thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Nearly 500 Retired Military Officials Endorse Biden

“ We are former public servants who have devoted our careers , and in many cases risked our lives , for the United States , ” the letter , published Thursday by the National Security Leaders for Biden , reads .
“ We are generals , admirals , senior noncommissioned officers , ambassadors and senior civilian national security leaders .
We are Republicans and Democrats , and Independents .
We love our country .
Unfortunately , we also fear for it .
The COVID-19 pandemic has proven America needs principled , wise , and responsible leadership .
America needs a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ S. Truman said , that ‘ the buck stops here.
’ ” The 489 signatures include Air Force Gen. Paul Selva , who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump before he retired in August 2019 .
Adm. Paul Zukunft and Vice Adm. Gardner Howe also served under the Trump administration and signed their names to the letter , according to NBC News .
Though the letter doesn ’ t mention Trump by name , it spells out the president ’ s many failures , including his response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Kurds , and his cozying up to authoritarian leaders .
“ The next president will inherit a nation — and a world — in turmoil .
The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office ; he can not rise to meet challenges large or small , ” the letter says .
“ Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures , our allies no longer trust or respect us , and our enemies no longer fear us .
Climate change continues unabated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program.
” Last week , 235 senior military officials endorsed Trump , arguing against proposed budget cuts by Democrats , and falsely claiming the Democratic Party is being taken over by socialists and Marxists .
The hundreds of former military officials who signed Thursday ’ s letter said they believe Joe Biden “ has the character , principles , wisdom , and leadership necessary to address a world on fire .
”

“We are former public servants who have devoted our careers, and in many cases risked our lives, for the United States,” the letter, published Thursday by the National Security Leaders for Biden, reads. “We are generals, admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans and Democrats, and Independents. We love our country. Unfortunately, we also fear for it. The COVID-19 pandemic has proven America needs principled, wise, and responsible leadership. America needs a President who understands, as President Harry S. Truman said, that ‘the buck stops here.’”
The 489 signatures include Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, who served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump before he retired in August 2019. Adm. Paul Zukunft and Vice Adm. Gardner Howe also served under the Trump administration and signed their names to the letter, according to NBC News.
Though the letter doesn’t mention Trump by name, it spells out the president’s many failures, including his response to the coronavirus pandemic, his betrayal of the Kurds, and his cozying up to authoritarian leaders.
“The next president will inherit a nation — and a world — in turmoil. The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small,” the letter says. “Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us. Climate change continues unabated, as does North Korea’s nuclear program.”
Last week, 235 senior military officials endorsed Trump, arguing against proposed budget cuts by Democrats, and falsely claiming the Democratic Party is being taken over by socialists and Marxists.
The hundreds of former military officials who signed Thursday’s letter said they believe Joe Biden “has the character, principles, wisdom, and leadership necessary to address a world on fire.”
Read the full letter here.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--White House Says Trump Will Accept Result Of 'Free And Fair Election'

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany repeatedly avoided saying whether President Donald Trump will agree to a “ peaceful transfer of power ” if he loses his reelection , instead repeating to reporters Thursday that he “ will accept the results of a free and fair election.
” “ If the president loses this election , will this White House , will the president assure us that there will be a peaceful transfer of power ?
” a reporter asked during the White House press briefing .
“ The president will accept the results of a free and fair election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that same answer when asked : “ Are the results of the November election legitimate only if the president wins ?
” “ He will accept the results of a free and fair election , ” McEnany answered .
“ He will accept the will of the American people.
” “ The president will accept the results of a free and fair election .
But I think that your question is more fitting to be asked of Democrats , ” Kayleigh McEnany tells @ jonkarl when asked about Trump declining to commit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //t.co/mRWa6yO6vC pic.twitter.com/TV7CwdBqdn — ABC News ( @ ABC ) September 24 , 2020 McEnany ’ s suggestion that the Nov. 3 election may not be “ free and fair ” follows Trump repeatedly casting doubt on the nation ’ s electoral system , saying that if he loses it will be because the election was “ rigged.
” On Wednesday , Trump also refused to say whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power .
He instead told reporters : “ We ’ re going to have to see what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Fox News ’ Chris Wallace in an interview in July .
“ We want to make sure the election is honest , and I am not sure that it can be , ” he said while expressing agitation that some states are sending mail-in-ballots to all their registered voters in an effort to reduce the number of people voting at polls amid the coronavirus pandemic .
TRUMP : The ballots -- that 's a whole big scam .
They found 8 ballots in a waste basket , others in a river .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name Trump on them .
REPORTER : There were no names on them TRUMP : Well , they still found them in a river .
pic.twitter.com/SdYehARk5k — Aaron Rupar ( @ atrupar ) September 24 , 2020 There has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S. FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday , testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee , also said his agency has “ not seen , historically , any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election , whether it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s refusal to commit to a peaceful exit , top Republicans vowed on Thursday that there will be a peaceful transfer of power should he lose .
“ There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792 , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky ) tweeted .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany repeatedly avoided saying whether President Donald Trump will agree to a “peaceful transfer of power” if he loses his reelection, instead repeating to reporters Thursday that he “will accept the results of a free and fair election.”
“If the president loses this election, will this White House, will the president assure us that there will be a peaceful transfer of power?” a reporter asked during the White House press briefing.
Advertisement
“The president will accept the results of a free and fair election,” responded McEnany. She repeated that same answer when asked: “Are the results of the November election legitimate only if the president wins?”
“He will accept the results of a free and fair election,” McEnany answered. “He will accept the will of the American people.”
“The president will accept the results of a free and fair election. But I think that your question is more fitting to be asked of Democrats,” Kayleigh McEnany tells @jonkarl when asked about Trump declining to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. https://t.co/mRWa6yO6vC pic.twitter.com/TV7CwdBqdn — ABC News (@ABC) September 24, 2020
McEnany’s suggestion that the Nov. 3 election may not be “free and fair” follows Trump repeatedly casting doubt on the nation’s electoral system, saying that if he loses it will be because the election was “rigged.”
Advertisement
On Wednesday, Trump also refused to say whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power. He instead told reporters: “We’re going to have to see what happens.” He gave a similar response to Fox News’ Chris Wallace in an interview in July.
Speaking with reporters on Thursday, Trump called the mail-in-voting system “a whole big scam.”
“We want to make sure the election is honest, and I am not sure that it can be,” he said while expressing agitation that some states are sending mail-in-ballots to all their registered voters in an effort to reduce the number of people voting at polls amid the coronavirus pandemic.
TRUMP: The ballots -- that's a whole big scam. They found 8 ballots in a waste basket, others in a river. They throw 'em out if they have the name Trump on them.
REPORTER: There were no names on them
TRUMP: Well, they still found them in a river. pic.twitter.com/SdYehARk5k — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 24, 2020
There has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday, testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, also said his agency has “not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise.”
Despite Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful exit, top Republicans vowed on Thursday that there will be a peaceful transfer of power should he lose.
Advertisement
“There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) tweeted.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wy.), the third-ranking Republican in the House, also promised that “America’s leaders” will carry out their duties to the Constitution by guaranteeing a peaceful transition.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Husband Named In College Admissions Scandal

Richard Blum , a University of California regent who is married to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein , was revealed Thursday to be the same regent named in a damning state audit on the school ’ s admissions scandal that was released this week .
The state auditor ’ s report comes more than a year after the FBI accused dozens of wealthy people ― executives , real estate professionals and multiple Hollywood actors ― of using scam tactics to ensure their children were admitted to elite colleges , including UC ’ s sprawling university system .
State investigators subsequently determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an admissions process that was fair to all applicants .
At least 64 students gained admission as a favor to donors , family and friends between 2013 and 2019 , the auditors found .
Blum ’ s role in the scandal was “ particularly problematic , ” the report stated , due to his powerful position on the board of regents , which makes decisions about how the system should be run .
The report concluded that Blum influenced the decision to admit a single unnamed student to the University of California at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted this student because of an inappropriate letter of support from a university Regent .
University policy states that members of the Board of Regents should not seek to influence inappropriately the outcome of admissions decisions beyond sending letters of recommendation , when appropriate , through the regular admissions process .
However , the Regent did not submit this letter through the regular admissions process .
Rather , after the campus placed this applicant on its waitlist , the Regent wrote a letter to UC Berkeley ’ s chancellor advocating for the applicant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent the letter to UC Berkeley ’ s development office , which in turn forwarded the letter to the admissions office .
Given both the “ low likelihood of this applicant ’ s admission ” and the “ prominent and influential role that Regents have within the university , ” the report stated that Blum “ likely ” gave the student the leg up needed to secure admission .
But there is more than one student he helped this way .
Blum himself acknowledged Thursday that he has sent letters advocating for student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francisco Chronicle that “ no one ever told me it was wrong.
” “ I did it a bunch of times , ” Blum said .
“ Usually [ for ] friends .
My cousin ’ s brother wanted to get into Davis .
They ’ d send me a letter and tell me why it ’ s a good kid , and I ’ ll send it on to the chancellor .
Been doing it forever.
” “ This is the first time I ’ ve heard that maybe I did something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blum said , according to the paper .
“ I think it ’ s a bunch of nonsense.
” “ These allegations , if true , are unacceptable , especially in our community where excellence , fairness and equity are our core values , ” Christ said .
“ We are committed to getting to the bottom of this.
” When the FBI announced the charges in March 2019 , it renewed accusations that America ’ s higher education system favors the wealthy and powerful .
Two actors who were charged in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , later pleaded guilty to fraud and received light prison sentences .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Richard Blum, a University of California regent who is married to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, was revealed Thursday to be the same regent named in a damning state audit on the school’s admissions scandal that was released this week.
A spokesman for Feinstein said the California senator had no comment.
The state auditor’s report comes more than a year after the FBI accused dozens of wealthy people ― executives, real estate professionals and multiple Hollywood actors ― of using scam tactics to ensure their children were admitted to elite colleges, including UC’s sprawling university system.
Advertisement
State investigators subsequently determined that UC staff had failed to implement an admissions process that was fair to all applicants. At least 64 students gained admission as a favor to donors, family and friends between 2013 and 2019, the auditors found.
Blum’s role in the scandal was “particularly problematic,” the report stated, due to his powerful position on the board of regents, which makes decisions about how the system should be run. The report concluded that Blum influenced the decision to admit a single unnamed student to the University of California at Berkeley.
It read:
UC Berkeley appears to have admitted this student because of an inappropriate letter of support from a university Regent. University policy states that members of the Board of Regents should not seek to influence inappropriately the outcome of admissions decisions beyond sending letters of recommendation, when appropriate, through the regular admissions process. However, the Regent did not submit this letter through the regular admissions process. Rather, after the campus placed this applicant on its waitlist, the Regent wrote a letter to UC Berkeley’s chancellor advocating for the applicant, and the chancellor’s staff sent the letter to UC Berkeley’s development office, which in turn forwarded the letter to the admissions office.
Given both the “low likelihood of this applicant’s admission” and the “prominent and influential role that Regents have within the university,” the report stated that Blum “likely” gave the student the leg up needed to secure admission.
Advertisement
But there is more than one student he helped this way.
Blum himself acknowledged Thursday that he has sent letters advocating for student admissions many times, telling the San Francisco Chronicle that “no one ever told me it was wrong.”
“I did it a bunch of times,” Blum said. “Usually [for] friends. My cousin’s brother wanted to get into Davis. They’d send me a letter and tell me why it’s a good kid, and I’ll send it on to the chancellor. Been doing it forever.”
He told The Mercury News that he was baffled by the controversy.
“This is the first time I’ve heard that maybe I did something that wasn’t right,” Blum said, according to the paper. “I think it’s a bunch of nonsense.”
In a statement, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ called the allegations contained in the state auditors’ report “highly disturbing.”
“These allegations, if true, are unacceptable, especially in our community where excellence, fairness and equity are our core values,” Christ said. “We are committed to getting to the bottom of this.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Bernie Sanders: ‘This Is An Election Between Donald Trump And Democracy’

AP Photo/Alex Brandon Sens .
Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders pay their respects as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose at the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 23 , 2020 .
“ Trump may well announce that he has won the election before all of the votes are counted and that large numbers of mail-in ballots should be discarded , ” Sanders said speaking from an auditorium at George Washington University in Washington , D.C .
In Sanders ’ dystopian telling , Trump could declare victory before all the mail-in ballots are counted , baselessly call absentee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislatures and the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the election outcome in his favor regardless of the voters ’ will .
“ This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden , ” Sanders said .
“ This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy ― and democracy must win .
... As someone who is strongly supporting Joe Biden , let ’ s be clear : A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ We ’ re going to have to see what happens , ” Trump said on Wednesday after a reporter asked him directly if he would peacefully pass the baton to Biden .
“ You know that I ’ ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots , and the ballots are a disaster .
We want to get rid of the ballots and you ’ ll have a very peaceful — there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly .
There will be a continuation.
” Trump has repeatedly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots , thereby sowing distrust in election results .
Due to the coronavirus pandemic , there has been a historic increase in mail-in ballot requests this year .
On Wednesday , Trump made clear that he wants to quickly replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died last week , in part because he wants an even more solidly conservative Supreme Court should the election be decided by the high court .
Republican lawmakers spent time on Thursday assuring the public that there would be a peaceful transfer of power should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president , like Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , have entertained the idea of the election being decided by the courts .
Sanders , who endorsed Biden shortly after ending his own presidential bid in April , has kept a low profile in recent months .
Back in the Senate , he has been proposing coronavirus relief bills , and he has used his campaign platform to support progressive congressional candidates .
The senator made a prime-time appearance at the Democratic National Convention , where he said that “ if Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have made will be in jeopardy.
” Sanders ’ speech on Thursday didn ’ t mention Biden ’ s record or his platform , instead focusing entirely on Trump ’ s attempts to undermine the election , from those allegations of widespread voter fraud with zero evidence to the slowdowns at the U.S .
Postal Service .
Biden ’ s campaign and those in Sanders ’ circle worked to present a united policy platform at the DNC in August .
Though the platform fell short on many of the issues Sanders campaigned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasized that his first and only priority over the next several weeks is to defeat Trump at the ballot box .
“ No matter how rich and powerful you may be , no matter how arrogant and narcissistic you may be , no matter how much you think you can get anything you want , let me make this clear to Donald Trump : Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy , ” Sanders said .
“ You are not going to destroy it .
The American people will @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sens. Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders pay their respects as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose at the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 23, 2020. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
In his first public political event since March, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned of a doomsday Election Day scenario.
“Trump may well announce that he has won the election before all of the votes are counted and that large numbers of mail-in ballots should be discarded,” Sanders said speaking from an auditorium at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
Advertisement
In Sanders’ dystopian telling, Trump could declare victory before all the mail-in ballots are counted, baselessly call absentee voting fraudulent, and rely on Republican state legislatures and the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the election outcome in his favor regardless of the voters’ will.
The only way to ensure this doesn’t happen, Sanders said, is to give Joe Biden a landslide victory.
“This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden,” Sanders said. “This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy ― and democracy must win. ... As someone who is strongly supporting Joe Biden, let’s be clear: A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results and is our best means for defending democracy.”
Sanders’ speech, although scheduled in advance, came just a day after the president refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose this November.
“We’re going to have to see what happens,” Trump said on Wednesday after a reporter asked him directly if he would peacefully pass the baton to Biden. “You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. We want to get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.”
Advertisement
Trump has repeatedly and without evidence questioned the integrity of mail-in ballots, thereby sowing distrust in election results. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, there has been a historic increase in mail-in ballot requests this year.
On Wednesday, Trump made clear that he wants to quickly replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week, in part because he wants an even more solidly conservative Supreme Court should the election be decided by the high court.
“Let’s be clear: A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results and is our best means for defending democracy.” - Sen. Bernie Sanders
Republican lawmakers spent time on Thursday assuring the public that there would be a peaceful transfer of power should Trump lose. But close allies of the president, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have entertained the idea of the election being decided by the courts.
Sanders, who endorsed Biden shortly after ending his own presidential bid in April, has kept a low profile in recent months. Back in the Senate, he has been proposing coronavirus relief bills, and he has used his campaign platform to support progressive congressional candidates.
Advertisement
The senator made a prime-time appearance at the Democratic National Convention, where he said that “if Donald Trump is reelected, all the progress we have made will be in jeopardy.”
Sanders’ speech on Thursday didn’t mention Biden’s record or his platform, instead focusing entirely on Trump’s attempts to undermine the election, from those allegations of widespread voter fraud with zero evidence to the slowdowns at the U.S. Postal Service.
Biden’s campaign and those in Sanders’ circle worked to present a united policy platform at the DNC in August. Though the platform fell short on many of the issues Sanders campaigned on, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist has emphasized that his first and only priority over the next several weeks is to defeat Trump at the ballot box.
He repeated that call Thursday.
“No matter how rich and powerful you may be, no matter how arrogant and narcissistic you may be, no matter how much you think you can get anything you want, let me make this clear to Donald Trump: Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy,” Sanders said. “You are not going to destroy it. The American people will not allow that to happen.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--The Trump Administration Is Rushing To Execute People In The Middle Of A Pandemic

SOPA Images via Getty Images The federal government is scheduled to carry out its seventh execution since July at the Terre Haute prison on Thursday .
The federal government executed 50-year-old William LeCroy on Tuesday night after the Supreme Court denied a last-minute bid to block it .
LeCroy , who was convicted in 2004 of killing a nurse he believed had put a spell on him , was given a lethal injection of pentobarbital .
The sedative caused his midsection to heave uncontrollably , the color to drain from his lips and his face to turn pale gray , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside a federal prison in Terre Haute , Indiana .
He was pronounced dead at 9:06 p.m. LeCroy and Vialva are part of a wave of federal executions that began in July when the Trump administration resumed carrying out the death penalty for the first time in 17 years , in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
The government is using a drug that may torture as it kills , according to autopsy reports .
Several of the men selected for execution over the past two months still had pending litigation related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheduled .
“ I am speaking out now because the U.S. government is trying to execute me and many others using your tax dollars , and there is no substantial national media coverage on federal capital punishment , ” Vialva said in a video recently released by his attorneys .
Most people , Vialva noted in the video , are unaware that Black people are disproportionately sentenced to death and that many people on death row were arrested before they were old enough to legally drink .
“ People decided that despite having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that we were beyond redemption , ” Vialva said .
Last year , Barr announced plans to resume federal executions after a long hiatus caused by legal challenges , drug availability issues and an Obama-era review of capital punishment after a disturbing botched execution in Oklahoma .
The first five men initially chosen for death appeared to have been strategically selected .
The men had been convicted of violent crimes against children and the elderly .
One had been a member of a white supremacist group — a detail that obscured the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The federal government also appears to have intentionally chosen for its first executions men who were not original plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit filed in 2005 alleging that the three-drug formula used in federal executions violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment and ran afoul of procedural requirements .
The Supreme Court eventually upheld the legality of the drug combination in a different case — but in 2011 , the sole U.S. manufacturer of one of the drugs stopped producing it in response to pressure from human rights activists .
Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue was to switch from the three-drug protocol to a single drug , a sedative called pentobarbital .
But several of the legal challenges to the three-drug protocol would also reasonably apply to the single pentobarbital dose .
Selecting individuals for execution who were not originally part of the lawsuit amounts to “ an end-run around judicial oversight , ” Robert Dunham , the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center , said in an interview .
“ It is highly likely that even in an execution that appears to be going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is sedated and nonresponsive but is conscious and aware of being put to death in a manner that feels like waterboarding and suffocation , ” Dunham said .
Unlike the federal government , most states have paused executions during the coronavirus pandemic in an effort to limit the spread of the virus in prisons , which are already high-risk environments for COVID-19 .
The federal death row is housed at the Indiana complex .
A federal execution team consists of more than 40 Bureau of Prison staff members , assisted by about 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security and support , BOP regional counsel Rick Winter wrote in a court filing .
The ACLU sued the federal government in July on behalf of Buddhist priest Seigen Hartkemeyer , the spiritual adviser to Wesley Purkey , who was executed later that month .
Killing Purkey during the pandemic “ presents an untenable conflict ” for Hartkemeyer , the ACLU wrote in its complaint .
The 68-year-old man , who has a history of recurring bronchitis and pleurisy , “ must decide whether to risk his own life in order to exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr. Purkey ’ s execution.
” Family members of the victims of another man scheduled to be executed later joined Hartkemeyer in asking the courts to delay the executions until it would be safe for them to attend .
Their concerns weren ’ t hypothetical .
On July 11 , just days before Purkey and two other men ’ s scheduled executions , a BOP staff member tested positive for COVID-19 .
The staff member had attended meetings in preparation for the executions and did not always wear a mask , Winter wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many staff and incarcerated individuals he was in contact with , the staff member reported , “ ?
Alot.
” Vialva has spent part of what may be his final days responding to letters from strangers , Otto said .
He even made sure to respond to one letter that he wasn ’ t allowed to read because it was sent with a return address label on the envelope that violated prison rules .
He told the sender that although he couldn ’ t read their letter , most people had written to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if that was their message , he wanted to thank them .
Vialva is still trying to persuade the Supreme Court to stay his execution , arguing that a Texas law that guarantees a minimum of 91 days between the notice of execution and the date of execution should apply in his case .
Vialva received only 55 days ’ notice , barely enough time to file a petition for executive clemency , Otto said .
Vialva isn ’ t asking for freedom , only for his life to be spared .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ live out the rest of his life , as he puts it , ‘ preaching , teaching , and learning , ’ ” Otto said of Vialva , who is a Messianic Jew .
“ The person that he is now is so completely opposite and unrecognizable in the context of the offense , ” Otto said .
“ I think even a person who staunchly believes that the death penalty is completely appropriate — it would give them pause if they realized that a jury said that this young man , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redemptive qualities whatsoever and that the only thing we could do as a society was execute him .
”

The federal government is scheduled to carry out its seventh execution since July at the Terre Haute prison on Thursday. SOPA Images via Getty Images
The federal government executed 50-year-old William LeCroy on Tuesday night after the Supreme Court denied a last-minute bid to block it. LeCroy, who was convicted in 2004 of killing a nurse he believed had put a spell on him, was given a lethal injection of pentobarbital. The sedative caused his midsection to heave uncontrollably, the color to drain from his lips and his face to turn pale gray, according to witnesses in the execution chamber inside a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was pronounced dead at 9:06 p.m.
Another man, Christopher Vialva, is scheduled to be executed Thursday as punishment for killing two people during a 1999 carjacking at Fort Hood in Texas. He will be the first Black man executed under President Donald Trump and the seventh this summer since Attorney General William Barr and Trump revived the punishment.
Advertisement
LeCroy and Vialva are part of a wave of federal executions that began in July when the Trump administration resumed carrying out the death penalty for the first time in 17 years, in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. The government is using a drug that may torture as it kills, according to autopsy reports. Several of the men selected for execution over the past two months still had pending litigation related to their cases when their deaths were scheduled.
Vialva, who was 19 years old when he committed his crime, never had the chance for post-conviction review, despite credible claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and advancements in neurological science showing that the teenage brain is not fully matured.
“I am speaking out now because the U.S. government is trying to execute me and many others using your tax dollars, and there is no substantial national media coverage on federal capital punishment,” Vialva said in a video recently released by his attorneys. Most people, Vialva noted in the video, are unaware that Black people are disproportionately sentenced to death and that many people on death row were arrested before they were old enough to legally drink. “People decided that despite having our whole adult life ahead of us, that we were beyond redemption,” Vialva said.
Advertisement
An ‘End-Run’ Around Judicial Oversight
Last year, Barr announced plans to resume federal executions after a long hiatus caused by legal challenges, drug availability issues and an Obama-era review of capital punishment after a disturbing botched execution in Oklahoma. The first five men initially chosen for death appeared to have been strategically selected. The men had been convicted of violent crimes against children and the elderly. One had been a member of a white supremacist group — a detail that obscured the systemically racist implementation of the death penalty.
The federal government also appears to have intentionally chosen for its first executions men who were not original plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit filed in 2005 alleging that the three-drug formula used in federal executions violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment and ran afoul of procedural requirements. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the legality of the drug combination in a different case — but in 2011, the sole U.S. manufacturer of one of the drugs stopped producing it in response to pressure from human rights activists.
Barr’s solution to the drug supply issue was to switch from the three-drug protocol to a single drug, a sedative called pentobarbital. But several of the legal challenges to the three-drug protocol would also reasonably apply to the single pentobarbital dose. Selecting individuals for execution who were not originally part of the lawsuit amounts to “an end-run around judicial oversight,” Robert Dunham, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said in an interview.
Autopsy reports reviewed by NPR show that individuals executed by lethal injection — including those who were administered pentobarbital — experience high rates of pulmonary edema, in which the lungs fill with a mix of blood, plasma and fluid to create the feeling of suffocation or drowning.
“It is highly likely that even in an execution that appears to be going according to plan, that the prisoner is sedated and nonresponsive but is conscious and aware of being put to death in a manner that feels like waterboarding and suffocation,” Dunham said.
Advertisement
Executions During A Pandemic
Unlike the federal government, most states have paused executions during the coronavirus pandemic in an effort to limit the spread of the virus in prisons, which are already high-risk environments for COVID-19. The federal death row is housed at the Indiana complex. A federal execution team consists of more than 40 Bureau of Prison staff members, assisted by about 200 Terre Haute prison staff, who provide security and support, BOP regional counsel Rick Winter wrote in a court filing.
“It is just mind-boggling,” said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s capital punishment project. “The federal government is struggling to respond to COVID. We have nursing homes getting inadequate [protective gear]. There are just all these resource problems, and they’re pouring resources into these totally unnecessary federal executions. For no reason at all.”
The ACLU sued the federal government in July on behalf of Buddhist priest Seigen Hartkemeyer, the spiritual adviser to Wesley Purkey, who was executed later that month. Killing Purkey during the pandemic “presents an untenable conflict” for Hartkemeyer, the ACLU wrote in its complaint. The 68-year-old man, who has a history of recurring bronchitis and pleurisy, “must decide whether to risk his own life in order to exercise his religious obligation to be present for Mr. Purkey’s execution.” Family members of the victims of another man scheduled to be executed later joined Hartkemeyer in asking the courts to delay the executions until it would be safe for them to attend.
Their concerns weren’t hypothetical. On July 11, just days before Purkey and two other men’s scheduled executions, a BOP staff member tested positive for COVID-19. The staff member had attended meetings in preparation for the executions and did not always wear a mask, Winter wrote in another court filing. Asked how many staff and incarcerated individuals he was in contact with, the staff member reported, “? Alot.”
Still, the federal government pushed forward with the killings, fighting cases up to the Supreme Court. On July 15, Hartkemeyer waited in his car outside the prison from 4 p.m. until 3 a.m., when the Supreme Court ruled that Purkey’s execution could go forward despite pending litigation on his mental competence.
Advertisement
Data obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the executions at Terre Haute may have caused a COVID-19 spike at the prison.
Susan Otto, who has worked as Vialva’s lawyer for 17 years, flew to Indiana from her home in Oklahoma ahead of his scheduled execution on Thursday. “If I contract COVID as a result of it, then that’s what happens,” she said in an interview.
“It would be unbearable to me to let him be executed without being present. He asked me to be present. And I’m going to be there,” she said.
Vialva has spent part of what may be his final days responding to letters from strangers, Otto said. He even made sure to respond to one letter that he wasn’t allowed to read because it was sent with a return address label on the envelope that violated prison rules. He told the sender that although he couldn’t read their letter, most people had written to him to send their prayers — and that if that was their message, he wanted to thank them.
“I just think it’s really important that you respond to things like that. Because if people know that what they said mattered, they’ll keep saying it,” Vialva told Otto.
Advertisement
Vialva is still trying to persuade the Supreme Court to stay his execution, arguing that a Texas law that guarantees a minimum of 91 days between the notice of execution and the date of execution should apply in his case. Vialva received only 55 days’ notice, barely enough time to file a petition for executive clemency, Otto said. Vialva isn’t asking for freedom, only for his life to be spared. “For him to be allowed to live out the rest of his life, as he puts it, ‘preaching, teaching, and learning,’” Otto said of Vialva, who is a Messianic Jew.
Vialva was sentenced to death in 2000 by a nearly all-white jury. Since then, neurological research has shown that the portions of the brain responsible for impulse control and decision-making do not fully mature until a person is in their 20s.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Twitter Users Skeptical After Mitch McConnell Promises Orderly Transition

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday sought to reassure Americans with a tweet promising an orderly transfer of power should President Donald Trump lose the election .
Trump the previous day wouldn ’ t commit to peacefully leave the White House if he loses , repeating baseless claims about mail-in ballot fraud and saying he needs to rush his replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in case the election lands in court .
The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th .
There will be an orderly transition just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1792 .
— Leader McConnell ( @ senatemajldr ) September 24 , 2020 But the way McConnell ’ s tweet was worded made many people on Twitter skeptical .
Very skeptical .
Especially in light of the Senate leader ’ s plan to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the election , contradicting the election-year argument he made in 2016 when the Senate refused to consider then-president Barack Obama ’ s nomination of Merrick Garland .
I totally trust this guy to tell me the truth and not change his mind whenever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lots of precedent of principled , non-hypocritical behavior here .
🙄🙄🙄 https : //t.co/Or1FmovAnl — Holly Figueroa O'Reilly ( @ AynRandPaulRyan ) September 24 , 2020 Like trump when # MoscowMitch says something I find it hard to believe https : //t.co/fzel7fCRb2 — Eric Garcia ( @ EricG1247 ) September 24 , 2020 It 's not really up to him , but just think about the fact the Senate Majority Leader is out here trying to reassure Americans we wo n't have a civil war this fall https : //t.co/M79zTwlEhp — Brandon Friedman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 Well this matters a lot because I can ’ t think of one time McConnell said something and then said the exact opposite as soon as it benefitted him to do so .
https : //t.co/SxxtFP1pPm — Ken Tremendous ( @ KenTremendous ) September 24 , 2020 Some people suggested that what wasn ’ t said in McConnell ’ s tweet was just as telling as what he did post .
What these tweets aren ’ t necessarily addressing is a will of the voters vs. will of the courts framing https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mikememoli ) September 24 , 2020 It is the definition of “ winner ” that matters here .
What he didn ’ t say is that all votes will be counted .
https : //t.co/PDxS9nV2VF — Roshan Mody ( @ iamroshanmody ) September 24 , 2020 This is a subtle lean into a `` definition '' of election parameters ( thereby negating any votes cast at other times ) .
There may as well be red lights around the date .
https : //t.co/S7NtNSxQp8 — Heather Irene 🙏 ( @ heyheatherirene ) September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s tweet fails 2 address is likelihood we won ’ t know the winner November 3rd .
US likely to have unprecedented mail-in voting + several states are allowing ballots to count provided they ’ re postmarked by 11.3 & returned by specific date https : //t.co/aG9ll416s9 — Robbin Simmons ( @ RobbinSimmons7 ) September 24 , 2020 This statement says nothing because it in no way accounts for a situation in which Trump loses and they claim he did n't https : //t.co/HiggOLExCR — Phil Owen ( @ philrowen ) September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter managed to put McConnell ’ s promise in its proper ( and chilling ) perspective .
That this needs to be tweeted is the story .
https : //t.co/fQGKPM5gzU — Matthew Smith ( @ MattSmithKIRO7 ) September 24 , 2020 A few hours after McConnell ’ s tweet , White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters the president would “ accept the results of a free and fair election.
” But MSNBC journalist Kyle Griffin pointed out that even that statement left room for interpretation .
The White House press secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results of a free and fair elections . ''
To be clear : That is NOT confirmation that he will accept the results .
Trump will decide what is 'free and fair ' on his own terms .
Her statement is meaningless .
— Kyle Griffin ( @ kylegriffin1 ) September 24 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday sought to reassure Americans with a tweet promising an orderly transfer of power should President Donald Trump lose the election.
Trump the previous day wouldn’t commit to peacefully leave the White House if he loses, repeating baseless claims about mail-in ballot fraud and saying he needs to rush his replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in case the election lands in court.
Advertisement
The winner of the November 3rd election will be inaugurated on January 20th. There will be an orderly transition just as there has been every four years since 1792. — Leader McConnell (@senatemajldr) September 24, 2020
But the way McConnell’s tweet was worded made many people on Twitter skeptical. Very skeptical. Especially in light of the Senate leader’s plan to confirm a new Supreme Court justice before the election, contradicting the election-year argument he made in 2016 when the Senate refused to consider then-president Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland.
NARRATOR: “The Senator was well known for lying shamelessly.” https://t.co/RLdvtGLTuO — Cassandra, Irredeemable Pudgy Nobody (@ChrisWarcraft) September 24, 2020
I totally trust this guy to tell me the truth and not change his mind whenever it suits him and his president.
Lots of precedent of principled, non-hypocritical behavior here.
🙄🙄🙄 https://t.co/Or1FmovAnl — Holly Figueroa O'Reilly (@AynRandPaulRyan) September 24, 2020
Advertisement
Like trump when #MoscowMitch says something I find it hard to believe https://t.co/fzel7fCRb2 — Eric Garcia (@EricG1247) September 24, 2020
It's not really up to him, but just think about the fact the Senate Majority Leader is out here trying to reassure Americans we won't have a civil war this fall https://t.co/M79zTwlEhp — Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) September 24, 2020
Well this matters a lot because I can’t think of one time McConnell said something and then said the exact opposite as soon as it benefitted him to do so. https://t.co/SxxtFP1pPm — Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) September 24, 2020
Some people suggested that what wasn’t said in McConnell’s tweet was just as telling as what he did post.
What these tweets aren’t necessarily addressing is a will of the voters vs. will of the courts framing https://t.co/3f4UUI2dHn — Mike Memoli (@mikememoli) September 24, 2020
Advertisement
It is the definition of “winner” that matters here. What he didn’t say is that all votes will be counted. https://t.co/PDxS9nV2VF — Roshan Mody (@iamroshanmody) September 24, 2020
This is a subtle lean into a "definition" of election parameters (thereby negating any votes cast at other times). There may as well be red lights around the date. https://t.co/S7NtNSxQp8 — Heather Irene 🙏 (@heyheatherirene) September 24, 2020
What Senator Mitch McConnell’s tweet fails 2 address is likelihood we won’t know the winner November 3rd. US likely to have unprecedented mail-in voting + several states are allowing ballots to count provided they’re postmarked by 11.3 & returned by specific date https://t.co/aG9ll416s9 — Robbin Simmons (@RobbinSimmons7) September 24, 2020
This statement says nothing because it in no way accounts for a situation in which Trump loses and they claim he didn't https://t.co/HiggOLExCR — Phil Owen (@philrowen) September 24, 2020
But one person on Twitter managed to put McConnell’s promise in its proper (and chilling) perspective.
Advertisement
That this needs to be tweeted is the story. https://t.co/fQGKPM5gzU — Matthew Smith (@MattSmithKIRO7) September 24, 2020
A few hours after McConnell’s tweet, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters the president would “accept the results of a free and fair election.” But MSNBC journalist Kyle Griffin pointed out that even that statement left room for interpretation.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Trump Campaign Amplifies Video Falsely Claiming Biden Used Teleprompter In Interview

In actuality , Biden was not reading off of a teleprompter .
Instead , the Democratic candidate was engaged in @ @ @ @ @ anchor José Díaz-Balart .
The interview was arranged in a fashion where a screen had @ @ @ @ @ ’ s left , displaying prerecorded footage of Telemundo viewers asking questions .
The version @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaigners does not show that Biden was responding to a question in Spanish from @ @ @ @ @ policy .
After the screen showing the woman went black , Biden said “ I @ @ @ @ @ not “ I lost that line ” — and Díaz-Balart explained that the pair could @ @ @ @ @ .
An explanation of the complete exchange was tweeted out by the Noticias Telemundo account @ @ @ @ @ went viral .

In actuality, Biden was not reading off of a teleprompter. Instead, the Democratic candidate was engaged in an interview with Noticias Telemundo anchor José Díaz-Balart. The interview was arranged in a fashion where a screen had been set up to Biden’s left, displaying prerecorded footage of Telemundo viewers asking questions.
The version of the clip spread by Trump campaigners does not show that Biden was responding to a question in Spanish from a woman on his deportation policy. After the screen showing the woman went black, Biden said “I lost that lady” — not “I lost that line” — and Díaz-Balart explained that the pair could talk directly on the matter.
An explanation of the complete exchange was tweeted out by the Noticias Telemundo account shortly after the excised clip went viral.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Calls Mount For Kentucky Attorney General To Release Evidence In Breonna Taylor Case

Cameron announced Wednesday afternoon that the grand jury decided not to indict Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly or Officer Myles Cosgrove , two of the Louisville Metro Police Department officers involved in the fatal shooting of Taylor inside her home in March .
The grand jury indicted a third officer , Detective Brett Hankison , with three counts of felony wanton endangerment for firing shots from outside Taylor ’ s apartment into neighboring units .
“ Breonna ’ s family and Kentucky deserve to know what happened the night she was killed , ” McGrath tweeted Thursday afternoon .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even consider charges in the events that led to her death created confusion and anger.
” The officers shot and killed Taylor shortly after midnight on March 13 while executing a warrant at her home as part of a drug investigation .
Taylor ’ s boyfriend , Kenneth Walker , fired what he has called a single warning shot at what he believed to be home intruders after police entered .
Walker has said he did not hear the police announce their presence , and eyewitnesses have backed his claim , although police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though they were granted a warrant with a “ no knock ” provision .
Although many legal experts thought it was unlikely the grand jury would return significant charges ― including homicide or manslaughter ― against the officers who killed Taylor , the decision still raised questions about the evidence the jurors had reviewed or considered .
And lawyers for both Taylor ’ s family and Walker have taken issue with Cameron ’ s handling of the case , in particular with assertions the attorney general made Wednesday .
During the CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor family lawyer , and Steve Romines , who represents Walker , questioned whether Cameron had even asked the grand jury to consider charges against Cosgrove and Mattingly , both of whom Cameron said had been “ justified ” in returning fire into Taylor ’ s apartment after Walker fired a shot .
The lawyers also questioned why the grand jury did not indict Hankison on further counts of wanton endangerment for firing into Taylor ’ s apartment .
Baker noted that Hankison now faced wanton endangerment charges for firing into three apartments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the apartment above Taylor ’ s unit , which was home to Black residents .
Romines disputed several assertions that Cameron presented as fact in his announcement , including that it was Walker ’ s shot that struck Mattingly in the leg .
Cameron said that the round removed from the officer ’ s leg came from a 9mm pistol and that only Walker used that caliber of weapon at the scene .
Romines , however , said that police records showed Hankison had also been issued a 9mm firearm .
Romines also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which the attorney general said the grand jury shared , that Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in the shooting .
The lawyer said that view effectively granted police an “ artificial , heightened level of self-defense ” that ordinary Kentuckians can not claim .
Under Kentucky state law , “ you are not allowed to rely on justification of self-defense when you recklessly kill a third party , ” Romines said on CNN .
“ You must identify the person who is using imminent deadly force against you , and you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Somehow we have created this artificial , heightened level of self-defense that police get that ordinary citizens do not , ” he said .
“ That ’ s not the case .
Self-defense laws in Kentucky apply to everyone , police and citizens alike .
And it does not apply when you recklessly kill a third party that did not imminently put your life in danger.
” Cameron said during his news conference that he would not make the grand jury reports public because the case against Hankison is still pending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death is ongoing .
He also declined to make public the racial and demographic makeup of the grand jury when pressed by reporters .
Beshear later said that releasing any evidence and information that would not “ jeopardize ” the case against Hankison or the FBI probe would help address the frustration and anger that many Kentuckians feel about the case , as well as the unanswered questions that remain around it .
“ Everyone can and should be informed , and those that are currently feeling frustration and feeling hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the governor said during a Wednesday press conference about the case .
“ I trust Kentuckians .
They deserve to see the facts for themselves.
” “ I believe that any information that does not jeopardize either the attorney general ’ s case or the FBI case should now be open for the public to see to be informed about all the facts in the case , ” Fischer said .
“ So we call on everybody that has that information to release it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A Kentucky grand jury’s decision not to indict the three Louisville police officers who killed 26-year-old Breonna Taylor on homicide charges has raised questions about what evidence the jurors weighed in the controversial case that sparked nationwide protests.
Now, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R), who announced the grand jury result in a Wednesday news conference, is facing mounting calls to release evidence and grand jury reports in an effort to clarify that decision.
Advertisement
Cameron announced Wednesday afternoon that the grand jury decided not to indict Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly or Officer Myles Cosgrove, two of the Louisville Metro Police Department officers involved in the fatal shooting of Taylor inside her home in March. The grand jury indicted a third officer, Detective Brett Hankison, with three counts of felony wanton endangerment for firing shots from outside Taylor’s apartment into neighboring units.
Hankison, however, also faces no charges related directly to Taylor’s killing or for firing shots into her apartment, a decision that drew confusion and dismay from Taylor’s family and their lawyers.
Cameron spoke approvingly of how the grand jury had parceled out blame. Others did not.
“The attorney general’s logic does not make legal sense,” Lonita Baker, a lawyer for the Taylor family, said during a CNN appearance Wednesday night. “You can’t say that Brett Hankison wantonly endangered three neighbors, but that same reckless behavior does not apply to Breonna.”
As protests broke out in Louisville and across the nation Wednesday afternoon, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, both Democrats, called on Cameron to release evidence and grand jury reports about the case. Democratic Senate candidate Amy McGrath, a former Marine fighter pilot who is running against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), joined them Thursday afternoon.
Advertisement
“Breonna’s family and Kentucky deserve to know what happened the night she was killed,” McGrath tweeted Thursday afternoon. “The fact that the grand jury did not even consider charges in the events that led to her death created confusion and anger.”
“AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now, including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present,” McGrath said in a follow-up message. “We shouldn’t have to take his word for it.”
Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron is facing increasing calls to release grand jury reports and evidence related to the Breonna Taylor case. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)
The officers shot and killed Taylor shortly after midnight on March 13 while executing a warrant at her home as part of a drug investigation. Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired what he has called a single warning shot at what he believed to be home intruders after police entered. Walker has said he did not hear the police announce their presence, and eyewitnesses have backed his claim, although police have said they did call out ― even though they were granted a warrant with a “no knock” provision.
Walker’s shot, police have long asserted and Cameron reiterated on Wednesday, hit Mattingly in the leg. The officers responded with at least 32 gunshots, six of which struck Taylor, killing her.
Advertisement
Although many legal experts thought it was unlikely the grand jury would return significant charges ― including homicide or manslaughter ― against the officers who killed Taylor, the decision still raised questions about the evidence the jurors had reviewed or considered. And lawyers for both Taylor’s family and Walker have taken issue with Cameron’s handling of the case, in particular with assertions the attorney general made Wednesday.
During the CNN appearance Wednesday night, Baker, the Taylor family lawyer, and Steve Romines, who represents Walker, questioned whether Cameron had even asked the grand jury to consider charges against Cosgrove and Mattingly, both of whom Cameron said had been “justified” in returning fire into Taylor’s apartment after Walker fired a shot.
The lawyers also questioned why the grand jury did not indict Hankison on further counts of wanton endangerment for firing into Taylor’s apartment. Baker noted that Hankison now faced wanton endangerment charges for firing into three apartments whose residents are white, but not the apartment above Taylor’s unit, which was home to Black residents.
Romines disputed several assertions that Cameron presented as fact in his announcement, including that it was Walker’s shot that struck Mattingly in the leg. Cameron said that the round removed from the officer’s leg came from a 9mm pistol and that only Walker used that caliber of weapon at the scene. Romines, however, said that police records showed Hankison had also been issued a 9mm firearm.
Romines also took issue with Cameron’s view, which the attorney general said the grand jury shared, that Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in the shooting. The lawyer said that view effectively granted police an “artificial, heightened level of self-defense” that ordinary Kentuckians cannot claim.
Advertisement
Under Kentucky state law, “you are not allowed to rely on justification of self-defense when you recklessly kill a third party,” Romines said on CNN. “You must identify the person who is using imminent deadly force against you, and you are permitted to use deadly force against them.”
“Somehow we have created this artificial, heightened level of self-defense that police get that ordinary citizens do not,” he said. “That’s not the case. Self-defense laws in Kentucky apply to everyone, police and citizens alike. And it does not apply when you recklessly kill a third party that did not imminently put your life in danger.”
A memorial to Breonna Taylor in downtown Louisville, where protesters have gathered for more than 100 consecutive days. AP Photo/Darron Cummings
Cameron said during his news conference that he would not make the grand jury reports public because the case against Hankison is still pending and a separate FBI investigation into Taylor’s death is ongoing. He also declined to make public the racial and demographic makeup of the grand jury when pressed by reporters.
“I think it would be irresponsible at this juncture for this office to release any sort of file,” the attorney general said.
Advertisement
Beshear later said that releasing any evidence and information that would not “jeopardize” the case against Hankison or the FBI probe would help address the frustration and anger that many Kentuckians feel about the case, as well as the unanswered questions that remain around it.
“Everyone can and should be informed, and those that are currently feeling frustration and feeling hurt, they deserve to know more,” the governor said during a Wednesday press conference about the case. “I trust Kentuckians. They deserve to see the facts for themselves.”
Fischer, the Louisville mayor who has faced opposition from both protesters and his city’s police force since Taylor was killed, made a similar call after Beshear’s address concluded.
“I believe that any information that does not jeopardize either the attorney general’s case or the FBI case should now be open for the public to see to be informed about all the facts in the case,” Fischer said. “So we call on everybody that has that information to release it.”
Romines said on CNN that he planned to subpoena the grand jury file as part of Walker’s ongoing lawsuit against the city of Louisville and the Metro Police Department. A licensed gun owner, Walker is claiming legal immunity for firing his gun under Kentucky’s “stand your ground” law.
Advertisement
Neither Romines nor Baker immediately responded to HuffPost’s requests for an interview on Thursday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Atlanta Strippers Debut Creative Get Out Vote Campaign

A new get out the vote campaign developed by a group of Atlanta strippers shows that 2020 really isn ’ t politics as usual .
Their cheeky campaign slogan ?
“ Get your booty to the poll.
” The project ’ s promo video features women who work at various clubs across the city dancing as they tell viewers why they need to cast a ballot in November : “ Want trades and coding taught in our schools ?
Then vote for the school boards that will prepare us for the job market.
” “ Want to end cash bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheriffs and county officials that feel the same way you do.
” “ It ’ s clear Black Lives don ’ t matter to some of our current elected officials , if they matter to you then don ’ t let other people decide who is gon na run your community .
Get your booty to the poll !
” People who visit GetYourBootyToThePoll.com will find resources for registering to vote , as well as how to find information about local candidates and ballot measures .
Some people praised the effort , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part is , they ’ re advocating for down ballot elections .
Local government is what shapes our daily lives and I can not shout this loud enough .
— Angela Mayfield for GA HD 67 ( @ pinkrocktopus ) September 23 , 2020 This has made my entire day !
Because you can ’ t make it rain if you locked up on some bullshit !
# GetYourBootyToThePolls — Karen is social distancing ... you should too !
( @ kwm537 ) September 23 , 2020 At least one person expressed regret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t in charge of the Democratic Party ’ s get out the vote effort .
i wish they were in charge of the dem party instead of the ppl currently .
The progressive platform , the clarity of message , this is wonderful and exactly what Dems need — Abolish Ice ( @ FreyjaWood ) September 23 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A new get out the vote campaign developed by a group of Atlanta strippers shows that 2020 really isn’t politics as usual. Their cheeky campaign slogan? “Get your booty to the poll.”
The project’s promo video features women who work at various clubs across the city dancing as they tell viewers why they need to cast a ballot in November:
Advertisement
“Want trades and coding taught in our schools? Then vote for the school boards that will prepare us for the job market.”
“Want to end cash bail? Well, then vote for the sheriffs and county officials that feel the same way you do.”
“It’s clear Black Lives don’t matter to some of our current elected officials, if they matter to you then don’t let other people decide who is gonna run your community. Get your booty to the poll!”
Advertisement
People who visit GetYourBootyToThePoll.com will find resources for registering to vote, as well as how to find information about local candidates and ballot measures.
Some people praised the effort, especially its emphasis on local politics.
Best part is, they’re advocating for down ballot elections. Local government is what shapes our daily lives and I cannot shout this loud enough. — Angela Mayfield for GA HD 67 (@pinkrocktopus) September 23, 2020
This has made my entire day! Because you can’t make it rain if you locked up on some bullshit! #GetYourBootyToThePolls — Karen is social distancing... you should too! (@kwm537) September 23, 2020
At least one person expressed regret that the women behind the video weren’t in charge of the Democratic Party’s get out the vote effort.
i wish they were in charge of the dem party instead of the ppl currently. The progressive platform, the clarity of message, this is wonderful and exactly what Dems need — Abolish Ice (@FreyjaWood) September 23, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--How Segregationists Rushed Through The 1968 Rioting Laws DOJ Is Using In 2020

For the most part , the anti-rioting act has sat on the books unused .
But more recently ― in large part because the federal government lacks a domestic terrorism statute that would cover much of the conduct of violent white supremacists ― the federal government has tried to use the anti-rioting act against violent neo-Nazis .
Last month , a federal appeals court in Virginia narrowed the anti-riot act , finding provisions of it were unconstitutionally overbroad because they affected speech meant to “ promote ” or “ encourage ” a riot as well as speech involving “ mere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of violence , or asserting the rightness of violence , was protected First Amendment speech , the court found .
Actions meant to organize a riot ― or give “ concrete aid , ” in the words of the court ― were still banned .
The ruling came after the Free Expression Foundation ― an organization with ties to white nationalism ― moved to intervene on behalf of the neo-Nazi defendants , whose convictions were nevertheless upheld .
Thurmond , who as a 23-year-old white man had secretly fathered a child born to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his powerful family in apartheid South Carolina , later came to set a Senate record with his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and switched to the Republican Party in part due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
During the floor debate over the anti-rioting measure , he emphasized the need for “ law and order.
” He mentioned several prominent Black activists whose conduct he wanted to target , including Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown , both of whom were involved with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the departure of the late Rep. John Lewis in 1966 .
Brown , following Carmichael ’ s departure , had moved to replace “ Nonviolent ” in SNCC ’ s name with “ National , ” and called violence “ as American as cherry pie.
” “ People ask , ‘ Why don ’ t you do something about H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael ?
’ If Senators want to do something about it , they should adopt this measure , rather than give the prosecutor a dead letter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it : This administration ― and I suppose it was true of the last one and will be true of the next one ― seeks to avoid the sad duty of prosecuting a civil rights leader who starts a riot .
But if we adopt this amendment , they have the duty , and can not shirk it , of prosecuting those who start riots .
”

Anti-rioting laws passed in 1968 haven't faced much legal scrutiny. This year could change that. Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost; Photos: Getty
President Donald Trump’s response to the unrest in American cities over the past several months often seems right out of 1968. So too are the laws his administration has used against many of the hundreds of defendants the Justice Department has charged in connection with riots and protests since the death of George Floyd in late May.
Attorney General William Barr, who as a college student in 1968 scrapped with protesters at Columbia University and who three months ago ordered the aggressive crackdown on demonstrations outside the White House, has encouraged top federal prosecutors to use a variety of federal laws against suspected rioters — including, most radically, sedition. The other statutes federal prosecutors have primarily leaned on are an anti-rioting statute and civil disorder law that were rushed through as amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Advertisement
At the time, some senators objected to what one called the “helter-skelter method” used to adopt the anti-rioting amendments. Many senators worried the proposed laws encroached on state police power and were subject to abuse by “unscrupulous” federal prosecutors. Now, more than a half-century after they were passed, the seldom-used laws are poised to face new judicial scrutiny.
Under Barr, the Justice Department is prosecuting accused rioters for specific actions in violation of federal laws, like arson, but they’ve also found creative ways to go after offenses that don’t necessarily seem like issues begging for intervention from the federal government, like broken windows. In one case, in which the federal government argued a Molotov cocktail an “unregistered firearm” that was unlawfully possessed by a person with a felony conviction, the interstate commerce hook was that the bottle of Patron tequila he used was produced in Mexico. “Therefore, the Patron bottle would have traveled in and affected interstate or foreign commerce,” a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office detective on a FBI task force wrote in an affidavit.
On Thursday, just 40 days before the presidential election, the Justice Department issued a press release that amounted to a roundup of the charges it brought in connection with anti-racist protests that DOJ said had been exploited by opportunists. DOJ said more than 300 individuals had been charged with crimes “ranging from attempted murder, assaulting a law enforcement officer, arson, burglary of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, damaging federal property, malicious destruction of property using fire or explosives, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, unlawful possession of a destructive device, inciting a riot, felony civil disorder, and others.”
About 30 defendants, according to the Justice Department, had been charged with offenses related to civil disorder, which DOJ itself has referred to as “an obscure, seldom-used criminal statute.” That invocation of such rarely used statutes, as well as DOJ’s creative interpretations of more commonly used ones, could spark a host of court challenges over unsettled areas of the law.
Advertisement
A Segregationist Push
The Anti-Rioting Act was most famously used against a group of defendants known as the Chicago Seven who organized demonstrations against the 1968 Democratic convention. (Their trial is the subject of a forthcoming Netflix movie.) A federal appeals court later overturned the convictions, but didn’t speak to the law’s constitutionality.
For the most part, the anti-rioting act has sat on the books unused. But more recently ― in large part because the federal government lacks a domestic terrorism statute that would cover much of the conduct of violent white supremacists ― the federal government has tried to use the anti-rioting act against violent neo-Nazis. Last month, a federal appeals court in Virginia narrowed the anti-riot act, finding provisions of it were unconstitutionally overbroad because they affected speech meant to “promote” or “encourage” a riot as well as speech involving “mere advocacy of violence.” Advocating for acts of violence, or asserting the rightness of violence, was protected First Amendment speech, the court found. Actions meant to organize a riot ― or give “concrete aid,” in the words of the court ― were still banned. The ruling came after the Free Expression Foundation ― an organization with ties to white nationalism ― moved to intervene on behalf of the neo-Nazi defendants, whose convictions were nevertheless upheld.
White supremacists weren’t the target Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) had in mind when the former segregationist presidential candidate co-sponsored the anti-rioting provision to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. On the floor of the Senate, he said his amendment was needed to “protect society from the extremist element which advocates the destruction of our nation” and specifically named Black activists.
Thurmond, who as a 23-year-old white man had secretly fathered a child born to an underage Black maid that worked for his powerful family in apartheid South Carolina, later came to set a Senate record with his 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and switched to the Republican Party in part due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the floor debate over the anti-rioting measure, he emphasized the need for “law and order.” He mentioned several prominent Black activists whose conduct he wanted to target, including Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, both of whom were involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) following the departure of the late Rep. John Lewis in 1966. Brown, following Carmichael’s departure, had moved to replace “Nonviolent” in SNCC’s name with “National,” and called violence “as American as cherry pie.”
Advertisement
Senator Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.) is mobbed by reporters as he steps from the Senate Chamber after ending his 24-hour, 18-minute filibuster against the Civil Rights Bill on Aug. 29, 1957. Thurmond broke the record set in 1953 by Sen. Wayne Morse (D-Ore.). Bettmann via Getty Images
The government, Thurmond said, “must be empowered to deal firmly and actively with these harbingers of anarchy who undoubtedly contributed substantially to the tragedies of our cities.”
Another Southern politician, Sen. Russell Long (D-La.), pushed the “civil disorder” statute, which was rarely used in the past half-century but which Barr’s Justice Department has recently deployed with some regularity.
Barr’s ‘Headhunters’?
Barr has recently complained that the Justice Department had “advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law” and said federal prosecutors all too often became “headhunters” who were “consumed with taking down their target.” He said justice should be “administered dispassionately.”
Advertisement
“It is a temptation sometimes to go after people rather than crimes,” Barr said. He complained that political pundits were constantly debating whether a political action constitutes “some esoteric crime” and “looking through statute books” for applicable laws that criminalize conduct they don’t like.
The Barr speech came the very same week that news stories reported the attorney general had asked prosecutors to consider bringing charges against Democratic mayors for their response to demonstrations in their cities.
Critics say the Justice Department appears to have done the same ― picked a defendant and then searched for a federal charge to bring ― in many cases against accused rioters. It doesn’t help that Barr has condemned protesters for their actual speech. Barr has said that the Black Lives Matter movement is “not interested in Black lives” and that the movement uses what he called a small number of Black people killed by the police “as props to achieve a much broader political agenda.” He said supporters of the loosely organized antifa movement were “essentially Bolsheviks” with “fascistic” tactics.
Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said the federal response looks “unusually aggressive,” especially given the context of the administration’s political rhetoric against demonstrators’ speech.
“The idea that the government would essentially waste resources poring through a statutory code to find something to charge protesters with is actually a great illustration of the problem of what’s going on here,” Eidelman said.
Advertisement
Lisa Hoppenjans, the director of the First Amendment Clinic at Washington University in St. Louis, said that even if some of the charges don’t ultimately hold up, that their use will have a chilling effect and that people will be deterred from speaking out and participating in future protests.
“There are plenty of laws available, including state laws, to punish the relatively small number of people engaging in violent and destructive acts in connection with recent protests, and those acts should be punished,” Hoppenjans said. “But the Department of Justice’s decision to aggressively pursue severe federal charges, including the alarming suggestion that prosecutors should pursue sedition charges, appears to be driven by a political agenda to shape public opinion and target and intimidate protesters.” (Note: Hoppenjans represented the author of the story when St. Louis County charged him and a Washington Post reporter after they were unlawfully arrested inside a McDonald’s in 2014. Authorities dropped the charges after we agreed not to sue over their officers’ unconstitutional conduct.)
Barr has told the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) to “identify criminal organizers and instigators” of riots. He later formed a Task Force on Violent Anti-Government Extremists to “develop detailed information about violent anti-government extremist individuals, networks, and movements.” So far, just as in the 1960s, the federal government has shown scant evidence of national coordination in rioting.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr testifies during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 28. Barr faced questions from the committee about his deployment of federal law enforcement agents in response to Black Lives Matter protests and his role in using federal agents to violently clear protesters from Lafayette Square near the White House in June. Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images
Advertisement
The legislative history of anti-rioting statutes, says Eidelman, “talked about the trope of ‘outside agitators,’ and basically furthers this incorrect narrative that when there are uprisings, when there is protest in the streets across the country in response to brutality, particularly against Black people, it’s not homegrown, it’s not real, it’s just the work of these particular bad actors crossing across state lines to incite. And I think that’s a trope we continue to see today.”
“It’s really troubling that when people are out on the streets with a clear message, with a clear problem, that the response is to get them off the streets rather than engage on the substance of what they’re talking about,” Eidelman said.
Steve Kanter, the dean emeritus of Lewis & Clark Law School, called the civil disorder statute “really amazingly broad” and a law that “really doesn’t have guardrails on it.” Just like other broad statutes, like resisting arrest or vagrancy laws, it allows law enforcement to cast a broad net.
“I think there are severe constitutional problems with it, especially given the developments in civil liberties law and the Supreme Court over the last 40 to 50 years,” Kanter said. “Even if it were to be upheld, it would have to be very sharply narrowed to avoid the constitutional problems.”
One thing that has changed since the 1960s: The internet has made it a lot easier to claim someone was inciting a riot. The feds scoured social media to find defendants to charge with inciting riots. Nowadays, with the availability of statistics on followers and the reach of social media posts, the government might have more luck making the case that online speech incited riots.
Advertisement
Ca’Quintez Gibson, 26, was charged over Facebook Live videos, as was 30-year-old Carlos Matchett and 19-year-old Shamar Betts. Jaywuan Peavy, 19, was charged over rhetoric on his Facebook account. Dominic Brown, 18, was charged over Snapchat videos. (Several of the cases were identified in this Lawfare post.)
The feds already dropped charges against Michael Avery, a Ferguson activist who was arrested over Facebook posts, after a judge pushed back on a federal prosecutor who claimed Avery helped incite looting that took place when he was in law enforcement custody. “I honestly didn’t know what I did at the time when they came for me other than I’d been talking and running my mouth a lot,” Avery later said.
‘Dangerously Vague’
The debate over the rioting and civil disorder statutes unfolded days after the release of a report by the Kerner Commission, which was formed by President Lyndon Johnson (D) to examine the riots of 1967. To Johnson’s apparent surprise, the report lambasted white society for creating, maintaining and condoning the creation of a separate and unequal society. “Johnson Unit Assails Whites in Negro Riots,” declared The New York Times.
One of the many issues addressed in the remarkable and prescient Kerner Commission report are rioting statutes, which the group found were often “dangerously” vague and in “need of review and revision.”
“Some that deal with incitement to riot are so broad that they may improperly inhibit the constitutional right of free speech. Some that provide no definition of ‘incitement’ or comparable terms are dangerously vague. Those that define a riot in terms of groups containing as few as three persons may be applied in situations where nothing even approaching truly riotous activity is taking place,” the Kerner report stated. “These statues should be tightened.”
Advertisement
The Kerner Commission in session, Washington D.C, 1967. Officially called the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, it was created by President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the causes of the 1967 race riots in the United States and to provide recommendations for the future. Underwood Archives via Getty Images
The commission report said that a “tightly-drawn federal control statute might play a limited, but important, role in dealing with disorders.”
Congress didn’t really heed those warnings. Days after the commission’s report ― and just weeks before a gunman killed Martin Luther King Jr., whose murder sparked riots across the country and pushed the House to send the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to President Johnson’s desk ― Thurmond and Sen. Frank Lausche (D-Ohio) proposed their anti-rioting statute as an amendment. Sen. Long proposed his civil disorder statute the next day.
There was some debate over whether the Thurmond-Lausche amendment was germane to the civil rights legislation on the table. Sen. Philip Hart (D-Mich.) said the amendment “goes into an area where legislation is extremely difficult” and noted that the Judiciary Committee had been weighing how to prudently curb rioting, but within constitutional limits. Such a critical topic, Hart said, “does not lend itself to writing on the floor of the Senate.”
Sen. Hugh Doggett Scott (R-Pa.) said it wasn’t wise to rush “too hastily” and “perhaps with ill-considered judgment” to adopt an amendment, he said, that would be “unwise and premature.”
Advertisement
“This is no way to legislate,” said Sen. Ernest Gruening (D-Alaska). “It is highly undesirable when an amendment dealing with an important issue such as rioting is altered verbally on the floor by the changing of words and punctuation so that it is difficult to get its full import.”
Sen. Joseph Tydings (D-Md.) said the Senate’s “helter-skelter method, without thought, and without bringing in local prosecutors and law enforcement officials, does not seem to me to be the wisest way to legislate.”
There was also debate over whether the anti-rioting amendment and civil disorder amendments gave the federal government too much power to go after conduct more properly handled by state authorities.
Sen. Henry Jackson (D-Wash.) worried that an “unscrupulous” U.S. attorney might use the civil disorder statute to charge high school students who “after a football game, became involved in a good, old-fashioned riot and broke into a warehouse and three or more took some apples.”
Sens. Jackson and Tydings, himself a former top federal prosecutor, questioned whether there was a state in the union that didn’t have a statute against looting already on the books, and whether it made sense for the federal government to “preempt” the entire area of prosecution from local law enforcement.
Advertisement
“I, for one, do not think it is the function of the Senate to preempt local law enforcement from enforcing its own laws,” said Tydings. “There is not a state in the nation which does not have laws on its books now to cover most of the points the Senator has mentioned this afternoon.”
Another senator questioned whether it was hypocritical for politicians who proclaimed to care so much about states’ rights to create another way for the federal government to encroach on state powers.
“It seems a little unusual that some of those who are usually so interested in the preservation of states’ rights, and in so many instances, rightfully so, are so quick to abdicate the police power of the states in this particular situation,” said Sen. Robert Griffin (R-Mich.).
Another senator wondered if mid-century college hijinks would now be subject to federal law under the civil disorder statute.
“In the old days ... Men would leave their own dormitory and would go and raid the quarters of the women and steal their panties,” Sen. Peter Dominick (R-Colorado) said. “The senator from Louisiana might remember that. Under the terms of the amendment, that would be civil disorder, because it involves more than three people and creates a ruckus on campus, and every time one of the fellows takes a pair of panties as a souvenir, he will become chargeable with a federal crime, subject to a fine of $10,000 and three years in jail. Is that not the type of problem we get into if we agree to this kind of amendment?”
Advertisement
(No, said Sen. Long: Women’s dormitories were not a business establishment.)
Sen. Hart worried the statute would impact sports-related riots.
“I can imagine three fellows yanking out a goal post. I can imagine three kids throwing snowballs along the roadside,” Hart said. “The riot follows, and there you are.”
The legislators advocating for more aggressive federal action against rioters, looters, protesters and civil rights activists ultimately won out. And the legislative record leaves no doubt about what kind of people legislators had in mind.
“People ask, ‘Why don’t you do something about H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael?’ If Senators want to do something about it, they should adopt this measure, rather than give the prosecutor a dead letter,” Long said. “Let us face it: This administration ― and I suppose it was true of the last one and will be true of the next one ― seeks to avoid the sad duty of prosecuting a civil rights leader who starts a riot. But if we adopt this amendment, they have the duty, and cannot shirk it, of prosecuting those who start riots.”
Much of the debate in 1968 would be perfectly at home in 2020. Sen. Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) claimed, in 1968, that it was “very difficult today to recruit police officers, because they are constantly charged, every time they attempt to enforce the law, with police brutality.”
Thurmond, like Trump and Barr, was particularly worried about the federal government policing law enforcement, saying that the threat of federal prosecution was “no way to bolster law enforcement personnel in this country.”
Advertisement
“We are in an era of lawlessness,” Thurmond declared. “If we are to maintain freedom by maintaining law and order, it is essential that we not put stumbling blocks before our police officers.” (Years later, Trump would urge police officers to commit crimes by bashing handcuffed arrestees’ heads on police cars.)
Trump has encouraged aggressive crackdowns on protesters and claimed that his friend saw a “plane loaded with thugs,” floating the popular theory that outside agitators were responsible for spreading chaos. Thurmond, back in 1968, urged his colleagues to pass his anti-rioting amendment so that “individuals who fly from city to city inciting to riot could be arrested and dealt with firmly under the law.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Tucker Carlson Compares Breonna Taylor Protesters To Hezbollah

Guest Matt Walsh , a conservative blogger , chimed in on the protests following a grand jury ’ s failure @ @ @ @ @ the shooting death of Taylor in her home .
Walsh said that Black Lives Matter @ @ @ @ @ just pretense for a well-funded “ radical left-wing insurrection ” and that organizers should be @ @ @ @ @ sedition .
To which Carlson replied : “ Well , sure .
I mean , @ @ @ @ @ and said , ‘ Send money to Hezbollah , ’ I have the feeling I @ @ @ @ @ fairly quickly .
And I have the feeling if I kept it up , the @ @ @ @ @ .
People get on Twitter , famous people , very famous people , big corporations @ @ @ @ @ rioters who are wrecking our country , and everyone says , ‘ Oh , that @ @ @ @ @ Why ?
”

Guest Matt Walsh, a conservative blogger, chimed in on the protests following a grand jury’s failure to charge police officers with the shooting death of Taylor in her home. Walsh said that Black Lives Matter demonstrations against police brutality are just pretense for a well-funded “radical left-wing insurrection” and that organizers should be hunted down and charged with sedition.
To which Carlson replied: “Well, sure. I mean, if I went on Twitter and said, ‘Send money to Hezbollah,’ I have the feeling I’d be shut down fairly quickly. And I have the feeling if I kept it up, the Justice Department would get involved. People get on Twitter, famous people, very famous people, big corporations, and raise money for rioters who are wrecking our country, and everyone says, ‘Oh, that’s completely cool.’ Why?”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--No Charges After Delaware Review Of 2015 Police Shooting

WILMINGTON , Del .
( AP ) — The Delaware Attorney General ’ s Office is standing by its earlier decision not to charge police officers involved in the fatal shooting of a Black man in a wheelchair , following a review of new evidence in the case .
The Department of Justice ’ s Division of Civil Rights & Public Trust issued a report Tuesday reaffirming a 2016 decision not to criminally charge the four Wilmington officers who shot Jeremy McDole five years ago .
McDole , 28 , was sitting in his wheelchair when he was shot and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a man with a gun .
A bystander ’ s cellphone footage showed officers repeatedly telling McDole to drop his weapon and raise his hands , with McDole reaching for his waist area before shots erupted .
Warning : The video below contains graphic footage of the shooting .
A report from then-Attorney General Matt Denn ’ s office concluded that former Wilmington Police Senior Cpl .
Joseph Dellose discharging his firearm created uncertainty among other responding officers who , not knowing where the gunfire came from , also opened fire on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dellose for “ extraordinarily poor police work ” and said he should not carry a firearm .
But Justice Department officials still cleared the officers of wrongdoing and said evidence did not indicate they willfully used excessive force .
Protestors this summer joined the McDole family ’ s calls for the case to be reopened .
The McDoles had disputed that Jeremy had a firearm at the time , and also suggested there was new evidence , including previously uninterviewed witnesses , in the case .
Keandra McDole , Jeremy ’ s sister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and expected at least an assault charge against Dellose , according to The Delaware News Journal .

WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — The Delaware Attorney General’s Office is standing by its earlier decision not to charge police officers involved in the fatal shooting of a Black man in a wheelchair, following a review of new evidence in the case.
The Department of Justice’s Division of Civil Rights & Public Trust issued a report Tuesday reaffirming a 2016 decision not to criminally charge the four Wilmington officers who shot Jeremy McDole five years ago.
McDole, 28, was sitting in his wheelchair when he was shot and killed after police received a 911 call about a man with a gun. A bystander’s cellphone footage showed officers repeatedly telling McDole to drop his weapon and raise his hands, with McDole reaching for his waist area before shots erupted.
Advertisement
Warning: The video below contains graphic footage of the shooting.
A report from then-Attorney General Matt Denn’s office concluded that former Wilmington Police Senior Cpl. Joseph Dellose discharging his firearm created uncertainty among other responding officers who, not knowing where the gunfire came from, also opened fire on McDole. Denn’s office criticized Dellose for “extraordinarily poor police work” and said he should not carry a firearm.
But Justice Department officials still cleared the officers of wrongdoing and said evidence did not indicate they willfully used excessive force.
Protestors this summer joined the McDole family’s calls for the case to be reopened. The McDoles had disputed that Jeremy had a firearm at the time, and also suggested there was new evidence, including previously uninterviewed witnesses, in the case.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-09-24--Judge Dismisses Karen McDougal's Defamation Lawsuit Against Fox

NEW YORK ( AP ) — A Manhattan judge has tossed out a defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by the former Playboy model who took a $ 150,000 payoff to squelch her story of an affair with a pre-presidency Donald Trump .
Karen McDougal had alleged in the suit filed late last year that Fox host Tucker Carlson slandered her by calling the payout “ a classic case of extortion.
” U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled on Thursday that McDougal failed to prove that Carlson was accusing her of an actual crime in a way that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The judge called the on-air remarks “ rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate , and as such , are not actionable as defamation , ” the judge said in a written ruling .
In an email to The Associated Press , McDougal zeroed in on the part of the ruling that found her claim didn ’ t meet the legal standard showing there was malice by Carlson .
“ I believe reporting something you know is a lie as ‘ news ’ or ‘ undisputed facts ’ is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote .
A statement from Fox called the decision a victory both for the network and “ all defenders of the First Amendment.
” McDougal has said she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007 .
He denied it .
As the Republican ran for office in 2016 , National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. paid McDougal $ 150,000 for the rights to her story , which it never published .
The company eventually acknowledged the purchase was a “ catch-and-kill ” maneuver to help the presidential prospects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fixer Michael Cohen ended up pleading guilty to campaign finance violations in connection with payments to silence McDougal .
AMI , in a deal to avoid federal prosecution , admitted to making the payment “ in concert ” with the Trump campaign .
Carlson was discussing the Cohen case on Dec. 10 , 2018 , when the host recounted what he called “ undisputed ” facts : that two women had “ approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn ’ t give them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday called it “ the kind of pitched commentary that one expects when tuning in to talk shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight , with pundits debating the latest political controversies .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NEW YORK (AP) — A Manhattan judge has tossed out a defamation lawsuit against Fox News brought by the former Playboy model who took a $150,000 payoff to squelch her story of an affair with a pre-presidency Donald Trump.
Karen McDougal had alleged in the suit filed late last year that Fox host Tucker Carlson slandered her by calling the payout “a classic case of extortion.” U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled on Thursday that McDougal failed to prove that Carlson was accusing her of an actual crime in a way that would back up a defamation claim.
Advertisement
The judge called the on-air remarks “rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and as such, are not actionable as defamation,” the judge said in a written ruling.
In an email to The Associated Press, McDougal zeroed in on the part of the ruling that found her claim didn’t meet the legal standard showing there was malice by Carlson.
“I believe reporting something you know is a lie as ‘news’ or ‘undisputed facts’ is the very definition of malicious,” she wrote.
A statement from Fox called the decision a victory both for the network and “all defenders of the First Amendment.”
Advertisement
McDougal has said she had an affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. He denied it.
As the Republican ran for office in 2016, National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. paid McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story, which it never published. The company eventually acknowledged the purchase was a “catch-and-kill” maneuver to help the presidential prospects of Trump.
Trump’s former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen ended up pleading guilty to campaign finance violations in connection with payments to silence McDougal. AMI, in a deal to avoid federal prosecution, admitted to making the payment “in concert” with the Trump campaign.
Carlson was discussing the Cohen case on Dec. 10, 2018, when the host recounted what he called “undisputed” facts: that two women had “approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money.”
“Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion,” Carlson added.