examples of its work are Venezuela, where it has been facilitating elections since 2004 when it ''won a bid to provide Venezuela with a reliable voting system.''
It also lists Cook County, Illinois as another success story, when in ''in 2006, Smartmatic signed what at the moment was the largest election automation contract in US history.'' Cook County includes Chicago and its suburbs, a geographic zone that has historically and lately been subject to criticism for voter fraud.The chairman of Smartmatic is Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, who sits in the British House of Lords and on the board of George Soros's Open Society Foundations. He was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros's Investment Funds and even the deputy secretary-general of the United Nations when he worked as chief of staff to Kofi Annan.
Malloch-Brown's resume includes stints as vice-president of the UN World Bank and in British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's cabinet.
In addition to a close relationship with Soros, Malloch-Brown has worked with consulting firms that are well-connected to Bill and Hillary Clinton. He was an international partner with the Sawyer-Miller consulting firm and was a senior adviser to FTI Consulting.
One of Sawyer-Miller's alumni is Mandy Grunwald, who ran the firm's communication contract for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run. She was also the head of communications for Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.
Jackson Dunn, who is a senior managing director with FTI Consulting, spent 15 years in Washington where he worked as an aide to President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hilllary Clinton.
Smartmatic has already encountered controversy in the ongoing presidential contest. It ran the online balloting for the Utah Republican caucus last March, when many critics said it was impossible to secure personal electronic devices that are used to register and vote.
DHS warns holdout states on REAL ID deadlinesBy Mark RockwellOct 19, 2016DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson is reminding states that the deadlines for complying with the REAL ID Act are approaching fast.
The Department of Homeland Security is notifying some states that deadlines loom in the next two years for complying with the REAL ID Act.
Although many states have been granted exemptions to the ID rules, DHS has put several states on notice that in the coming months, residents without compliant documents could find it difficult to get into federal buildings, onto federal property and eventually onto commercial aircraft.
Under the act, which was passed in 2005, DHS is charged with establishing minimum security standards and states are tasked with issuing driver's licenses or other identification cards that incorporate anti-counterfeit and security technologies. States are also required to verify applicants' identities and conduct background checks on state employees involved in issuing driver's licenses.
Some states have objected to what they see as an unfunded mandate and federal interference with a state function, and they have passed laws barring their states' participation in the REAL ID Act.
Nevertheless, in an Oct. 8 speech at a meeting of the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said, "Slowly states have been getting on board."
He acknowledged that "there are a few that are not compliant yet" and added that he had recently told the governor of one of them that "January 2018 is it."
Starting Jan. 22, 2018, people with a driver's license issued by a state that is not compliant will have to show an alternative form of acceptable identification to board domestic flights. By October 2020, Americans must have a REAL ID-compliant driver's license to get onto federal installations or commercial flights. The stepped deadlines are designed to give states time to comply and help the public better understand the law, according to DHS.
The department has been reaching out to non-compliant states' departments of transportation in the past few days to notify them of the upcoming deadlines. The agency lists Kentucky, Maine, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina as non-compliant on its REAL ID "Current Status" webpage, which was updated on Oct. 14.
In 2012, Pennsylvania's state legislature passed Act 38 barring the governor and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation from participating in REAL ID. PennDOT officials said DHS notified the state that its residents "will face new restrictions gaining admittance to federal facilities in January because Pennsylvania's driver's licenses and IDs are not in full compliance with federal REAL ID requirements."
DHS announced in its Oct. 11 letter to PennDOT that it would not grant further extensions "unless there are new developments or information provided on why standards remain unmet and the reasons for continued noncompliance."
PennDOT Secretary Leslie Richards said in an Oct. 13 statement that effective Jan. 30, 2017, state residents would need "an alternative, secure form of identification to gain admittance to all federal facilities, military bases and nuclear power plants." The only exception would be access to federal facilities to apply for or receive federal benefits, she added.
DHS also told Pennsylvania officials that if the state does not come into compliance by Jan. 22, 2018 (or is not granted an extension), state residents would need to present an alternative form of identification acceptable to the Transportation Security Administration to board a commercial airline flight.
Even if the legislature agreed to lift the compliance ban, PennDOT officials said they would need time to make significant system changes to accommodate a REAL ID-compliant process.
The Oklahoma Department of Public Safety said it is currently operating under a grace period that ends Jan. 29, 2017. According to an update on the DPS website, DHS said on Oct. 11 that it had denied the state's request for more time to comply with the REAL ID Act.
"Starting Jan. 30, 2017, federal agencies are prohibited from accepting driver's licenses and identification cards issued by [non-compliant] states for official purposes," the DPS notice states, quoting DHS. "Oklahomans are strongly encouraged to plan ahead before visiting any federal building or facility."
About the Author
Mark Rockwell is a staff writer at FCW.
Before joining FCW, Rockwell was Washington correspondent for Government Security News, where he covered all aspects of homeland security from IT to detection dogs and border security. Over the last 25 years in Washington as a reporter, editor and correspondent, he has covered an increasingly wide array of high-tech issues for publications like Communications Week, Internet Week, Fiber Optics News, tele.com magazine and Wireless Week.
Rockwell received a Jesse H. Neal Award for his work covering telecommunications issues, and is a graduate of James Madison University.
Click here for previous articles by Rockwell. Contact him at mrockwell@fcw.com or follow him on Twitter at @MRockwell4.
NSA: Hackers find an easy path to U.S. systemsBy Sean D. CarberryOct 19, 2016For all the concern about zero-day exploits, a senior NSA official said that the high-profile hacks of U.S. networks in the last two years show there are far easier ways for cybercriminals to infiltrate government systems.
Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Oct. 18, Curtis Dukes, deputy national manager for national security systems at the NSA, said that none of the high-profile government hacks the NSA responded to -- Office of Personnel and Management, the White House, State Department, Department of Defense -- used zero-day exploits.
"Basically the adversary took advantage of poorly secured, poorly patched systems," said Dukes. "Once they had that initial foothold they the elevated privileges and then moved to mission objective," which ranged from stealing data to (in the case of the Sony hack) destroying it.
"We talk a lot about zero days, we talk about Shadow Brokers, things of that nature, but so far we haven't actually changed the equation for the adversary," said Dukes. "They still can easily attack us [and] achieve mission objective -- I want to actually raise the cost."
Dukes said that raising the cost means implementing a set of practices and protocols outlined in the NSA's Top 10 Mitigations publication. Dukes said that following those protocols, which include controlling administrative privileges, updating and patching software and application whitelisting, would make it more difficult for cyber criminals and force them to consider zero-day exploits, which he described as precious commodities that hackers use only on their most difficult targets.
In his talk, Dukes expanded on comments he recently made to FCW about the bureaucratic hurdles that NSA must jump when responding to a hack of a non-national security system.
NSA has authority over national security networks, but must be asked by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI through a Request for Technical Services in order to assist in investigations into breaches of other agencies.
"I just think by the time it's all orchestrated, you've lost valuable time in order to do defense at cyber speed in that regard and I think that's what we need to relook at as a nation," Dukes told FCW.
In his AEI remarks, Dukes said that "when we actually have to do incident response, and again if you look at the last 24 months we've done a fair amount of that ... it's typically days to a week before we can actually respond."
And by that point, Dukes said, the crime is over and it's difficult to determine if the adversary is still inside the system and what mitigation steps can be taken. Therefore, he said, the U.S. needs to revise its approach to cybercrime.
"Possibly even going so far as that we unite pieces of [DHS, FBI, and NSA] into one organization that does it on behalf of the whole of government," he said.
Dukes pointed to the U.K.'s new National Cyber Security Centre as an example of a single entity that responds to cybercrime against any government agency.
"It's one entity, they're in charge," said Dukes. "I think it's a model we need to look at, possibly explore how that best aligns with how we do cyberdefense on behalf of the nation."
About the Author
Sean Carberry is an FCW staff writer covering defense, cybersecurity and intelligence. Prior to joining FCW, he was Kabul Correspondent for NPR, and also served as an international producer for NPR covering the war in Libya and the Arab Spring. He has reported from more than two-dozen countries including Iraq, Yemen, DRC, and South Sudan. In addition to numerous public radio programs, he has reported for Reuters, PBS NewsHour, The Diplomat, and The Atlantic.
Carberry earned a Master of Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School, and has a B.A. in Urban Studies from Lehigh University.
District of Columbia v. HellerArgued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008Full case nameDistrict of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony HellerDocket nos.07-290Citations554 U.S. 570 (more)128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497
ArgumentOral argumentOpinion announcementOpinion announcementPrior historyProvisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.Procedural historyWrit of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitHoldingThe Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.Court membershipCase opinionsMajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, AlitoDissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, BreyerDissentBreyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, GinsburgLaws appliedU.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22''4504, 7''2507.02District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmarkcase in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
Contents
Lower court backgroundEditIn 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[5] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[6]
Shelly ParkerA software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who had sometimes tried to break into her house.[8]Tom G. PalmerA colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[6] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.[10]Gillian St. LawrenceA mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.[11]Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson)An employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.[11]George LyonA communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.Dick Anthony HellerA licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home. Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[11]Previous federal case law pertaining to the question of an individual's right to bear arms included United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), which supported the right and Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), which opposed the right. The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was interpreted to support both sides of the issue.
District CourtEditIn February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."[16] They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina dismissed the lawsuit.
Court of AppealsEditOn appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2''1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court's opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.
The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5''12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller '' who applied for a handgun permit but was denied '' had standing.
The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.
The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[17]
Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
Henderson's dissentEditIn her dissent, Circuit Judge Henderson stated that Second Amendment rights did not extend to residents of Washington D.C., writing:
To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[18]
Petition for rehearingEditIn April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.[19] On May 8, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6''4 vote.
The defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose but, in fact, welcomed the petition. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007.[20] The court rephrased the question to be decided as follows:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22''4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[16]
Amicus curiae briefsEditBecause of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[21]
A majority of the members of Congress[22] signed the brief authored by Stephen Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[23]Vice PresidentDick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[22] Arizona Senator John McCain, Republican, also signed the brief. Then Illinois Senator Barack Obama, did not.[24]
A majority of the states signed the brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, authored by Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz,[25] advising that the case be affirmed, while at the same time emphasizing that the states have a strong interest in maintaining each of the states' laws prohibiting and regulating firearms.[26][27][28] Law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, also filed a brief urging that the case be affirmed.[29]
A number of organizations signed friend of the court briefs advising that the case be remanded, including the United States Department of Justice[30] and Attorneys General of New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico.[31] Additionally, friend of the court briefs to remand were filed by a spectrum of religious and anti-violence groups,[32] a number of cities and mayors,[33] and many police chiefs and law enforcement organizations.[34]
A collection of organizations and prominent scholars, represented by Attorney Jeffrey Teichert, submitted an "errors brief" arguing that many of the common historical and factual "myths and misrepresentations" generally offered in favor of banning handguns were in error. Teichert's errors brief argued from a historical perspective that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms.[dead link][35]
Oral argumentsEditThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 18, 2008. Both the transcript[36] and the audio[37] of the argument have been released. Each side was initially allotted 30 minutes to argue its case, with U.S. Solicitor GeneralPaul D. Clement allotted 15 minutes to present the federal government's views.[38] During the argument, however, extra time was extended to the parties, and the argument ran 23 minutes over the allotted time.[39]
Walter E. Dellinger of the law firm O'Melveny & Myers, also a professor at Duke University Law School and former Acting Solicitor General, argued the District's side before the Supreme Court. Dellinger was assisted by Thomas Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Robert Long of Covington & Burling and D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim. The law firms assisting the District worked pro bono.[40]
Alan Gura, of the D.C.-based law firm Gura & Possessky, was lead counsel for Heller, and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[41] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, were his co-counsel.[42][43]
DecisionEditThe Supreme Court held:[44]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2''53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2''22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The ''militia'' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22''28.(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28''30.(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30''32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32''47.(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ''in common use at the time'' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54''56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ''arms'' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition '' in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute '' would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56''64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[45]
Second Amendment findings and reasoning for the decisionEditThe Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]
Issues addressed by the majorityEditThe core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment '' a purpose not previously articulated by the Court '' and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74''75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[47]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service '' M16 rifles and the like '' may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[48]
The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[49] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[50]
Dissenting opinionsEditIn a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[52]
Non-party involvementEditNational Rifle AssociationEditAttorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[53] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[54]Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[55] He also stated that "The N.R.A.'s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[5]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[5] Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[5]
Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment '' including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case '' have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[56]
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[57]
Immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, followed the next day by a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco over its ban of handguns in public housing.[58]
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun ViolenceEditThe Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence opposed the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Parker, and filed amicus curiae against those arguments in both the District and Circuit courts.
Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, suggested to D.C. before the Court granted certiorari that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.[59] Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it "could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question."[60]
After the ruling, Paul Helmke stated that, "the classic 'slippery slope' argument", "that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership", "is now gone." Helmke added that, "The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue 'any gun, any time for anyone,' which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws."[61]
To the lower court rulingsEditVarious experts expressed opinions on the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe contended that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court "there's a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed."[56] However, Professor Tribe has also argued that the District's ban on one class of weapons does not violate the Second Amendment even under an individual rights view.[62]
Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws, even assuming an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, could be justified as reasonable regulations and thus upheld as constitutional. Professor Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose."[63] However, the dicta in Heller suggests that applying a mere rational basis analysis is an incorrect reading of the Constitution and would, in fact, defeat the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.[49]
To the Supreme Court rulingsEditCato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons:
Even the NRA concedes that you can't have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won't be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody's characterization. It is not a restriction, it's a prohibition.[64]
Clark Neily, an attorney for Dick Heller in this case, has said regarding Heller:
America went over 200 years without knowing whether a key provision of the Bill of Rights actually meant anything. We came within one vote of being told that it did not, notwithstanding what amounts to a national consensus that the Second Amendment means what it says: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Taking rights seriously, including rights we might not favor personally, is good medicine for the body politic, and Heller was an excellent dose.[65]
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method '' to which Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to adhere '' would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[66]
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, consents to Posner's analysis, stating that Heller "encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts."[67]
Heller thus represents the worst of missed opportunities'--the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint. The Constitution expresses the need for judicial restraint in many different ways'--separation of powers, federalism, and the grant of life tenure to unelected judges among them. It is an irony that Heller would in the name of originalism abandon insights so central to the Framers' designs.[67]
Alan Gura, Lead Counsel for Respondent in Heller rejects Wilkinson's criticism, stating that "Rather, the Court affirmed the Second Amendment's original public meaning, as confirmed by its plain text. Having determined the Amendment's meaning, the Court showed the proper level of deference to the D.C. City Council's outright repudiation of the constitutional text: none."[68]
Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[69][70] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[69][70] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[69][70]
The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional.[70] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[71]
Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[69]
Robert Levy, the executive director of the Cato Institute who funded the Heller litigation has commented on this passage describing constitutionally acceptable forms of prohibitions of firearms: "I would have preferred that that not have been there," and that this paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."[69]
Similar to the lifting of gun bans mentioned previously in the settlements of lawsuits filed post-Heller, in US v. Arzberger, also decided post-Heller, it was noted:
To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.[72]
District of ColumbiaEditThe D.C. government indicated it would continue to use zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it would continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[73] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects in the ordinance that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller. The new provisions were: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, stating that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[74]
Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[75]Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[76]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[77] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[78]
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority provided Second Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms used for unlawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller's ''ordinary military equipment'' language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ''[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service '' M-16 rifles and the like '' may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[79]
On July 24, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled, in Palmer v. District of Columbia, that the District's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is unconstitutional.[80][81] In its decision, the Court stated: "[ . . . ] the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."[82]
New YorkEditMayor of New York CityMichael Bloomberg said that "all of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City" would be allowed by the ruling as "reasonable regulation."[83] Robert Levy has stated that the current New York City gun laws are "not much different" from the D.C. ban that has been overturned.[84] The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates have not ruled out suing New York City, especially over the definition of "reasonable regulation".[85]
Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge James Francis has said that, prior to Heller, it would not have been considered unreasonable to require a defendant to surrender a firearm as a condition of pretrial release. Specifically, according to Judge Francis:[86]
This all changed, with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), where the court changed the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence by creating what he said was a "protectible liberty interest" in the possession of firearms. Thus, in the absence of an individualized determination at a bail hearing, requiring the defendant to give up any firearms violates due process.
Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) originally held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit. The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon) in New York. In a memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit decision in Maloney and remanded for further consideration in light of the holding in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The Second Circuit has remanded the case to the trial court.
IllinoisEditThe NRA has filed five related lawsuits since the Heller decision.[87] In four Illinois lawsuits, the NRA sought to have the Second Amendment incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, causing the Second Amendment to apply to state and local jurisdictions and not just to the federal government.[88] Three Illinois lawsuits have been negotiated and settled out of court involving agreements that repeal gun ban ordinances and did not result in incorporation of the Second Amendment to state and local jurisdictions. The fourth NRA lawsuit against Chicago was rejected.[89] The NRA appealed the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, based on the theory that Heller applied only to the Federal Government (including the District of Columbia), and not to states or their subordinate jurisdictions.[citation needed] This opinion directly conflicts with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals's earlier decision, holding that Heller applies to states as well.[citation needed]
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. Chicago's handgun law was likened to the D.C. handgun ban by Justice Breyer.[90]
Similarly, three Illinois municipalities with gun control measures on the books that previously had banned all handguns have rescinded their handgun bans.[91][92][93][94] These cities were Morton Grove, Illinois,[95]Wilmette, another Illinois village,[96] and Evanston, Illinois which enacted a partial repeal of its handgun ban.
In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.
CaliforniaEditOn January 14, 2009, in Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement out of court with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building. The San Francisco lawsuit resulted in the elimination of the gun ban from the SF Housing Authority residential lease terms. Tim Larsen speaking for the Housing Authority said that they never intended to enforce its 2005 housing lease gun ban against law-abiding gun owners and have never done so.[97]
On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallows open carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A "responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." More specifically, "the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."(italics in original) ... and "carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms."[98] The case was remanded to the district court because "San Diego County's 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."[98]
IdahoEditOn January 10, 2014, in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District Court struck down a Corps of Engineers regulation barring possession of loaded guns in recreation areas surrounding Corps dams. The court held that tents are akin to homes, and under Heller, Second Amendment rights are protected.[99]
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(September 2011)Initial reaction has deemed the Heller ruling to be of great significance, though it remains too soon to tell what the long-term effects may be.[100]Sanford Levinson has written that he is inclined to believe that the Heller decision will be relatively insignificant to the practice of law in the long run but that it will have significance to other groups interested in cultural literacy and constitutional designers.[100]
In 2009, both Levinson and Mark Tushnet speculated that it is quite unlikely that the case would be studied as part of casebooks of future law schools.[100] As was predicted,[101] a large surge of court cases was seen in lower federal courts in the aftermath of the 2008 ruling. As of March 2009[update], over 80 cases had been filed seeking to overturn existing gun laws.[102][needs update]
The decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which was brought in response to Heller and decided in 2010, did invalidate much of Chicago's gun purchase and registration laws, and has called into question many other state and local laws restricting purchase, possession and carry of firearms.
^Barnes, Robert (2009-10-01). "Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves such as Washington. ^Barnes, Robert (2008-06-27). "Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. The Supreme Court ... decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. ^478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2994 (2008)^Misc. order Certiorari Denied p.2; Court: A constitutional right to a gun^ abcdLiptak, Adam (2007-12-03). "Carefully Plotted Course Propels Gun Case to Top". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^ abDuggan, Paul (2007-03-18). "Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Mears, Bill (2008-03-18). "Court decision on gun control is personal for 2 women". Cable News Network. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Palmer, Tom (2008-03-14). Tom Palmer talks about the DC gun ban on Reporter's Roundtable. Cato Institute. Event occurs at 1:20. Retrieved 2013-10-27. ^ abcJaffe, Harry (March 2008). "DC Gun Rights: Do You Want This Next to Your Bed?". Washingtonian.com. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^ abBarnes, Robert; Nakamura, David (2007-09-04). "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Parker Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 57. "He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a 'functional' firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."^Page III-17 of dissent.^Petition for rehearing en banc for the District of Columbia^Cert. granted, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 645 (2007).^Coyle, Marcia (2008-03-10). "Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case". The National Law Journal. Retrieved 2008-03-11. ^ abBarnes, Robert (2008-02-09). "Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration". The Washington Post. ^"Stephen Halbrook amicus brief."(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-26. ^"US Supreme Court in historic hearing on gun laws". AFP. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=88251874^"Amicus brief of 31 States"(PDF). p. 36. Retrieved 2008-02-27. ^McKee, Jennifer (2008-02-13). "State signs gun rights brief". Missoulian.com. ^"Hutchison, Abbott Fight For Gun Rights". KXAN.com. ^"International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"U.S. Department of Justice brief"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-26. ^"Amicus States"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus coalition"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus Cities"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus Brady Center"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^Brief Amicus Curiae of Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Rights-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of RespondentArchived May 31, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.^"Oral Arguments of Case No. 07-290"(PDF). United States Supreme Court. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^Video available at rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm^Barnes, Robert (2008-03-05). "Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes". The Washington Post. p. B03. Retrieved 2008-03-05. ^"D.C. v. Heller on Scotuswiki". Retrieved 2008-03-19. ^Emerling, Gary (2008-01-05). "Fenty arms self with new lawyer to defend gun ban". Washington Times. ^Greenhouse, Linda (2007-10-21). "Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^"DCGunCase.com '' About Us". ^"Supreme Court Dared to Uphold Handgun Ban by Man Who Has None". Bloomberg. 2008-02-19. Retrieved 2008-02-20. ^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, pp. 1''3.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 3.^"People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116"(PDF). Illinois Supreme Court. September 12, 2013. pp. 5''6. Retrieved September 14, 2014. ^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 54.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 55.^ abHeller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, pp. 56''57.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 62.^ abLinda Greenhouse (2008-06-27). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-27. ^Heller Opinion, Breyer, J., dissenting, p. 42.^Both Sides Fear Firing Blanks if D.C. Gun Case Reaches High Court, Tony Mauro, Legal Times, July 30, 2007^NRA Had High Court Misgivings, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, July 30, 2007^Levy, Robert (2007-04-03). "Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?". DC Examiner. Retrieved 2013-10-27. ^ abLawyers, Guns and Money, Elaine McArdle, Harvard Law Bulletin.^Opening Shots, Jennifer Rubin, National Review Online, March 29, 2007^"NRA Targets San Francisco, Chicago". CBS News. 2008-06-27. ^"Washington Gun Ban Under Fire", Associated Press[dead link]^"Taking Aim at Judicial Activism", Helmke's blog at bradycampaign.org^"After Heller, The Gun Lobby's "Slippery Slope" Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead". Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. June 27, 2008. Archived from the original on October 29, 2008. ^"Sanity and the Second Amendment" by Laurence H. Tribe, The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2008^A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms, Erwin Chemerinsky, The Washington Post, March 14, 2007^Interview: The Way of the Gun, Leigh Ferrara, MotherJones.com, April 19, 2007^District of Columbia v. Heller: The Second Amendment Is Back, Baby by Clark Neily, September 8, 2008^Posner, Richard A. (2008-08-27). "In Defense of Looseness". The New Republic. ^ abWilkinson, J. Harvie (2009). "Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law"(PDF). Virginia Law Review. 95 (2): 253. ^Gura, Allan (2009). "Heller and the Triumph of Originalist Judicial Engagement: A Response to Judge Harvie Wilkinson"(PDF). UCLA Law Review. 56: 1129. ^ abcde"Adam Winkler: The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right". Huffington Post. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01. ^ abcdLiptak, Adam (18 December 2012). "Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn't Block Proposed Controls". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012. ^"''District of Columbia v. Heller''". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-30. ^United States v. Arzberger; 08 Cr. 894, p. 24.^Fields, Gary and Radnofsky, Louise Absence of Gun Shops Limits Ruling's Reach in Capital. The Wall Street Journal. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2008-06-27.^"Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25)". Retrieved 2010-03-31. ^"DC Rejects Handgun Application". 2008-07-17. Retrieved 2008-07-17. Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. ^Simmons, Greg (2008-07-07). "D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down". Fox News. Retrieved 2008-07-07. ^"Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008"(PDF). District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. December 16, 2008. Retrieved March 8, 2010. ^"Councilmember Phil Mendelson". Retrieved 2009-02-01. ^"'Supreme Court collection'". Retrieved 2009-04-12. ^Jethro Mullen & Joe Sutton, "Judge says Washington's ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional," CNN, July 27, 2014.^Tom G. Palmer v. District of Columbia, July 24, 2014 (docket entry 51 on July 26, 2014), case no. 1:09-cv-01482-FJS, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.^Memorandum - Decision and Order, pp. 16-17, Tom G. Palmer v. District of Columbia, July 24, 2014 (docket entry 51 on July 26, 2014), case no. 1:09-cv-01482-FJS, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (footnote omitted; bolded typeface in the original).^Stohr, Greg. Individual Gun Rights Protected, Top U.S. Court Says. Bloomberg.com. 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-27.^Liptak, Adam. Coming Next, Court Fights on Guns in Cities. New York Times. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2008-06-30.^Adam Lisberg (2008-06-28). "Supreme Court ruling against D.C. gun laws may make New York next". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2008-07-05. ^Hamblett, Mark. Mandatory Restrictions Ruled Invalid in Porn Case. New York Law Journal. 2009-01-12. Retrieved 2009-02-03.^"Links to new gun rights lawsuits | SCOTUSblog". Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^"More Second Amendment cases | SCOTUSblog". Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^"Chicago Handgun Ban Upheld '' Chicagoist". Retrieved 2009-02-03. ^Heller Opinion, Breyer, J., dissenting, p. 34. "Chicago has a law very similar to the District's, and many of its suburbs also ban handgun possession under most circumstances."^NRA-ILA press release '' Village of Morton Grove to Repeal Gun Ban^NRA-ILA press release '' Evanston Amends Gun Ban^NRA-ILA press release '' Winnetka, IL Repeals Draconian Handgun Ban Becomes Third Chicago Suburb to Drop Total Ban Since Supreme Court Ruling^Keen, Judy (2008-09-10). "High court ruling triggers gun ban repeals, NRA suits". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-01-31. ^Channick, Robert (2008-07-28). "Morton Grove repeals 27-year-old gun ban". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-02-01. Morton Grove was the first city in the U.S. to completely outlaw all possession of handguns in 1981, repealed its handgun ban in response to the Heller decision. ^"Wilmette Handgun Ban Dead, 7-0 Vote Repeals Law". WBBM News Radio 780. CBS Radio Stations. 2008-07-23. Archived from the original on 2008-08-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01. Wilmette also repealed its 19 year ban of handguns following the ruling. Village President Christopher Canning commented prior to the repeal, "The Village of Wilmette ordinance, as it is drafted and on the books today, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny, and therefore should be repealed." ^Egelko, Bob (2009-01-14). "San Francisco Housing Authority settles gun lawsuit". SFGate.com. Retrieved 2009-01-16. ^ ab"Peruta v. San Diego"(PDF). Case No. No. 10-56971 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Retrieved 12 January 2014. ^"Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers"(PDF). Case No. 3:13-CV-00336-BLW. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO. Retrieved 12 January 2014. ^ abcLevinson, Sanford (Summer 2009). "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review. 13 (2): 315''347. While the Heller decision has already been deemed of great significance by the legal community, it is too soon to tell what its long-term effects may be. ^Savage, David G. (2008-06-28). "Justices' decision triggers questions". Los Angeles Times. The Supreme Court's historic ruling this week that clarified Americans' right to own a gun for self-defense left a crucial question unanswered, one that will be resolved only after many years and a torrent of litigation ^Liptak, Adam (March 16, 2009). "Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns". The New York Times. The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all
District of Columbia v. HellerArgued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008Full case nameDistrict of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony HellerDocket nos.07-290Citations554 U.S. 570 (more)128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497
ArgumentOral argumentOpinion announcementOpinion announcementPrior historyProvisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.Procedural historyWrit of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitHoldingThe Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.Court membershipCase opinionsMajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, AlitoDissentStevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, BreyerDissentBreyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, GinsburgLaws appliedU.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22''4504, 7''2507.02District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmarkcase in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
Contents
Lower court backgroundEditIn 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, began vetting plaintiffs with Clark M. Neily III for a planned Second Amendment lawsuit that he would personally finance. Although he himself had never owned a gun, as a Constitutional scholar he had an academic interest in the subject and wanted to model his campaign after the legal strategies of Thurgood Marshall, who had successfully led the challenges that overturned school segregation.[5] They aimed for a group that would be diverse in terms of gender, race, economic background, and age, and selected six plaintiffs from their mid-20s to early 60s, three men and three women, four white and two black:[6]
Shelly ParkerA software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who had sometimes tried to break into her house.[8]Tom G. PalmerA colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.[6] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.[10]Gillian St. LawrenceA mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.[11]Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson)An employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.[11]George LyonA communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.Dick Anthony HellerA licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home. Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.[11]Previous federal case law pertaining to the question of an individual's right to bear arms included United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), which supported the right and Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), which opposed the right. The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) was interpreted to support both sides of the issue.
District CourtEditIn February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law (part of the District of Columbia Code) enacted pursuant to District of Columbia home rule. This law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."[16] They filed for an injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina dismissed the lawsuit.
Court of AppealsEditOn appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2''1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act as unconstitutional. Judges Karen L. Henderson, Thomas B. Griffith and Laurence H. Silberman formed the Court of Appeals panel, with Senior Circuit Judge Silberman writing the court's opinion and Circuit Judge Henderson dissenting.
The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5''12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller '' who applied for a handgun permit but was denied '' had standing.
The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia.
The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[17]
Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.
Henderson's dissentEditIn her dissent, Circuit Judge Henderson stated that Second Amendment rights did not extend to residents of Washington D.C., writing:
To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion.[18]
Petition for rehearingEditIn April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for rehearing en banc, arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict.[19] On May 8, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6''4 vote.
The defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose but, in fact, welcomed the petition. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on November 20, 2007.[20] The court rephrased the question to be decided as follows:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22''4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[16]
Amicus curiae briefsEditBecause of the controversial nature of the case, it garnered much attention from many groups on both sides of the gun rights issue. Many of those groups filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, about 47 urging the court to affirm the case and about 20 to remand it.[21]
A majority of the members of Congress[22] signed the brief authored by Stephen Halbrook advising that the case be affirmed overturning the ban on handguns not otherwise restricted by Congress.[23]Vice PresidentDick Cheney joined in this brief, acting in his role as President of the United States Senate, and breaking with the George W. Bush administration's official position.[22] Arizona Senator John McCain, Republican, also signed the brief. Then Illinois Senator Barack Obama, did not.[24]
A majority of the states signed the brief of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, authored by Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz,[25] advising that the case be affirmed, while at the same time emphasizing that the states have a strong interest in maintaining each of the states' laws prohibiting and regulating firearms.[26][27][28] Law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, also filed a brief urging that the case be affirmed.[29]
A number of organizations signed friend of the court briefs advising that the case be remanded, including the United States Department of Justice[30] and Attorneys General of New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico.[31] Additionally, friend of the court briefs to remand were filed by a spectrum of religious and anti-violence groups,[32] a number of cities and mayors,[33] and many police chiefs and law enforcement organizations.[34]
A collection of organizations and prominent scholars, represented by Attorney Jeffrey Teichert, submitted an "errors brief" arguing that many of the common historical and factual "myths and misrepresentations" generally offered in favor of banning handguns were in error. Teichert's errors brief argued from a historical perspective that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms.[dead link][35]
Oral argumentsEditThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 18, 2008. Both the transcript[36] and the audio[37] of the argument have been released. Each side was initially allotted 30 minutes to argue its case, with U.S. Solicitor GeneralPaul D. Clement allotted 15 minutes to present the federal government's views.[38] During the argument, however, extra time was extended to the parties, and the argument ran 23 minutes over the allotted time.[39]
Walter E. Dellinger of the law firm O'Melveny & Myers, also a professor at Duke University Law School and former Acting Solicitor General, argued the District's side before the Supreme Court. Dellinger was assisted by Thomas Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Robert Long of Covington & Burling and D.C. Solicitor General Todd Kim. The law firms assisting the District worked pro bono.[40]
Alan Gura, of the D.C.-based law firm Gura & Possessky, was lead counsel for Heller, and argued on his behalf before the Supreme Court.[41] Robert Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Clark Neily, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, were his co-counsel.[42][43]
DecisionEditThe Supreme Court held:[44]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2''53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2''22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The ''militia'' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22''28.(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28''30.(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30''32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32''47.(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ''in common use at the time'' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54''56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ''arms'' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition '' in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute '' would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56''64.The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[45]
Second Amendment findings and reasoning for the decisionEditThe Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]
Issues addressed by the majorityEditThe core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."
With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment '' a purpose not previously articulated by the Court '' and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.
The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74''75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[47]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service '' M16 rifles and the like '' may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[48]
The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[49] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[50]
Dissenting opinionsEditIn a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[52]
Non-party involvementEditNational Rifle AssociationEditAttorney Alan Gura, in a 2003 filing, used the term "sham litigation" to describe the NRA's attempts to have Parker (aka Heller) consolidated with its own case challenging the D.C. law. Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[53] These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[54]Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[55] He also stated that "The N.R.A.'s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[5]
Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[5] Both Levy and LaPierre said the NRA and Mr. Levy's team were now on good terms.[5]
Elaine McArdle wrote in the Harvard Law Bulletin: "If Parker is the long-awaited "clean" case, one reason may be that proponents of the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment '' including the National Rifle Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case '' have learned from earlier defeats, and crafted strategies to maximize the chances of Supreme Court review." The NRA did eventually support the litigation by filing an amicus brief with the Court arguing that the plaintiffs in Parker had standing to sue and that the D.C. ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.[56]
Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, had indicated support of federal legislation which would repeal the D.C. gun ban. Opponents of the legislation argued that this would have rendered the Parker case moot, and would have effectively eliminated the possibility that the case would be heard by the Supreme Court.[57]
Immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, followed the next day by a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco over its ban of handguns in public housing.[58]
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun ViolenceEditThe Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence opposed the arguments made by the plaintiffs in Parker, and filed amicus curiae against those arguments in both the District and Circuit courts.
Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign, suggested to D.C. before the Court granted certiorari that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.[59] Helmke has written that if the Supreme Court upholds the Circuit court ruling, it "could lead to all current and proposed firearms laws being called into question."[60]
After the ruling, Paul Helmke stated that, "the classic 'slippery slope' argument", "that even modest gun control would lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership", "is now gone." Helmke added that, "The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue 'any gun, any time for anyone,' which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws."[61]
To the lower court rulingsEditVarious experts expressed opinions on the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe contended that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and predicted that if Parker is reviewed by the Supreme Court "there's a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed."[56] However, Professor Tribe has also argued that the District's ban on one class of weapons does not violate the Second Amendment even under an individual rights view.[62]
Erwin Chemerinsky, then of Duke Law School and now dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, argued that the District of Columbia's handgun laws, even assuming an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, could be justified as reasonable regulations and thus upheld as constitutional. Professor Chemerinsky believes that the regulation of guns should be analyzed in the same way "as other regulation of property under modern constitutional law" and "be allowed so long as it is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government purpose."[63] However, the dicta in Heller suggests that applying a mere rational basis analysis is an incorrect reading of the Constitution and would, in fact, defeat the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.[49]
To the Supreme Court rulingsEditCato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, agreed with the court's ruling but describes that his interpretation of the Second Amendment would not preclude all governmental regulation of private ownership of weapons:
Even the NRA concedes that you can't have mad men running around with weapons of mass destruction. So there are some restrictions that are permissible and it will be the task of the legislature and the courts to ferret all of that out and draw the lines. I am sure, though, that outright bans on handguns like they have in D.C. won't be permitted. That is not a reasonable restriction under anybody's characterization. It is not a restriction, it's a prohibition.[64]
Clark Neily, an attorney for Dick Heller in this case, has said regarding Heller:
America went over 200 years without knowing whether a key provision of the Bill of Rights actually meant anything. We came within one vote of being told that it did not, notwithstanding what amounts to a national consensus that the Second Amendment means what it says: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Taking rights seriously, including rights we might not favor personally, is good medicine for the body politic, and Heller was an excellent dose.[65]
Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade, stating that it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method '' to which Justice Antonin Scalia claimed to adhere '' would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness. Suppose part of a state's militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia's commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.[66]
J. Harvie Wilkinson III, chief judge of United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, consents to Posner's analysis, stating that Heller "encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts."[67]
Heller thus represents the worst of missed opportunities'--the chance to ground conservative jurisprudence in enduring and consistent principles of restraint. The Constitution expresses the need for judicial restraint in many different ways'--separation of powers, federalism, and the grant of life tenure to unelected judges among them. It is an irony that Heller would in the name of originalism abandon insights so central to the Framers' designs.[67]
Alan Gura, Lead Counsel for Respondent in Heller rejects Wilkinson's criticism, stating that "Rather, the Court affirmed the Second Amendment's original public meaning, as confirmed by its plain text. Having determined the Amendment's meaning, the Court showed the proper level of deference to the D.C. City Council's outright repudiation of the constitutional text: none."[68]
Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.[69][70] These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.[69][70] Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.[69][70]
The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional.[70] The basis for the lower court rulings is the paragraph near the end of the Heller ruling that states:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.[71]
Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."[69]
Robert Levy, the executive director of the Cato Institute who funded the Heller litigation has commented on this passage describing constitutionally acceptable forms of prohibitions of firearms: "I would have preferred that that not have been there," and that this paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."[69]
Similar to the lifting of gun bans mentioned previously in the settlements of lawsuits filed post-Heller, in US v. Arzberger, also decided post-Heller, it was noted:
To the extent, then, that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm unrelated to any military purpose, it also establishes a protectible liberty interest. And, although the Supreme Court has indicated that this privilege may be withdrawn from some groups of persons such as convicted felons, there is no basis for categorically depriving persons who are merely accused of certain crimes of the right to legal possession of a firearm.[72]
District of ColumbiaEditThe D.C. government indicated it would continue to use zoning ordinances to prevent firearms dealers from operating and selling to citizens residing in the District, meaning it would continue to be difficult for residents to legally purchase guns in the District.[73] Additionally, the District enacted new firearms restrictions in an effort to cure the constitutional defects in the ordinance that the Supreme Court had identified in Heller. The new provisions were: (1) the firearms registration procedures; (2) the prohibition on assault weapons; and (3) the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices. In response, Dick Heller challenged these new restrictions filing a civil suit named Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25) where he requested a summary judgment to vacate the new prohibitions. On March 26, 2010, the D.C. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina denied Dick Heller's request and granted the cross motion, stating that the court "concludes that the regulatory provisions that the plaintiffs challenge permissibly regulate the exercise of the core Second Amendment right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home. "[74]
Dick Heller's application to register his semi-automatic pistol was rejected because the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to the District's interpretation, all bottom-loading guns, including magazine-fed non-assault-style rifles, are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.[75]Revolvers will likely not fall under such a ban.[76]
On December 16, 2008 the D.C. Council unanimously passed the Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008[77] which addresses the issues raised in the Heller Supreme Court decision, and also puts in place a number of registration requirements to update and strengthen the District's gun laws.[78]
Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority provided Second Amendment protection for commonly used and popular handguns but not for atypical arms or arms used for unlawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Scalia stated: "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." "We think that Miller's ''ordinary military equipment'' language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ''[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' 307 U. S., at 179." "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns." "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service '' M-16 rifles and the like '' may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."[79]
On July 24, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled, in Palmer v. District of Columbia, that the District's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns is unconstitutional.[80][81] In its decision, the Court stated: "[ . . . ] the Court finds that the District of Columbia's complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoins Defendants from enforcing the home limitations of D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) and enforcing D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) unless and until such time as the District of Columbia adopts a licensing mechanism consistent with constitutional standards enabling people to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."[82]
New YorkEditMayor of New York CityMichael Bloomberg said that "all of the laws on the books in New York State and New York City" would be allowed by the ruling as "reasonable regulation."[83] Robert Levy has stated that the current New York City gun laws are "not much different" from the D.C. ban that has been overturned.[84] The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates have not ruled out suing New York City, especially over the definition of "reasonable regulation".[85]
Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge James Francis has said that, prior to Heller, it would not have been considered unreasonable to require a defendant to surrender a firearm as a condition of pretrial release. Specifically, according to Judge Francis:[86]
This all changed, with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), where the court changed the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence by creating what he said was a "protectible liberty interest" in the possession of firearms. Thus, in the absence of an individualized determination at a bail hearing, requiring the defendant to give up any firearms violates due process.
Maloney v. Rice (a.k.a. Maloney v. Cuomo and Maloney v. Spitzer), 554 F.3d 56 (2d. Cir. 2009) originally held that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states in the Second Circuit. The case involved a state ban on Nunchaku sticks (a martial arts weapon) in New York. In a memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit decision in Maloney and remanded for further consideration in light of the holding in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. The Second Circuit has remanded the case to the trial court.
IllinoisEditThe NRA has filed five related lawsuits since the Heller decision.[87] In four Illinois lawsuits, the NRA sought to have the Second Amendment incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, causing the Second Amendment to apply to state and local jurisdictions and not just to the federal government.[88] Three Illinois lawsuits have been negotiated and settled out of court involving agreements that repeal gun ban ordinances and did not result in incorporation of the Second Amendment to state and local jurisdictions. The fourth NRA lawsuit against Chicago was rejected.[89] The NRA appealed the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, based on the theory that Heller applied only to the Federal Government (including the District of Columbia), and not to states or their subordinate jurisdictions.[citation needed] This opinion directly conflicts with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals's earlier decision, holding that Heller applies to states as well.[citation needed]
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. Chicago's handgun law was likened to the D.C. handgun ban by Justice Breyer.[90]
Similarly, three Illinois municipalities with gun control measures on the books that previously had banned all handguns have rescinded their handgun bans.[91][92][93][94] These cities were Morton Grove, Illinois,[95]Wilmette, another Illinois village,[96] and Evanston, Illinois which enacted a partial repeal of its handgun ban.
In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.
CaliforniaEditOn January 14, 2009, in Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority, the San Francisco Housing Authority reached a settlement out of court with the NRA, which allows residents to possess legal firearms within a SFHA apartment building. The San Francisco lawsuit resulted in the elimination of the gun ban from the SF Housing Authority residential lease terms. Tim Larsen speaking for the Housing Authority said that they never intended to enforce its 2005 housing lease gun ban against law-abiding gun owners and have never done so.[97]
On February 13, 2014, in Peruta v. San Diego, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the San Diego policy to disallow both concealed carry, and the State of California law that disallows open carry anywhere in the state, were not acceptable under Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald. A "responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense." More specifically, "the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."(italics in original) ... and "carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms."[98] The case was remanded to the district court because "San Diego County's 'good cause' permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."[98]
IdahoEditOn January 10, 2014, in Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District Court struck down a Corps of Engineers regulation barring possession of loaded guns in recreation areas surrounding Corps dams. The court held that tents are akin to homes, and under Heller, Second Amendment rights are protected.[99]
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(September 2011)Initial reaction has deemed the Heller ruling to be of great significance, though it remains too soon to tell what the long-term effects may be.[100]Sanford Levinson has written that he is inclined to believe that the Heller decision will be relatively insignificant to the practice of law in the long run but that it will have significance to other groups interested in cultural literacy and constitutional designers.[100]
In 2009, both Levinson and Mark Tushnet speculated that it is quite unlikely that the case would be studied as part of casebooks of future law schools.[100] As was predicted,[101] a large surge of court cases was seen in lower federal courts in the aftermath of the 2008 ruling. As of March 2009[update], over 80 cases had been filed seeking to overturn existing gun laws.[102][needs update]
The decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which was brought in response to Heller and decided in 2010, did invalidate much of Chicago's gun purchase and registration laws, and has called into question many other state and local laws restricting purchase, possession and carry of firearms.
^Barnes, Robert (2009-10-01). "Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond the federal government and federal enclaves such as Washington. ^Barnes, Robert (2008-06-27). "Justices Reject D.C. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. The Supreme Court ... decided for the first time in the nation's history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to own a gun for self-defense. ^478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2994 (2008)^Misc. order Certiorari Denied p.2; Court: A constitutional right to a gun^ abcdLiptak, Adam (2007-12-03). "Carefully Plotted Course Propels Gun Case to Top". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^ abDuggan, Paul (2007-03-18). "Lawyer Who Wiped Out D.C. Ban Says It's About Liberties, Not Guns". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Mears, Bill (2008-03-18). "Court decision on gun control is personal for 2 women". Cable News Network. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Palmer, Tom (2008-03-14). Tom Palmer talks about the DC gun ban on Reporter's Roundtable. Cato Institute. Event occurs at 1:20. Retrieved 2013-10-27. ^ abcJaffe, Harry (March 2008). "DC Gun Rights: Do You Want This Next to Your Bed?". Washingtonian.com. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^ abBarnes, Robert; Nakamura, David (2007-09-04). "D.C. Asks Supreme Court to Back Gun Ban". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-02-19. ^Parker Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 57. "He simply contends that he is entitled to the possession of a 'functional' firearm to be employed in case of a threat to life or limb. The District responds that, notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."^Page III-17 of dissent.^Petition for rehearing en banc for the District of Columbia^Cert. granted, District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 645 (2007).^Coyle, Marcia (2008-03-10). "Amicus Briefs Are Ammo for Supreme Court Gun Case". The National Law Journal. Retrieved 2008-03-11. ^ abBarnes, Robert (2008-02-09). "Cheney Joins Congress In Opposing D.C. Gun Ban; Vice President Breaks With Administration". The Washington Post. ^"Stephen Halbrook amicus brief."(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-26. ^"US Supreme Court in historic hearing on gun laws". AFP. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=88251874^"Amicus brief of 31 States"(PDF). p. 36. Retrieved 2008-02-27. ^McKee, Jennifer (2008-02-13). "State signs gun rights brief". Missoulian.com. ^"Hutchison, Abbott Fight For Gun Rights". KXAN.com. ^"International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"U.S. Department of Justice brief"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-26. ^"Amicus States"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus coalition"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus Cities"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^"Amicus Brady Center"(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-24. ^Brief Amicus Curiae of Organizations and Scholars Correcting Myths and Misrepresentations Commonly Deployed by Opponents of an Individual-Rights-Based Interpretation of the Second Amendment in Support of RespondentArchived May 31, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.^"Oral Arguments of Case No. 07-290"(PDF). United States Supreme Court. 2008-03-18. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^Video available at rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rm^Barnes, Robert (2008-03-05). "Supreme Court to Release Same-Day Tapes". The Washington Post. p. B03. Retrieved 2008-03-05. ^"D.C. v. Heller on Scotuswiki". Retrieved 2008-03-19. ^Emerling, Gary (2008-01-05). "Fenty arms self with new lawyer to defend gun ban". Washington Times. ^Greenhouse, Linda (2007-10-21). "Justices to Decide on Right to Keep Handgun". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-18. ^"DCGunCase.com '' About Us". ^"Supreme Court Dared to Uphold Handgun Ban by Man Who Has None". Bloomberg. 2008-02-19. Retrieved 2008-02-20. ^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, pp. 1''3.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 3.^"People v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116"(PDF). Illinois Supreme Court. September 12, 2013. pp. 5''6. Retrieved September 14, 2014. ^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 54.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 55.^ abHeller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, pp. 56''57.^Heller Opinion, Opinion of the Court, p. 62.^ abLinda Greenhouse (2008-06-27). "Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-27. ^Heller Opinion, Breyer, J., dissenting, p. 42.^Both Sides Fear Firing Blanks if D.C. Gun Case Reaches High Court, Tony Mauro, Legal Times, July 30, 2007^NRA Had High Court Misgivings, Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, July 30, 2007^Levy, Robert (2007-04-03). "Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?". DC Examiner. Retrieved 2013-10-27. ^ abLawyers, Guns and Money, Elaine McArdle, Harvard Law Bulletin.^Opening Shots, Jennifer Rubin, National Review Online, March 29, 2007^"NRA Targets San Francisco, Chicago". CBS News. 2008-06-27. ^"Washington Gun Ban Under Fire", Associated Press[dead link]^"Taking Aim at Judicial Activism", Helmke's blog at bradycampaign.org^"After Heller, The Gun Lobby's "Slippery Slope" Is Gone; Reasonable Regulations Ahead". Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. June 27, 2008. Archived from the original on October 29, 2008. ^"Sanity and the Second Amendment" by Laurence H. Tribe, The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2008^A Well-Regulated Right to Bear Arms, Erwin Chemerinsky, The Washington Post, March 14, 2007^Interview: The Way of the Gun, Leigh Ferrara, MotherJones.com, April 19, 2007^District of Columbia v. Heller: The Second Amendment Is Back, Baby by Clark Neily, September 8, 2008^Posner, Richard A. (2008-08-27). "In Defense of Looseness". The New Republic. ^ abWilkinson, J. Harvie (2009). "Of Guns, Abortions, and the Unraveling Rule of Law"(PDF). Virginia Law Review. 95 (2): 253. ^Gura, Allan (2009). "Heller and the Triumph of Originalist Judicial Engagement: A Response to Judge Harvie Wilkinson"(PDF). UCLA Law Review. 56: 1129. ^ abcde"Adam Winkler: The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right". Huffington Post. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01. ^ abcdLiptak, Adam (18 December 2012). "Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn't Block Proposed Controls". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012. ^"''District of Columbia v. Heller''". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-30. ^United States v. Arzberger; 08 Cr. 894, p. 24.^Fields, Gary and Radnofsky, Louise Absence of Gun Shops Limits Ruling's Reach in Capital. The Wall Street Journal. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2008-06-27.^"Heller v. District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25)". Retrieved 2010-03-31. ^"DC Rejects Handgun Application". 2008-07-17. Retrieved 2008-07-17. Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. ^Simmons, Greg (2008-07-07). "D.C. Officials Weigh Keeping Semiautomatic Pistols Illegal After Blanket Handgun Ban is Struck Down". Fox News. Retrieved 2008-07-07. ^"Firearms Registration Emergency Amendment Act of 2008"(PDF). District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department. December 16, 2008. Retrieved March 8, 2010. ^"Councilmember Phil Mendelson". Retrieved 2009-02-01. ^"'Supreme Court collection'". Retrieved 2009-04-12. ^Jethro Mullen & Joe Sutton, "Judge says Washington's ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional," CNN, July 27, 2014.^Tom G. Palmer v. District of Columbia, July 24, 2014 (docket entry 51 on July 26, 2014), case no. 1:09-cv-01482-FJS, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.^Memorandum - Decision and Order, pp. 16-17, Tom G. Palmer v. District of Columbia, July 24, 2014 (docket entry 51 on July 26, 2014), case no. 1:09-cv-01482-FJS, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (footnote omitted; bolded typeface in the original).^Stohr, Greg. Individual Gun Rights Protected, Top U.S. Court Says. Bloomberg.com. 2008-06-26. Retrieved 2008-06-27.^Liptak, Adam. Coming Next, Court Fights on Guns in Cities. New York Times. 2008-06-27. Retrieved 2008-06-30.^Adam Lisberg (2008-06-28). "Supreme Court ruling against D.C. gun laws may make New York next". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2008-07-05. ^Hamblett, Mark. Mandatory Restrictions Ruled Invalid in Porn Case. New York Law Journal. 2009-01-12. Retrieved 2009-02-03.^"Links to new gun rights lawsuits | SCOTUSblog". Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^"More Second Amendment cases | SCOTUSblog". Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^"Chicago Handgun Ban Upheld '' Chicagoist". Retrieved 2009-02-03. ^Heller Opinion, Breyer, J., dissenting, p. 34. "Chicago has a law very similar to the District's, and many of its suburbs also ban handgun possession under most circumstances."^NRA-ILA press release '' Village of Morton Grove to Repeal Gun Ban^NRA-ILA press release '' Evanston Amends Gun Ban^NRA-ILA press release '' Winnetka, IL Repeals Draconian Handgun Ban Becomes Third Chicago Suburb to Drop Total Ban Since Supreme Court Ruling^Keen, Judy (2008-09-10). "High court ruling triggers gun ban repeals, NRA suits". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-01-31. ^Channick, Robert (2008-07-28). "Morton Grove repeals 27-year-old gun ban". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-02-01. Morton Grove was the first city in the U.S. to completely outlaw all possession of handguns in 1981, repealed its handgun ban in response to the Heller decision. ^"Wilmette Handgun Ban Dead, 7-0 Vote Repeals Law". WBBM News Radio 780. CBS Radio Stations. 2008-07-23. Archived from the original on 2008-08-02. Retrieved 2009-02-01. Wilmette also repealed its 19 year ban of handguns following the ruling. Village President Christopher Canning commented prior to the repeal, "The Village of Wilmette ordinance, as it is drafted and on the books today, would not withstand constitutional scrutiny, and therefore should be repealed." ^Egelko, Bob (2009-01-14). "San Francisco Housing Authority settles gun lawsuit". SFGate.com. Retrieved 2009-01-16. ^ ab"Peruta v. San Diego"(PDF). Case No. No. 10-56971 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Retrieved 12 January 2014. ^"Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers"(PDF). Case No. 3:13-CV-00336-BLW. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO. Retrieved 12 January 2014. ^ abcLevinson, Sanford (Summer 2009). "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review. 13 (2): 315''347. While the Heller decision has already been deemed of great significance by the legal community, it is too soon to tell what its long-term effects may be. ^Savage, David G. (2008-06-28). "Justices' decision triggers questions". Los Angeles Times. The Supreme Court's historic ruling this week that clarified Americans' right to own a gun for self-defense left a crucial question unanswered, one that will be resolved only after many years and a torrent of litigation ^Liptak, Adam (March 16, 2009). "Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling on Guns". The New York Times. The Heller case is a landmark decision that has not changed very much at all
MortalityAll suicidesNumber of deaths: 42,773Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.4Cause of death rank: 10Firearm suicidesNumber of deaths: 21,334Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7Suffocation suicidesNumber of deaths: 11,407Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6Poisoning suicidesNumber of deaths: 6,808Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18 [PDF - 4.4 MB]
More data
NWO
'Make Soros Happy': Clinton Campaign Discusses Importance of Pleasing Billionaire in Leaked Email >> Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Members of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign discussed the political importance of pleasing billionaire George Soros in emails published by WikiLeaks.
The email, among thousands allegedly hacked from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, reveals a discussion between several prominent figures '' including campaign manager Robby Mook and Clinton aide Huma Abedin '' regarding the organization ''America Votes.''
''I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy),'' Mook tells Abedin. ''It's very unclear to me how much AV will matter next cycle. And I haven't seen then [sic] adding any value this cycle. I also worry a little it will cause donor confusion vis a vis Priorities.''
America Votes, which works ''with over 400 state and national partner organizations to advance progressive policies, win elections, and protect every American's right to vote,'' has received millions in funding from Soros.
''She is having dinner with George Soros tonight,'' Abedin responds. ''Do you know much about America Votes? As Greg Speed explained to me, they are the coordinated campaign for various outside groups. Soros is a big supporter of the group and hes [sic] going to ask her tonight if she will come to a fundraiser for them at his house in December. Thoughts?''
Several other emails released in the Podesta dump also reveal the Clinton campaign's close ties with the nefarious philanthropist.
LGBTQ+
Peter Thiel Shows Us There's a Difference Between Gay Sex and Gay | Advocate.com
Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire who made news this summer for endorsing Donald Trump at the Republican convention, is a man who has sex with other men. But is he gay?
That question might seem narrow, but it is actually raises a broad and crucial distinction we must make in our notions of sexuality, identity, and community.
Since the Paleolithic Age, people have had sex with people of the same gender. But the notion that this made someone ''homosexual'' or ''gay'' was a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.
Beginning in the late 19th century, doctors, sexologists, and others began to argue that same-sex sex created the category of sexual orientation. Prior to that, sexual activities between people of the same gender were often considered sinful or criminal, but they rarely constituted what some in the medical community began to define at end of the 1800s as a ''third sex'' or ''intersex'' or even ''homosexual.'' The creation of the category of sexual orientation not only classified homosexual sex but it also led to the invention of heterosexuality.
In the United States and many parts of Europe, the development of these categories led to the broader cultural understanding that these sexual acts created identities.
The understanding that sex had the power to define identity led to the demarcation of homosexual and heterosexual people '-- as well as the subsequent stigma that those who were marked as homosexual were aberrant, criminally deviant, and socially unacceptable.
Yet the people who began to be identified as homosexual started to disagree with these assertions and found promise in this alternative identity. They established enclaves within the mainstream culture, places like pre-war Greenwich Village in New York City or Berlin in the 1920s, where they lived and socialized.
While these neighborhoods thrived, many people who were attracted to people of the same sex continued to fear the repercussions of being marked as homosexual. And so they denied that identity.
The significance of the Stonewall uprising on June 28, 1969 '-- when LGBT people rose up in defiance against a police raid on their bar in New York City '-- signaled a major turning point in global history. Many LGBT people started refusing to accept the definition of homosexuality as an identity that meant inferior, aberrant, criminal, and, most of all, unequal. When the people in the riot stood up against the police, they embraced a definition of homosexuality that recognized that people who had sex with people of the same gender had a distinct culture, identity, and history that connected them to 1920s Berlin and beyond.
From the 1970s to the present, many people who came out of the closet as gay understood their identity as part of a subculture and a specific community. They may not have known the exact history of how this sexual classification emerged or even understood its cultural vernacular, but they had a very clear recognition that being gay meant more than just having sex with someone of the same gender. They embraced the understanding that their sexual proclivities have defined their identity.
In the 1970s, when this development emerged, gay people began the exhaustive, tireless task of creating a culture to substantiate their identity. Contrary to conventional wisdom that LGBT people rejected religious institutions, many founded their own churches and synagogues and sought refuge in worship. LGBT people launched their own newspapers, organized political rallies, and created neighborhoods in which to socialize and live.
In Toronto, gay people began The Body Politic, which was a newspaper that reached readers across North America and throughout the word, solidifying a global gay identity. The Body Politic reported on local, national, and international news that affected gay people, and it also featured a huge cultural component: There were reviews of recently published books by gay authors, articles about gay films and documentaries, and a special section titled ''In Our Image'' devoted to historical explorations of gay artists, musicians, and thinkers.
The Body Politic and many other gay publications founded during the 1970s illustrated how being gay was not just about sex but a cultural identity. LGBT people had created various forms '-- newspapers, plays, bookstores, churches, intellectual societies '-- that articulated the meaning of a distinct gay culture.
But the idea of being gay as a distinct cultural identity is now under new pressures.
That brings us to Peter Thiel. At the convention in Cleveland in July, Thiel was the first person in the history of the party to declare his homosexuality on stage to an audience of people who have historically opposed same-sex marriage, among other LGBT rights.
Some Republicans and media portrayed Thiel's statement as progress: The party had embraced an out gay man, and the convention had reflected the diverse ideological identities of LGBT Americans. But his statement also challenged that 1970s notion of a gay identity.
By the logic of gay liberation, Thiel is an example of a man who has sex with other men, but not a gay man. Because he does not embrace the struggle of people to embrace their distinctive identity.
In a very telling moment, Thiel referred to the devastating legislation that North Carolina and Mississippi passed prohibiting transgender people from using the bathrooms of their choice as a ''distraction.'' Thiel also endorsed a political platform and party that includes the vice-presidential nominee who has voted aganst hate-crime laws, opposed HIV funding, and supported a law allowing businesses to deny services to people who identify as gay.
In this way, Thiel reaffirmed his own sexual choices '-- while separating himself from gay identity. His notion that transgender people's predicament is somehow a distraction effectively rejects the conception of LGBT as a cultural identity that requires political struggle to defend. For a technologist who sees himself as defining the future, it is a very premodern sentiment.
Thiel's comment is also a too common statement. Since the end of the '70s, many gay people have not invested in the creation of a cultural identity to the extent that their forbears did. Part of the success of gay liberation meant that they no longer needed to do this kind of cultural work.
But there are real human consequences to this retreat. And those consequences go beyond someone like Peter Thiel endorsing a platform that is actually dangerous to LGBT people. In the recent aftermath of the Orlando massacre, the media began to claim Omar Mateen, the terrorist who killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at the Pulse nightclub in that city, was also gay. This identification failed to recognize the cultural meaning of the term. "Gay" does not simply mean sex with another man or even interest in another man physically, as in Mateen's case, but rather "gay," as defined by the liberation movement, meant an open declaration of acceptance within a community of people who understood that their sexual orientation made them a part of distinct culture.
Further, identifying Mateen as gay plays into an early-20th-century definition of homosexuality as criminally deviant. The unspoken subtext in this assertion is that gay people are aberrant and their sexual orientation drives them to commit such horrific crimes.
The power of the gay liberation movement of the 1970s was to shatter previous negative connotations associated with homosexuality and to imbue a new meaning of the term "gay," revealing how sexual identity translated to a specific community of people who were part of a distinct culture.
The history of the 1970s was not just about political campaigns for equality but it was also a subtle more profound movement to refashion the term gay. This does not mean that LGBT culture is homogenous or that all LGBT people have the same ideological viewpoints or values, but it does mean that they all understand, on some level, the notion of gay culture.
The gay liberation movement has left us a powerful legacy, and protecting that legacy requires understanding the meaning of the term "gay" and not using it simply as a synonym for same-sex desire and intimacy.
JIM DOWNS is the author ofStand By Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation(Basic, 2016). He is an associate professor of history at Connecticut College.
Wikileaks
WikiLeaks Releases Full Transcripts of Clinton's Speeches | News | teleSUR English
The transcripts serve to reaffirm Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's cozy with Wall Street.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's full remarks to several Wall Street audiences become public Saturday when the transparency group WikiLeaks dumped its latest batch of emails obtained from the account of John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman.
RELATED: WikiLeaks Reveals What Clinton Really Thinks About US-Cuba Thaw
WikiLeaks called the latest release a ''holy grail'' for journalism.
The documents showed comments by Clinton during question-and-answer sessions with Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein and Tim O'Neill, the bank's head of investment management, at three separate events in 2013 in Arizona, New York and South Carolina.
Some excerpts of Clinton's speeches had already been released. For more than a week, WikiLeaks has published in stages emails from the account of John Podesta.
Clinton's campaign has declined to verify the emails. However, Clinton herself effectively acknowledged the authenticity of the previously leaked excerpts when she defended her closed-door comments during the second presidential debate earlier this week.
Goldman Sachs also did not immediately provide any comment on Saturday.
The transcripts serve to reaffirm Clinton's cozy with Wall Street.
In the email released on Saturday containing the transcripts, Clinton campaign staff highlighted sections that could pose problems, including saying "political reasons" were the impetus behind passing the 2010 Dodd-Frank law on Wall Street reforms.
The text suggests Clinton believed Wall Street was saddled with the blame for the financial crisis by the media and she was forced to act in a situation where she might not have otherwise.
''There was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing,'' reads a portion of talk delivered Oct. 24, 2013 to Goldman Sachs.
RELATED: WikiLeaks Lays Bare Clinton's Collusion With Mainstream Media
The cozy relationship appeared to go both ways, with Tim O'Neill, co-head of investment management at Goldman Sachs, thanking Clinton for being ''courageous'' in standing by Wall Street.
Clinton came under fire for months for not releasing full details of her paid speeches to big business audiences, as opponents accused her of a close relationship with bankers and other members of the U.S. financial system.
The excerpts that have surfaced so far angered voters who backed Clinton's former Democratic opponent, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, who endorsed her after losing the party's primary.
Few of these voters are expected to vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump, who is dealing with his own larger scandal after the release last week of a 2005 video in which he bragged about making unwanted sexual advances toward women.
But Democratic strategists worry that disappointment with Clinton could hurt turnout in the Nov. 8 election among liberals and younger voters, posing a potential problem for the former secretary of state.
'Make Soros Happy': Clinton Campaign Discusses Importance of Pleasing Billionaire in Leaked Email >> Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
Members of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign discussed the political importance of pleasing billionaire George Soros in emails published by WikiLeaks.
The email, among thousands allegedly hacked from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta, reveals a discussion between several prominent figures '' including campaign manager Robby Mook and Clinton aide Huma Abedin '' regarding the organization ''America Votes.''
''I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy),'' Mook tells Abedin. ''It's very unclear to me how much AV will matter next cycle. And I haven't seen then [sic] adding any value this cycle. I also worry a little it will cause donor confusion vis a vis Priorities.''
America Votes, which works ''with over 400 state and national partner organizations to advance progressive policies, win elections, and protect every American's right to vote,'' has received millions in funding from Soros.
''She is having dinner with George Soros tonight,'' Abedin responds. ''Do you know much about America Votes? As Greg Speed explained to me, they are the coordinated campaign for various outside groups. Soros is a big supporter of the group and hes [sic] going to ask her tonight if she will come to a fundraiser for them at his house in December. Thoughts?''
Several other emails released in the Podesta dump also reveal the Clinton campaign's close ties with the nefarious philanthropist.
General Cartwright is paying the price for Hillary Clinton's sins - The Washington Post
The Obama administration Justice Department has investigated three senior officials for mishandling classified information over the past two years but only one faces a felony conviction, possible jail time and a humiliation that will ruin his career: former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman General James E. Cartwright. The FBI's handling of the case stands in stark contrast to its treatment of Hillary Clinton and retired General David Petraeus '-- and it reeks of political considerations.
Monday marked a stunning fall from grace for Cartwright, the man once known as ''Obama's favorite general,'' who pleaded guilty to the felony charge of lying to the FBI during its investigation into the leaking of classified information about covert operations against Iran to two journalists. His lawyer Greg Craig said in a statement that Cartwright spoke with David Sanger of the New York Times and Dan Klaidman of Newsweek as a confirming source for stories they had already reported, in an effort to prevent the publication of harmful national security secrets.
Under his plea deal, Cartwright could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Last year, Petraeus cut a deal with the Justice Department after admitting he had lied to the FBI and passed hundreds of highly classified documents to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. He pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor of mishandling classified information and was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine.
Clinton was not charged at all for what FBI Director James B. Comey called ''extremely careless'' handling of ''very sensitive, highly classified information.'' Comey said that although there was ''evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,'' the FBI's judgment was that no reasonable prosecutor would have filed charges against Clinton or her associates.
FBI Director James Comey testified on July 7 at a U.S. House of Representatives hearing on presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's decision to use a personal email server while serving as Secretary of State. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
''There is a lack of proportion just based on the facts that one figure, Cartwright, is getting severely punished and others so far have escaped the process,'' said Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. ''He is being singled out for prosecution and public humiliation. It's an implicit rebuttal to those who argued that other senior officials such as Clinton or Petraeus got off scott free or got too light of a sentence.''
[Hillary Clinton fails the ABCs of handling classified information]
In its statement announcing the conclusion of its three-year investigation of Cartwright, the FBI emphasized that his prosecution showed that the Justice Department is willing to go after senior officials.
''The FBI will continue to take all necessary and appropriate steps to thoroughly investigate individuals, no matter their position (emphasis added), who undermine the integrity of our justice system by lying to federal investigators,'' said Assistant Director in Charge Paul Abbate.
That statement reveals that the FBI is trying address public criticism that it gives senior officials like Petraeus and Clinton special and favorable consideration, Aftergood said.
''They seem to be trying to make a policy point,'' he said. ''The Justice Department would say they are not influenced at all by policy or political considerations. In the real world, of course they are influenced.''
The announcement of the charges and Cartwright's guilty plea came on the same day the FBI released documents that allege the State Department, through Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, offered the FBI a ''quid pro quo'' for altering the classification of documents found on Clinton's private email server. The State Department maintains Kennedy made no such offer. The FBI said no deal was struck but it would investigate the issue.
Still, the FBI's unprecedented release of documents related to its Clinton investigation shows the Bureau is keenly aware of the public criticism of Comey's decision not to recommend any charges. And the mere fact that Clinton had the State Department, along with an army of lawyers, negotiating with the FBI over the investigation shows that the playing field is not even for the targets of such investigations. Petraeus, for his part, had several top U.S. senators publicly calling on the FBI to exonerate him before he cut his deal.
Cartwright, by contrast, was short on high-profile Washington friends. He had long ago run afoul of his two Pentagon bosses, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who never forgave him for going around the chain of command to join with Vice President Joe Biden to present Obama with an alternate plan for the Afghanistan troop surge in 2009.
Cartwright's greatest mistake was not talking to reporters or lying about it; he failed to play the Washington game skillfully enough to avoid becoming a scapegoat for a system in which senior officials skirt the rules and then fall back on their political power to save them.
I interviewed Cartwright on his way out of the Pentagon in 2011, after he was passed over for the job of Joint Chiefs chairman. A high-stakes whispering campaign about an alleged affair made the appointment politically difficult for Obama. Cartwright confirmed to me (on the record) that the president had promised him the job but later reneged due to the smear campaign. From that point on, Cartwright was a pariah to many of the Very Important People in Washington's national security elite.
[The FBI's misstep on Clinton's emails]
One notable difference between Cartwright's case and that of Clinton and Petraeus was the fact that Cartwright was the subject of a leak investigation. There's no evidence Clinton or Petraeus's actions led to the public disclosure of classified information. The Obama administration has prosecuted twice as many leakers as all previous administrations combined. The mostly low-level prosecutions have often resulted in harsh prison sentences. For example, Army Private Chelsea Manning is serving 35 years at Fort Leavenworth.
Cartwright's prosecution allows the Justice Department to say even senior-level leakers face consequences.
''General Cartwright violated the trust that was placed in him by willfully providing information that could endanger national security to individuals not authorized to receive it and then lying to the FBI about his actions,'' Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord said in a statement. ''With this plea, he will be held accountable.''
But McCord's statement begs the question: Will the other Stuxnet leakers be held accountable? No one has suggested that Cartwright was the primary source of the Stuxnet disclosures. According to emails obtained by the conservative action group Freedom Watch, Sanger had meetings on Iran with several other high-profile administration officials, including National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and even Clinton herself. There's no evidence of any other Stuxnet leak investigations of high-level officials.
Today, Petraeus maintains his status as a revered figure and sought-after thought leader. He works for a consulting firm, sits on several boards, teaches at a university, continues to advise the White House on national security and appears frequently on television. Clinton may go on to be the president of the United States.
In his best-case scenario, Cartwright could avoid prison time but will be saddled with a felony conviction that will bar him from most money-making opportunities. In the worst-case scenario, he could be getting released from prison around the same time Clinton finishes her first term.
In his statement taking responsibility for lying to the FBI, Cartwright asserted his motivations were patriotic. ''My only goal in talking to the reporters was to protect American interests and lives; I love my country and continue to this day to do everything I can to defend it.''
Can Clinton or Petraeus plausibly make the same claim regarding their indiscretions?
From:aj66@nyu.edu To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2011-12-06 22:18 Subject: Re: Fw: FYII agree. Did you make any progress on potential models/modes with Cheryl and Terry? -----Original Message-----From: John Podesta Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:12:14 To: Cc: Bruce Lindsey; Victoria B Bjorklund; Jennifer Reynoso; Terry McAuliffe Subject: Re: Fw: FYI We need to move to a resolution of this quickly. On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:34 AM, wrote: > John, Bruce, Terry, Victoria, Jennifer - fyi re: below. I've asked that it make my father's clips (it wld historically not as I understand it). > On another note, I was in London Sunday and did a Foundation event Sunday evening and two people separately voiced concerns directly to me about Teneo, neither of whom I know well (one of whom is a friend of one of Marc's old colleagues, ie we know only tangentially) and Sara Latham (whom Victoria and Jennifer, I do know well - she worked for my Dad in the WH and lives in London) voiced serious concerns to Bari - including telling her Ilya has called Members of the House and Members of Parliament, "on behalf of President Clinton," for Teneo clients (eg for Andrew Liveris and Dow who's coming this month to London), without my father's knowledge and inelegantly and ineffectually at best and at worse has now precipitating people in London making comparisons between my father and Tony Blair's profit motivations. Which would horrify my father. Sara also told Bari she started working for Teneo, as Teneo, more than a year ago and then recently stopped because she was so upset, partly because of what Doug and Declan asked her to do/ pretend was happening for their clients at Davos- that's all I know. I am hoping to connect directly with Sara this week, if only to connect her belatedly into Victoria and Jennifer. > I'm speaking at an innovations in governance conference today here in Oxford and flying back later this afternoon. I will raise all of this and more with my father this evening. Wanted to update you all in the meanwhile about my augmented concerns post London and the below. Thank you. > Chelsea > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Bari Lurie" > Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 23:38:28 > To: CVC > Reply-To: bari@chelseaoffice.com > Subject: FYI > > Claim: Clinton Collected $50K Per Month From MF Global > Former president's new firm Teneo Strategy was hired to boost Corzine.by Neil W. McCabe12/05/2011 > > A former MF Global employee accused former president William J. Clinton of collecting $50,000 per month through his Teneo advisory firm in the months before the brokerage careened towards its Halloween filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. > > Teneo was hired by MF Global's former CEO Jon S. Corzine to improve his image and to enhance his connections with Clinton's political family, said the employee, who asked that his name be withheld because he feared retribution. > > ''They were supposed to be helping Corzine improve his image as a CEO'--I guess you can tell how that went,'' he said. Corzine resigned as CEO and chairman November 4. > > Before Corzine joined MF Global in May 2010, the firm was a smart and well-run commodities broker, a culture that was turned upside-down by his leadership style, he said. > > ''The traders would be shaking their heads,'' he said. ''They would come back to their desk and say, 'Well, I thought we were going to do this'--but Corzine would come by and do something else all by himself,''' he said. > > The Teneo contract with MF Global lasted at least five months, he said. ''The board cancelled it after Corzine resigned.'' > > The source, who is no longer associated with MF Global, said Teneo is a dual-track company with one side devoted to merchant and investment banking and the other side set up to provide image and strategy consulting services. > > Clinton is the chairman of the company's advisory board. His duties and compensation have not been released. The other member of the board is former British prime minister Tony Blair. > > Two of the three founding partners are very close to the former president and his wife, Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton. They are Douglas J. Band, who is the former president's counselor and has served on his personal staff since 1995 and Declan Kelly, who earned the ''Hillraiser'' status in the secretary's 2008 run for president for bundling more than $100,000 for the campaign. > > Another prominent member of the Clinton political family is Tom Shea. Shea is a senior vice president for Teneo Strategy and served as Corzine's chief of staff, when Corzine was the governor of New Jersey. > > Kelly sold his public relations firm Financial Dynamics in 2006 to FTI for $340 million, and stayed with that company until July 2009, when he joined the State Department as the Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland. > > The source said, ''Kelly was given a job they created out our whole cloth.'' The job did not exist previously. > > ''He basically got to ride around developing a book of business, while he waited for his non-compete clause to run out,'' he said. > > Kelley and the former president traveled together networking and making introductions at international conferences and events, he said. > > The Secretary of State also traveled with Kelly, including the October 2010 U.S. '' Northern Ireland Economics Conference, which Kelly organized and at which the secretary was the featured speaker. > > The secretary announced that she accepted Kelly's resignation May 11. > > Teneo landed its first major client June 1, when the Rockefeller Foundation gave Teneo a $3,447,150, six-month contract to help plan the foundation's 2013 centennial. > > The foundation is another member of the Clinton's extended family. It gave Clinton its Lifetime Innovation Achievement Award July 27 and the foundation is listed as a between $1 to $5 million contributor to the William J. Clinton Foundation, along with several members of the Rockefeller family who are listed as individual contributors.
From:aj66@nyu.edu To: john.podesta@gmail.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com, vbjorklund@stblaw.com, jreynoso@stblaw.com Date: 2011-11-04 19:08 Subject:Hello John, Cheryl, Victoria and Jennifer - Although I continue to respond to people's sharing of their concerns about the Foundation and/or my father's world by telling them that 1) I hope they will share their experiences/concerns/hopes/fears with Victoria and her team candidly and 2) that it is critical that as we move to professionalize the Foundation for the future that professionalism starts with this process - people continue to share things with me. Although I continue to not respond or engage beyond what I outlined above, I do think - and my mother strongly agreed as a lawyer - that I should pass along to you Victoria and your team and to you John and Cheryl the below as more information (factual or suspected or imagined). Particularly in advance of what I understand will be an intermediate conversation with Doug tomorrow. I continue to want - and to try - to disintermediate myself from this muddle, edify the corporate audit and existential process we are in - while also being a responsible board member, daughter and person. In that vein, I was told or experienced the following since we had our meeting last week Victoria: - today that Doug reached out to someone at Harry Walker (who represents my father on all speaking arrangements), to ask for a full list of all his speeches, how much he was paid for each speech, and told the contact person at Harry Walker that all speeches should now go through him, not Terry Krinivic (the scheduler) - that Ilya physically saw/caught Justin a couple of days ago reading his bberry and loading the same spyware onto his computer that he loaded onto Bari's computer - a secret service agent told Marc (my husband) that Justin had asked another secret service agent to lie about the parking pass absurdity [we can talk about this really ridiculous anecdote offline] - multiple people shared with me how upset they were at hearing how Justin referred to my father in the last week - in very derogatory ways widely sadly - Oscar told my father he knows Justin reads his emails - my father was told today of explicit examples at CGI of Doug/ Teneo pushing for - and receiving - free memberships - and of multiple examples of Teneo 'hustling' business at CGI - and of people now having quit at CGI - that Doug told Jon Davidson he was never going to forgive him for not reporting that Dad met with John (ie you John) on Sunday and that how could Jon forget who he really worked for - Doug told Terry Krinivic she would never work again in this town if she didn't back him up on everything - Ilya believes Hannah and Justin have taken significant sums of money from my parents personally - some in expenses - cars, etc. - and others directly As ever, on some of the above I am sure there are three sides as my grandmother would say - his, hers and the truth. On others, it seems more clear. All of it makes me very sad. Thank you all for your help. The only people I am sharing the above with are you, my mother and my father. Please let me know as ever if you have any questions or advice. Thank you, Chelsea
Download raw source
Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.comReceived: by 10.52.31.228 with SMTP id d4cs93130vdi; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:08:42 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.52.30.33 with SMTP id p1mr13609607vdh.121.1320440921107; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT)Return-Path: Received: from mail-vx0-f171.google.com (mail-vx0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cb7si8925935vdc.149.2011.11.04.14.08.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:08:41 -0700 (PDT)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.220.171 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of aj66@nyu.edu) client-ip=209.85.220.171;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 209.85.220.171 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of aj66@nyu.edu) smtp.mail=aj66@nyu.eduReceived: by mail-vx0-f171.google.com with SMTP id fk14so2160940vcb.2 for ; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT)MIME-Version: 1.0Received: by 10.52.240.132 with SMTP id wa4mr17000438vdc.16.1320440920832; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.220.192.194 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT)Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:08:40 -0400Message-ID: Subject: From: Anna James To: john.podesta@gmail.com, Cheryl Mills , "Bjorklund, Victoria B" , "Reynoso, Jennifer" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30780da00879a404b0ef1c22--20cf30780da00879a404b0ef1c22Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1Hello John, Cheryl, Victoria and Jennifer - Although I continue to respondto people's sharing of their concerns about the Foundation and/or myfather's world by telling them that 1) I hope they will share theirexperiences/concerns/hopes/fears with Victoria and her team candidly and 2)that it is critical that as we move to professionalize the Foundation forthe future that professionalism starts with this process - people continueto share things with me. Although I continue to not respond or engagebeyond what I outlined above, I do think - and my mother strongly agreed asa lawyer - that I should pass along to you Victoria and your team and toyou John and Cheryl the below as more information (factual or suspected orimagined). Particularly in advance of what I understand will be anintermediate conversation with Doug tomorrow. I continue to want - and totry - to disintermediate myself from this muddle, edify the corporate auditand existential process we are in - while also being a responsible boardmember, daughter and person.In that vein, I was told or experienced the following since we had ourmeeting last week Victoria:- today that Doug reached out to someone at Harry Walker (who representsmy father on all speaking arrangements), to ask for a full list of all hisspeeches, how much he was paid for each speech, and told the contact personat Harry Walker that all speeches should now go through him, not TerryKrinivic (the scheduler)- that Ilya physically saw/caught Justin a couple of days ago reading hisbberry and loading the same spyware onto his computer that he loaded ontoBari's computer- a secret service agent told Marc (my husband) that Justin had askedanother secret service agent to lie about the parking pass absurdity [wecan talk about this really ridiculous anecdote offline]- multiple people shared with me how upset they were at hearing how Justinreferred to my father in the last week - in very derogatory ways widelysadly- Oscar told my father he knows Justin reads his emails- my father was told today of explicit examples at CGI of Doug/ Teneopushing for - and receiving - free memberships - and of multiple examplesof Teneo 'hustling' business at CGI - and of people now having quit at CGI- that Doug told Jon Davidson he was never going to forgive him for notreporting that Dad met with John (ie you John) on Sunday and that how couldJon forget who he really worked for- Doug told Terry Krinivic she would never work again in this town if shedidn't back him up on everything- Ilya believes Hannah and Justin have taken significant sums of money frommy parents personally - some in expenses - cars, etc. - and others directlyAs ever, on some of the above I am sure there are three sides as mygrandmother would say - his, hers and the truth. On others, it seems moreclear. All of it makes me very sad. Thank you all for your help. The onlypeople I am sharing the above with are you, my mother and my father. Pleaselet me know as ever if you have any questions or advice.Thank you,Chelsea--20cf30780da00879a404b0ef1c22Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableHello John, Cheryl, Victoria and Jennifer - Although I continue to respond =to people's sharing of their concerns about the Foundation and/or my fa=ther's world by telling them that 1) I hope they will share their exper=iences/concerns/hopes/fears with Victoria and her team candidly and 2) that= it is critical that as we move to professionalize the Foundation for the f=uture that professionalism starts with this process - people continue to sh=are things with me. =A0Although I continue to not respond or engage beyond =what I outlined above, I do think - and my mother strongly agreed as a lawy=er - that I should pass along to you Victoria and your team and to you John= and Cheryl the below as more information (factual or suspected or imagined=). Particularly=A0in advance of what I understand will be an intermediate c=onversation with Doug tomorrow. I continue to want - and to try - to disint=ermediate myself from this muddle, edify the corporate audit and existentia=l process we are in - while also being a responsible board member, daughter= and person.=A0In that vein, I was told or experienced the following since we ha=d our meeting last week Victoria:- =A0today that =Doug reached out to someone at Harry Walker (who represents my father on al=l speaking arrangements), to ask for a full list of all his speeches, how m=uch he was paid for each speech, and told the contact person at Harry Walke=r that all speeches should now go through him, not Terry Krinivic (the sche=duler)- that Ilya physically saw/caught Justin a couple of days ago reading =his bberry and loading the same spyware onto his computer that he loaded on=to Bari's computer- a secret service agent told Marc (my hus=band) that Justin had asked another secret service agent to lie about the p=arking pass absurdity [we can talk about this really ridiculous anecdote of=fline]=A0- multiple people shared with me how upset they were at hearing how Ju=stin referred to my father in the last week - in very derogatory ways widel=y sadly- Oscar told my father he knows Justin reads =his emails- my father was told today of explicit examples at CGI of Doug/ Teneo =pushing for - and receiving - free memberships - and of multiple examples o=f Teneo 'hustling' business at CGI - and of people now having quit =at CGI=A0- that Doug told Jon Davidson he was never going to forgive him for no=t reporting that Dad met with John (ie you John) on Sunday and that how cou=ld Jon forget who he really worked for- Doug told Terry Krinivic= she would never work again in this town if she didn't back him up on e=verything- Ilya believes Hannah and Justin have taken significant sums of money= from my parents personally - some in expenses - cars, etc. - and others di=rectlyAs ever, on some of the above I am sure the=re are three sides as my grandmother would say - his, hers and the truth. O=n others, it seems more clear. All of it makes me very sad. Thank you all f=or your help. The only people I am sharing the above with are you, my mothe=r and my father. Please let me know as ever if you have any questions or ad=vice.Thank you,Chelsea--20cf30780da00879a404b0ef1c22--
A Peek Into the Clinton Campaign in Damage Control Mode, From the Podesta Emails
When Hillary Clinton came under attack last February for her 2001 vote in favor of a bankruptcy bill that made it more difficult for poor people to discharge their debts, she defended herself by saying she did it for women and children.
During an appearance on ABC News's ''This Week'', Clinton was confronted with a 2004 Bill Moyers video interview with then-consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren, in which she explained that she had personally briefed Clinton on the bankruptcy bill but that large financial contributions from the credit card industry had helped sway the senator in favor of it.
Clinton responded by saying her vote was part of a process of strengthening the bill for women and children. ''I faced a tough decision and I stood up for women and children,''she said.
''I was deluged by women's groups and children's advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women's precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered,''she said. ''So I did go to work on behalf of all these women's groups and children's groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed.''
But behind the scenes, her campaign soon discovered they had a problem on their hands: They couldn't find evidence of pressure from women's and childrens' groups in favor of the bill '-- because there was none. Those groups were in fact ferociously opposed. So the Clinton team went into damage control mode, trying to back the candidate up '-- without compounding the mistake, but without admitting it, either.
The emails that describe their response are among thousands of emails posted by Wikileaks over the past week from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's Gmail account. U.S. intelligence officials maintain that the emails were hacked on orders of the Russian government, in an attempt to interfere with the U.S. elections. Wikileaks is in the process of publishing all of them, even though some have no legitimate public-interest value.
Shortly after the interview, Clinton public-relations consultant Mandy Grunwald suggested that the campaign enlist women's advocates to back up Clinton's story. ''Since HRC spent so much time on 2001 bankruptcy bill today, should we get [women's rights attorneys] Marcia Greenberger and Judy Lichtman and other women's group advocates to put out statements backing up her story and attacking BS?'' she asked.
Other senior Clinton aides concurred with Grunwald's opinion, and policy advisor Ann O'Leary said she would reach out to women's groups to get their supporting statements.
Hours later, O'Leary returned with bad news. ''We have a problem. HRC overstayed [sic] her case this morning in a pretty big way,'' she wrote. The advocates they were thinking of going to had all attacked the bill at the time. ''Marcia, Judy and I have been figuring out what we could say that doesn't contradict their 2001 statement.'' In a follow-up email, she explained, ''She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it. Evidence does not support that statement.''
O'Leary then came up with another approach: ''But my other idea is to have women Senators who all voted for it to put out statement.''
Later that day, O'Leary provided an update, explaining that she had enlisted the help of the chiefs of staff to Democratic Sens Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, and Barbara Boxer, to come to Clinton's aid.
With respect to the women's groups, O'Leary noted that ''we cannot put something out proactive here b/c the record just isn't good'' but that ''Judy and Marcia are also prepared to say that Hillary fought really hard for changes, was with the other women Senators, and committed to keep working with them to strengthen the bill.''
She then linked to a 2001 statements from the National Women's Law Center '-- where Greenberger serves as a co-president '-- condemning the vote. ''This bill puts the interests of credit card companies ahead of the needs of women and children owed child support and other families struggling to cope with family breakup, job loss, or catastrophic medical expenses,'' Joan Entmacher a senior NWLC staffer, is quoted as saying.
Late in the day, Grunwald sent a panicked email slamming the brakes on the entire initiative.
''One IMPORTANT caution,'' she wrote. ''I just spoke with Elizabeth Warren's [Chief of Staff] COS and he's worried that statements from Mikulski, Murray et al may be salt in the wound. She is quite angry. I can explain if anyone wants details.''
Top photo: John Podesta, Clinton Campaign Chairman, reads over notes on board Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's plane at Westchester County Airport on Sept. 27, 2016, in White Plains, New York.
CGI
Clinton has built the biggest big-money operation ever - POLITICO
''We had the best base of donors and bundlers and raisers ever in 2008. It was even better in 2012. And it's much better in 2016 than 2012,'' said Wade Randlett, a San Francisco-based Democrat who has raised money for Clinton, Obama and Democratic causes for decades. ''The Obama people basically 100 percent in are favor of Hillary. There's really no loss because of ideology or bad blood. And she has added an enormous number of people, especially women.''
Among her bundlers are celebrities (Will Smith) and sports stars (Earvin ''Magic'' Johnson), Hollywood directors (Steven Spielberg and George Lucas) and corporate executives (Marissa Mayer and Sheryl Sandberg), Wall Street-types (Marc Lasry), media executives (Haim Saban and Anna Wintour) and members of Congress, including her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, who helped raise more than $100,000 for Clinton before he joined the ticket in July. The Clinton campaign said 45 percent of its bundlers are women.
There are also federal lobbyists, from whom the Democratic Party under Obama refused to accept money, a prohibition that has since been rolled back.
This club has expanded to the point where Clinton would now struggle to fit all of these bundlers into a single ballroom. As of the end of June, she counted 496 such individuals and couples. By the end of July, it was 871. On August 31, it was 1,133.
It includes billionaires George Soros, Warren Buffett and Tom Steyer, super lobbyists like Steve Elmendorf and bold-faced names like Calvin Klein and J.J. Abrams. There is also a sprinkling of longtime Clinton family advisers, such as Vernon Jordan.
The assemblage is already more than double the size of President George W. Bush's vaunted 2004 Pioneer and Ranger program for those who raised at least $100,000; Bush had 548 Rangers and Pioneers. It also dwarfs Obama's reelection fundraising operation four years ago that had 602 individuals or couples in its $100,000 club, and a total of 770 bundlers who raised at least $50,000.
Remarkably, when Clinton releases a revised list in the coming week, her team of bundlers could be larger than the Bush 2004 and Obama 2012 lists combined.
''Of course, it helps that she's drawing on a political network decades in the making,'' said Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations.
The rush of money has provided Clinton a tremendous advantage as she vastly outspends Trump in nearly every facet of the 2016 campaign: on TV, on radio, on mail, on staff, on field operations. Clinton raised roughly $297 million for her campaign and joint committees with the Democratic Party in August and September. That is more in the last two months than the $262.3 million the Republican National Committee touted on Friday that it had raised during the entire cycle.
California is, by far, home to the most bundlers, with 267, but Clinton has members of the $100,000 club in 43 states, plus the District of Columbia, along with ex-pats helping her raise money in England (9 bundlers), France (3), Japan (2) and China (1).
Hillary Clinton's lost of celebrity bundlers includes basketball legend Earvin ''Magic'' Johnson. | Getty
Beyond the names of its $100,000 bundlers, the campaign has not released how much in total the group has raised. But generally the bigger the check, the more intimate the event. This week, for example, Clinton stopped by a fundraiser in Las Vegas for 45 minutes that was attended by only 10 donors. She netted at least $1 million, as it cost $100,000 to get in the door.
And back in August, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, hosted Clinton at her Woodside home at an event for only 20 people. Those who attended had to contribute at least $200,000 '-- making it a $4 million stop. That was part of an intensive three-day swing through California in which Clinton raised at least $19 million across nine different events.
The campaign says it also raised, through September, $231 million in contributions under $200.
There is no law requiring campaigns to disclose their bundlers. Clinton's campaign voluntarily names those who've given or raised $100,000 or more on a monthly basis. Trump has refused to do so.
But her reliance on so many big checks has left her vulnerable to accusations, both from Bernie Sanders during the primary and now from the GOP nominee, that she is in the pocket of those who want special access to a Clinton White House. ''Special interests that will tell you exactly what to do,'' Trump charged at their most recent debate.
The hacked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, released by Wikileaks, offer a window into the lengths that Clinton's top brass have gone to cater to these mega-donors.
They show, for instance, Podesta lunching with Katzenberg in March 2015, and then Katzenberg asking for a meeting with Hillary Clinton only 12 days later, and then another meeting with Bill Clinton in May. Katzenberg gave $1 million to Clinton's super PAC that June and hosted a multi-million-dollar event for her campaign at his Los Angeles home in April 2016.
The emails also show Saban, the chairman of Univision, the country's largest Spanish-language network, reaching out to offer advice and encouragement '-- and getting a receptive audience. ''Haim thinks we are under reacting to Trump/Hispanics,'' Podesta wrote in early July 2015 to other Clinton advisers after a call with the billionaire. ''Thinks we can get something by standing up for Latinos or attacking R's for not condemning.'' The Saban conversation spurred a dozen planning emails inside the campaign.
And when Saban wrote to Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, on March 15 of this year to say he was ''very happy'...relieved'' at their recent primary victories, Mook wrote back: ''Thank YOU for making it possible!!''
Saban and his wife have given a combined $10 million to Clinton's super PAC, and hosted that $5 million evening at their Beverly Hills home for Clinton's campaign in August 2016.
With no more stops at the California ATM left this cycle, Mook said that Clinton will rely mostly upon small donors who give online in the final 25 days. ''In these last few weeks, it's actually our online donors who almost exclusively will be supporting the campaign,'' he said on a conference call this week.
That, and the enormous $150 million Clinton entered October sitting upon thanks to her bundlers.
I FOUND PROOF THAT THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN HAD THE PROTESTER FROM THE O'KEEFE VIDEO DIRECTLY ON THEIR PAYROLL. I CROSS REFERENCED HER CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND ZULEMA RODRIGUEZ SHOWED UP. GOING RATE FOR A RIOTER: $1,610.24 and a free phone. TO THE TOP^^^^ : The_
Fox News has released a quote from Americans United For Change [head] Brad Woodhouse stating. ''Americans United For Change has always operated according to the highest ethical and legal standards. Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change.''
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, James O'Keefe said he believes this is not the end. ''They want to make Scott Foval the fall guy. But this rot goes higher and deeper. This was a conspiracy to create a narrative that Trump supporters were dangerous and out of control. This scheme was created and approved at the highest levels of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee,'' O'Keefe said.
A quote from Foval published in the widely read Breitbart article supports this, with Foval saying,''We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign. I am contracted to [Robert Creamer] but I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign. Through Bob. We have certain people who do not get to talk to them, at all.''
As Breitbart News reported earlier today:
Foval also explains how the operation is set up to allow the DNC and the Clinton campaign ''plausible deniability'' in the event that the true nature of the deliberate violence is discovered: ''The thing that we have to watch is making sure there's a double-blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we're doing. There's a double-blind there, so that they can plausibly deny that they heard anything about it.''
Fovel has already removed traces of his associations with Americans United for Change from his LinkedIn account.
Here is the complete James O'Keefe video:
Developing'...
Ottomania
Turkey's president tells Iraqi leader to 'know his place' - The Washington Post
ANKARA, Turkey '-- Turkey can't be excluded from a possible operation to recapture the Iraqi city of Mosul, Turkey's president said Tuesday, telling Iraq's leader to ''know his place.''
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's remarks were likely to add to tensions between the two neighbors, which are key U.S. partners in the fight against the Islamic State group.
In a speech delivered in Istanbul, Erdogan also said Turkish troops wouldn't withdraw from a base near Mosul, saying the Turkish army wouldn't take orders from Baghdad. Turkey is training anti-IS fighters to help retake Mosul from the extremist group.
Turkey-Iraq relations became strained after Ankara sent troops late last year to the region of Bashiqa, northeast of Mosul, to train anti-IS fighters there '-- a move Baghdad has since labeled a ''blatant violation'' of its sovereignty. Iraq has demanded a Turkish withdrawal, but Ankara has repeatedly ignored the call.
Turkish officials say hundreds of their soldiers are based at Bashiqa, training more than 3,000 Turkmen, Kurdish or Sunni Arab fighters from Mosul. Turkey says about 700 IS militants have been killed in retaliatory attacks against the extremists carried out from the base.
Turkish warnings about possible sectarian clashes in Mosul if the majority Sunni region were placed under Shiite militia control also have drawn Baghdad's ire. Last week, both countries summoned each other's ambassadors while Iraq requested an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council over the presence of unauthorized Turkish troops in northern Iraq.
Speaking to Muslim religious leaders from the Balkans and Central Asia, Erdogan said objections from Iraq wouldn't stop Turkey from participating in any operation to free Mosul and proceeded to make vitriolic remarks against Iraq's prime minister.
''You are not my interlocutor, you are not at my level, you are not my equivalent, you are not of the same quality as me,'' Erdogan said, addressing Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. ''Your screaming and shouting in Iraq is of no importance to us. You should know that we will go our own way.''
Erdogan also said Turkey wouldn't withdraw its troops from the base in Bashiqa, adding that it was al-Abadi himself who had asked Ankara to train fighters there back in 2014.
''Turkey's army hasn't lost enough of its quality to take orders from you,'' Erdogan said in response to Iraqi calls for the troop's withdrawal. ''We would do whatever is necessary as we have done until today.''
U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in Washington that the situation in Bashiqa was a matter for the Iraqi and Turkish governments to resolve.
''What we support is continued dialogue between them that can lead to a speedy resolution of the matter. We call on both governments to focus on their common enemy, our common enemy, which is Daesh,'' he said, using an Arabic acronym for IS.
''Over the coming days and weeks, we believe it's imperative for all the parties to closely coordinate next steps to ensure unity of effort in that counter-Daesh fight.
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, meanwhile, again warned that any operation to free Mosul shouldn't lead to any demographic change. Turkish is worried that once Mosul is liberated from IS, Kurds or Shiite groups may take Mosul over and push out Sunni Arabs or ethnic Turkmens.
''We have explained to all of our friends that the operation planned for Mosul should be limited to removing Daesh,'' Yildirim said.
''If you, after removing Daesh, attempt to change Mosul's demographic structure, you will light the fire of a very big civil war, of a sectarian war. This is our warning,'' Yildirim said.
Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
EU wil sluikreclame van vloggers verbieden | Spreekbuis
Door: Redactie - October 16, 2016
De Europese Commissie wil snel regels en beter toezicht op reclame via sociale media en vlogs, die zich richten op jongeren. Dat zei voorzitter Madeleine de Cock Buning van het Commissariaat zaterdag in het VARA-programma Kassa.
Populaire vloggers maken regelmatig reclame door middel van product placement. Hiermee worden kinderen door influencers bereikt en De Cock Buning wil deze vorm van kidsreclame verbieden.Voortaan zou men het duidelijk moeten aangeven als er reclame wordt gemaakt. Ook worden platforms als YouTube en Facebook gevraagd meer maatregelen te nemen tegen ongepaste inhoud, waaronder extreem geweld en seks.
Het is voor het eerst dat in Europa wettelijk toezicht geregeld wordt op online content via online videokanalen en sociale media.
Bron: Kassa.
Spelfouten, taalfouten of inhoudelijke feedback? Meld het ons.
Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
comments powered by Blog Jan Slagter: 'Mooie vooruitzichten''Omroep-hofleverancier' HKU definitief weg uit Hilversum >>
Feds Walk Into A Building, Demand Everyone's Fingerprints To Open Phones
The Dutch government intends to draft a law that would legalise assisted suicide for people who feel they have "completed life", but are not necessarily terminally ill, it said on Wednesday.
The Netherlands was the first country to legalise euthanasia, in 2002, but only for patients who were considered to be suffering unbearable pain with no hope of a cure.
In a letter to parliament, the health and justice ministers said details remain to be worked out but that people who "have a well-considered opinion that their life is complete, must, under strict and careful criteria, be allowed to finish that life in a manner dignified for them".
The proposal is likely to provoke critics who say Dutch euthanasia practice has already expanded beyond the borders originally envisioned for it, with "unbearable suffering" not only applying to people with terminal diseases, but also to some with mental illnesses and dementia.
The euthanasia policy has widespread backing in Dutch society, and cases have risen by double digits every year for more than a decade as more patients request it and more doctors are willing to carry it out. Euthanasia accounted for 5,516 deaths in the Netherlands in 2015, or 3.9 percent of all deaths nationwide.
Edith Schippers, health minister, wrote in the letter that "because the wish for a self-chosen end of life primarily occurs in the elderly, the new system will be limited to" them.
She did not define a threshold age.
The new law will require "careful guidance and vetting ahead of time with a 'death assistance provider' with a medical background, who has also been given additional training".
Other aspects of the law as she envisions it will include safety mechanisms including third-party checks, reviews and supervision.
The proposal comes as a surprise, as a commission enlisted to study the idea of allowing a "completed life" extension to current policy concluded there was no need for it.
The ministers disagreed. "The Cabinet is of the opinion that a request for help (in dying) from people who suffer unbearably and have no hope without an underlying medical reason can be a legitimate request".
They hope to draft a law, in consultation with doctors, ethicists and other experts, by the end of 2017.
Healthy 24-year-old woman to be euthanized in Belgium | The Pulse | LifeSite
June 23, 2015 (Alex Schadenberg) -- The Belgian euthanasia insanity continues with the case of a 24-year-old healthy woman (Laura) who will die by euthanasia this summer for psychological reasons, now the Inquisitr has provided more information on this horrific story. (Original article).
The June 19 DeMorgen article by Simone Maas explains (google translated):
She has good friends, loves good coffee and theater. And she has felt that she wanted to die ever since childhood. Laura (24): "Life, that's not for me." This summer, euthanasia will end her life full of inner conflict, depression and self-destruction.
I met the West Flemish Laura at the presentation of the book 'Libera me' euthanasia for psychological reasons. Writer Lieve Thienpont is one of the psychiatrists who gave Laura a positive opinion for euthanasia.
Today the Inquisitr published an interview with Laura that explains the story in an even more shocking manner. According to the Inquisitr, Laura experiences suicidal thoughts, otherwise known as suicidal ideation.
Laura, a 24-year-old woman is planning on dying this summer via euthanasia. Unlike many cases before, Laura is not sick with cancer or dying. She simply has had suicidal thoughts since childhood and claims, ''Life, that's not for me.''
Laura claims that she has been living with suicidal ideation since kindergarten. The medical news defines suicidal ideation as:
Suicidal thoughts, also known as suicidal ideation are thoughts about how to kill oneself, which can range from a detailed plan to a fleeting consideration and does not include the final act of killing oneself. The majority of people who experience suicidal ideation do not carry it through.
According to the Medical news suicidal ideation can be triggered by other suicides.
Researchers reported in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) that suicide can be contagious.
Dr. Ian Colman, from the Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine and Canada Research Chair in Mental Health Epidemiology, explained that one person's suicide can have an impact on another's suicidal thoughts or behavior, especially among teenagers.
He adds that the teenagers do not necessarily have to be associated with the person who died by suicide to start having suicidal thoughts or attempting to end his/her own life.
It appears that Laura's suicidal ideation may be linked to the euthanasia death of Sarah. The Inquisitr stated:
Due to these issues, she began seeking treatment in a psychiatric institution over the last three years. Laura says she first began considering euthanasia when she became friends with another woman named Sarah, who also ended her life about a year and a half ago. Now, Laura is also a candidate for euthanasia for psychological reasons, which is when a patient is in mental pain and wants to die.
Euthanasia for psychological reasons is done when a psychiatrist agrees that the psychological pain that a person is experiencing cannot be relieved in a way that the individual finds acceptable.
That means, Laura may be treatable, but she has decided to only accept death as a "treatment."
Similar to the euthanasia deaths of Godelieva De Troyer (64), a healthy Belgian woman who was living with depression or Ann G (44) who asked for euthanasia for psychological pain after being sexually exploited by her psychiatrist, Laura has been approved for lethal injection, even though she is physically healthy and only 24-years-old.
In March, the chairman of the federal euthanasia commission in Belgium admitted that 50 to 60 euthanasia deaths are done on psychiatric patients each year.
Similar cases are occurring in the Netherlands, where a report indicated there were 42 euthanasia deaths for psychiatric reasons and 97 euthanasia deaths for people with dementia in 2013.
Reprinted with permission from Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
BLM
BBC Autumnwatch presenter 'sidelined for being too white and middle class'
Martin Hughes-Games, the wildlife presenter, is to be sidelined from the BBC's much-loved nature shows to make way for someone less white and middle class, he has suggested.
Hughes-Games, who joined "the Watches" in 2009, said Autumnwatch and Springwatch needed a "more diverse team" to suit the agenda of modern television as he claims he has been shifted from the main line-up.
The broadcaster said he had been "genuinely sad and upset" to have learned his anchoring services may no longer required, just three weeks after the birth of his son.
But the BBC insisted any future decisions about Hughes-Games' role would be nothing to do with diversity, confirming he is due to take full part in the new series of Autumnwatch as planned before negotiating future shows.
"Conversations about his role are ongoing," a spokesman said.
In an interview with the Radio Times, Hughes-Games said he understands the need for the BBC to try out new faces on screen.
''Whatever I may think, it's crucially important that high-profile shows like the Watches reflect diversity," he said.
"Chris, Michaela and I are all white and middle class, so a more diverse team must present some of the films that go out.
"It's hard for me because it's my living, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought, 'No, that's the right decision, it has to be like that.' ''
The news comes weeks after the BBC was criticised for axeing comedian Jon Holmes from Radio 4's The Now Show, when he claims he was told: "We're recasting it with more women and diversity".
Holmes said he accepted the need for diversity but asked: "Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?"
In April this year, the BBC introduced "tough" new diversity targets including an aim to have half the faces on screen be women by 2020, 15 per cent be black or minority ethnic, eight per cent disabled and a further eight per cent LGBT.
Hughes-Games surprised fans in September by tweeting that: "The BBC commissioner Tom McDonald has decided my services no longer required on Springwatch etc.
"Sad, but it's been brilliant. Thank you.''
The next day, the BBC issued a statement denying it, saying: "It is simply not true that Martin's services are no longer required on the Watches.
"As well as being contracted for Autumnwatch we have begun conversations with Martin about an evolution of his role for Winterwatch and beyond."
But Hughes-Games has now claimed he has officially been sidelined, telling the Radio Times: "It's going to be completely different for me of course, and I will desperately miss Michaela and Chris, and in my heart of hearts I think we do have a wonderful relationship that works on screen, but I do see what Tom [McDonald] needs to try now.
"I won't be going, I will still be a presence there, but we've yet to quite work out how that will be. We'll see how it evolves.''
Though sanguine, the broadcaster warned audiences would soon spot if a new presenter was there only for their appearance.
''If somebody's in there because they're pretty and they don't know what they're talking about, the audience will soon let you know what they think, particularly in this era of social media," he said.
"So we have to do it, but we have to choose the right people as well.''
Of his exit, he admitted the timing was "just bl---- awful", leaving him wondering at the age of 60 how he would provide for his newborn son Sam.
A spokesman for the BBC said last night: " This is not a decision about diversity and was never described as such; Martin will be presenting Autumnwatch and conversations about his role after that are ongoing.''
Racist Cupcakes: SJWs Attack Innocent Bakery For Its Oreo-Flavored Treat - MILO
Racist cupcakes. Yes, you read that correctly: racist cupcakes.As if the infantile idiocy of social justice PC-policing couldn't get worse than telling us which Halloween costumes we can and cannot wear, SJWs have now found a way to shame your local baker into banning certain cupcakes.
Anjelica Hayes is the 26-year-old owner of Portland's Fat Cupcake bakery. But one day, during the everyday hustle of running her business, SJWs greeted her with a new kind of challenge: accusations of racism.
The reasoning? Anjelica named one of her delicious black-and-white-colored cupcakes ''The President'''--a reference to Barack Obama's love of Oreo cookies. However, after a Yelp reviewer righteously decried the name as a racial slur, Ms. Hayes quickly changed the cupcake's name to ''The Professional.''
The term ''Oreo'', aside from its reference to the world-famous Nabisco treat, is also an insult within the black community used to describe a black person who sold out his own people to serve the ''white man.'' You know: black on the outside, white on the inside.
According to Anjelica, ''I thought it was an honorary name'...I'd be honored if someone named a cupcake after me.''
Sorry Ms. Hayes: but in the age of social justice, good intentions don't matter. All that matters are the feelings of others. Wear a Halloween costume resembling Mexican culture in a celebration of diversity? WRONG! Choose something else because ''celebrating other cultures'' is actually ''cultural appropriation.''
The truth is that Ms. Hayes is just another victim wounded in the crossfires of social justice. A quick Google Search for ''Fat Cupcake'' (the name of Anjelica's bakery) returned a whole slew of articles about the incident, undeniably creating some negative publicity that links her innocent little bakery with allegations of racism:
gay cakeracismSJW
Elite$
Who Is Justin Trudeau's Mom, Margaret Trudeau? Canada's Beloved "Maggie" Has Long Enjoyed The Spotlight
A 60 Minutes profile on Canada's dreamy new leader mistakenly identified his mother as Sex and the City actress Kim Cattrall last week, leaving everyone wondering, who exactly is Justin Trudeau's mom? Turns out, the Canadian prime minister's mother is a well-known political personality who's also widely beloved in the country.
After making every conscious effort to avoid attracting media attention during her son's campaign, Margaret Trudeau returned to the spotlight the day her son was sworn in as prime minister with tears of joy spilling down her face. "He's my boy and he's taking on the biggest, biggest job," she said in an interview with the CBC's Wendy Mesley shortly before Trudeau was sworn in. In another interview with Carol Off of the CBC program As It Happens, Trudeau was just as enthusiastic about her son's victory: "I couldn't have been prouder of him last night. ... It's a tremendous victory for Canadian people."
A self-described "flower child" once charged with possession of marijuana, Margaret doesn't appear to be the typical mother '-- let alone wife '-- of a politician. She first entered the hearts of Canadians as the young wife of the country's 15th prime minister, and Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau. The two first met in Tahiti when she was only 18 and vacationing with her family. In 1971, at the age of 22, Margaret quietly married Canada's famous playboy prime minister, who was nearly 30 years her senior.
As the daughter of James Sinclair, a cabinet minister and Liberal member of Parliament, Margaret was familiar with what the political spotlight required. However, despite an upbringing peppered with political speeches, she had trouble adjusting to the new role her marriage had thrust upon her. In her 1979 memoir Beyond Reason, Margaret likens the seven years she served as the spouse of the prime minister of Canada to being imprisoned in a mental hospital. "A glass panel was gently lowered into place around me, like a patient in a mental hospital who is no longer considered able to make decisions and who cannot be exposed to a harsh light," she wrote.
During her time living at 24 Sussex, Margaret made headlines more than once for her free-spirited nature. During a trip to Latin America, she reportedly serenaded the Venezuelan President Carlos Andr(C)s P(C)rez and his wife with a song she wrote herself and jumped onstage to advocate for women's rights at an event in Mexico. Just after news of her separation from Pierre became public in 1977, she was linked to the Rolling Stones and was photographed dancing wildly at Studio 54.
Margaret's past, however, is more than just one wild party. In 2006, she became a vocal advocate for people with bipolar disorder after being retroactively diagnosed with the illness herself in 2001 after checking herself into the Royal Ottawa Hospital. She told The Globe and Mail she wanted to repay the Royal Ottawa Hospital for all they had done for her in treatment, but did not, at first, think to take on such a high-profile role. "I thought I would be selling tickets to the gala," she said. "But they said, 'I think you should be an advocate. Be a champion.' It was scary the first time, but it was the realest moment in my life. ... I am sure it's how someone who has hidden something all of their life feels. What a relief."
With her son pushing Canada into the international spotlight, it's likely the world hasn't seen the last of Canada's Maggie, although this time she seems content to play just the roles of proud mother and doting grandmother.
CLIPS AND DOCS
VIDEO-Earnest Makes Terrible Joke About Trump's Drug Test Comment - YouTube
A political weather map of America would show Wall Street under a cloud, and Silicon Valley bathed in sunshine.
Over the Obama administration's eight years, the technology industry has embedded itself in Washington. The president hung out with Facebook Inc.'s Mark Zuckerberg and hired the government's first chief tech officer. At least at the lower levels of officialdom, the revolving door with companies such as Google is spinning ever faster -- as it once did with Wall Street.
Politicians have played down their connections to finance since the taxpayer bailout of 2008. No such stigma attaches to tech, for now. But as the Valley steps up its lobbying efforts, with a wish-list that ranges from immigration to rules for driverless cars, some critics warn that similar traps lie in wait: It's not easy for the government to police an industry from which it poaches talent and solicits help with writing laws.
''If you're trying to influence government policy on behalf of a corporate sector, it's not better that you do it for the tech industry than for Goldman,'' said Jeff Hauser from the Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington.
Hauser heads the Revolving Door Project, which scrutinizes political appointees. Even amid mounting concern over inequality, he says wealthy tech executives and their companies are still considered cool. In other words: It may be hard to persuade people these days that what's good for Goldman Sachs is good for America -- but it might just work for Google.
The five biggest U.S. tech companies are now the five biggest companies, period -- at least as measured by market value. And they're flexing that financial muscle.
The tech firms spent $49 million on Washington lobbyists last year, while the five largest banks shelled out $19.7 million, data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows.
On the personnel front, the Campaign for Accountability, a non-profit group, studied the to-and-fro between government and Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc. It found that 183 people who worked under President Barack Obama through last year were hired by Google, while 58 headed the other way.
Google is in Washington to ''help policy makers understand our business and the work we do to keep the internet open and fuel economic growth,'' the Mountain View, California-based company said by e-mail in response to questions. Facebook's goals in the capital include protecting customers, ''explaining how our service works, and maintaining an open Internet and a culture of innovation,'' it said in an e-mail.
There have been other high-profile moves out of Washington: former Attorney General Eric Holder this year took a job at Airbnb Inc., and David Plouffe, Obama's one-time campaign manager, started at Uber Technologies Inc. in 2014.
Persistent rumors have linked Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg with the post of Treasury secretary in a Hillary Clinton administration. Sandberg, a former chief of staff at the Treasury under Larry Summers, told a conference this month that she plans to stay at Facebook. Apple Inc.'s Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and Microsoft Corp.'s founder Bill Gates were on a list of Clinton's potential vice-presidential nominees, according to an e-mail allegedly from her campaign chair that was released by Wikileaks.
The administration's view is that tech people are welcome in Washington because they can help make things work better -- and help is certainly needed.
Penny Pritzker, the commerce secretary, says the government is shifting toward using technology the way business has been doing for years. It has set up a coding boot-camp for employees, while data scientists work across federal agencies to mine the archives and help improve transportation projects.
'Data as Currency'''We view data as currency,'' Pritzker said in an interview. She travels to Silicon Valley at least once a quarter and has an advisory council of 21 tech experts.
Megan Smith, the former Google manager who took a job as Obama's chief technology officer in 2014, says the long-term goal is to make government services as smooth a user experience as that offered by, say, Amazon or Dropbox.
Collaboration with tech companies pre-dates Obama's creation of a special post to oversee it. Zillow Group Inc., the real-estate website, helped the Treasury after the housing-market collapse, according to Stan Humphries, its chief analytics officer.
''I was struck by how little data the government had'' in areas such as price indexes or foreclosures, Humphries said. The Seattle-based firm filled the gap, offering its micro-data to Federal Reserve researchers and even, on occasion, to Neel Kashkari, then an assistant secretary at the Treasury department and now in charge of the Minneapolis Fed. ''They were soon sucking up every bit of data that we had available,'' said Humphries.
Biggest FearIn Washington, favors typically come at a price though. Tech giants, which are in the habit of buying up smaller companies and also trying to tie customers to their own platforms, keep a close watch on antitrust policy. In 2013, Google -- like Microsoft before it -- was threatened with a potentially costly legal battle. Federal Trade Commission staff said the company ''unlawfully maintained its monopoly'' over internet searches, though the 20-month probe was eventually closed.
''Competition policy, that's the thing they're most scared of,'' said Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank. ''If a Microsoft-style case was brought against any of these companies, it could totally change their business prospects. It could result in radical changes to the scale and structure of their corporations.''
Cases have been opened in Europe against Google and Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, said Lynn. He's a Republican, showing that concern about the growing power of the tech giants isn't confined to the political left.
Not that the left doesn't share it. Clinton has talked about tougher antitrust laws aimed at ending the ''abuse of economic power'' by corporations.
'Their Damn Computers'She's also taken aim at their shifting of profits overseas to avoid taxes. Hauser, who worked at the Justice Department's antitrust division before joining the Revolving Door Project, said tech firms ''are at the leading edge of tax avoidance because of the ways they've perfected moving their intellectual property overseas.''
He said Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew's support for Apple, after the iPhone-maker was ordered to pay back-taxes in Europe, is an unprecedented stance for a Democratic administration. Clinton's Republican rival Donald Trump proposed a tax cut for companies that repatriate profits, though it didn't win him many converts in the tech industry.
Then there's the labor market. Trump has taken aim at Apple among other companies that have shifted jobs overseas. ''We're going to get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country,'' he said in January. But the iPhone-maker announced this month it's setting up a second R&D center in China.
Big tech simply doesn't hire on the same scale as its heavy-industry predecessors. And technology is reshaping the workforce in other ways too, with Silicon Valley favorites like Uber and Taskrabbit Inc. at the forefront. They're central to the growth of a gig economy that's spurred calls for rules on health-care and employment insurance to be updated.
Tech companies also typically back immigration rights for skilled labor that have become politically toxic, and they support trade accords that both presidential candidates oppose. They've clashed with the government over the balance between internet privacy and national security, notably when Apple boss Cook refused to help unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters.
Beyond the shopping-list of specifics, says Lynn, the industry has one overarching desire: light-touch regulation. ''They want to be left alone,'' he said. ''They want to be allowed to do what they want to do.''
And to keep Washington at arm's length, it helps to get close to it first.
Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.LEARN MORE
October 19, 2016 | Clip Of White House Daily BriefingThis clip, title, and description were not created by C-SPAN.User-Created ClipOctober 19, 2016Project Veritas Videos Josh Earnest reccomends more salt when viewing Project Veritas videos that purport to expose voter fraud and violent protests sponsored by the DNC.
VIDEO-Jeff Rense & Charles R. Smith - WikiLeaks Reveals Shadow Government Protecting Hillary - YouTube
Some news organizations, including The Intercept, have devoted substantial resources to reporting on the newsworthy aspects of the archive of emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta that was published last week by WikiLeaks. Numerous documents from that archive have shed considerable light on the thought processes and previously secret behavior of top Clinton campaign aides and often the candidate herself. While the significance of particular stories has been debated, there is no denying that many of those disclosures offer a valuable glimpse into campaign operatives who currently exercise great political power and who, as of January of next year, are likely to be among the most powerful officials on the planet.
Despite her agreement with those propositions, the author and activist Naomi Klein believes there are serious threats to personal privacy and other critical political values posed by hacks of this sort, particularly when accompanied by the indiscriminate publication of someone's personal emails.
The fact that the individual whose emails were hacked wields significant power may mitigate some of those concerns, but, she believes, it does not remotely obviate them. She also believes that while a public service has been performed by the reporting on some of these emails, media organizations (including The Intercept) have not sufficiently emphasized the dangers to personal privacy posed by the hacking of someone's email inbox.
Earlier this week, Klein and I discussed her views and concerns about these issues. The discussion has been lightly edited into a 30-minute podcast, which you can listen to on the player above. A transcript is also provided. Klein, invariably, is extremely thoughtful and insightful, and so I believe the discussion is well worth listening to.
This transcript has been edited for space and clarity.
GLENN GREENWALD: Hi, this is Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, and I am very excited that my guest today is one of the world's most influential and accomplished journalists, activists, and thinkers, who also happens to be my good friend, Naomi Klein. Hi, Naomi. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk today.
NAOMI KLEIN: Hey Glenn, it's great to be with you.
GG: So the principal impetus for this conversation is that over the last two or three weeks, there has emerged this spirited debate prompted by the publication of many thousands of emails from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Nobody knows for certain who actually hacked them. The U.S. government says the Russian government was involved '-- although they presented no evidence for that '-- but there are a lot of people who believe Russia was at least implicated in some way. Whoever did it gave it to WikiLeaks, which instead of curating any of it or trying to figure out what would be in the public interest and what wouldn't, simply took it all and dumped it on the internet.
And from what I've seen, at least, the debate that has ensued '-- as news organizations went through this archive and began to report on material they thought was newsworthy and in the public interest '-- was this dichotomized debate. So on the one hand, you have these actors who caused all of John Podesta's emails '-- without discrimination about their impact or content or whether they had anything to do with public interest '-- to be published on the internet, which was the hackers combined with WikiLeaks.
And then you have this separate debate once that happens. Once these materials are made available, for better or for worse, what is the duty of journalists? Should they ignore it on the grounds that it's illicitly obtained or might incentivize future similar bad acts? Should they weigh the fact that there's been a massive privacy invasion against the journalistic value that can undoubtedly come from some of the specific materials? And obviously, we at The Intercept have been centrally involved in that debate, because we did make a decision to do so much reporting on the documents that we believe shed light on the person highly likely to be the next president of the United States.
So those are the contours of the debate '-- there's certainly a lot of disagreement within them '-- but I guess I'm curious about whether you think that's the right way to think about this debate, whether that's the right way to carry it out, whether there have been things that have gotten distorted or not gotten enough attention. What are your overall thoughts on this?
NK: I really appreciate the chance to talk about it with you. I think a lot of that is exactly how we should be thinking about it, but there are some things that need a little bit more emphasis. I would add that it's not just that they didn't curate it and dumped it all. They are dumping it, but they are doling out the dumps to maximize damage. So they're not just saying, ''Hey, information wants to be free, here is everything we have. Journalists, have a field day, go through it.'' They're very clearly looking for maximum media attention and you can tell that just by looking at the WikiLeaks Twitter feed and at how they are timing it right before the debates. Now everybody uses leaks as a political weapon, including the Clinton campaign, which we already knew but we have lots more evidence of, thanks to these emails. They're constantly talking about leaking information to their own benefit.
The other thing I would say is I think there's a particular responsibility for you as a journalist '-- and others at The Intercept '-- because you're the ones who brought us the Snowden files, and I am one of many people who are tremendously grateful for that line in the sand about our rights to electronic privacy. You are one of three or four people in the world who have done the most to defend that principle for our electronic communications '-- because we live our lives online, we can't distinguish that from our right to privacy, period. These leaks are not, in my opinion, in the same category as the Pentagon Papers or previous WikiLeaks releases like the trade documents they continue to leak, which I am tremendously grateful for, because those are government documents that we have a right to, that are central to democracy. There are many things in that category.
These leaks are not, in my opinion, in the same category as the Pentagon Papers or previous WikiLeaks releases like the trade documents they continue to leak, which I am tremendously grateful for.
But personal emails '-- and there's all kinds of personal stuff in these emails '-- this sort of indiscriminate dump is precisely what Snowden was trying to protect us from. That's why I wanted I wanted to talk with you about it, because I think we need to continuously reassert that principle.
As journalists '-- now that it's out there '-- we do have to go through it and talk about the parts that are politically important and newsworthy. But at the same time, we have a tremendous responsibility to say that people do have that right to privacy. I heard you defend [the leak] to some degree on the grounds that these are very powerful people. Certainly Podesta is a very powerful person, and he will be more powerful after Hillary Clinton is elected, if she's elected, and it looks like she will be. But I'm concerned about the subjectivity of who gets defined as sufficiently powerful to lose their privacy because I am absolutely sure there are plenty of people in the world who believe that you and I are sufficiently powerful to lose our privacy, and I come to this as a journalist and author who has used leaked and declassified documents to do my work. I could never have written ''The Shock Doctrine'' or ''This Changes Everything'' without that. But I'm also part of the climate justice movement, and this is a movement that has come under incredible amounts of surveillance by oil industry-funded front groups of various kinds. There are people in the movement now who are being tracked as if they were political candidates, everywhere they go.
So how are we defining powerful? Because once we say this is OK, and I'm not saying you've said it '-- you've made that distinction '-- but I think we need to say it louder. And particularly you, as the guy who brought us the Snowden files, need to say it louder.
GG: There's an amazing irony here in some sense because I've been defending the news value of the WikiLeaks archives over the past several months, not just the Podesta but also the DNC archive. And I've defended WikiLeaks in the past, long prior to the Snowden archive. There are a couple of really fascinating nuances that I think set the stage for the kinds of distinctions that you're urging be drawn.
When I first started defending WikiLeaks back in 2010, one of my primary arguments was that WikiLeaks, contrary to the way they were being depicted by the U.S. intelligence community and their friends, was not some reckless rogue agent running around sociopathically dumping information on the internet without concern about who might be endangered. And in fact, if you look at how the biggest WikiLeaks releases were handled early on '-- the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, as well as the State Department cables '-- not only did they redact huge numbers of documents on the grounds that doing so was necessary to protect the welfare of innocent people, they actually requested that the State Department meet with them to help them figure out what kind of information should be withheld on the grounds that it could endanger innocent people.
So they were very much an ardent and enthusiastic proponent of that model '-- that when you get tons of information that belongs in the public eye, you have the corresponding responsibility to protect not only people's physical security but also their privacy. I used to defend them on that all the time.
Somewhere along the way, WikiLeaks and Julian decided, and they've said this explicitly, that they changed their mind on that question '-- they no longer believe in redactions or withholding documents of any kind.
During our reporting on the Snowden material, we did not just take the archive and dump it on the internet, as a lot of people called for. We spent years very carefully curating it and keeping parts of it secret that might endanger individual privacy, harm people's reputations unjustifiably, or otherwise put them in harm's way. And WikiLeaks publicly and viciously attacked us for years. They continue to, actually, over the fact that we were the so-called gatekeepers of information. It was always my view '-- and continues to be '-- that it would have been incredibly hypocritical for us to say that these documents need to see the light of day because people's privacy is being compromised, and then in the same breath, release documents that would destroy people's privacy because they're too lazy or don't think it's justifiable to go through and redact.
So there's debate, even among people who believe in radical transparency, over the proper way to handle information like this. I think WikiLeaks more or less at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are ethically '-- never mind journalistically '-- just ethically, as a human being, justifiable. I think that debate has been vibrant and healthy, and I do think you're probably right that it needs to be even more so now that we have so many more examples, like the leak of climate scientists, of Sony executives, and other leaks that are inevitably coming.
I think WikiLeaks more or less at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are ethically '-- never mind journalistically '-- just ethically, as a human being, justifiable.
We do need to figure out a way to say both at the same time: Powerful institutions and powerful actors need the kind of transparency these leaks can provide, but at the same time, even people who are in powerful positions and wield influence continue to retain the right to privacy, and there should never be any publishing of personal matters or things that aren't directly in the public interest.
Is that what you mean when you say this needs to be more prominent? Is that the distinction that you think is crucial?
NK: I think we have a very strong interest in continuously reasserting the right to electronic privacy, particularly when we're talking about people who are not elected officials.
It's just so subjective what criteria we're using to define powerful, because that word is flexible. And I'm not saying that emails are out of bounds '-- I think about emails that came out about legitimizing torture during the Bush administration. But those were particular, relevant emails, rather than: ''You've just lost all your electronic privacy. We're dumping the whole thing, or rather, we're dumping it in stages to maximize damage.''
We need to defend that because certainly in the climate movement, we are up against forces that will always have massively more resources than the movement does. We can encrypt our emails, and we should encrypt our emails, but the principle still has to be defended because we lose if this gets blurry.
GG: But let me ask you this. We started out by saying that with this particular leak, because of WikiLeaks' philosophy, the hacker went in and grabbed everything, which sometimes hackers will do even if they're well-intentioned '-- because you don't have time to grab only the relevant material, you hope that the people to whom you then give the material are going to do that. That was Snowden's theory: I'm going to take as much as I can but make sure I'm only giving it to journalists who promise to safeguard the material and let the public see the stuff they should see, not what they shouldn't.
Let's say you had a good faith hacker who said, ''I'm going to take all of John Podesta's emails and I'm just going to download them. And instead of giving them to WikiLeaks, I'm going to give them to this organization and tell this organization, 'What I want you to do is go through them and get rid of the ones where John Podesta is talking about the emotional difficulties staff members are having, or personal conversations he's having with family members or friends, and pick the ones that really shed light on what the Clinton campaign is doing that affects public policy and discourse.''' Would you have qualms about that process?
NK: No. I think they set themselves up for the bank speeches coming out because they refused to release them. They should have released them, and what's interesting is that some of the most relevant, newsworthy information is not in email traffic '-- it's in documents like that. Or, for instance, an attachment that's a transcript of Hillary Clinton's conversations behind closed doors with labor leaders in which she says that climate activists should ''get a life'' rather than coming to her events. That's not an email. To me, that doesn't fall into the same category. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it were curated.
It's also the way in which it's being released, to clearly maximize damage, and the recklessness about the implications of that when it comes to electing Trump. You've written about how dangerous it is for media organizations to take such a highly political approach to this election because they don't want Trump to get elected, so they're engaging in what you described as ''journalistic fraud.'' I agree with you.
But we have to acknowledge how political WikiLeaks and Julian are being here.
GG: It's interesting. All we can do is speculate because it involves what's going on in somebody else's head, in this particular case, a person who's even in the best of times quite complicated, who's been trapped in a single room for five years, who literally has not seen the outdoors in many years, and who doesn't have much of a future to see one shortly '-- so it's hard to assess what's going on in the mind of a person like that.
Still, as somebody who does know Julian, and that includes you and me as well to varying degrees, are you persuaded by this idea that Julian's goal here is this conventionally partisan objective, that he has simply sided with the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate and is doing what he can to help Trump? Or do you think it's more about Julian harboring a substantive philosophical animosity toward U.S. empire and U.S. hegemony as a force for evil in the world, and looking for any opportunity to undermine and burn it?
To the extent that Hillary Clinton represents that, that she's a target of his anger, on top of his view of her as desiring his imprisonment and therefore there's this personal anger too '-- that goal isn't the way Paul Begala wants the Democrat to win and the Republican to lose. I don't think Julian has these simple partisan motives. I think it's more about wanting to see things burn, out of a combination of political philosophy and personal resentment. I'm curious what you think about that.
NK: I don't know. I don't know him well. I've met him and I'm not sure I can answer that. I have to be perfectly honest with you, Glenn, I'm actually nervous about it, because there is clearly a vendetta element going on, which is understandable, because Hillary Clinton's State Department is massively responsible for his lack of freedom. So I can understand that, but at the same time, Assange is not the only person who has lost their freedom for standing up for their beliefs.
I'm not comfortable with anybody wielding this much power.
I spoke recently with a guy named Rodney Watson, who has spent seven years in a church in the downtown Vancouver East Side, also not seeing the outdoors, not seeing his son, because he refused to go and fight in Iraq. He went to Iraq, he saw war crimes, he refused to go back, and he fled to Canada. He wants a pardon. He's angry. But he's not trying to burn it down '-- this is a principled war resister. I am very disturbed by this seeming willingness to burn it down. I am disturbed by the ego of seeing this election through one's personal lens when the stakes are so incredibly high. All of us have personal issues '-- not as much as Assange, obviously '-- invested in this, but a lot of people are seeing the big picture as well.
GG: It's interesting, this burn it down model. I remember one of the first distinctions that Edward Snowden drew when we met in Hong Kong '-- not to keep drawing this Assange-Snowden distinction, but it's one that is actually quite fundamental that I think a lot people have overlooked.
He made a fascinating point when I asked him: You have this incredibly sweeping trove of unimaginably sensitive information, which if published on the internet would instantly destroy huge numbers of U.S. surveillance programs, including ones you strongly dislike. Why didn't you just do that? Why didn't you just upload it to the internet? Why did you need to work with us, to have journalists as the middleman and mediators to process this information and take the decision-making out of your hands about what the public will and won't see?
And he said: Think about how incredibly sociopathic, how narcissistic it would be for me, Edward Snowden, to decide that I have the right, singlehandedly, to destroy all of these programs simply because I don't like them.
He said he doesn't want to destroy anything, that his goal instead is to take the information that gives human beings around the world the ability to know what it is their governments are doing, what is being done to the internet, so that those people, democratically and collectively, can make that choice about should these programs continue? In what form? Do we need safeguards? Do we need pushback? Do we need citizen movement? All of that. He felt very uncomfortable with the idea that his role could ever be anything other than facilitator of information that allows others to make that choice.
I think Julian quite clearly views himself and his activism in a much more, I guess you could call it aggressive, and even solitary way. That he is content and does believe he has the prerogative to burn things down '-- and sometimes institutions that are real acts of evil '-- and when they burn down, that you can argue it is actually an event of good in the world.
But there are also very extreme concerns from vesting so much power in one person. It's sort of ironic given that the NSA scandal and all these other scandals arose out of the idea that a tiny number of people, in secret, with no accountability, have been making these choices. And now you have other people posing as their adversaries creating a similar framework for themselves.
NK: This is why I say I'm nervous. I'm not comfortable with anybody wielding this much power.
I am not comfortable when it's states, but I'm also not comfortable when it's individuals or institutions. I don't like people making decisions based on vendettas because the message it sends is: ''If you cross me, this could happen to you.'' That's a menacing message to send. Now I acknowledge that this could be over the edge, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had that thought, and I think we have to acknowledge that this is how fear spreads. It isn't only states that are capable of sending that message .The level of ego makes me uncomfortable given the role of ego in this election cycle and people thinking these elections are just all about them personally. We don't need somebody else treating it like that.
GG: I started off saying '--
NK: I just want to add something else, which is the way you're describing the care with which Edward Snowden treated that information is why he is seen as a hero around the world, why these revelations were so incredibly important, why he is such an easy guy to defend based on principle. And this is why it is so important for you, as the person who has worked '-- along with Laura [Poitras] '-- so closely with him, to be saying the things you're saying now.
GG: I don't want to get a little bit ahead of at least where I think things should be. Chelsea Manning is also regarded as a hero; even though the way in which her material was published, at first, was incremental and careful, it ended up just published indiscriminately. But I do think there are types of information where this concern you're expressing, which I share, is less compelling.
You're talking about logs of military fighters who are simply describing what they're seeing every day in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. To publish those doesn't really have a lot of privacy implications the way a private email inbox would. Same with diplomatic cables '-- it might make embarrassment between countries, and there may be other reasons not to do it, but I think different types of archives present different kinds of privacy concerns. When you're talking about hacking into the personal email inbox of somebody '-- although they are quite powerful and in three months will probably be the chief of staff of the United States White House '-- there are still serious privacy implications from dumping it indiscriminately, and the problem is that this is going to continue. There's not a lot that can be done about it because these hackers and WikiLeaks believe in this model.
NK: I think the main thing we've learned from these emails is that the folks around Hillary Clinton are just as venal and corrupt as we thought they were, for the most part, with all the conflicts of interest. I don't think we're learning a huge amount. Your colleague Lee Fang tweeted yesterday that the WikiLeaks emails show that Hillary respects and values the opinion of rich people, lobbyists, loyal partisans '-- while activists are losers.
What it really does is just reinforce that because all you have to do is look at the way she treated Black Lives Matter activists on the campaign trail '-- the absolute disdain. The way she practically spat ''I'm so sick of this'' to a young climate activist who asked her about her fossil fuel money. We knew this.
GG: We knew it '--
NK: We're getting it reinforced. If the price of having it reinforced, or having more people know it, is this idea that once you go into politics you lose all privacy, my concern is that decent people seeing this who do not have these values and these conflicts of interest will just go, ''There's no way I'm going into politics. I will not give up my privacy.'' I know a lot of people who feel that way.
GG: We have drawn this important line that if you exercise public power '-- public power meaning you're a public official exercising power given to you by the public, and it's exercised over them '-- you definitely give up a huge amount of what ordinary private citizens would enjoy as privacy, just under the law. We've already created a framework where that's the case.
NK: But then you have the knowledge. I think what people would worry about is retroactively losing their privacy.
GG: One of the things that very well may happen from all of these hacks '-- and if you go back and read WikiLeaks' philosophies and theories early on, it's consistent with it '-- is that the more people start to fear that their emails are going to end up hacked and public, the less they'll use emails. They'll just stop using emails for anything beyond cursory transactions, and institutions will become more closed. They'll be less capable of communicating internally. Julian thought that was a great thing because that was the way he wanted to weaken them '--by bringing so much transparency that they fly blind as an authoritarian institution.
But I absolutely agree with you that there are very profound concerns about individual privacy that are being trampled over with these leaks and certainly with the ones to come. And we probably haven't given that enough thought, primarily because what ends up happening is the leaks happen; journalists like me give lip service to the fact that it's too bad they weren't curated, they should have been; and then everyone starts digging into them for newsworthy stories. Maybe it's been rewarding that approach, maybe it's just not given sufficient attention to it, but I'm not sure what the answer is, because as long as the capability exists, I think people are going to continue to do it.
NK: I'm not sure either except for front-loading the fact that we do believe people have a right to electronic privacy. The issue is not the illegality; as you pointed out, we have relied on leaks that are technically illegal for incredibly important information. But there is a distinction between the fact that we live our lives on email now, and we use this the way we use talking on the phone or in person. And if we give that up, we are giving up a huge amount.
GG: All those discussions from 2013 about the dangers of having privacy eroded by the state certainly apply to having privacy eroded by these stateless actors who are hacking and publishing people's private communications indiscriminately. That too kills privacy in a really profound way. And it's hard to care about one but not the other.
NK: It's a little bit hard to see an upside for how we get out of this. I'm not sure where this goes.
GG: I guess the only upside I can think of '-- one of Edward Snowden's primary objectives was not only to show the world the extent to which their privacy was being compromised and their communications were vulnerable, but to teach people how to safeguard against it, just like homeowners are increasingly cognizant about the need for home alarms, or building fences, or building communities to keep them safe. There are steps organizations can take to make it a lot harder for this to happen.
One of the things that's remarkable is that very powerful people '-- like the Clinton campaign, even political leaders in Brazil, where there was so much reporting on Snowden and the way they were compromised '-- seem not to have taken that very seriously.
It's an unsatisfying and kind of ancillary response, but it nonetheless is true that the more you see of this, the more I would hope people understand the need to start using these technologies to make it much more difficult for people to get ahold of their data.
NK: I agree, it's completely shocking. Talk about reckless. It speaks to their sense of impunity is all I can think of '-- that they could write like this and it wouldn't come out.
GG: They know better than anybody how easy it is to spy because they're all part of the operations that do it.
NK: And they don't think the rules apply to them. The problem is they do apply to the rest of us.
GG: Exactly.
Well, this has been really helpful, Naomi. For me personally, I've been gliding back on this dichotomy that I started with, like ''Oh yeah, OK fine, WikiLeaks and the hackers acted wrong. I wouldn't do it, but anyway, now let's get on to the duty to do journalism.'' I think you're right to say that's not really an adequate response, or at least it's not an adequate emphasis on this first part of the equation, which needs a lot more attention.
NK: Thanks for giving me the chance to chat with you, it was really fun.
GG: It's always fun, Naomi, let's do it anytime.
VIDEO-Crowd chants 'lock her up' while CNN tries to talk - YouTube
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took the high road on Wednesday and is urging fellow Republicans to do the same when it comes to discussing leaked documents.
''I will not discuss any issue that has become public solely on the basis of WikiLeaks,'' Rubio said in a statement to NBC News. ''As our intelligence agencies have said, these leaks are an effort by a foreign government to interfere with our electoral process and I will not indulge it.''
Rubio, a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, is refusing to hit Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over a batch of leaked emails. This strategy puts Rubio directly at odds with Donald Trump, who has willingly embraced the leak and frequently shares articles on social media referencing Clinton's emails.
''I want to warn my fellow Republicans who may want to capitalize politically on these leaks: Today it is the Democrats, Tomorrow it could be us,'' Rubio warned.
Rubio is running a campaign in Florida for reelection to the Senate, after dropping out of the presidential race earlier in the year.
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
Europe, Middle East, & Africa+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
VIDEO-Obama starts stuttering during Rose Garden attack on Trump - The American MirrorThe American Mirror
Addressing reporters in the Rose Garden on Tuesday, President Obama launched into an attack on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, urging him to stop ''whining'' and claiming his complaints aren't presidential.
Obama critiqued Trump over claims the election is ''rigged'' against him.
''That is both irresponsible '-- and by the way, doesn't really show the kind of leadership and toughness you want out of a president,'' Obama said.
''You start whining before the games even over '-- if, if, if, if, if, if whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else?'' he said, stuttering.
''Then you don't have what it takes to be in this job,'' the president declared, pointing over his shoulder to the Oval Office.
''Cause there are a lot of times when things don't go our way '-- or my way,'' he said.
Maybe sticking to the teleprompter is a better way to go, as it wasn't the first time Obama stuttered while trying to launch an attack on Trump.
In June, after the president's teleprompter reportedly malfunctioned, he was forced to talk off the top of his head.
The Blaze captured the moment:
''If we turn against each other based on divisions of race or religion,'' he began '-- and then the president seemed to have trouble coming up with the words to follow ''if,'' which he repeated multiple times.
Obama then came back with a warning to not fall ''for a bunch of okie doke just because, you know, it sounds funny or the tweets are provocative'' '-- along with some noticeable pauses '-- ''then we won't build on the progress that we've started.''
VIDEO-ABCNews: Hidden Video Catches Hillary on Emails - She Knew It All Along?! - Guccifer - YouTube
Judge Andrew Napolitano said this morning that newly-released FBI documents show evidence of a bribe being offered by a senior State Department official to FBI agents.
Patrick F. Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, is reported to have pressured FBI agents to change the classification on sensitive documents found on Hillary Clinton's private email server.
The new revelations were contained in just-released FBI interview summaries from the Clinton email investigation.
In what was viewed by the FBI as a "quid pro quo," desirable overseas assignments for the agents were discussed.
The FBI document states:
"[Redacted] indicated that he had been contacted by Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email's classification in exchange for a quid pro quo. [redacted] advised that in exchange for making the email unclassified State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden."
Kennedy has emphatically denied there was any quid pro quo offered and the FBI said the classification markings were not altered.
Napolitano, Fox News' senior judicial analyst, said he believes the document points to several potential offenses.
"I've never seen this in my career, where an effort is made to change a document after it is evidence in a criminal prosecution. That is obstruction of justice, that is tampering with evidence, that's offering a bribe. Why wasn't someone charged with these crimes by the FBI?" he asked on America's Newsroom.
"The mere discussion of it is itself a crime. It is a crime to bribe someone, it is a crime to offer to bribe someone. This was at best, a bribe, and at worst, an offer to bribe."
Watch his full analysis above and the reporting of Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge below.
Poll: 41% of Voters Think 'Rigged' Election Could Be 'Stolen' From Trump
Pirro: If Hillary Picks Justices, 'No One Will Give a Damn About Trump Claims'
Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, the Libertarian vice presidential nominee, didn't seem to know what concealed carry permit reciprocity was during an interview Monday with TheBlaze's Dana Loesch.
Bill Weld (BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)
While he said he supports the Second Amendment because ''the history of people who have surrendered their weapons to the government is not a pretty history'' and appeared to indicate he is in favor of Constitutional '-- or permit-less '-- carry, his knowledge of the issue did not seem to run very deep.
Their conversation went like this:
Loesch: Do you believe in reciprocity?
Weld: Reciprocity?
Loesch: Meaning, if I have my concealed carry [permit] in Texas, would I be able to '-- because I have my concealed carry [permit] in Texas '-- would each of the states recognize it?
Weld: I don't know. We don't have concealed carry up in New England, so I'd wanna look at that.
Over the past several weeks, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, Weld's running mate, has made a few gaffes of his own.
In early September, Johnson stunned an MSNBC panel when he seemed unfamiliar with Aleppo, the Syrian city at the center of the refugee crisis unfolding in the region. And at the end of the month, he had what he called another ''Aleppo moment'' during a town hall event on the same network, when he failed to identify his ''favorite foreign leader.''
According to the latest RealClearPolitics average, Johnson is polling at 6.1 percent, a far cry from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at 45.4 percent and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump at 39.1 percent.
A new trove of interview summaries and notes from the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails lays out a series of allegations that could prove fodder for future attacks on the Democratic presidential nominee.
The 100 pages, released Monday morning, include claims that Clinton "blatantly" disregarded protocol. Other claims include that a group of powerful State Department employees attempted to coordinate a document release, and that a department official asked for a "quid pro quo" related to the former secretary of state's emails.
The documents, part four of four to be released by the FBI, include notes and interview summaries that may illuminate more about the bureau's decision not to recommend Clinton be prosecuted for her actions.
Many Republicans have criticized that decision, but FBI Director James Comey has repeatedly insisted the move was apolitical.
"I want the American people to know we really did this the right way. You can disagree with us, but you cannot fairly say we did it in any kind of political way," Comey said in July. "We don't carry water for anybody. We were trying to do what the right thing is."
One revelation in the documents came from an interview with an unidentified person who suggested that Freedom of Information Act requests related to Clinton went through a group sometimes called "the Shadow Government."
"There was a powerful group of very high-ranking STATE officials that some referred to as 'The 7th Floor Group' or 'The Shadow Government.' This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything CLINTON-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries," the FBI's interview summary said.
That group, according to the summary, argued for a Clinton document release to be conducted all at once "for coordination purposes" instead of on a rolling basis as would normally be the case. But the "Shadow Government" did not get its way, and the agency in charge decided for a rolling release, the FBI summary said.
Another claim from the documents is that one unidentified interviewee said Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy pressured the FBI to unclassify certain emails from Clinton's private server that were previously deemed classified.
The interviewee said Kennedy contacted the FBI to ask for the change in classification in "exchange for a 'quid pro quo.'"
A representative for the State Department categorically denied that claim.
"This allegation is inaccurate and does not align with the facts. To be clear: the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015," State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said.
"Under Secretary Kennedy sought to understand the FBI's process for withholding certain information from public release," Toner added. "As has been reported, there have been discussions within the interagency on issues of classification. Classification is an art, not a science, and individuals with classification authority sometimes have different views. There can be applicable FOIA exemptions that are based on both classified and unclassified rules."
The FBI also denied such a "quid pro quo," offering NBC News the following statement:
"Prior to the initiation of the FBI's investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
Separately, one claim from the FBI documents that was receiving attention online was that one interviewee said there was a "stark difference" between Clinton's "obedience to security and diplomatic protocols" and that of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Clinton, the interviewee said, "blatantly" disregarded such protocols, including her frequent refusal to attend foreign diplomatic functions with the local ambassador.
"This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol," the interview summary said, adding that the subject claimed that "Clinton's protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were 'abundant.'"
'--NBC News and Reuters contributed to this report.
VIDEO-Weather Control Advocated in 1959 Walt Disney Educational Film - YouTube
Even though borrowed money is readily available, financial experts caution against raking up too many loans in college.
"While sometimes it's unavoidable for students to use student loan money on necessities like housing, students need to be careful," saidShelly-Ann Eweka, a financial advisor with the financial services firm TIAA.
"When it comes to buying clothing and food, it's important for students to buy only what they need in order to avoid taking out more loans '-- both student and credit card '-- and therefore accruing insurmountable levels of debt," she said.
In fact, that college debt burden has far-reaching consequences. As a result of their financial obligations, nearly half of millennials said it prompted them to delay buying a house, according to a TD Ameritrade survey released last year of1,000 adults age 18 and older. About 29 percent said they were putting off getting married and 38 percent said they postponed having children.
"If you can reduce the amount of loans for incidentals, it can make a huge difference in your overall debt when you graduate," Mary Johnson, vice president of financial literacy and student aid policy at Higher One, said in an earlier interview.
Rather than take out every single dollar that's available, shoot for as little as possible, said Bakari Miller, a workplace banking coordinator at Regions Bank. "That will lessen the financial stress down the road."
Miller suggests starting with a financial plan at the outset to set the expectation of what school expenses will be like. "College can be one of the best times in your life '' you don't have to deprive yourself but you do need to brace yourself."
Then, get familiar with the terms of any type of borrowed money, including the interest rate, length of the loan and what happens when you miss a payment.
"If they're going to borrow money for nonessential purchases, at least know the ramifications and consequences," he said. "When students understand that, they make better decisions."
Also, underclassmen should take into consideration their future career and earning potential and factor that into their decision about how much they want to borrow, said Jimmy Lee, CEO of the Las Vegas-based Wealth Consulting Group. "That might get them to think twice about using that money for things that are not necessary."
And TIAA's Eweka advises students who find they are struggling to get by to look into work-study opportunities, which are often included as part of financial aid packages. "Having a part-time job can be a tremendous help when it comes to paying for living expenses," she said.
VIDEO-US plays double game in Afghanistan, refuses to hit terrorist sanctuaries '' Hamid Karzai RT '-- SophieCo
Fifteen years after the American invasion, Afghanistan still remains a battlefield between the government in Kabul and Taliban forces. Despite millions of dollars spent on attempts to fix the broken region, the US has achieved little '' and is steadily drawing down their presence in the country. As the Taliban widens its offensive, taking over entire cities and gaining control in some of the country's provinces, will the Afghan Army ever be able to hold on its own? Over a decade and a half after the US-NATO invasion '' why is Afghanistan still as unstable as it was before? We ask the country's former President '' Hamid Karzai.
Sophie Shevardnadze:The former President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, welcome to the show, it's always great to have you with us. So, Mr. Karzai, the Americans have been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years now - is their presence a curse or a blessing for your country?
Hamid Karzai: In the beginning, the arrival of the Americans in 2001, together with the rest of international community, Russia included in support of it - was a blessing. We were liberated from a creeping invasion by a neighbouring country and the Afghan people joined hands and we did very well. But subsequent to that liberation, within a few years what was then called the "War on Terror", unfortunately, was not conducted properly, nor was it conducted in the right place. The Afghan people were made the victims and that's how things changed wrong. Today, as you see, things are not happy in Afghanistan, we have tremendous insecurity, so today, as far as security is concerned, and the campaign against extremism is concerned, we are unhappy.
SS:Americans came in with the aim of defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and to build a new Afghan state. 850 billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives later - the Taliban are alive, al-Qaeda is also doing well, and there's no end to the war in sight. Why is the Afghan state still relying on America to survive?
HK: You're right. Afghanistan is not secure, the Taliban have taken more territory, interferences have increased in Afghanistan, so as for the mission for the security and peace in Afghanistan was concerned, by the U.S. and it's allies, that has failed. And that is why it is now time for the U.S. to explain its situation in Afghanistan and call it what is: a failure, unfortunately, on the security front, and seek help from our big neighbours, Russia, China, India and Iran, and find ways of addressing the issue of radicalism together with these countries, because Russia too is affected, because China too is affected, because India is affected as well, and because Iran is an important neighbour of Afghanistan. We also have to factor in Pakistan here, and engage with them in a manner that will bring us an ease in campaign extremism. Other than that, this will be an ongoing tragedy for the Afghan people, where Afghans will keep losing lives, which isn't, of course, acceptable any longer to the Afghan people.
SS:But also, looking at it from the American side, Obama argued that the U.S. needs to continue its presence in Afghanistan after ''all the blood and treasure we've invested in Afghanistan over the years'', that's his quote - but if the American strategy in Afghanistan isn't working, why is Washington sticking with it?
HK: Where the U.S. taxpayer's money, the help of the American people has been a contribution to the betterment of life in Afghanistan, we're very grateful. Where that money has brought us schools and roads and reconstruction and a better standard of living - we are grateful and we understand and we appreciate it, and have expressed gratefulness repeatedly. That is one side of the picture. The other side of the picture, the more important one, as far as the Americans are concerned and the Afghan people are concerned - the reason they're concerned is the campaign against extremism and terrorism and the bringing of security to Afghanistan and peace to its people. That has not happened. That is a failure, and we cannot deny it. It's impossible to deny it because we see it, clearly, confronting us. Therefore, my advise to the U.S. has been to reconsider their approach to this campaign and to admit the truth and to seek help. The moment they do that with the Afghan people, in a sincere, frank way, and the moment they do that with Russia and with other neighbours, we will see a change towards improvement. We will, probably, sooner see security and peace rather than later. So that is required. What I meant was that the U.S. must now sit down and admit the mistakes and begin a new course - a change of course is required.
SS:But Afghanistan's current government is saying it ''doesn't support the reduction of U.S. troops, and their broadened presence is helpful and necessary in combating terrorism.'' Should American troops just stay in the country indefinitely? Is that what the government is aiming for?
HK: As far as the Afghan people are concerned, we want peace. We want stability. We want an end to fighting in Afghanistan, we want an end to the casualties of the Afghan people on a daily basis. And we want a region that's friendly with Afghanistan, that sees Afghanistan as an asset rather than as a growing threat. If the U.S. can provide this for us, alone, with us, the Afghan people, all in consultation and cooperation with the rest of the region, especially Russia - then it's welcome. But if the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will mean for the Afghan people continuity of war, of casualties, of suffering and of worsening regional relations - of course, that's not desirable and we will not seek it.
SS:America has spent 60 billion dollars on training and equipping Afghan forces, but the latest Taliban offensive shows they're not fit to oppose the Taliban on their own. In the recent assault on Kunduz, it was reported that some fled without firing a shot. Moreover, in recent months Afghan troops have suffered record casualties. Why such heavy losses... And what has gone wrong for the Americans, why haven't they been able to rebuild your army?
HK: A few things. First, the Afghan soldiers defend their country heroically. They sacrifice their lives every day, in all corners of the country. We value that, we appreciate that, but we don't want that to happen. We want our soldiers to live, not to die in their own country. Second, the provision of equipment and weaponry to the Afghan forces is not sufficient. It's not enough to enable them to defend the country. We don't have an air force, we don't have a radar, we don't have any of the things that we had before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and during that time, when the Soviet Union was here and was providing significant, important military equipment and materials to the Afghan forces. It's now a major conflict and during a major conflict of this sort, when there are thousands of people on the other side as well, it's difficult to cope for a long time. Therefore, we seek a correction in the manner, in the way, in the policies, in the tactics and the strategy that is being pursued in the fight against radicalism, because the sources of this conflict are not in Afghanistan, they are outside of Afghanistan, and the U.S. has been ignoring that four years in spite of our repeated calls to them and repeated pleas with them. They must go to the sanctuaries, they must go to the training grounds, they must go to the motivational factors, they must go to where the financial resources are coming to extremism - and that is beyond Afghanistan. The U.S. did not do that. Rather, the U.S, as if it played both sides, they provided us and they provided those who are supporting extremism, beyond our borders, and more specifically, and unfortunately, our neighbours in Pakistan. Therefore, no matter how brave, how willing to sacrifice the Afghan people will be and our troops will be - we will not win unless the sources to the promotion of extremism and terrorism are dried up outside of Afghanistan. That the U.S. has not done and that is our major, major complaint in this whole saga of the Afghan trouble and misfortune in the past 7 years.
SS:American troops are not only aiding and advising their Afghan counterparts, they have now been tasked with accompanying them on ground and air operations targeting the Taliban - will America expand its mandate even further? Will increased involvement be enough to make a difference?
HK: Sophie, you know that I have been against that when I was the President. I stopped the U.S. from bombing our country, from carrying air raids on our villages, and I did not want the participation of their troops in combat in our country. Afghanistan can only be defended by the Afghan people and through our own sacrifice and hard work. U.S. bombardment of villages has caused us immense casualties, immense destruction. There's right now a girl in the United States, who's now 8 years of age, whom four and a half years ago... whose entire family was bombed in pursuit of an unknown target. An entire family of 14 people, and she was left without a face. I went to see to see her in a hospital, then. She had no face! She was blinded! She had no arm, her hand was cut-off. That is not acceptable, and the U.S. must stop bombing Afghanistan, if they want to win in Afghanistan. The military pursuit of the kind they're carrying on has failed, and will not succeed.
SS:The horrors of war and the consequences of war are always terrible and unfortunate, but here the question is: if the Taliban are winning a battle, is it better to let go, to retreat, or maybe have the Americans bomb them?
HK: Bombing will not get us free, bombing will not secure our country, bombing will add to the complexities of the problem and to the extent of the problem. It has not helped, it will alienate the Afghan people. That alienation, that suffering will cause more uprisings against us, and more trouble in Afghanistan. Therefore, there are only two ways. One: the U.S. - I must repeat myself - must admit that there were mistakes made of a very gross kind, of a very gross nature, and a course correction must be undertaken now...
SS:What about the Taliban that's winning the battle?
HK: The Taliban.. Those that are part of the Afghan people, those who are from this country, those who are sons of this soil, they must come back to Afghanistan and seek peace here, and they must be freed from the influences on them by foreign intelligence agencies beyond our border, namely Pakistan. So, they must free themselves, they must behave as Afghans and Afghan patriots and come to the country. There's no other way, you cannot win it by war. Have you won it by war? No! Therefore, to the Taliban who are Afghans we extend a hand of friendship and brotherhood and compatriotism; and to those who are backing them and supporting them and using them... the U.S. and Russia and other countries must join hands and stop that at the source.
SS:Mr. Karzai, hundreds of billions of dollars in international aid is spent in Afghanistan - focusing on urban areas, while leaving farmland owners resentful - is that why the Taliban are enjoying successes in the countryside at the moment?
HK: Initially, developmental projects and reconstruction were quite evenly spread and we are grateful for the U.S. and its allies for having done that. Schools were built all around the country, clinics were built around the country, roads and lots of other rural developmental projects were implemented, which helped the Afghan people a great deal. But as mistakes were made in the War on Terror, we began to see resentment in Afghan villages and that resentment, of course, led to what we have today. Where the money has been spent on Afghan projects, decided by Afghans - those were successful and worthy. Where they planned their own projects and implemented them themselves, those projects became expensive and ineffective. So, again, while we are grateful, we also feel that it could have been done much better.
SS:With unemployment at 25% in Afghanistan, a lot of people turn to opium production as a means of survival. It's also a main source of funding for the Taliban insurgency. Does the Afghan govt have the resources to defeat the opium battle on its own today?
HK: No. No. Not at all - because it isn't, in its essence, an Afghan problem. It is not. It's the result of Afghan desperation and hopelessness for more than 30 years. It's because the Afghans could not tend their fields, it's because the irrigation systems were destroyed, it's because of all other factors that affect a society negatively - and the overpowering presence of the international mafia and its trade. Therefore Afghanistan is not able at all to cope with this alone and also, I must say, there has not been a real, sincere effort by the international community in this regard. The money that came from the West, from the U.S., was misspent on firms, on private security firms and on NGOs who either did not or were not interested in solving the problem.
SS:Poppy cultivation flourished after the start of the war in 2001 - with NATO troops refusing to fight it for fear of alienating the Afghan population. What is more harmful at the end of the day, in the long term - the Taliban or the drug trade?
HK: Well the Taliban is a part of the Afghan people. I hope they will recognise that they belong to Afghanistan and it's their country and they should not hurt their own country, that they should come and live with the rest of the Afghan people, and accept that people will have different points of view and different ways of living and recognise that and live with their own countrymen. But poppies, of course, is a curse, in a very significant way and it hurts the Afghan people, it hurts our economy, it hurts our agriculture, our way of life, and it also hurts you and Russia. I know that, much of it comes towards Russia. Therefore, I hope Russia will step in more effectively, not only over poppies, but also over other issues in Afghanistan. This morning, I saw the statement by President Putin in India, where he expressed his willingness to cooperate more with India on Afghanistan in a more deep and strategic way. I think that will be significant for Afghanistan, such a cooperation between India and Russia is definitely going to be a factor of stability in Afghanistan, and that is what I am going to recommend and seek and ask for.
SS:It's no secret that Afghanistan needs to negotiate peace with the Taliban - you've said it time and again that the Taliban has to be part of a political settlement, part of the government - what's standing in the way of that now? Why isn't the Taliban at the negotiating table?
HK: Lack of interest in the U.S. and in Pakistan. In my view, these are the two main factors preventing peace in Afghanistan. They were, definitely, during my time in government.
SS:The Taliban overran the provincial capital of Kunduz for the second time this year, and it's threatening several other capitals - why is this happening again? Is the Taliban hoping to win on the battlefield to rule the country?
HK: I don't think the Taliban will be able to bring themselves to governing Afghanistan again, no. They have shown their ability to take provinces and to take provincial capitals, like in Kunduz, with, unfortunately, heavy losses for the Afghan people, for the civilians and for the population as a result of the conflict and fighting there. But they are part of Afghanistan and they are a significant part of Afghanistan and they are welcome to participate in the Afghan Constitution, in politics, in governance - and they have the rights of all Afghan citizens. We hope they will understand and enjoy that right. But they will not be able to take over the country or govern alone, no. The scene has changed in Afghanistan, this country has to be the country for all Afghans and the opportunity for all in this country must be there and that is the fact right now. So, no, they will not be able to rule alone.
SS:An American drone strike in Pakistan killed Taliban leader - Mullah Mansour. His successor, now, is someone more radical. Has this drone strike actually complicated the path to peace?
HK: Well, we don't know the circumstances of the killing of Mr. Mansour. That's what the Americans say, that's what some Pakistani said... But, Mawlawi Haibatullah, the new Taliban leader is definitely more accepted by the Taliban than the previous arrangement, and we hope he will recognise as an Afghan that there's a lot of Afghan bloodshed for the interests of foreign powers, and that we as Afghans must get together and protect our country and not allow foreign interests to shed our blood for the pursuit of other interests.
SS:Yeah, but the question here is - how has the drone strike affected the peace process? I wonder if the Americans keep on killing Taliban leaders, until someone who wants to negotiate steps up? What do you think? Maybe if they kill this leader too, then the next one is going to be less radical?
HK: That's an open-ended question. We will never know an answer to that. We cannot affirmatively say that 'yes', the drone strikes will one day force the Taliban to come to negotiations. It has been the other way around so far. Violent actions against them have brought more violence, so, no, I my view, that is not the way to seek peace. No. At it has been proven.
SS:Okay. In any peace deal, one of the major factor is the position of Pakistan - and you think Pakistan can force the Taliban to negotiate with Kabul. Why isn't it doing so, does it want the war to go on?
HK: Pakistan is a major, major factor, no doubt, and, unfortunately, Pakistan has not played its hand well in Afghanistan. Afghanistan could have been a great friend of Pakistan, and we wanted that friendship to be there. They were seeking other forms of relations with Afghanistan - one of domination, one of exploitation, one of them determining events in Afghanistan. That, Afghan people will not allow. Also, we must factor in very heavily the U.S. interests in Afghanistan and in the region. I think a combination... I should say, I am sure that the combination of the two, of the U.S. interests in the region and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan and the nature of their relations with India has been determining events in Afghanistan - negatively, unfortunately and we hope that that will turn into positive. Then we will have peace. Other than that, we will not see peace in Afghanistan and the region will, as a result, further destabilise.
SS:Mr. Karzai, thank you very much for this interview. As usual, it's great talking to you, we wish you all the best. We were talking to Hamid Karzai, the former President of Afghanistan, discussing the possibility of the peace talks with the Taliban and if Afghan security is still dependent on the presence of American troops in the country. That's it for this edition of SophieCo, I will see you next time.
VIDEO-Undercover Video Reveals DNC Instigated Unrest At Trump Events
According to an investigation by Project Veritas, numerous disruptions and disturbances at Donald Trump rallies, including violent outbreaks, have been carried out by an organization that receives funding and marching orders from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The undercover investigatory group, led by James O'Keefe, this year infiltrated an organization known as Americans United for Change, where it recorded Scott Foval, National Field Director as revealing that the organization contracts ''directly with the DNC and the (Clinton) campaign both.''
Speaking to an undercover reporter, Foval said funding for the ''conflict engagement'' that are the group's hallmark takes a circuitous, if not illegal, route.
Advertisement - story continues below
Warning: Video contains explicit language.
''The (Clinton) campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the s***'... '...Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear on that stuff,'' he said.
Advertisement - story continues below
Foval then explained the reason for this roundabout process is so those at the top ''can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.''
''The campaigns and DNC cannot go near [Super PAC] Priorities, but I guaran-d**n-tee you that the people who run the Super PACs all talk to each other and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication,'' he added.
Foval was not shy about touting his successes, and noted that the goal of planting activists at Trump events is to spur Trump's supporters into reacting.
Last month, Shirley Teeter, 69, made headlines with claims she was punched in the face at a Trump rally.
Advertisement - story continues below
''She was one of our activists,'' Foval said.
One of Foval's lieutenants, Aaron Black, called himself ''deputy rapid response director for the DNC for all things Trump on the ground,'' adding that, ''nobody is really supposed to know about me.''
However, he wanted to acknowledge his work.
''So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us,'' he said on the video.
Zulema Rodriguez, who works in the office, appears on the video to also claim credit for the violent protest that prevented the Chicago Trump rally from taking place.
Foval said in the video that he relies on partners to get his work done.
''When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, 'What do you need?' And I will say, I need a guy who will do this, this and this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, 'Hell yeah, let's do it.'''
What do you think?Scroll down to comment below.
VIDEO-Elizabeth Warren clucks like a chicken while mocking Trump on his tax returns | Video | TheBlaze.com
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) clucked like a chicken Sunday while mocking Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for failing to release his tax returns.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigns for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in Las Vegas. (Ethan Miller/Getty Images)
During remarks at a campaign event for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in Denver, Warren called Trump a ''selfish little sleaze ball'' and hit the candidate over allegations he sexually assaulted several women and lewd remarks he made about women in a 2005 video tape.
''Some people say it makes them sick to hear Donald Trump talk like that,'' Warren said. ''Well, not me. Donald Trump's words don't make me sick anymore. They make me furious.''
She then went on to blast Trump for refusing to release his tax returns. ''And now, Donald Trump, the big brave Donald Trump, is too chicken to release his tax returns,'' Warren said before beginning to cluck.
The Live Event you are trying to watch is either unavailable or has not started Please refresh this page in your browser to reload this live event video
A conspiracy theorist texted his mum to say 'If anything happens to me, investigate' just days before his mysterious death.
Max Spiers, 39, a father to two boys, was found dead on a sofa in Poland, where he had gone to give a talk about conspiracy theories and UFOs.
He was ruled to have died from natural causes despite no post-mortem examination being carried out on his body.
But his dark investigations into UFOs and government cover-ups may have made him enemies who wanted him dead, says mother Vanessa Bates, 63.
Read MoreMax was ruled to have died from natural causes despite no post-mortem examination being carried outIn a chilling text message to his mum just days before his death, Max wrote: "Your boy's in trouble. If anything happens to me, investigate."
Originally from Canterbury, Max lived in America for a few years, but had returned to the city to stay with his mother, before jetting off to Poland.
Vanessa said: "He was making a name for himself in the world of conspiracy theorists and had been invited to speak at a conference in Poland in July.
"He was staying with a woman who he had not known for long and she told me how she found him dead on the sofa.
"But I think Max had been digging in some dark places and I fear that somebody wanted him dead."
Max made a career out of investigating UFO sightings and alleged cover-ups.
More recently, he was said to be probing into the lives of well-known figures in politics, business and entertainment.
Read MoreHis unexplained death, and its subsequent treatment by the authorities, has left many online followers convinced he was killed by government agents.
Video loadingWatch this video again
Watch NextClick to playTap to play
The Live Event you are trying to watch is either unavailable or has not started Please refresh this page in your browser to reload this live event video
Conspiracy theorists have long been convinced that UFO chasers who get too close to the truth are "bumped off" by the secret services or so-called men in black.
On one website, Project Camelot, a blogger wrote: "The entire circumstances are suspicious and I urge everyone to encourage the release of details about what really happened and call for an autopsy."
Another, Craig Hewlett, added: "If it wasn't true what he talks about then why would they kill him? Healthy people don't just get sick and die, they get poisoned ."
Mum Vanessa, an English teacher, also buys into the theories.
She said: "Max was a very fit man who was in good health and yet he apparently just died suddenly on a sofa.
Father of two Max was found dead on a sofa in Poland"All I have is a death certificate from the Polish authorities that it was from natural causes, but no post-mortem was done so how can they tell that?
"They are also refusing to release any paperwork about it to me because, absurdly, I don't have his written permission."
Max was buried in Canterbury cemetery after his mother arranged to have his body flown home a week after his death.
Read MoreVideo loadingWatch this video again
Watch NextClick to playTap to play
The Live Event you are trying to watch is either unavailable or has not started Please refresh this page in your browser to reload this live event video
Read MoreA post-mortem examination was carried out by a pathologist in east Kent, but Vanessa says that more than two months later she still does not know the result, or whether there will be an inquest.
She added: "Apparently, he had not suffered any obvious physical injuries but he could have been slowly poisoned, which is why the results of toxicology tests from his post-mortem are so important.
"He has a brother, Josh, and sister, Becky, who are both devastated, as are his two boys. We all want answers to this and I will continue to fight to get to the truth."
The North East Kent coroner's office would only confirm the death was at the "very early" stages of investigation.
UFOs and close encounters1of 4
VIDEO-Cherry Creek Schools defend 'white privilege' survey issued to staff - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com
High Wind Warning issued October 16 at 2:51PM MDT expiring October 17 at 4:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jackson, Jefferson, Larimer, Park, Summit
Fire Weather Warning issued October 17 at 4:30AM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Grand, Summit
Fire Weather Warning issued October 17 at 4:30AM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Park, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld
Fire Weather Warning issued October 16 at 2:52PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Baca, Bent, Conejos, Costilla, Crowley, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller
High Wind Warning issued October 16 at 2:38PM MDT expiring October 17 at 4:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller
High Wind Warning issued October 16 at 2:38PM MDT expiring October 17 at 12:00PM MDT in effect for: Huerfano, Las Animas
Fire Weather Warning issued October 16 at 2:02PM MDT expiring October 17 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Yuma
Fire Weather Warning issued October 16 at 9:25PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Park, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld
Fire Weather Warning issued October 16 at 2:51PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Lincoln, Park, Weld
Fire Weather Warning issued October 16 at 2:51PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld
High Wind Warning issued October 16 at 2:38PM MDT expiring October 17 at 4:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Chaffee, Costilla, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo, Saguache, Teller
Fire Weather Watch issued October 16 at 1:53PM MDT expiring October 17 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Yuma
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 11:00PM MDT expiring October 17 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Cheyenne, Kit Carson
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 11:00PM MDT expiring October 17 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma
High Wind Watch issued October 16 at 3:57AM MDT expiring October 17 at 2:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller
High Wind Watch issued October 15 at 9:54PM MDT expiring October 18 at 12:00AM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Grand, Jackson, Jefferson, Larimer, Park, Summit
Fire Weather Watch issued October 16 at 5:16AM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Larimer, Lincoln, Park, Weld
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 2:14PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld
Fire Weather Watch issued October 16 at 3:50AM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Baca, Bent, Conejos, Costilla, Crowley, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller
High Wind Watch issued October 15 at 9:12PM MDT expiring October 17 at 6:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Chaffee, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, El Paso, Fremont, Huerfano, Lake, Las Animas, Mineral, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache, Teller
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 6:56PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Baca, Bent, Crowley, El Paso, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers, Pueblo, Teller
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 6:56PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 2:14PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Douglas, Elbert, Gilpin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Park
Fire Weather Watch issued October 15 at 2:14PM MDT expiring October 17 at 9:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Broomfield, Jefferson, Larimer, Weld
VIDEO-Watch CNN tells viewers it is illegal to read the wikileaks Hillary emails - YouTube
