Straw Dogs
The straw ban isn’t the problem; the idea that the straw ban is some kind of bridge to solving bigger problems is. Because straw bans are easy; effecting real change is hard.
Ten Second News
+ Trump Revokes Former DCI John Brennan’s Security Clearnace
( 14 ) / #John Brennan #security clearnace #Trump-Trump Revokes Former DCI John Brennan’s Security Clearnace
/ #John Brennan #security clearnace #TrumpAfter having hinted that he would do so back in July, President Trump today revoked former Director Central Intelligence John Brennan’s security clearance. The announcement was read by Press Secretary Sanders:
"I’ve exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, revoking the security clearance of former Obama administration CIA director John Brennan. pic.twitter.com/ExjpwfIGgm
— POLITICO (@politico) August 15, 2018
In July, the White House announced that it was considering taking such action, which amounts to an unprecedented use of presidential authority to punish political rivals. At the time, critics quickly seized on the announcement, even as those under consideration downplayed the effect losing their clearances might have.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was not consulted on revoking Brennan’s clearance, an official with knowledge told CNN’s Jim Sciutto. Coats is the top intelligence official working in government and was appointed by Trump.
Sanders’ statement Wednesday cited the CIA’s infiltration of Senate computers during Brennan’s time at the helm of the agency as a reason for the decision, adding that Brennan has “recently leveraged his status” as a former official to “make a series of unfounded allegations” about the administration, which she called “increasingly frenzied commentary.”
So what does it mean? In the short term the reactions will probably fall along the lines of what the responders already thought about President Trump. Critics will claim Brennan as patriotism incarnate for opposing the president and being oppressed while MAGA land will paint him as a traitor, or worse, for defying the president.
In reality it is mostly a symbolic gesture. Most of the targets from President Trump’s July list of potential revocations no longer have clearance. Brennan would have been entitled to retain his for 5 years, unless some unknown measures were taken, which would have expired January 2022. Some will cry out about Brennan’s “free speech” being infringed on, but security clearances are not silencing. The experts will argue over the particulars, but security clearances and classified information is established as within the discretion of the executive, so any pushback would be limited. Even James Clapper, also subject of the Trump Administrations ire for his outspoken criticism, admits the president can do so as he pleases:
“I think this is just a very, very petty thing to do. And that’s about all I’ll say about it,” (Former Obama DNI James) Clapper said on CNN immediately after Sanders’ briefing.
“There is a formal process for doing this,” he added. “But, you know, legally the President has that prerogative and he can suspend and revoke clearances as he sees fit. If he chooses to do it for political reasons, I think that’s a terrible precedent and it’s a really sad commentary and its an abuse of the system.”
Hayden, meanwhile, indicated being stripped of his clearance would be of little consequence to his commentary.
“I don’t go back for classified briefings. Won’t have any effect on what I say or write,” he tweeted.
The CIA declined to comment on the announcement.
In short, it’s a very Trump-like thing to do; Small on consequence, big on turmoil caused, and comes off as petty and personally motivated.
Comment → --Trump Files Arbitration Suit Over Breach of NDA
/ #Omarosa #TrumpThe newest volley in the back and forth war between President Trump and former-reality-star-cum-former-White-House-staffer Omarosa Manigault Newman came today, with Trump filing an arbitration suit against Manigault Newman for what he alleges is a breach of a “non-disclosure agreement”. Manigault Newman, who served as “liason to the African American community” for the Trump administration until her firing last December, denies that any such agreement covered her time in the White House. Though the agreement has not yet been made public, many experts agree that the NDA is likely invalid as to Manigault Newman’s time in the White House.
That the President required his staffers to sign NDAs was first revealed back in March, Though it has been conceded on both sides that the Manigault Newman NDA dates back to the 2016 campaign, the Trump camp asserted via Kellyanne Conway that all employees of the West Wing have signed similar agreements. The Trump camp alleges that Manigault Newman’s new tell-all book and her statements to the media regarding her time in the White House is in breach of the confidentiality agreement, for which she “owes millions”.
A few things to note: White House staffers are not employed by Donald J. Trump; they are employed by the United States of America. Thus, any attempt to enforce the muzzling of federal employees would necessarily be by the federal government, not the president or his campaign. Any attempt by the government to limit speech would likely invoke that whole First Amendment thing. True, there are situations involving classified information for which the government may restrict speech, but “I saw the president eat paper and he uses the “N word” is unlikely to qualify as matters of national security.
It’s also true that government entities may have a legitimate interest in the regulation of their employees’ speech, but, as national security lawyer Bradley P. Moss of the Lawfare Blog explains here, federal courts have held that non-classified information revealed by former government employees is not subject to restriction. There exists a “pre-publication review” process for former employees who wish to publish memoirs of their time in government, which gives the government the ability to identify and restrict the dissemination of any classified-but only classified-information. However, this process is for security clearance holders, which does not include Manigault Newman, who had no security clearance at all.
Trump is often criticized for treating the presidency as another of his business ventures, and the use of NDAs is classic Trump. But while NDAs might be useful for ex-wives, former mistresses, and disgruntled beauty pageant contestants, Trump may find that things are different when his staff works for the people of the nation, not him.
Comment → -
+ The Manafort Defense Rested Without Presenting A Case
( 14 ) / #Paul Manafort #Robert Mueller #special consel #Trump-The Manafort Defense Rested Without Presenting A Case
/ #Paul Manafort #Robert Mueller #special consel #TrumpPaul Manafort, on trial for bank fraud and tax charges related to his overseas consulting work, will not testify, and his attorneys rested on Tuesday, setting up closing arguments for the one-time Trump campaign manager.
Paul Manafort, President Trump’s one-time campaign chairman, is on trial in federal court in Alexandria on bank and tax fraud charges. Prosecutors allege he failed to pay taxes on millions he made from his work for a Russia-friendly Ukrainian political party, then lied to get loans when the cash stopped coming in.
The prosecution rested on Monday, and today the defense rested, and Manafort will not take the stand. The courtroom was sealed for nearly two hours this morning, then reopened at about 11:30 a.m. with Manafort coming in 10 minutes later. The reason for the sealed court was not disclosed.
The case is being prosecuted by the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said that closing arguments in the case will begin at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, and jurors will be given instructions in the case after that. They will be sent home at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, after they see the defense formally rest its case.
The lawyers will discuss Tuesday afternoon what instructions they intend to give jurors. Those are wonky, but important, as they will shape how jurors debate the charges of which Manafort is accused.
In fact, the only time Manafort himself has spoken was in response to Judge Ellis’ reminder of his rights in the proceedings:
Manafort spoke for the first time in court during the trial, saying he will not testify.
Manafort told Judge T.S. Ellis that he would not testify during a brief questioning at the podium before the jury was brought in the room. Manafort is not required to testify because of his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Ellis made this clear during his brief conversation with Manafort.
“You have an absolute right to testify before this jury,” Ellis said. “You have an absolute right to remain silent before this jury.”
Closing arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. ET on Wednesday, and Ellis encouraged both sides to keep them under two hours.
Manafort faces 18 charges of tax and banking crimes and has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. The case stands as the first major test for special counsel Robert Mueller, who is currently leading the probe into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — including whether there was any collusion between President Donald Trump campaign associates and the Kremlin.
Arm chair lawyers and social media litigators will go crazy, but this is very common. Shaky defenses rest without presenting all the time, as Popehat outlines here, and if you are not going to call the defendant, might as well hide that fact with a blanket, “we don’t need a defense against these ridiculous charges,” type defense.
Will it work? Who knows, the jury will let us know, perhaps as early as the end of this week. The Trump-centric coverage often misses the point that Manafort has been dirty for years, but proving crime beyond reasonable doubt to a jury is never a sure thing. It only takes one juror, after all. Despite the volume of the debate, we are all in the same boat as to the outcome of this trial: we wait.
Comment → -+ Michael Drejka arrested, charged in slaying of Merkeis McGlockton
( 19 ) / #2A #Drejka #Florida #McGlockton #Stand Your Ground-Michael Drejka arrested, charged in slaying of Merkeis McGlockton
/ #2A #Drejka #Florida #McGlockton #Stand Your GroundMichael Drejka has been arrested and charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of Markeis McGlockton. For a quick recap, Sam Wilkinson did a write-up on this case, and the invoking of the Stand Your Ground defense in it, a while back:
Markeis McGlockton was at the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road near Clearwater, Florida.
He had his girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, and his three children with him. He parked in a handicap spot and went into the store. Michael Drejka, a man nearby, objected to McGlockton’s choice of parking spots and initiated a confrontation with McGlockton’s girlfriend. Seeing the commotion, McGlockton left the store, confronted Drejka, eventually pushing him to the ground. Drejka then pulled a gun, shot McGlockton once in the chest, killing him. McGlockton was black; Drejka is white. Prosecutors have announced that Drejka was standing his ground, and will not be prosecuting him.
What comes next is entirely based upon what is seen in the paragraph above. Some people will see a man defending his girlfriend and their children from an armed, confrontational stranger who obviously represented an immediate threat to their well-being. (And although McGlockton had no way of knowing this at the time, Drejka has done this before; several months earlier, Drejka had threatened to shoot another man in the same parking lot, regarding that man’s decision to park in the same spot.) Some people will see Drejka simply defending himself, to the maximal imaginable degree, from an aggressor.
But regardless of what people see in this story, Florida law sees Drejka as a victim completely justified in killing McGlockton, all because Drejka can credibly report that he was afraid for his own well-being in the aftermath of having been shoved to the ground. It does not matter that he instigated the conflict; it does not matter that he was the armed aggressor; it does not matter that he is the one that posed the threat; it only matters that McGlockton almost immediately, but only briefly, had the upper hand.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said as much late last week, noting that although he questioned Drejka’s decision to shoot McGlockton, “But I don’t get to, and we don’t get to, substitute our judgment for Drejka’s judgment.”
But that was then, and apparently the now includes bringing up Drejka on manslaughter charges, as covered by the Tampa Bay Times:
Prosecutors charged Michael Drejka, the man accused of killing Markeis McGlockton in a shooting that has reignited a debate over Florida’s stand your ground law, with manslaughter Monday.
According to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, Drejka was taken into custody Monday morning. He was being booked about 12:20 p.m. into the Pinellas County Jail, where he will be held in lieu of $100,000 bail.
“It’s about time,” said McGlockton’s father, Michael McGlockton, adding that he was ecstatic. “This is exactly what I wanted. This is exactly what me and my family wanted was to get this guy behind bars.”Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe said Monday that his office “reviewed everything, and we filed the charge we think we can prove.”
“I’m comfortable that we moved expeditiously to review the case,” he said.
Drejka, who turned 48 since the shooting, had avoided arrest since he shot 28-year-old McGlockton on July 19 because of the controversial self-defense law that eliminated one’s duty to retreat before resorting to force.
Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri announced July 20 that his agency was precluded from arresting Drejka because evidence showed it was “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” which provides immunity from arrest, the sheriff said. He forwarded the case Aug. 1 to the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney’s Office to make a final charging determination.
So why the change? As the Times notes, the prosecutor declined to elaborate but the arrest warrant itself provides some clues:
It follows the same timeline outlined by authorities. The encounter between the two men started when Drejka, of 1116 Charles St. in Clearwater, confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about why she had parked in a handicap-reserved parking space without a decal at the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road.
McGlockton, inside the store with his 5-year-old son, caught wind of the heated argument from witnesses.Surveillance video shows him leaving the store, walking up to Drejka and pushing him to the ground. Drejka then pulls out a gun and shoots McGlockton. He told deputies he was in fear of further attack.
The warrant notes what McGlockton’s family and their lawyers have pointed out to show that Drejka’s fear wasn’t reasonable.“Drejka steadies the firearm with both hands,” it says. “McGlockton immediately backs up when confronted with the firearm. As he backs up to his vehicle he begins to turn towards the front of the store away from the shooter.”
It also notes investigators used a scanner that helps capture measurement and distance to find that Drejka was about 12 feet from McGlockton when he fired the shot.Several questions must be considered in deciding whether someone can be protected under the law when they use force: Was the person acting lawfully? Did the person have a right to be there? And was the person in reasonable fear of serious injury or death?
State legislators revised the law last year to put the onus on prosecutors to disprove a stand your ground claim instead of on defense attorneys to prove one. That would be hashed out at a pre-trial immunity hearing.
It would seem not just Drejka, but the scope and legal definition of Stand Your Ground law itself, will be on trial this time, at least in the court of public opinion.
Comment → --Familial DNA Continues to Crack Cold Cases Around the Country
/ #cold case #Crime #DNAFollowing the big news last spring that the maddening case of the Golden State Killer was cracked by comparing offender DNA to a commercial DNA website, dominoes continue to fall around the country with the solving of decades-old murders. It is likely more bitter than sweet for the families of the victims, but must surely be of some comfort to finally know who was responsible for their loved ones’ deaths.
Among the cases solved in the last few months using familial DNA and genealogical databases:
- The kidnapping and murder of April Marie Tinsley in Fort Wayne, Indiana in 1988. April, 8 years old, disappeared off the street as she walked to her friend’s house to retrieve an umbrella. Her raped and strangled body was found a few days later. Despite eye-witness to her abduction and the brazen taunts made by her killer in the years after, the case went unsolved until last month, when DNA left behind by the perpetrator was compared to a geneology database, as was done in the Golden State Killer case. The results led authorities to arrest John Miller, 58. When authorities showed up at his door and asked Miller if he knew why there were there, he did: “April Tinsley”. Miller is in custody and awaits trial.
- The 1986 rape and murder of 12-year-old Michella Welch who disappeared while out playing with her sisters in Tacoma Washington. Tacoma police in May arrested 66 year old Gary Hartman, a registered nurse employed by the State of Washington, charging him with Michella’s murder. Familial DNA led police to collect a napkin discarded by Hartman, the DNA on which was compared to that found on the young girl’s body. It was a match.
- The 1992 murder of school teacher Christy Mirack in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Familial DNA from a genealogy database proved the culprit to be Raymond “DJ Freez” Rowe, which was confirmed after investigators collected his discarded gum and water bottle from his gig at an elementary school dance.
- The 1987 double murder of 20-year-old Jay Cook and his 18-year-old girlfriend, Tanya Van Cuylenburg in Bellingham, Washington. Charged in that case was 55-year-old William Talbott, who raped the young woman before killing both young victims.
- The 1981 Texas murder of real estate agent Virginia Freeman. The woman’s body was found after she went to meet with a potential buyer at a rural property. The case went unsolved for 37 years, but officials say DNA points to James Otto Earhart, who was executed in 1999 for the murder of a 9-year-old girl.
There appears no end in sight for this trend of solving cold cases – a light at the end of the tunnel for families of the victims, and an oncoming train for the perpetrators.
Comment → --Not Fine
/ #librariesAnd it’s not through fines:
Late fines weren’t very effective at getting people to return materials, officials said.
Instead, patrons seem to be more motivated to return items to avoid replacement costs and losing borrowing privileges than they were to avert accumulating fees, officials said.
Late fees were a drain on library resources, and collecting them did not promote a good relationship with patrons, said Tim Kambitsch, the executive director of the Dayton Metro Library.
“A long time ago, the overdue fines stopped having an impact on people’s timeliness of returning items,” he said. “What’s really made a big difference is that we’ve been more aggressive in how people’s borrowing privileges get limited with the new policy if they don’t return items.”
There’s a late episode of the Cosby Show where one of the replacement kids broke the rules and accepted the punishment as the cost of doing so. Cliff and Claire had to explain that it wasn’t meant to be transactional like that.
I thought about that when reading this. Apart from actually going after their ability to check out library books, a lot of people can probably internalize fines as a sort of rental fee. Whereas this makes them feel like they are doing something wrong, and the inability to rent other things out reinforces this fact. This makes it non-transactional.
Comment → --The Case For Us To Have a Space Force
/ #SpaceThink Space Force is a joke? Here are four major space threats to take seriously
WASHINGTON — Vice President Mike Pence on Thursday announced the Trump administration is laying the groundwork a new Space Force and eventually a separate military branch, dedicated to space.
While the merits of a new organization are debatable, U.S. national security space systems are vulnerable to a wide array of threats, ranging from cyberattacks and jamming to anti-satellite missiles, according to a Center for Strategic and International Studies report published earlier this year. Russia and China, and to a lesser degree North Korea and Iran, are all threatening America’s military through its dependence on space.
“Given our dependence and that of our allies and partners on space, the loss of critical assets today could prove decisive to our ability to monitor critical events like missile launches or nuclear tests, or to successfully prosecute a military campaign,” retired Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler, the former chief of U.S. Strategic Command, said in the forward to the report. “Urgent action is needed.”
A number of people have said that if Obama had come up with this a lot of people laughing at Trump and Pence wouldn’t be. Fair enough, thought if Obama had come up with it we’d assume an actual plan with strategic objectives. It the administration is actually serious about this, and not just selling campaign gear, I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Comment → -President Donald Trump’s re-election team seized on his administration’s push for a “Space Force” on Thursday, pledging to sell branded merchandise to his supporters.
“President Trump wants a SPACE FORCE — a groundbreaking endeavor for the future of America and the final frontier,” read an email from the Trump campaign. “As a way to celebrate President Trump’s huge announcement, our campaign will be selling a new line of gear.”
The letter from campaign manager Brad Parscale then invited supporters to vote on the campaign’s logo for the proposed military branch. The campaign email followed efforts from the Trump administration on the same day to drum up support for the proposal and outline how the Pentagon would take its first steps.
Vice President Mike Pence delivered a speech where he called for the creation of a new military service for space by 2020, building on Trump’s previous calls for one, and Trump issued a tweet on Thursday where he said, “Space Force all the way!”
← ITW All TSN →
