thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-13--Texas Is The Next Battleground For The Green New Deal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce , which does not disclose its donors but spent years funding climate misinformation campaigns , is already airing a 30-second ad in Spanish touting Cuellar ’ s record of passing the new U.S.-Mexico-China trade agreement and boosting auto manufacturing in the state .
The group told the Federal Election Commission in a filing that it planned to spend $ 200,000 on TV ads mentioning Cuellar .
A top U.S. Chamber of Commerce official publicly vowed to lock horns with Justice Democrats , the progressive group behind the campaign of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10th Congressional District , which sprawls from Austin ’ s northern suburbs to the area west of Houston , leans GOP by 9 percentage points and has elected McCaul eight times since 2005 .
The Republican boasts a paltry 5 % lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and owns between $ 8.2 million and $ 19.1 million worth of stock in oil , gas and coal , making him , by the watchdog site Sludge ’ s estimate , “ Congress ’ s biggest fossil fuel investor.
” ( He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used more water than any other resident of the Texas capital in 2017 . )
All four Green New Deal supporters in the three races already won something rather historic : endorsements from the state ’ s largest labor union .
The Texas AFL-CIO made a dual endorsement of Sloan and Oliver .
But its support for Cisneros and Siegel captured national attention .
For Cisneros , that ’ s partly because the union skewered Cuellar as “ not on working people ’ s side.
” For Siegel , it was because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ultimately sold on his promise , as he recounted to the New Republic , to “ make our demands to take care of you as specific as our demands to unwind fossil fuel energy production.
” “ We ’ re trying to focus as much as possible on the places where we can have an impact on the presidential primary as well as down-ballot races , ” Weber said .
“ After how we made a difference in Iowa , and then even more so in New Hampshire , people are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sunrise Movement, the youth campaign behind the Green New Deal, called 25,000 Iowans and persuaded 7,000 to sign pledges to vote for the candidate who advocated the most ambitious plan for rapidly lowering planet-heating emissions along with guaranteeing federal jobs to displaced workers.
In New Hampshire, the group called 33,000 voters and racked up 12,000 pledges that it claimed delivered a win for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
Advertisement
Now Sunrise Movement is pulling back from the presidential contest and redirecting its efforts toward a trio of March 3 congressional primaries in Texas, hoping a victory in the oil and gas industry’s mecca will add momentum to the two-year-old Green New Deal movement.
On Thursday night, the group plans to announce its endorsement of Heidi Sloan, a democratic socialist running on the Green New Deal in the Democratic primary to take on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), HuffPost has learned.
Then, in the coming weeks, Sunrise Movement is sending its army of canvassers to knock on doors in support of Sloan, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar’s left-wing challenger Jessica Cisneros and Mike Siegel, the progressive Green New Dealer running against two other Democrats in the race to take on Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas).
The group plans to direct its nearly 350 local chapters across the country to make phone calls for the three candidates. Sunrise said it will marshal hundreds of Spanish-speaking volunteers to call voters for Cisneros, whose 28th Congressional District stretches southwest from San Antonio to the Mexican border.
Advertisement
“For us, Texas is both the frontlines of the climate crisis and the extreme energy fossil-fuel industry,” Sunrise Movement’s political director Evan Weber told HuffPost by phone Thursday morning. “If we can show that running boldly on the Green New Deal without moderating or hedging is a path to victory for Democrats, we think it can transform the entire conversation in this nation.”
It’s the sort of brazen bet Sunrise has taken before. After forming in mid-2017 and cutting its teeth on a handful of progressive midterm campaigns, the nonprofit stormed into the national spotlight in late 2018 when it staged high-profile protests in then-incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to demand the new Democratic House majority champion a Green New Deal slate of legislation.
The demonstrations did little to convert skeptics in the party’s centrist establishment. But it made the Green New Deal a mainstay for progressives and established the concept of a sweeping green industrial plan paired with an aggressive expansion of the federal safety net as the climate lodestar for left-wing parties in Europe and Latin America.
Money Versus People
If Sunrise spent much of the year since painting its opponents in the Democratic Party as puppets of the fossil fuel industry, the Texas races offer an opportunity to spar with the puppeteers.
Cisneros, a 26-year-old human rights lawyer, gained national attention last year when she announced her bid to take on Cuellar, a conservative Democrat with deep ties in the mostly-Hispanic district. Dubbed “Big Oil’s favorite Democrat,” Cuellar, 64, has worked closely with Republicans in the state and once served as former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s secretary of state.
Advertisement
Democrat Jessica Cisneros campaigns for a House seat in Laredo, Texas. Veronica Cardenas / Reuters
Cuellar has voted in line with President Donald Trump’s policy positions nearly 45% of the time since 2017, and 69% during the administration’s first two years, according to a FiveThirtyEight tally. The League of Conservation Voters gave Cuellar a 42% cumulative score on its ranking of lawmakers’ pro-environmental votes.
Cuellar’s allies are sending in cavalry of their own. Oil and gas political action committees spent $116,000 on his campaign since 2019, filings collected by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics show. Nine electric utilities, most of whose business depends on fossil fuels, pitched in another $28,500.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which does not disclose its donors but spent years funding climate misinformation campaigns, is already airing a 30-second ad in Spanish touting Cuellar’s record of passing the new U.S.-Mexico-China trade agreement and boosting auto manufacturing in the state. The group told the Federal Election Commission in a filing that it planned to spend $200,000 on TV ads mentioning Cuellar. A top U.S. Chamber of Commerce official publicly vowed to lock horns with Justice Democrats, the progressive group behind the campaign of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), which has backed Cisneros.
“This is a first for us, and we’re putting our money where our mouth is,” Scott Reed, the U.S. Chamber’s senior political strategist, told The Texas Tribune this month. “It’s game on, Justice Democrats.”
Advertisement
The U.S. Chamber did not respond to emailed questions about whether it planned to add any resources to back Cuellar or get involved in the other two races, but it said it would hold a “big endorsement event in Texas” ahead of the primary.
In the other two districts, the industry may be playing a game of wait and see.
Cuellar’s 28th District leans Democratic by 9 points on the Cook Political Report PVI ranking. That made it a prime target for Sunrise and its allies, who have primarily focused on replacing pro-business Democrats in safely blue districts with Green New Deal progressives.
But Colin Strother, a Cuellar spokesman, said he’d never even heard of what he called “that Sunshine thing.”
“If they have a footprint in this district, it must be the size of a small rabbit,” he said. He accused Cisneros’s campaign of being a social media Potemkin village, where the nationwide eyeballs on the candidate’s Instagram and Facebook posts don’t match the general disinterest on the ground in the district.
“Our opponent’s entire campaign has been doing it for the ’Gram,” he said. “None of it’s been real, but they’ve made it look real.”
Advertisement
A spokeswoman for the Cisneros campaign did not respond to an interview request.
The 10th Congressional District, which sprawls from Austin’s northern suburbs to the area west of Houston, leans GOP by 9 percentage points and has elected McCaul eight times since 2005. The Republican boasts a paltry 5% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters and owns between $8.2 million and $19.1 million worth of stock in oil, gas and coal, making him, by the watchdog site Sludge’s estimate, “Congress’s biggest fossil fuel investor.” (He also, according to the Austin American-Statesman, used more water than any other resident of the Texas capital in 2017.)
Lawyer Mike Siegel gained attention for courting skeptical fossil fuel worker voters to win the Texas AFL-CIO's endorsement. Rick Kern via Getty Images
Siegel, who was the Democratic nominee in the district in 2018, lost to McCaul by 46.8% to 51.2%. This time, Sunrise hopes the increased turnout of a presidential election and the added firepower of its national campaigners can push him over the edge.
“We believe that in 2020, with higher voter turnout and having the Green New Deal movement at Siegel’s back, that we can really secure this seat for a Green New Deal champion,” Weber said.
But first he’ll have to beat two other Democratic challengers: Pritesh Gandhi, a doctor whose climate platform hinges on a carbon pricing scheme, and Shannon Hutcheson, a lawyer running on an even thinner proposal to increase flood protection.
Advertisement
Siegel told HuffPost he’s confident he’ll seize the nomination again.
“My campaign far and away has the most grassroots and community support,” Siegel said by phone. “That’s reflected in our volunteer army, our field program and the fact that we’ve knocked 30,000 doors already and we have many more block walks lined up in the days ahead. Our ability to reach voters directly, person to person, is unparalleled.”
Sloan’s primary fight is slightly different. The Democratic Socialists of America member is running against Julie Oliver, an Austin public health official and progressive whose platform also includes a Green New Deal. But at least one canvasser in the race compared the difference in styles between the candidates to how Sanders diverges from his progressive rival Elizabeth Warren, describing Sloan as the more movement-oriented leftist.
Weber, whose group’s rank-and-file members voted to endorse Sanders last month, said Sunrise was “more attracted to Heidi’s theory of change.”
Whoever emerges from the primary will take on Williams, who flipped a long-held Democratic seat red in 2013 and has held it ever since. Williams, whose $46.4 million net worth makes him the 11th richest House member as of 2016, is already amassing a considerable warchest, including nearly $91,000 so far in oil and gas donations.
Neither McCaul nor Williams responded to requests for comment.
Labor Support
All four Green New Deal supporters in the three races already won something rather historic: endorsements from the state’s largest labor union. The Texas AFL-CIO made a dual endorsement of Sloan and Oliver. But its support for Cisneros and Siegel captured national attention. For Cisneros, that’s partly because the union skewered Cuellar as “not on working people’s side.” For Siegel, it was because he won over skeptical oil industry workers who were ultimately sold on his promise, as he recounted to the New Republic, to “make our demands to take care of you as specific as our demands to unwind fossil fuel energy production.”
Advertisement
“For us, Texas is both the frontlines of the climate crisis and the extreme energy fossil-fuel industry.” - Sunrise Movement political director Evan Weber
“Being from a union family, being a two-time union member myself, having a unionized campaign staff, it was extremely important for me to win that endorsement,” he told HuffPost. “I was able to do that because I built trust and let these folks know I’m fighting for a Green New Deal and I’m not leaving these workers behind.”
Climate Concerns
At 52%, a narrow majority of Texans understand that humans are causing climate change, according to a 2019 Yale Program on Climate Change Communication survey. Yet partisan divides remain stark. Last March, a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll of registered voters in the state found 83% of Democrats supported strong government actions on climate change, compared with just 18% of Republicans. Independent voters, meanwhile, leaned toward more government intervention, with 43% favoring strong action, 26% supporting mild action and 24% preferring the U.S. government do nothing at all.
Hurricane Harvey’s deadly 2017 deluge in Houston jolted many in the state’s urban regions, and a prolonged drought across much of the state may “persuade voters that pursuing a policy course that addresses that long term is a wise course of action,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston.
But he questioned the logic of devoting resources to these three races in particular, calling them “unusual” and “various choices.”
Advertisement
“These are tough districts to win for progressives,” he said.
Weber admitted that “these are not places where our movement has really shown it can be victorious yet.” But he said the campaigns’ enthusiasm for the Green New Deal and the potential to oust both a right-wing Democrat and conservative Republicans offers the opportunity to “really demonstrate the two types of victories that we need this year in order to win a Green New Deal.”
It’s a busy year ahead for Sunrise.
After the Texas primary, the nonprofit is gearing up for the March 17 elections in Illinois, where it has endorsed progressive Marie Newman against abortion foe Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.). It is also backing Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) challenger Robert Emmons Jr., a 26-year-old activist pitching the Green New Deal as a way to stem Chicago’s gun violence.
In Ohio, Sunrise Movement is backing activist Morgan Harper against Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio).
Sunrise then plans to shift its focus to Kentucky’s May 15 primary, where it’s hoping to boost Charles Booker’s underdog bid to take on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and secure a win for Sanders.
“We’re trying to focus as much as possible on the places where we can have an impact on the presidential primary as well as down-ballot races,” Weber said. “After how we made a difference in Iowa, and then even more so in New Hampshire, people are going to be seeing a lot more of us.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-13--Trump Administration Taking $3.8 Billion More From Military For Mexico Border Wall

WASHINGTON , Feb 13 ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Defense Department sent Congress a request to shift nearly $ 4 billion from the military budget to pay for a wall on the border with Mexico , a central promise of President Donald Trump ’ s campaign for the White House four years ago and bid this year for a second term .
Lawmakers said they received a request on Thursday to reprogram more than $ 3.8 billion from funding for the National Guard and weapons programs , setting the stage for a possible confrontation with Democrats .
Democratic aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Guard , and the rest from funds for procurement , including the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet program , Lockheed C-130 aircraft , Boeing Co P-8 Poseidon aircraft , Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey helicopters and shipbuilding .
Congressional Democrats , who opposed Trump ’ s past diversion of billions of dollars in military spending to the border wall project , said the decision was dangerous and misguided .
“ President Trump is once again disrespecting the separation of powers and endangering our security by raiding military resources to pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives Nita Lowey , chairwoman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee , and Pete Visclosky , chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee , said in a statement .
“ The Constitution gives Congress , not the President , the power of the purse .
Congress rejected President Trump ’ s full request for wall funding , which is why he is now orchestrating this backdoor mechanism to prop up a political vanity project , ” they said .
The Trump administration has vowed to build at least 400 miles ( 640 km @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November 2020 , when Americans will vote for president .
In his 2016 campaign , Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall .
The Mexican government has consistently refused to do so .
Trump ’ s hard-line immigration policies , particularly for immigrants who come across the southern border with Mexico , have been a signature of his political campaign and first term in theWhite House .
The Trump administration has built nearly 100 miles ( 160 km ) of border wall , according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barriers replaced existing structures , the agency said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, Feb 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department sent Congress a request to shift nearly $4 billion from the military budget to pay for a wall on the border with Mexico, a central promise of President Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House four years ago and bid this year for a second term.
Lawmakers said they received a request on Thursday to reprogram more than $3.8 billion from funding for the National Guard and weapons programs, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with Democrats.
Advertisement
Democratic aides said $1.5 billion would come from the National Guard, and the rest from funds for procurement, including the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jet program, Lockheed C-130 aircraft, Boeing Co P-8 Poseidon aircraft, Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey helicopters and shipbuilding.
Congressional Democrats, who opposed Trump’s past diversion of billions of dollars in military spending to the border wall project, said the decision was dangerous and misguided.
“President Trump is once again disrespecting the separation of powers and endangering our security by raiding military resources to pay for his wasteful border wall,” Democratic Representatives Nita Lowey, chairwoman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, and Pete Visclosky, chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said in a statement.
“The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power of the purse. Congress rejected President Trump’s full request for wall funding, which is why he is now orchestrating this backdoor mechanism to prop up a political vanity project,” they said.
Advertisement
The Trump administration has vowed to build at least 400 miles (640 km) of wall along the border by November 2020, when Americans will vote for president. In his 2016 campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall. The Mexican government has consistently refused to do so.
Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, particularly for immigrants who come across the southern border with Mexico, have been a signature of his political campaign and first term in theWhite House.
The Trump administration has built nearly 100 miles (160 km) of border wall, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics current to late December. All of those barriers replaced existing structures, the agency said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Trump Admits He Sent Rudy Giuliani To Ukraine After Denying It

President Donald Trump now admits he sent his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter , a central part of Trump ’ s impeachment .
Trump on Thursday explained why he chose to “ use Rudy ” in an interview for Fox News host Geraldo Rivera ’ s podcast , perhaps feeling at ease after being acquitted by the Republican-led Senate earlier this month .
“ Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine , your personal lawyer ?
Are you sorry you did that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s my choice : I deal with the Comeys of the world , or I deal with Rudy , ” he continued , referring to former FBI Director James Comey , whom he fired in 2017 after the FBI began investigating his 2016 campaign .
The investigation mushroomed into special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe of Russian election interference .
Trump said he has “ a very bad taste ” for U.S. intelligence officials because of Mueller ’ s investigation , so he chose Giuliani to do his bidding .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ why did I use Rudy ?
And one of the things about Rudy , number one , he was the best prosecutor , you know , one of the best prosecutors , and the best mayor , ” Trump told Rivera .
“ But also , other presidents had them .
FDR had a lawyer who was practically , you know , was totally involved with government .
Eisenhower had a lawyer .
They all had lawyers.
” In November , Trump denied that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine , despite congressional testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government officials , who said Giuliani met with and pressured Ukrainian officials as part of Trump ’ s plot to coerce a foreign government into aiding his reelection .
“ No , I didn ’ t direct him , but he is a warrior , he is a warrior , ” Trump said in an interview on former Fox News host Bill O ’ Reilly ’ s radio show , when asked if he instructed Giuliani to “ do anything ” in Ukraine .
“ Mr .
Giuliani is a highly respected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the summary of the call released by the White House .
“ He was the mayor of New York City , a great mayor , and I would like him to call you .
I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General .
Rudy very much knows what ’ s happening and he is a very capable guy .
If you could speak to him that would be great.
” Giuliani said this week his Ukraine snooping uncovered “ smoking gun ” evidence of the Bidens ’ involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-S.C. ) , a prominent Trump defender , said Attorney General William Barr told him there would be an “ intake process ” for Giuliani to funnel his dirt to the Justice Department .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump now admits he sent his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine to dig up dirt on 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, a central part of Trump’s impeachment.
Trump on Thursday explained why he chose to “use Rudy” in an interview for Fox News host Geraldo Rivera’s podcast, perhaps feeling at ease after being acquitted by the Republican-led Senate earlier this month.
Advertisement
“Was it strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine, your personal lawyer? Are you sorry you did that?” Rivera asked Trump.
“No, not at all,” Trump said.
“Here’s my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy,” he continued, referring to former FBI Director James Comey, whom he fired in 2017 after the FBI began investigating his 2016 campaign. The investigation mushroomed into special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election interference.
Trump said he has “a very bad taste” for U.S. intelligence officials because of Mueller’s investigation, so he chose Giuliani to do his bidding.
“So when you tell me, why did I use Rudy? And one of the things about Rudy, number one, he was the best prosecutor, you know, one of the best prosecutors, and the best mayor,” Trump told Rivera. “But also, other presidents had them. FDR had a lawyer who was practically, you know, was totally involved with government. Eisenhower had a lawyer. They all had lawyers.”
Advertisement
In November, Trump denied that he sent Giuliani to Ukraine, despite congressional testimony from multiple witnesses, including career diplomats and government officials, who said Giuliani met with and pressured Ukrainian officials as part of Trump’s plot to coerce a foreign government into aiding his reelection.
“No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior,” Trump said in an interview on former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s radio show, when asked if he instructed Giuliani to “do anything” in Ukraine.
But then-ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified that Trump gave him “express direction” to work with Giuliani.
Giuliani also was mentioned in Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, when Trump told Zelensky to “speak to him.”
“Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man,” Trump said, according to the summary of the call released by the White House. “He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Michael Avenatti Found Guilty In Nike Extortion Case

Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was found guilty on Friday of all counts against him in a Nike extortion case .
A jury handed down the verdict in a Manhattan courtroom , declaring him guilty on three counts of trying to extort millions of dollars from the company .
Michael Avenatti guilty on all counts in Nike extortion trial .
He stared straight ahead and showed no reaction as verdict was read .
— Stephen Brown ( @ PPVSRB ) February 14 , 2020 Prosecutors said Avenatti told the company he would stage a news conference and claim that Nike executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their families .
He demanded he be paid $ 20 million not to go forward with the accusation .
Avenatti , 48 , shot to fame by representing Stormy Daniels ( whose real name is Stephanie Cliffords ) , an adult film actor who sued President Donald Trump and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen .
Daniels said she received hush money during Trump ’ s 2016 campaign after the two had an affair .
Prosecutors said Avenatti faced $ 11 million in debts before his extortion attempt , NBC New York reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around with this , and I ’ m not continuing to play games , ” Avenatti said at the time .
“ And I don ’ t — you know , this isn ’ t complicated .
You guys know enough now to know you ’ ve got a serious problem.
” Avenatti still faces federal charges in Manhattan for allegedly stealing $ 300,000 from Daniels after helping her secure a book contract .
That trial begins April 21 .
The convictions carry a combined potential penalty of 42 years in prison , @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was found guilty on Friday of all counts against him in a Nike extortion case.
A jury handed down the verdict in a Manhattan courtroom, declaring him guilty on three counts of trying to extort millions of dollars from the company.
Advertisement
Michael Avenatti guilty on all counts in Nike extortion trial. He stared straight ahead and showed no reaction as verdict was read. — Stephen Brown (@PPVSRB) February 14, 2020
Prosecutors said Avenatti told the company he would stage a news conference and claim that Nike executives were funding payments to college players and their families. He demanded he be paid $20 million not to go forward with the accusation.
Avenatti, 48, shot to fame by representing Stormy Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Cliffords), an adult film actor who sued President Donald Trump and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Daniels said she received hush money during Trump’s 2016 campaign after the two had an affair.
Prosecutors said Avenatti faced $11 million in debts before his extortion attempt, NBC New York reported.
Advertisement
Federal agents wiretapped Avenatti’s phone and caught him threatening the company.
“I’m not fucking around with this, and I’m not continuing to play games,” Avenatti said at the time. “And I don’t — you know, this isn’t complicated. You guys know enough now to know you’ve got a serious problem.”
Avenatti still faces federal charges in Manhattan for allegedly stealing $300,000 from Daniels after helping her secure a book contract. That trial begins April 21.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Barr Orders Review Of Michael Flynn Case, Heightening Political Interference Concerns

Joshua Roberts / Reuters Attorney General William Barr 's actions continue to raise doubts about whether he is sacrificing the Justice Department 's integrity to serve President Donald Trump 's political purposes .
Attorney General William Barr has ordered an outside prosecutor to revisit the criminal case against former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn , according to reports from The New York Times and CNN .
Barr ’ s decision represents the latest Justice Department move to scrutinize cases or seek more lenient sentences for President Donald Trump ’ s allies .
Senior DOJ officials earlier this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone after Trump went on a public tirade .
In addition to directing a review of Flynn ’ s case , Barr also has several outside prosecutors looking into other politically sensitive cases and questioning prosecutors in the U.S. attorney ’ s office in Washington about their investigations , the Times reported .
Trump has repeatedly attacked legal cases against his associates and supporters , sometimes publicly declaring that charges against them should be dropped or groundlessly claiming that prosecutions were unjust .
Trump ’ s attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from legal experts and Democratic politicians that he is eroding the rule of law and trying to use the Justice Department for his own political purposes .
The DOJ leadership ’ s intervention into Stone ’ s sentencing resulted in all four federal prosecutors in the trial withdrawing from the case .
The prosecutors had recommended on Monday that Stone face seven to nine years in prison for being found guilty of witness tampering and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blasted the recommendation as unfair .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) has asked the DOJ inspector general for an investigation into the department ’ s response to Trump ’ s comments .
Schumer and other Democratic lawmakers , as well as the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the American Bar Association , condemned the meddling in the sentencing .
Barr himself said in a Thursday interview with ABC News that Trump ’ s tweets on legal matters “ make it impossible for me to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it wasn ’ t because of Trump that he intervened in the Stone case , saying , “ I ’ m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.
” Flynn initially pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to investigators about his communication with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak shortly before Trump was sworn into office .
He agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election , hoping to avoid jail time .
But Flynn withdrew his guilty plea last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to six months in prison for his crime , accusing him and his legal team of growing hostile and uncooperative .
Flynn hired a new legal team last year that shifted from cooperating with investigators to a hostile strategy that alleged Flynn was the victim of a bad faith investigation , inept former lawyers and the FBI tampering with his case .
A federal judge issued a 92-page ruling in December rejecting Flynn ’ s accusations against the FBI and prosecutors , saying there was no factual basis for the allegations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ championed Flynn , calling for Trump to pardon him .
On Tuesday , Trump retweeted a pro-Trump Twitter account suggesting that he grant both Stone and Flynn full pardons .

Attorney General William Barr's actions continue to raise doubts about whether he is sacrificing the Justice Department's integrity to serve President Donald Trump's political purposes. Joshua Roberts / Reuters
Attorney General William Barr has ordered an outside prosecutor to revisit the criminal case against former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn, according to reports from The New York Times and CNN.
Barr’s decision represents the latest Justice Department move to scrutinize cases or seek more lenient sentences for President Donald Trump’s allies. Senior DOJ officials earlier this week walked back federal prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation for longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone after Trump went on a public tirade.
Advertisement
In addition to directing a review of Flynn’s case, Barr also has several outside prosecutors looking into other politically sensitive cases and questioning prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington about their investigations, the Times reported.
Trump has repeatedly attacked legal cases against his associates and supporters, sometimes publicly declaring that charges against them should be dropped or groundlessly claiming that prosecutions were unjust. Trump’s attempts to undermine legal proceedings have led to concern from legal experts and Democratic politicians that he is eroding the rule of law and trying to use the Justice Department for his own political purposes.
The DOJ leadership’s intervention into Stone’s sentencing resulted in all four federal prosecutors in the trial withdrawing from the case. The prosecutors had recommended on Monday that Stone face seven to nine years in prison for being found guilty of witness tampering and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 election. Trump, in a Twitter post, quickly blasted the recommendation as unfair.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has asked the DOJ inspector general for an investigation into the department’s response to Trump’s comments. Schumer and other Democratic lawmakers, as well as the former head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the American Bar Association, condemned the meddling in the sentencing.
Advertisement
Barr himself said in a Thursday interview with ABC News that Trump’s tweets on legal matters “make it impossible for me to do my job.” But he also insisted that it wasn’t because of Trump that he intervened in the Stone case, saying, “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody.”
Flynn initially pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to investigators about his communication with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak shortly before Trump was sworn into office. He agreed to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election, hoping to avoid jail time. But Flynn withdrew his guilty plea last month after the DOJ recommended that he serve up to six months in prison for his crime, accusing him and his legal team of growing hostile and uncooperative.
Flynn hired a new legal team last year that shifted from cooperating with investigators to a hostile strategy that alleged Flynn was the victim of a bad faith investigation, inept former lawyers and the FBI tampering with his case. A federal judge issued a 92-page ruling in December rejecting Flynn’s accusations against the FBI and prosecutors, saying there was no factual basis for the allegations.
Conservative media and many Republican officials have championed Flynn, calling for Trump to pardon him. On Tuesday, Trump retweeted a pro-Trump Twitter account suggesting that he grant both Stone and Flynn full pardons.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Donald Trump Says He'd Vote For A Gay President, But Some 'Certainly' Wouldn't

President Donald Trump , whose administration has taken multiple steps to erode the rights of LGBTQ Americans , said in a new interview that he would have no problem voting for a gay presidential candidate .
But he acknowledged in the latest episode of Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera ’ s podcast “ Roadkill With Geraldo ” that not every American would agree .
A poll conducted by Gallup in 2019 found that 76 % of American voters would vote for a gay or lesbian candidate , up from 74 % in 2015 .
That suggests nearly one-fourth of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue .
Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh , who Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this month , brought the issue to the forefront this week with a series of swipes about openly gay Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg kissing his husband in public .
“ I think so , ” replied the president , who used other segments of the 48-minute interview released Thursday to rant about his impeachment , political rivals and the media .
“ I think there would be some that wouldn ’ t , and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among that group , to be honest with you , ” he added .
Trump said “ it doesn ’ t seem to be hurting ” the candidacy of Buttigieg , the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , who placed a strong second in Tuesday ’ s New Hampshire primary behind Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I.Vt. )
.
The president said “ there would certainly be a group ” of voters who “ probably wouldn ’ t ” vote for a gay candidate based on sexuality .
“ You and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump told the broadcaster .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump, whose administration has taken multiple steps to erode the rights of LGBTQ Americans, said in a new interview that he would have no problem voting for a gay presidential candidate.
But he acknowledged in the latest episode of Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera’s podcast “Roadkill With Geraldo” that not every American would agree.
Advertisement
A poll conducted by Gallup in 2019 found that 76% of American voters would vote for a gay or lesbian candidate, up from 74% in 2015. That suggests nearly one-fourth of Americans see a candidate’s sexuality as an issue.
Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, who Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this month, brought the issue to the forefront this week with a series of swipes about openly gay Democratic hopeful Pete Buttigieg kissing his husband in public.
“Would Americans vote for a gay man to be president?” Rivera asked Trump.
“I think so,” replied the president, who used other segments of the 48-minute interview released Thursday to rant about his impeachment, political rivals and the media. “I think there would be some that wouldn’t, and you know, I wouldn’t be among that group, to be honest with you,” he added.
Trump said “it doesn’t seem to be hurting” the candidacy of Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who placed a strong second in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.Vt.).
Advertisement
The president said “there would certainly be a group” of voters who “probably wouldn’t” vote for a gay candidate based on sexuality.
“You and I would not be in that group,” Trump told the broadcaster.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Interior Department (Again) Hosts People Who Want To Sell Off Public Land

What followed was a 40-minute rambling assault on the very agency where Ebell and the others were gathered .
Western Values Project , a Montana-based public lands advocacy group , obtained video of the event through a public records request and shared it exclusively with HuffPost .
It offers a rare glimpse at the cozy relationship Trump ’ s Interior Department has with those leading the effort to get public lands out of the federal government ’ s hands .
Combs was one of three Interior political appointees who participated in the event .
Ebell marveled at receiving an invitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making clear his own contempt for the department that oversees 500 million acres of federal land — roughly one-fifth of the U.S. — including the 59 national parks .
He boasted that the Competitive Enterprise Institute , a libertarian and industry-funded think tank where he ’ s worked since 1999 , is “ skeptical of government and its tendency to grow and take over people ’ s lives.
” He quipped that his talk that day probably should have three parts , but “ I don ’ t have a lot of good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ranted about “ urban eco-imperialists ” and urged attendees to “ stay away ” from the National Park Service , which he described as a bad neighbor who “ want your land ― and if they can ’ t buy your land and force you out , they often want to control it.
” And he claimed private landowners are much better environmental stewards than federal land agencies , offering little more than a conspiracy theory about the government “ having a constant incentive to fail ” as proof .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a PowerPoint presentation that included his wish list for federal land policy in the Trump era .
Among other things , it included finalizing rules to weaken the Endangered Species Act , which Interior followed through on in August , and defeating a bipartisan Senate bill that would have fully and permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund .
Shifting to lands already under federal control , Ebell fumbled to locate a slide about transferring and selling off lands in the West .
Undeterred , he declared that the “ ultimate solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former Republican state representative from Utah and longtime leader of the pro-land-transfer movement , and the American Lands Council .
The Utah-based nonprofit , which Ivory co-founded in 2012 and led until 2016 , advocates for the “ timely and orderly transfer of federal public lands to willing states for local control that will provide better public access , better environmental health , and better economic productivity.
” Along with Combs ’ warm welcome for Ebell , the event included speeches from two high-ranking Interior officials : Brenda Burman , commissioner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrea Travnicek , deputy assistant secretary of land and minerals management .
They appeared as panelists alongside Wyoming water lawyer Harriet Hageman , who grumbled about federal land ownership and made a pitch for pilot projects in which states would take over management of large swaths of federally controlled lands and earn revenues off those resources over 20- to 25-year periods .
“ Myron had mentioned to stay away from the park service , but I think that ’ s the worst you could do , ” Travnicek said .
“ I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you ’ re there trying to work with them , trying to express your concerns with them , so hopefully there is more of that better neighbor from the park service.
” Much like the fossil fuel industry that ’ s helped bankroll his organization , it appears Ebell maintains extraordinary access to the very top of the federal agency .
He told event attendees about a recent run-in with Bernhardt “ in the hall ” of the Interior Department , during which he said the agency chief assured him he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
The changes , finalized in August amid a sobering global extinction crisis , significantly weaken the ESA , making it easier for government agencies to remove species from the protected list and limiting their ability to account for the impacts of future climate change .
Hatred for the 1973 law runs deep at Trump ’ s Interior Department .
But Trump has proved himself easily swayed .
And over the last three years , the administration has kept the pro-transfer movement close and often looked like it was ready to flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have raised fears that Trump could soon offload national treasures :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
On a Wednesday morning last June, Susan Combs, a high-ranking political appointee at the Interior Department, stepped to a microphone to welcome those gathered for an event at the agency’s headquarters titled “Federal Land Policies: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”
Advertisement
“I’m so happy to see my friend Mr. Ebell, who will be a treat,” said Combs, who has a long history of vehemently opposing the agency she now helps run. She described Interior as “a huge land manager” and assured the audience that Ebell would provide “a great background” of federal land policy.
What followed was a 40-minute rambling assault on the very agency where Ebell and the others were gathered. Western Values Project, a Montana-based public lands advocacy group, obtained video of the event through a public records request and shared it exclusively with HuffPost. It offers a rare glimpse at the cozy relationship Trump’s Interior Department has with those leading the effort to get public lands out of the federal government’s hands. Combs was one of three Interior political appointees who participated in the event.
Ebell marveled at receiving an invitation to speak at the Interior building, making clear his own contempt for the department that oversees 500 million acres of federal land — roughly one-fifth of the U.S. — including the 59 national parks. He boasted that the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian and industry-funded think tank where he’s worked since 1999, is “skeptical of government and its tendency to grow and take over people’s lives.”
He quipped that his talk that day probably should have three parts, but “I don’t have a lot of good to say about the federal estate.” He ranted about “urban eco-imperialists” and urged attendees to “stay away” from the National Park Service, which he described as a bad neighbor who “want your land ― and if they can’t buy your land and force you out, they often want to control it.” And he claimed private landowners are much better environmental stewards than federal land agencies, offering little more than a conspiracy theory about the government “having a constant incentive to fail” as proof.
Advertisement
As Ebell sees it, there’s a simple fix ― one he made clear he hopes the administration will come around on.
“I think the real solution to the federal lands is eventually to either transfer them to the states or,” he paused to acknowledge two lawmaker friends who don’t support the second option he was about to mention, “privatize them, put them into private ownership.”
In other words, pawn them off ― something the Trump administration has insisted it won’t do, even as others in the party insist it should.
Valley of the Gods is an area of federally owned land that the Trump administration removed from Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. SumikoPhoto via Getty Images
The Republican Party platform calls for transferring control of federal lands to states. But the Trump administration has painted itself as a stalwart opponent of disposal. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt “adamantly opposes wholesale transfer or sale of public lands,” Casey Hammond, the agency’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals management, said in a call with reporters last week, echoing the administration’s go-to line.
Advertisement
That hasn’t stopped Trump and his team from proposing public land sell-offs, hosting anti-federal-land advocates or even tapping fierce critics of federal land management for powerful department posts, including Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen and Ryan Nichols, formerly of the conservative Heritage Foundation. William Perry Pendley, a conservative lawyer with extreme anti-environmental views who spent his career lobbying for the sale of federal lands, leads the Bureau of Land Management as acting director.
Pendley has on numerous occasions dodged questions about his views on federal land policy, bizarrely claiming they are “irrelevant” to serving as America’s public lands chief. Of course, it’s his ideology that helped him land the job.
There are approximately 640 million acres of federally controlled land, roughly 28 percent of the entire U.S. landmass. The BLM oversees 245 million of those acres.
After all, it is what the Founders intended! CONFIRMED: President Trump Can Sell Federal Land To Build The Wall https://t.co/btpJ6d22u4 via @BigLeaguePol — Wm Perry Pendley (@Sagebrush_Rebel) January 9, 2019
At the June 2019 event, Ebell ran through a PowerPoint presentation that included his wish list for federal land policy in the Trump era. Among other things, it included finalizing rules to weaken the Endangered Species Act, which Interior followed through on in August, and defeating a bipartisan Senate bill that would have fully and permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Advertisement
Established in 1964, the LWCF uses offshore fossil-fuel revenue to acquire new federal land and establish and protect parks, wildlife refuges, forests and key wildlife habitats. The Trump administration has called the popular conservation program a “priority” but repeatedly has tried to gut funding, including a proposed 97% cut in its 2021 budget plan released this week.
Shifting to lands already under federal control, Ebell fumbled to locate a slide about transferring and selling off lands in the West. Undeterred, he declared that the “ultimate solution” was being championed by Ken Ivory, a former Republican state representative from Utah and longtime leader of the pro-land-transfer movement, and the American Lands Council. The Utah-based nonprofit, which Ivory co-founded in 2012 and led until 2016, advocates for the “timely and orderly transfer of federal public lands to willing states for local control that will provide better public access, better environmental health, and better economic productivity.”
A Bureau of Land Management sign informs travelers along Highway 168, near Maopa, Nevada, to the habitat of the Mojave desert tortoise. Mike Blake/Reuters
Along with Combs’ warm welcome for Ebell, the event included speeches from two high-ranking Interior officials: Brenda Burman, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and Andrea Travnicek, deputy assistant secretary of land and minerals management. They appeared as panelists alongside Wyoming water lawyer Harriet Hageman, who grumbled about federal land ownership and made a pitch for pilot projects in which states would take over management of large swaths of federally controlled lands and earn revenues off those resources over 20- to 25-year periods.
The Interior officials did little to defend the agency against Ebell’s attack ― at least not during their lengthy opening remarks. (American Agri-Women, a coalition of women in agriculture that organized the event, stopped videotaping shortly after a question-and-answer session started.)
Advertisement
“Myron had mentioned to stay away from the park service, but I think that’s the worst you could do,” Travnicek said. “I think you’ve got to make sure that you’re there trying to work with them, trying to express your concerns with them, so hopefully there is more of that better neighbor from the park service.”
Much like the fossil fuel industry that’s helped bankroll his organization, it appears Ebell maintains extraordinary access to the very top of the federal agency. He told event attendees about a recent run-in with Bernhardt “in the hall” of the Interior Department, during which he said the agency chief assured him he would approve of the final Endangered Species Act rules. The changes, finalized in August amid a sobering global extinction crisis, significantly weaken the ESA, making it easier for government agencies to remove species from the protected list and limiting their ability to account for the impacts of future climate change. Hatred for the 1973 law runs deep at Trump’s Interior Department.
Although he had plenty of criticism for the agency as a whole, Ebell praised Bernhardt and his team for their deregulatory efforts but urged them to go further to roll back land protections, including shrinking additional national monuments, and to boost drilling, mining and other development on federal lands.
“It’s great to see people who actually like people like you and me,” Ebell said of Interior leadership. “They don’t see us as problems that need to be managed.”
Interior spokesman Conner Swanson said via email that Ebell does not represent the department and is entitled to his own opinion. The agency “has no plans to transfer management of public lands,” he said.
Advertisement
Ebell did not respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.
Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute co-authored a paper in 2016 that called on Congress to shrink the federal estate, either through sale or transfer of public lands to states. "The federal government owns far more land than it can take care of properly," it read. Yves Herman/Reuters
Even before he was elected, Trump said he would maintain federally controlled lands. “We’re not looking to sell off land,” he said in a 2016 interview with the Outdoor Sportsman Group. It’s a position that his first Interior chief, Ryan Zinke, and now Bernhardt have said they share.
But Trump has proved himself easily swayed. And over the last three years, the administration has kept the pro-transfer movement close and often looked like it was ready to flip. Here are some of the actions that have raised fears that Trump could soon offload national treasures:
In July 2017, a few months after being sworn in as interior secretary, Zinke spoke at a private meeting of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, the Koch brothers-backed nonprofit that advocates handing over control of federal lands to states.
Trump’s initial $200 billion infrastructure plan, unveiled in February 2018, called explicitly for selling off federal assets that “would be better managed by state, local, or private entities.”
The BLM has proposed selling off public lands at least three times during Trump’s tenure. Most notable was a short-lived plan to sell 1,600 acres that Trump carved out of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. Interior quickly scrapped the plan amid a tsunami of public backlash, saying it was “inconsistent” with agency policy.
In November 2018, Interior hosted at its Washington headquarters members of the American Legislative Exchange Council. At the event, Zinke apparently stood his ground on sale and transfer, but voiced support for entering into agreements with states to give them a greater say in how public lands are managed, according to posts by South Carolina state Rep. Alan Clemmons (R), the secretary of ALEC’s board of directors. Also in attendance was Ivory, who in 2012 championed legislation in Utah demanding that nearly all federal lands in the state ― some 30 million acres ― be turned over to the state. It was signed into law but the lands remain under federal control.
Interior announced in July plans to relocate the majority of BLM staff at the agency’s Washington headquarters to Western states. Two former agency directors ― Robert V. Abbey and Patrick Shea ― told Bloomberg they expect the goal is to paralyze the agency in a way that could ultimately justify land transfers.
In August, the administration tapped Pendley, a conservative lawyer and self-proclaimed “sagebrush rebel” who has spent decades campaigning against federal land protection, to lead the BLM. Pendley has written numerous anti-environmental screeds over the years, including a January 2016 op-ed in The National Review in which he argued that the “Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold.”
The BLM is considering a proposal to exempt itself from conducting environmental reviews as part of sweeping land use plans, as Bloomberg reported this month. Those plans ultimately determine how millions of acres of federal land are used and developed. That effort is part of a broader administrative effort to chip away at the National Environmental Policy Act, a 50-year-old law that protects air, water and land by requiring federal agencies to conduct detailed environmental assessments of major infrastructure projects.
What’s kept the administration from changing its tune and embracing the Republican Party position on federal lands? It could be a calculated decision ahead of the 2020 election. A 2016 survey found that 60% of Western voters oppose the sale and transfer of federal land holdings.
Jayson O’Neill, deputy director of the Western Values Project, says the June 2019 event shows Interior’s true colors and that the administration has set itself up to reverse course.
“This is a clear signal that if President Trump and Secretary Bernhardt are given enough time, the wholesale transfer and privatization of America’s public lands will happen in the blink of an eye,” he said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--The NYPD May Be Secretly Using Facebook Photos In Its Facial Recognition Searches

The New York City Police Department ’ s facial recognition program has courted controversy from the moment it was created in 2011 — civil libertarians and residents of the city didn ’ t want the largest police department in the country to become an all-seeing panopticon .
But the NYPD has always insisted suspect photos are only checked against mugshots , not images from other government agencies , like the Department of Motor vehicles , not images from the traffic cameras or against security footage , and certainly not pictures from social media .
If the department is indeed placing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ database , New Yorkers who post photos on Facebook or Instagram might be at risk of becoming suspects in a criminal investigation , since the NYPD uses facial recognition hits as starting points for criminal probes .
Given the well-known inaccuracy of facial recognition software , both the innocent and the guilty could be swept into the department ’ s digital dragnet .
In one FIS document obtained by HuffPost for a 2016 assault where a juvenile was charged , the “ search results section ” has a box for “ source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media.
” In another field on the form for “ social media , ” an investigator who filled it out noted “ ( FB ) ” — which further suggests the source of the photo used to generate a match in this case was Facebook .
Jerome Greco , the defendant ’ s public defender from the Legal Aid Society , said that the documents were turned over during the normal course of discovery .
It ’ s not clear how the social media images would be making their way into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be the first time that unauthorized pictures turned up in the FIS system .
In August 2019 , I reported in Medium ’ s OneZero that in another one of Bronx Defenders ’ cases a sealed mugshot was discovered in the facial recognition database — a clear violation of a New York state law which dictates that sealed photos be destroyed or returned to the subject .
These documents appear to be straightforward proof the NYPD is inputting social media images into its facial recognition database — though the department denies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is visible on these forms indicates that FIS did not utilize facial recognition technology to identify the suspects in these cases .
Instead , they were able to determine the identity of the suspect using information that was available in publicly accessible social media accounts , ” said Devora Kaye , an NYPD spokesperson .
There is a separate department within the NYPD , the Social Media Analysis & Research Team ( SMART ) , which “ analyzes social media for chatter , videos and relative information in regards to active investigations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past that once the FIS generates a match , an “ investigator proceeds with further research , including an examination of social media and other open-source images , ” as then-NYPD commissioner James O ’ Neill wrote in The New York Times last year .
“ The materials labeled the database photo as being from social media , ” said Thaxter .
“ So while it may be true that the photograph was originally obtained through a publicly accessible account , the photo would have had to have been pulled from that account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located using FIS — which is exactly what the paperwork says happened.
” Greco provided HuffPost an intelligence report from the SMART team that he received in another case .
In this case , the form indicates that the SMART unit was contacted by a detective to conduct a “ social media canvas ” of an “ FB user.
” In a different juvenile case where social media was searched , the department ’ s Juvenile Justice Division provided Thaxter a form showing that the New York City law department , the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , conducted a “ social media inquiry ” on a person of interest .
These would be the typical ways a SMART search would be communicated in paperwork — not on an FIS form .
Neither Thaxter nor Greco got the chance to ask more questions about facial recognition in these two cases , because both cases were dismissed .
Thaxter noted that because of the state ’ s current strict discovery laws , where the prosecution doesn ’ t have to provide evidence to the defense until close to the trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach the discovery phase .
However , on Jan. 1 , 2020 , a new law went into effect in New York state that will force the police and prosecutors to turn over evidence much earlier in cases .
These revelations are especially alarming in the context of recent reports that rogue NYPD officers are using Clearview AI , a highly controversial facial recognition software , on their phones .
The department has not sanctioned that activity and may punish the officers , but there is clearly a disinclination among at least some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bend or break safeguards around the use of facial recognition software .
The NYPD has long resisted calls for more transparency around its facial recognition program .
And as cities around the country are having a debate over police use of facial recognition — with cities like San Francisco , Oakland and the Boston suburb of Somerville , Massachusetts , outright banning it — New York City and the NYPD have fought to keep information about its facial recognition program secret .
HuffPost asked Clare Garvie — one of the legal researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYPD ’ s use of facial recognition — about the documents in question in the two cases from Legal Aid and Bronx Defenders .
After reviewing the records , she said , “ The question becomes , why is the Facial Information Unit search returning a social media photo when , as far as we ’ re aware , the database is made up of mugshots and pistol identification photos ?
” The public might also learn more about exactly what information is being fed into FIS if a new law being considered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act passes , which would mandate that the city and the police department tell the public more about its policies and practices with facial recognition technology .
More than half of the New York City Council supports the POST Act .
As part of that bill , advocates have pushed for lawmakers to force the department to disclose all the ways that it is monitoring social media .

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost
The New York City Police Department’s facial recognition program has courted controversy from the moment it was created in 2011 — civil libertarians and residents of the city didn’t want the largest police department in the country to become an all-seeing panopticon. But the NYPD has always insisted suspect photos are only checked against mugshots, not images from other government agencies, like the Department of Motor vehicles, not images from the traffic cameras or against security footage, and certainly not pictures from social media.
In two recent cases, however, official documents from the NYPD Facial Information Section (FIS) obtained by HuffPost indicate that social media photos were used to generate a match for a suspect who was later arrested and charged.
Advertisement
If the department is indeed placing social media images into its facial recognition database, New Yorkers who post photos on Facebook or Instagram might be at risk of becoming suspects in a criminal investigation, since the NYPD uses facial recognition hits as starting points for criminal probes. Given the well-known inaccuracy of facial recognition software, both the innocent and the guilty could be swept into the department’s digital dragnet.
In one FIS document obtained by HuffPost for a 2016 assault where a juvenile was charged, the “search results section” has a box for “source of image” — and it says “social media.” In another field on the form for “social media,” an investigator who filled it out noted “(FB)” — which further suggests the source of the photo used to generate a match in this case was Facebook. Jerome Greco, the defendant’s public defender from the Legal Aid Society, said that the documents were turned over during the normal course of discovery.
Greco, who specializes in digital forensics investigation at Legal Aid, said that typically the facial recognition unit forms included the term “photomanager” in the source of image field, to indicate that it came from the NYPD’s mugshot database.
The photo attached to the search results was a selfie of a person with a hoodie up who is leaning on a couch, according to Greco. “We believe that this was taken from a social media profile,” he said.
Advertisement
A similar situation occurred recently in the Bronx. Sidney Thaxter, a Bronx Defenders attorney and digital forensics specialist, was defending a client charged with robbery. Thaxter said the Bronx district attorney’s office turned over a package of discovery from the NYPD that included the same FIS search results report: “SOCIAL MEDIA/FACEBOOK” was listed as the source of image under the search results.
It’s not clear how the social media images would be making their way into the facial recognition database, though it wouldn’t be the first time that unauthorized pictures turned up in the FIS system. In August 2019, I reported in Medium’s OneZero that in another one of Bronx Defenders’ cases a sealed mugshot was discovered in the facial recognition database — a clear violation of a New York state law which dictates that sealed photos be destroyed or returned to the subject.
These documents appear to be straightforward proof the NYPD is inputting social media images into its facial recognition database — though the department denies it. “The limited information that is visible on these forms indicates that FIS did not utilize facial recognition technology to identify the suspects in these cases. Instead, they were able to determine the identity of the suspect using information that was available in publicly accessible social media accounts,” said Devora Kaye, an NYPD spokesperson.
“It doesn’t make sense that FIS — the unit dedicated to facial recognition — is gathering social media evidence instead of doing facial recognition.” - Jerome Greco, public defender at the Legal Aid Society
There is a separate department within the NYPD, the Social Media Analysis & Research Team (SMART), which “analyzes social media for chatter, videos and relative information in regards to active investigations.” And department officials have said in the past that once the FIS generates a match, an “investigator proceeds with further research, including an examination of social media and other open-source images,” as then-NYPD commissioner James O’Neill wrote in The New York Times last year.
Advertisement
But the public defenders who have seen these documents sharply dispute the NYPD explanation that these social media matches were generated manually — they say the paperwork makes clear it was an FIS database match.
“The materials labeled the database photo as being from social media,” said Thaxter. “So while it may be true that the photograph was originally obtained through a publicly accessible account, the photo would have had to have been pulled from that account and placed in the database to be located using FIS — which is exactly what the paperwork says happened.”
“It tells me that their database of photos does not just contain photos of individuals that have been arrested or convicted,” he added. “Somebody is making a decision to put individual photos into this database.”
Greco agreed. “It doesn’t make sense that FIS — the unit dedicated to facial recognition — is gathering social media evidence instead of doing facial recognition when there’s an entire unit known as SMART that does that exact work,” he said.
Greco provided HuffPost an intelligence report from the SMART team that he received in another case. In this case, the form indicates that the SMART unit was contacted by a detective to conduct a “social media canvas” of an “FB user.” In a different juvenile case where social media was searched, the department’s Juvenile Justice Division provided Thaxter a form showing that the New York City law department, the city’s legal division that prosecutes juveniles, conducted a “social media inquiry” on a person of interest. These would be the typical ways a SMART search would be communicated in paperwork — not on an FIS form.
Advertisement
Neither Thaxter nor Greco got the chance to ask more questions about facial recognition in these two cases, because both cases were dismissed. Thaxter noted that because of the state’s current strict discovery laws, where the prosecution doesn’t have to provide evidence to the defense until close to the trial, roughly 90% of his cases never reach the discovery phase. However, on Jan. 1, 2020, a new law went into effect in New York state that will force the police and prosecutors to turn over evidence much earlier in cases.
Thaxter expects that his office will be seeing a lot more cases where they’ll learn how facial recognition was used to investigate their clients.
These revelations are especially alarming in the context of recent reports that rogue NYPD officers are using Clearview AI, a highly controversial facial recognition software, on their phones. The department has not sanctioned that activity and may punish the officers, but there is clearly a disinclination among at least some police officers to respect basic privacy rights and bend or break safeguards around the use of facial recognition software.
The NYPD has long resisted calls for more transparency around its facial recognition program. And as cities around the country are having a debate over police use of facial recognition — with cities like San Francisco, Oakland and the Boston suburb of Somerville, Massachusetts, outright banning it — New York City and the NYPD have fought to keep information about its facial recognition program secret.
Georgetown’s Center on Privacy and Technology has for years tried to get the complete picture of the NYPD’s facial recognition program, and filed a lawsuit over it. As a result, in late 2018, the NYPD was forced to turn over about 3,700 pages on its program.
Advertisement
HuffPost asked Clare Garvie — one of the legal researchers leading Georgetown’s investigation into the NYPD’s use of facial recognition — about the documents in question in the two cases from Legal Aid and Bronx Defenders. After reviewing the records, she said, “The question becomes, why is the Facial Information Unit search returning a social media photo when, as far as we’re aware, the database is made up of mugshots and pistol identification photos?”
The public might also learn more about exactly what information is being fed into FIS if a new law being considered by the New York City Council titled the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act passes, which would mandate that the city and the police department tell the public more about its policies and practices with facial recognition technology. More than half of the New York City Council supports the POST Act. As part of that bill, advocates have pushed for lawmakers to force the department to disclose all the ways that it is monitoring social media.
The NYPD has been extremely combative in response to these proposed reforms; the department has called the POST Act “insane.” At the first city council hearing on the proposed law, the police department continued to lobby against it.
Still, the scrutiny on the NYPD over how useful these tools are persists. Earlier this month, New York State Senator Brad Hoylman (D) introduced a bill that would outright ban the use of facial recognition and other biometric tools by police in the state. In the bill, Hoylman cites several recent troubling reports on the NYPD’s use of facial recognition, including the presence of juvenile photos in the database.
Public defenders like Thaxter believe that the city needs to consider whether the police should have access to it at all.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--Dialysis Patient Angry He Can't Bring Cutout Of Donald Trump To Treatment

Nelson Gibson told WPBF that his family can ’ t sit with him during his three-and-a-half-hour treatments .
To help , he began bringing a picture of Trump as a comfort item .
“ It just feels like bringing something from home to make you comfortable , ” Gibson told the West Palm Beach area television station .
Gibson said no one complained about the photo .
Next , he started bringing a small cardboard cutout of himself standing next to a Trump photo .
No one complained about the small cutout , and Gibson told the station that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Saturday , Gibson took a life-sized cutout of Trump to his treatment at Fresenius Kidney Care in Port St. Lucie .
He said that again , no one took issue with this new emotional support item .
But when he returned Tuesday for treatment with the presidential cutout , Gibson ran into a roadblock .
“ They told me it was too much and it wasn ’ t a rally , ” he told the TV station .
His son Eric contacted officials at the facility to find out what the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an issue of safety infectious disease which made no sense , ” Eric Gibson said .
The Gibsons say they feel singled out since the center typically encourages patients to bring emotional support items .
Gibson said another patient brings in bubble wrap and pops it during her treatment , which he finds nerve wracking .
“ What I would really like to happen is for them not to infringe upon my father ’ s freedom of expression and speech and allow him to bring in the lifesize cardboard cutout that takes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can , “ Eric Gibson told the station .
“ While we can not discuss any specific individual , we strongly support the ability of all our patients to express their views , which includes bringing reasonably sized items into our dialysis centers that do not create safety or infection control issues , or interfere with caregivers on the treatment floor , ” said the center ’ s spokesman Brad Puffer said in a statement .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida man undergoing kidney dialysis three times a week is upset that he can’t bring a life-sized cardboard cutout of President Donald Trump for emotional support.
Nelson Gibson told WPBF that his family can’t sit with him during his three-and-a-half-hour treatments. To help, he began bringing a picture of Trump as a comfort item.
Advertisement
“It just feels like bringing something from home to make you comfortable,” Gibson told the West Palm Beach area television station.
Gibson said no one complained about the photo. Next, he started bringing a small cardboard cutout of himself standing next to a Trump photo. No one complained about the small cutout, and Gibson told the station that some people even took photos with it.
On Saturday, Gibson took a life-sized cutout of Trump to his treatment at Fresenius Kidney Care in Port St. Lucie. He said that again, no one took issue with this new emotional support item.
But when he returned Tuesday for treatment with the presidential cutout, Gibson ran into a roadblock.
Advertisement
“They told me it was too much and it wasn’t a rally,” he told the TV station.
His son Eric contacted officials at the facility to find out what the problem was.
“It was supposed to be an issue of safety infectious disease which made no sense,” Eric Gibson said.
The Gibsons say they feel singled out since the center typically encourages patients to bring emotional support items.
Gibson said another patient brings in bubble wrap and pops it during her treatment, which he finds nerve wracking.
“What I would really like to happen is for them not to infringe upon my father’s freedom of expression and speech and allow him to bring in the lifesize cardboard cutout that takes up less service area than a garbage can,“ Eric Gibson told the station.
“While we cannot discuss any specific individual, we strongly support the ability of all our patients to express their views, which includes bringing reasonably sized items into our dialysis centers that do not create safety or infection control issues, or interfere with caregivers on the treatment floor,” said the center’s spokesman Brad Puffer said in a statement.
The family said they aren’t sure when Gibson will return for treatment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-13--'Bunch Of Thugs': W.Va. Governor Apologizes For Insult To Girls' Basketball Team [UPDATE]

“ First of all , I would tell them that I ’ m really sorry if I ’ ve done @ @ @ @ @ , ” Justice told WCHS , a local ABC affiliate , about the people who @ @ @ @ @ secondly , I would just say this , Barack Obama used that term.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ another term , we would say ― you know , if I could take it @ @ @ @ @ take it back because , you know , I never dreamed it would bother anyone @ @ @ @ @ The governor ’ s insult came after a scuffle between a Greenbrier East fan and @ @ @ @ @ Nabors during a timeout , which led head coach Brian Nabors to take his team @ @ @ @ @ had been a tense game between high school rivals that began with a Greenbrier East @ @ @ @ @ player in the face , local news outlets reported .

“First of all, I would tell them that I’m really sorry if I’ve done anything that has offended them,” Justice told WCHS, a local ABC affiliate, about the people who were offended. “But secondly, I would just say this, Barack Obama used that term.”
“If we need to use another term, we would say ― you know, if I could take it back, surely I would take it back because, you know, I never dreamed it would bother anyone,” he concluded.
The governor’s insult came after a scuffle between a Greenbrier East fan and Woodrow Wilson assistant coach Gene Nabors during a timeout, which led head coach Brian Nabors to take his team off the floor. It had been a tense game between high school rivals that began with a Greenbrier East player elbowing a Woodrow Wilson player in the face, local news outlets reported.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-14--More Senate Democrats Call For William Barr To Resign Over Roger Stone Case

More Senate Democrats are calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign after the Justice Department intervened in the case against Roger Stone , a longtime friend of President Donald Trump .
“ We are writing to express our alarm about and opposition to the unethical political intervention of senior Department of Justice officials in the case of Roger Stone , ” nine senators wrote Friday in a letter to Barr that called for his immediate resignation .
Stone , a longtime adviser to Trump , was convicted in November on seven counts , including witness tampering , lying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Earlier this week , the federal prosecutors who ran Stone ’ s trial abruptly dropped out of the case after DOJ leadership intervened to reduce their sentencing recommendation .
“ The intervention in this case by you or other senior DOJ officials working under you is a clear violation of your duty to defend fair , impartial and equal justice for all Americans , ” reads the letter signed by Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I-Vt. ) , Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) , Mazie Hirono ( D-Hawaii ) , Edward Markey ( D-Mass . )
, Jeff Merkley ( D-Ore. ) , Patty Murray ( D-Wash. ) , Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
, Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) .
News reports revealed Friday that Barr had also ordered an outside prosecutor to revisit the criminal case against Trump ’ s former national security adviser Michael Flynn — yet another move by the Justice Department to scrutinize cases or seek more lenient sentences for Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have sent a ltr to AG Barr calling on him to resign for what they call “ a clear violation of your duty to defend fair , impartial , & equal justice ” in relation to Roger Stone case .
9 who signed : Warren Blumenthal Markey Murray Merkley Van Hollen Wyden Sanders Hirono pic.twitter.com/V0fVKVighL — Frank Thorp V ( @ frankthorp ) February 14 , 2020 The prosecutors in Stone ’ s case had told the court Monday that Stone should face seven to nine years behind bars .
After Trump tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too long and a “ miscarriage of justice , ” the Justice Department filed a new , more lenient recommendation .
The career prosecutors then dropped out one by one .
Trump appeared to confirm Wednesday that Barr had intervened in the case , praising the attorney general for “ taking charge.
” White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley later denied that Trump had interfered in Stone ’ s sentencing .
In an interview with ABC News on Thursday , Barr insisted that the president “ has never asked me to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , Trump tweeted that this “ doesn ’ t mean that I do not have , as President , the legal right to do so ” — adding that he had so far “ chosen not to.
” Other lawmakers demanded answers on the Stone situation earlier this week , with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) saying Wednesday that the Justice Department ’ s inspector general should investigate and urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on the matter .
Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee .
( Barr had previously agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31 as part of the panel ’ s normal oversight . )
In their letter Friday , Democratic lawmakers skewered Barr for his or his staff ’ s actions “ to seek special protections for Mr. Stone , ” saying these “ make a mockery of your responsibilities to seek equal justice under the law and reveal that you are unfit to head the DOJ.
” “ A DOJ that abandons the rule of law in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting on behalf of the President of the United States is as corrupt as it is unacceptable , ” the lawmakers concluded .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
More Senate Democrats are calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign after the Justice Department intervened in the case against Roger Stone, a longtime friend of President Donald Trump.
“We are writing to express our alarm about and opposition to the unethical political intervention of senior Department of Justice officials in the case of Roger Stone,” nine senators wrote Friday in a letter to Barr that called for his immediate resignation.
Advertisement
Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, was convicted in November on seven counts, including witness tampering, lying to Congress and obstructing an official proceeding, in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Earlier this week, the federal prosecutors who ran Stone’s trial abruptly dropped out of the case after DOJ leadership intervened to reduce their sentencing recommendation.
“The intervention in this case by you or other senior DOJ officials working under you is a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial and equal justice for all Americans,” reads the letter signed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Warren and Blumenthal had first called on Barr to resign on Thursday.
Neither the White House nor DOJ immediately responded to HuffPost’s requests for comment.
News reports revealed Friday that Barr had also ordered an outside prosecutor to revisit the criminal case against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn — yet another move by the Justice Department to scrutinize cases or seek more lenient sentences for Trump’s allies.
9 Sen Ds have sent a ltr to AG Barr calling on him to resign for what they call “a clear violation of your duty to defend fair, impartial, & equal justice” in relation to Roger Stone case.
9 who signed:
Warren
Blumenthal
Markey
Murray
Merkley
Van Hollen
Wyden
Sanders
Hirono pic.twitter.com/V0fVKVighL — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) February 14, 2020
The prosecutors in Stone’s case had told the court Monday that Stone should face seven to nine years behind bars. After Trump tweeted early Tuesday that the sentencing recommendation was too long and a “miscarriage of justice,” the Justice Department filed a new, more lenient recommendation. The career prosecutors then dropped out one by one.
Trump appeared to confirm Wednesday that Barr had intervened in the case, praising the attorney general for “taking charge.” White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley later denied that Trump had interfered in Stone’s sentencing.
In an interview with ABC News on Thursday, Barr insisted that the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” Early Friday, Trump tweeted that this “doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so” — adding that he had so far “chosen not to.”
Other lawmakers demanded answers on the Stone situation earlier this week, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying Wednesday that the Justice Department’s inspector general should investigate and urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on the matter. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) joined the call for Barr to testify before the committee. (Barr had previously agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on March 31 as part of the panel’s normal oversight.)
Advertisement
In their letter Friday, Democratic lawmakers skewered Barr for his or his staff’s actions “to seek special protections for Mr. Stone,” saying these “make a mockery of your responsibilities to seek equal justice under the law and reveal that you are unfit to head the DOJ.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-02-16--More Than 1,100 Former DOJ Officials Press For Attorney General Barr To Step Down

OLIVIER DOULIERY via Getty Images Former Justice Department officials are calling for Attorney General William Barr to step down .
More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials are calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign following reports Barr and President Donald Trump intervened in the criminal prosecution of Trump ’ s friend Roger Stone .
In an open letter released Sunday , the former officials say Barr broke Justice Department rules when he overruled federal prosecutors in Stone ’ s criminal case , seeking a far more lenient sentence than the potential nine years prosecutors originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Department ’ s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors , who are following established policies , in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President , ” they said .
In their call for Barr ’ s resignation , the former Justice Department officials suggested his behavior is a threat to democracy .
“ Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics ; they are autocracies , ” they wrote .
Stone was convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to impede investigators looking into the Trump campaign .
He was one of the highest-profile Trump allies to face prosecution resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
After prosecutors in the Stone case filed a sentencing request on Monday seeking up to nine years in prison , Trump called the decision a “ miscarriage of justice ” on Twitter .
The following day , the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office for the District of Columbia filed a new recommendation that didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
The move led all four prosecutors in the Stone trial to drop out of the case .
In their open letter , the former officials said an independent , nonpolitical Justice Department is vital to the “ Department ’ s sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.
” “ President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle , ” they wrote , “ most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump ’ s close associate , Roger Stone , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praised the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case , and they called on anyone who witnesses similar abuses to refuse to carry them out ; report all misconduct to the DOJ inspector general ; withdraw from cases in which they are given unethical directives ; and ― “ in a manner consistent with professional ethics ” ― alert the American people of the reasons for their resignation , should the time come .
In an interview with ABC on Thursday , Barr said Trump ’ s comments and tweets about the Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible ” for Barr to do his job .
In their letter , the former DOJ officials say Barr ’ s interview , which came amid a wave of public concern about the department ’ s independence , did little to inspire confidence .
“ Mr .
Barr ’ s actions in doing the President ’ s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words , ” they wrote , adding that those actions “ require Mr. Barr to resign .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
More than 1,100 former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials are calling on Attorney General William Barr to resign following reports Barr and President Donald Trump intervened in the criminal prosecution of Trump’s friend Roger Stone.
In an open letter released Sunday, the former officials say Barr broke Justice Department rules when he overruled federal prosecutors in Stone’s criminal case, seeking a far more lenient sentence than the potential nine years prosecutors originally recommended.
Advertisement
“It is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President,” they said.
In their call for Barr’s resignation, the former Justice Department officials suggested his behavior is a threat to democracy.
“Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies,” they wrote.
Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering in order to impede investigators looking into the Trump campaign. He was one of the highest-profile Trump allies to face prosecution resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Advertisement
After prosecutors in the Stone case filed a sentencing request on Monday seeking up to nine years in prison, Trump called the decision a “miscarriage of justice” on Twitter.
Twitter
The following day, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia filed a new recommendation that didn’t suggest any particular length of time. The move led all four prosecutors in the Stone trial to drop out of the case.
In their open letter, the former officials said an independent, nonpolitical Justice Department is vital to the “Department’s sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.”
“President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle,” they wrote, “most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes.”
Advertisement
The officials praised the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case, and they called on anyone who witnesses similar abuses to refuse to carry them out; report all misconduct to the DOJ inspector general; withdraw from cases in which they are given unethical directives; and ― “in a manner consistent with professional ethics” ― alert the American people of the reasons for their resignation, should the time come.
In an interview with ABC on Thursday, Barr said Trump’s comments and tweets about the Justice Department and specific cases “make it impossible” for Barr to do his job. In their letter, the former DOJ officials say Barr’s interview, which came amid a wave of public concern about the department’s independence, did little to inspire confidence.