bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Should Trump Invoke the Insurrection Act?

The president hinting at the use of federal troops under the Insurrection Act set off a chorus of howls .
But do detractors have a valid complaint ?
President Donald Trump has increasingly implored mayors and governors in the cities and states wracked by violence to do their jobs and keep the peace .
Whether due to lack of will , to underestimating the coming night ’ s violence , or to an outright sympathy with the looters — erroneously conflating the legitimate grievances of the protesters with the actions of seditious revolutionaries , nihilists , and crooks — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and escalated .
As a result , the president strongly suggested he would take charge and send in the military himself .
That the president hinted at the use of federal troops under the Insurrection Act set off a chorus of howls .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a Democrat from hard-hit New York , called it “ blatantly unconstitutional.
” Retired senior officers expressed alarm at the potential use of troops , with two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Mike Mullen and Martin Dempsey , both outspoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a valid complaint ?
Is the president inappropriately “ mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting , ” as Trump said on June 1 ?
The answer is , “ it depends.
” The president has the authority to restore order .
In the words of the Constitution , Article II , Section 2 , “ The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States , and of the Militia of the several States , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States.
” But there are complications .
In the case of civil unrest , the uncertainty rests on the issue of whether states want federal assistance .
The Insurrection Act and the L.A .
Riots I experienced this firsthand in 1992 when , as a captain in the California Army National Guard , I was called up by the governor , and within a day was patrolling the Crenshaw District in the heart of the destruction , amid columns of smoke rising from looted stores and burning cars .
For a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active duty during the L.A. riots , see “ What I Learned About Civil Unrest During The Los Angeles Riots 25 Years Ago ” in The Federalist .
While my deployment to assist civilian law enforcement in restoring order started with a call from the governor to state active duty , we were soon brought into federal service when President George H.W .
Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and signed Executive Order 12804 .
This activated Operation Garden Plot , the Department of Defense ’ s standing Civil Disturbance Plan .
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 2 , 3,500 federal troops — 2,000 active duty Army and 1,500 U.S. Marines — joined the 10,000 California Army National Guard members on the streets of Los Angeles .
Of note , then-Gov .
Pete Wilson requested federal assistance .
( In 2007 , I retired as the California National Guard ’ s Deputy J-1 , personnel , with the rank of lieutenant colonel . )
Federal troops had last been used to restore order in the continental United States in the aftermath of the riots set off by the assassination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. in 1968 .
But the Insurrection Act itself has been invoked at least 19 times since its inception in 1807 — on average , every 11 years , by 11 presidents .
The Insurrection Act ’ s history and its possible use in the current situation bears discussion .
Does the President Need Permission from State Leaders ?
The Constitution , Article I , Section 8 , provides that Congress has the power “ To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union , suppress Insurrections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t always in session , and while it appropriates money for the military , including the “ Militia ” — the National Guard is the organized militia today — it isn ’ t always capable of acting with speed .
That ’ s one reason Congress passed the Calling Forth Act of 1792 and then the Insurrection Act in 1807 , subsequently amending it twice — in 1861 to meet the challenge of the Civil War and in 1871 to allow federal troops , including the Militia when federalized , to protect newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klux Klan by enforcing the 14th Amendment ’ s Equal Protection Clause .
There is some dispute as to whether the president can invoke the Insurrection Act without the request from a state ’ s governor or legislature .
In 2007 , as part of the National Defense Authorization Act , the Insurrection Act was amended to allow the president to use military forces to enforce the law and restore order , but all 50 governors protested the move , and the amendment was repealed some 15 months later .
That said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent by both Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to enforce federal court rulings on civil rights .
This was allowed under the 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act .
This opens an interesting constitutional question : Could President Trump invoke the Insurrection Act without permission from a state ’ s leadership ?
The Posse Comitatus Act , passed in 1878 , marked the official end of the Reconstruction Era , with growing Southern resentment over the continued stationing of federal troops in the aftermath of the Civil War .
Posse Comitatus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws ” — “ except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.
” The Insurrection Act is , of course , one of those cases authorized by an act of Congress , and while it generally requires state consent , it does allow the president to enforce federal law .
Thus , the question becomes when a state governor refuses to use appropriate law enforcement assets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quell urban violence , is there justification to invoke the Insurrection Act to ensure equal protection under the 14th Amendment ?
Maybe .
The danger is that if the invocation is challenged in court and the president loses the case , his officers could be subject to penalties under the Posse Comitatus Act , which include fines and imprisonment .
Two issues remain regarding the use of federal troops to restore order : the institutional military ’ s general reluctance to do so , and the chain of command .
A practical reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1807 was the experience of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 and the building up and later disbanding of a national standing army .
When federal tax agents were attacked in Pennsylvania in the course of collecting federal alcohol taxes , President George Washington moved to restore order .
The problem was that the active-duty army of the day consisted of a few hundred troops out on the Western frontier keeping an eye on the restive Native American tribes .
This forced Washington to rely on the Pennsylvania militia , the challenge being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to use his militia to enforce federal revenue laws .
That governor knew this would be a good way to lose reelection .
He was also a Jeffersonian Republican and deeply suspicious of the Federalists ’ support for a stronger central government , including a standing army .
It took months , but eventually Washington convinced Pennsylvania Gov .
Thomas Mifflin to agree to have the militia federalized to put down the rebellion , which then quickly collapsed .
Only four years later , in the wake of the French Revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undeclared “ Quasi-War ” with France .
Jefferson ’ s Democrat-Republicans were sympathetic to the French , while the Federalists tilted toward Great Britain .
As part of the response to counter increasing French belligerence , the U.S. Navy was built up and a standing army , beyond the needs of the frontier , was created , with Alexander Hamilton its de facto chief .
The U.S. Army grew to more than 4,000 personnel .
But the national Army was also seen as an instrument of the Federalist Party , and when Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plans to expand the Army were quickly abandoned , and the Army was largely defunded .
This seared a lesson into the professional Army ’ s mind : If it was perceived as a political instrument , its national legitimacy and its existence as an institution would be threatened .
Thus , when the Insurrection Act was passed in 1807 , the Army had only 2,775 soldiers , leaving Jefferson with fewer military options , unless he could rely on the militia .
The lesson of the disbandment of Hamilton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reluctance expressed today by retired general officers to deploy the U.S. Army to assist local law enforcement .
Their public reservations don ’ t serve the president , but they do serve to preserve the institution of the U.S. Army .
And , the generals might argue , with tension rising with China , the U.S. Army and other branches of the armed forces must retain bipartisan support if they are to maintain deterrence .
Of course , the U.S. Army was used five times in seven places under the Insurrection Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was often against the wishes of Democratic governors opposed to desegregation .
Somehow the U.S. Army maintained bipartisan support during the Cold War , more or less through the end of the Vietnam War , when the consensus began to erode , though not because of these interventions .
The last practical consideration in the invocation of the Insurrection Act is that of the chain of command .
During the 1992 L.A. riots , the 10,000 National Guard soldiers called out by California Gov .
Wilson initially remained under the command of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Guard major general .
But as the urban unrest seemed to worsen while the Guard was being deployed , the mayor of Los Angeles called for more troops , and the governor appealed to President George H.W .
Bush .
When Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent 3,500 federal troops to augment the National Guard , peace had already been largely restored to the streets .
Even so , the active duty commander of the 7th Infantry Division out of Fort Ord assumed command of the overall force of the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Guard .
There were two consequences as the result of the active duty assumption of command : Morale in the ranks of the National Guard plummeted , and the federal takeover , just as the streets had been calmed , smacked of extreme disrespect .
The active-duty lawyers — Judge Advocates General — erroneously assumed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the newly federalized Guard troops .
This shouldn ’ t be a surprise , since JAGs , as with their civilian attorney counterparts , often see their role as saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in trouble when they do nothing .
Furthermore , the JAG culture in the military is decidedly to the left of the combat arms branches , perhaps resulting in a deeper institutional reluctance regarding the mission to support local law enforcement .
As a result , the close cooperation the Guard was enjoying with the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department came to an end with new requests to be pre-cleared by the joint command .
This pre-clearance for requests by law enforcement took so long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a result , the Guard largely ignored the order that essentially neutered the reason for their deployment .
After all , it was our city that had been burned and looted , and our neighbors who had been killed and injured , not our counterparts in the Army and Marines .
Fortunately , the following day , the Army commander reorganized the chain of command .
The U.S. Army general was in charge of the newly formed Joint Task Force Los Angeles , consisting of U.S. Army , National Guard , and Marines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was given command of all Army forces .
This issue is relevant today concerning use of the Insurrection Act in a state where the governor refuses to cooperate with the president .
What does an activated National Guard commander do , given that their peacetime commander , when not federalized , is the governor ?
Fortunately , after several days of escalating violence , even liberal governors and mayors appeared to have had their fill of the destruction and seem to be allowing law enforcement and the National Guard to do their jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus , at least for this round of urban unrest , the Insurrection Act isn ’ t likely to be tested in a new and uncertain way .
That said , a case might be made that Antifa , implicated in the destruction and looting of minority-owned businesses , might be considered today ’ s KKK .
In that case , the Insurrection Act could be invoked in states where governors have been reluctant to move against the domestic terror group and also refuse to ask for federal help .

President Donald Trump has increasingly implored mayors and governors in the cities and states wracked by violence to do their jobs and keep the peace. Whether due to lack of will, to underestimating the coming night’s violence, or to an outright sympathy with the looters — erroneously conflating the legitimate grievances of the protesters with the actions of seditious revolutionaries, nihilists, and crooks — the destruction and loss of life has continued and escalated. As a result, the president strongly suggested he would take charge and send in the military himself.
That the president hinted at the use of federal troops under the Insurrection Act set off a chorus of howls. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from hard-hit New York, called it “blatantly unconstitutional.” Retired senior officers expressed alarm at the potential use of troops, with two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen and Martin Dempsey, both outspoken in their criticism.
But do they have a valid complaint? Is the president inappropriately “mobilizing all available federal resources — civilian and military — to stop the rioting and looting,” as Trump said on June 1?
The answer is, “it depends.” The president has the authority to restore order. In the words of the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
But there are complications. In the case of civil unrest, the uncertainty rests on the issue of whether states want federal assistance.
The Insurrection Act and the L.A. Riots
I experienced this firsthand in 1992 when, as a captain in the California Army National Guard, I was called up by the governor, and within a day was patrolling the Crenshaw District in the heart of the destruction, amid columns of smoke rising from looted stores and burning cars. For a more detailed account of my 18 days on active duty during the L.A. riots, see “What I Learned About Civil Unrest During The Los Angeles Riots 25 Years Ago” in The Federalist.
While my deployment to assist civilian law enforcement in restoring order started with a call from the governor to state active duty, we were soon brought into federal service when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and signed Executive Order 12804. This activated Operation Garden Plot, the Department of Defense’s standing Civil Disturbance Plan.
By the fourth day of the riots, on May 2, 3,500 federal troops — 2,000 active duty Army and 1,500 U.S. Marines — joined the 10,000 California Army National Guard members on the streets of Los Angeles. Of note, then-Gov. Pete Wilson requested federal assistance. (In 2007, I retired as the California National Guard’s Deputy J-1, personnel, with the rank of lieutenant colonel.)
Federal troops had last been used to restore order in the continental United States in the aftermath of the riots set off by the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. But the Insurrection Act itself has been invoked at least 19 times since its inception in 1807 — on average, every 11 years, by 11 presidents.
The Insurrection Act’s history and its possible use in the current situation bears discussion.
Does the President Need Permission from State Leaders?
The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, provides that Congress has the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” But Congress isn’t always in session, and while it appropriates money for the military, including the “Militia” — the National Guard is the organized militia today — it isn’t always capable of acting with speed.
That’s one reason Congress passed the Calling Forth Act of 1792 and then the Insurrection Act in 1807, subsequently amending it twice — in 1861 to meet the challenge of the Civil War and in 1871 to allow federal troops, including the Militia when federalized, to protect newly freed slaves from terrorism by the Ku Klux Klan by enforcing the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
There is some dispute as to whether the president can invoke the Insurrection Act without the request from a state’s governor or legislature. In 2007, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Insurrection Act was amended to allow the president to use military forces to enforce the law and restore order, but all 50 governors protested the move, and the amendment was repealed some 15 months later. That said, the act has been used without gubernatorial consent by both Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to enforce federal court rulings on civil rights. This was allowed under the 1871 amendment to the Insurrection Act.
This opens an interesting constitutional question: Could President Trump invoke the Insurrection Act without permission from a state’s leadership? The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, marked the official end of the Reconstruction Era, with growing Southern resentment over the continued stationing of federal troops in the aftermath of the Civil War. Posse Comitatus provides for criminal penalties for anyone who “willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws” — “except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress.”
The Insurrection Act is, of course, one of those cases authorized by an act of Congress, and while it generally requires state consent, it does allow the president to enforce federal law. Thus, the question becomes when a state governor refuses to use appropriate law enforcement assets, including the National Guard, to quell urban violence, is there justification to invoke the Insurrection Act to ensure equal protection under the 14th Amendment?
Maybe. The danger is that if the invocation is challenged in court and the president loses the case, his officers could be subject to penalties under the Posse Comitatus Act, which include fines and imprisonment.
Two issues remain regarding the use of federal troops to restore order: the institutional military’s general reluctance to do so, and the chain of command.
The Military’s Reluctance
A practical reason for the passage of the Insurrection Act in 1807 was the experience of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 and the building up and later disbanding of a national standing army.
When federal tax agents were attacked in Pennsylvania in the course of collecting federal alcohol taxes, President George Washington moved to restore order. The problem was that the active-duty army of the day consisted of a few hundred troops out on the Western frontier keeping an eye on the restive Native American tribes.
This forced Washington to rely on the Pennsylvania militia, the challenge being that the governor of Pennsylvania didn’t want to use his militia to enforce federal revenue laws. That governor knew this would be a good way to lose reelection. He was also a Jeffersonian Republican and deeply suspicious of the Federalists’ support for a stronger central government, including a standing army. It took months, but eventually Washington convinced Pennsylvania Gov. Thomas Mifflin to agree to have the militia federalized to put down the rebellion, which then quickly collapsed.
Only four years later, in the wake of the French Revolution, the U.S. found itself in an undeclared “Quasi-War” with France. Jefferson’s Democrat-Republicans were sympathetic to the French, while the Federalists tilted toward Great Britain. As part of the response to counter increasing French belligerence, the U.S. Navy was built up and a standing army, beyond the needs of the frontier, was created, with Alexander Hamilton its de facto chief. The U.S. Army grew to more than 4,000 personnel.
But the national Army was also seen as an instrument of the Federalist Party, and when Thomas Jefferson defeated President John Adams in 1800, plans to expand the Army were quickly abandoned, and the Army was largely defunded. This seared a lesson into the professional Army’s mind: If it was perceived as a political instrument, its national legitimacy and its existence as an institution would be threatened.
Thus, when the Insurrection Act was passed in 1807, the Army had only 2,775 soldiers, leaving Jefferson with fewer military options, unless he could rely on the militia.
The lesson of the disbandment of Hamilton’s Federalist Army is likely behind some of the reluctance expressed today by retired general officers to deploy the U.S. Army to assist local law enforcement. Their public reservations don’t serve the president, but they do serve to preserve the institution of the U.S. Army. And, the generals might argue, with tension rising with China, the U.S. Army and other branches of the armed forces must retain bipartisan support if they are to maintain deterrence.
Of course, the U.S. Army was used five times in seven places under the Insurrection Act in the 1950s and ’60s. This was often against the wishes of Democratic governors opposed to desegregation. Somehow the U.S. Army maintained bipartisan support during the Cold War, more or less through the end of the Vietnam War, when the consensus began to erode, though not because of these interventions.
The Chain of Command
The last practical consideration in the invocation of the Insurrection Act is that of the chain of command.
During the 1992 L.A. riots, the 10,000 National Guard soldiers called out by California Gov. Wilson initially remained under the command of the 40th Infantry Division commander, a National Guard major general. But as the urban unrest seemed to worsen while the Guard was being deployed, the mayor of Los Angeles called for more troops, and the governor appealed to President George H.W. Bush.
When Bush invoked the Insurrection Act and sent 3,500 federal troops to augment the National Guard, peace had already been largely restored to the streets. Even so, the active duty commander of the 7th Infantry Division out of Fort Ord assumed command of the overall force of the U.S. Army, Marines, and California Army National Guard.
There were two consequences as the result of the active duty assumption of command: Morale in the ranks of the National Guard plummeted, and the federal takeover, just as the streets had been calmed, smacked of extreme disrespect.
The active-duty lawyers — Judge Advocates General — erroneously assumed that the Posse Comitatus Act applied to the newly federalized Guard troops. This shouldn’t be a surprise, since JAGs, as with their civilian attorney counterparts, often see their role as saying “no.” Generally, nobody gets in trouble when they do nothing.
Furthermore, the JAG culture in the military is decidedly to the left of the combat arms branches, perhaps resulting in a deeper institutional reluctance regarding the mission to support local law enforcement.
As a result, the close cooperation the Guard was enjoying with the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department came to an end with new requests to be pre-cleared by the joint command. This pre-clearance for requests by law enforcement took so long as to render the missions irrelevant. As a result, the Guard largely ignored the order that essentially neutered the reason for their deployment. After all, it was our city that had been burned and looted, and our neighbors who had been killed and injured, not our counterparts in the Army and Marines.
Fortunately, the following day, the Army commander reorganized the chain of command. The U.S. Army general was in charge of the newly formed Joint Task Force Los Angeles, consisting of U.S. Army, National Guard, and Marines, while the 40th Infantry Division commander was given command of all Army forces.
This issue is relevant today concerning use of the Insurrection Act in a state where the governor refuses to cooperate with the president. What does an activated National Guard commander do, given that their peacetime commander, when not federalized, is the governor?
Fortunately, after several days of escalating violence, even liberal governors and mayors appeared to have had their fill of the destruction and seem to be allowing law enforcement and the National Guard to do their jobs to start to restore domestic tranquility. Thus, at least for this round of urban unrest, the Insurrection Act isn’t likely to be tested in a new and uncertain way.
That said, a case might be made that Antifa, implicated in the destruction and looting of minority-owned businesses, might be considered today’s KKK. In that case, the Insurrection Act could be invoked in states where governors have been reluctant to move against the domestic terror group and also refuse to ask for federal help.
Chuck DeVore is chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, vice chairman of the Golden State Policy Council, a former California legislator, and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel. He's the author of “The Crisis of the House Never United—A Novel of Early America.”


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Arson Experts to Investigate Riot Fires

Arson Experts to Investigate Riot Fires

Arson experts have arrived in Minnesota to investigate fires set during riots following the death of George Floyd , KSTP reported Wednesday The U.S. National Response Team , part of the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , have activated units in St. Paul and Minneapolis to work with local fire crews to examine fires set during the riots from the week of March 25 , according to KSTP .
“ The cause of these fires is quite obvious… the task at hand now is to determine who is responsible… the extra personnel will help move these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Special Agent in Charge , William Henderson , of the St. Paul Field Division .
Minneapolis , where Floyd died after his neck was pinned down by a police officer , erupted in riots , looting , fires , and large-scale destruction of businesses .
The U.S. National Response Team is specialized in post-blast investigations .
Included on the team are forensics chemists , explosives officers , fire engineers , and dogs trained to sniff out accelerant or explosive , according to KSTP .
The team will investigate by collecting and analyzing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or explosions started , which would ultimately help lead officials to who was responsible for setting them off .
The unit arrived at no local or state cost , KSTP reported .
The investigators urged residents to be on the look out for flammable liquids or incendiary devices , and asks residents to forward cell phone videos of suspicious situations , cars without plates , or abandoned explosives .
As of Monday , roughly 207 businesses in Minneapolis were damaged , looted , or destroyed during the riots , many by fire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or looted , while the Twin Cities suburbs had around 8 .
( RELATED : Over 250 Buildings Damaged Because Of Riots In Minnesota ’ s Twin Cities : Report )

Arson experts have arrived in Minnesota to investigate fires set during riots following the death of George Floyd, KSTP reported Wednesday
The U.S. National Response Team, part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have activated units in St. Paul and Minneapolis to work with local fire crews to examine fires set during the riots from the week of March 25, according to KSTP.
“The cause of these fires is quite obvious… the task at hand now is to determine who is responsible… the extra personnel will help move these investigations along more quickly,” according to Special Agent in Charge, William Henderson, of the St. Paul Field Division.
Minneapolis, where Floyd died after his neck was pinned down by a police officer, erupted in riots, looting, fires, and large-scale destruction of businesses.
The U.S. National Response Team is specialized in post-blast investigations. Included on the team are forensics chemists, explosives officers, fire engineers, and dogs trained to sniff out accelerant or explosive, according to KSTP.
The team will investigate by collecting and analyzing debris to identify where and how fires or explosions started, which would ultimately help lead officials to who was responsible for setting them off.
The unit arrived at no local or state cost, KSTP reported. The investigators urged residents to be on the look out for flammable liquids or incendiary devices, and asks residents to forward cell phone videos of suspicious situations, cars without plates, or abandoned explosives.
As of Monday, roughly 207 businesses in Minneapolis were damaged, looted, or destroyed during the riots, many by fire. St. Paul saw over 50 businesses vandalized or looted, while the Twin Cities suburbs had around 8. (RELATED: Over 250 Buildings Damaged Because Of Riots In Minnesota’s Twin Cities: Report)


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Why Not: MSNBC Hires Lisa Page As Legal Analyst

Page , who has been a target of President Trump 's ire for years , joined Deadline : White House on Friday , where the network announced her new role .
In her first appearance in the role , Nicolle Wallace asked her about the federal response to the protests following the death of George Floyd .
Floyd , a black man , died after a Minnesota police officer held his knee on Floyd 's neck while also being restrained by three other officers .
All of them have been arrested .
She specifically questioned the reasoning behind why a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not wearing badge numbers , name plates , or any marking that would identify which agency they work for .
Page and Peter Strzok were key players in the FBI 's investigation of the Trump campaign .
In text messages , the two discussed the likelihood of a Trump presidency and how they could `` stop it . ''
Inspector General Michael Horowitz the texts sent between the two `` potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations . ''
Horowitz , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improper considerations , including political bias , directly affected the specific investigative decisions . ''

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page joined NBC News & MSNBC as a national security & legal analyst.
Page, who has been a target of President Trump's ire for years, joined Deadline: White House on Friday, where the network announced her new role.
In her first appearance in the role, Nicolle Wallace asked her about the federal response to the protests following the death of George Floyd. Floyd, a black man, died after a Minnesota police officer held his knee on Floyd's neck while also being restrained by three other officers. All of them have been arrested.
She specifically questioned the reasoning behind why a number of law enforcement officials in Washington are not wearing badge numbers, name plates, or any marking that would identify which agency they work for.
Page and Peter Strzok were key players in the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. In text messages, the two discussed the likelihood of a Trump presidency and how they could "stop it."


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Canadian PM Takes the Knee at George Floyd Protest

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was seen kneeling at Ottawa 's Black Lives Matter protest on Friday .
Trudeau was also seen clapping and nodding his head when a speaker at the event said that it was up to Canadians to be either a `` racist or an anti-racist , '' according to The Canadian Press .
That was n't the only spectacle at the event .
Hecklers gave Trudeau a piece of their mind , telling Trudeau to `` stand up to Trump . ''
Trudeau has been making a push to reintroduce himself to the public as the progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for `` racialized Canadians '' in his last several press conferences .
`` Anti-black racism is real .
Unconscious bias is real .
Systemic discrimination is real .
And they happen here , in Canada , '' said Trudeau on Monday , later saying : `` I hear you when you say that you are anxious and angry .
When you say that this brings back painful experiences of racism that you 've faced .
I want you to know that I am listening , and that your government will always stand with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grilled by the press for his patronizing tone , considering the prime minister wore blackface an unknown number of times , including an infamous incident wherein he wore `` brownface '' at the age of 29 .
On the matter , Trudeau said : `` I have spoken many times about how deeply I regret my actions that hurt many , many people .
But at the same time , we need to focus on doing better every single day , regardless of what we did or hadn ’ t done in our @ @ @

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was seen kneeling at Ottawa's Black Lives Matter protest on Friday.
Trudeau was also seen clapping and nodding his head when a speaker at the event said that it was up to Canadians to be either a "racist or an anti-racist," according to The Canadian Press.
That wasn't the only spectacle at the event. Hecklers gave Trudeau a piece of their mind, telling Trudeau to "stand up to Trump."
WATCH: Trudeau getting yelled at in a mob, protestors yell “STAND UP TO TRUMP” at him. pic.twitter.com/ywWBYHnNSn — ROBERTO WAKERELL-CRUZ ?? (@Robertopedia) June 5, 2020
Trudeau has been making a push to reintroduce himself to the public as the progressive prime minister, having addressed racial inequality for "racialized Canadians" in his last several press conferences.
"Anti-black racism is real. Unconscious bias is real. Systemic discrimination is real. And they happen here, in Canada," said Trudeau on Monday, later saying: "I hear you when you say that you are anxious and angry. When you say that this brings back painful experiences of racism that you've faced. I want you to know that I am listening, and that your government will always stand with you."
Hecklers yell “Go home, blackface” at Canadian PM Justin Trudeau as he tries to join a Black Lives Matter
protest pic.twitter.com/Mn88tJmELa — Barrett Wilson (@BarrettWilson6) June 5, 2020
Trudeau has been partially grilled by the press for his patronizing tone, considering the prime minister wore blackface an unknown number of times, including an infamous incident wherein he wore "brownface" at the age of 29.
On the matter, Trudeau said: "I have spoken many times about how deeply I regret my actions that hurt many, many people. But at the same time, we need to focus on doing better every single day, regardless of what we did or hadn’t done in our past."


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Massive Amazon Distribution Center in California Destroyed by Fire

Firefighters battled a fire that destroyed a large warehouse Friday morning near a freeway in Redlands .
The fire was @ @ @ @ @ of West Lugonia Avenue .
Video from the scene showed big rig trailers , including @ @ @ @ @ , on fire .
Firefighters said the building , estimated at about 600,000 square feet @ @ @ @ @ for a shipping company .
There were about 100 people inside when the fire broke @ @ @ @ @ reports of injuries .
Part of 10 Freeway was temporarily closed .
Smoke and flames @ @ @ @ @ freeway .
At least one of the building 's walls collapsed .
There are concerns @ @ @ @ @ , fire officials said .
Details about how the fire started were not immediately available @

Firefighters battled a fire that destroyed a large warehouse Friday morning near a freeway in Redlands.
The fire was reported in the 2200 block of West Lugonia Avenue. Video from the scene showed big rig trailers, including at least one Amazon trailer, on fire.
Firefighters said the building, estimated at about 600,000 square feet, is a distribution center for a shipping company. There were about 100 people inside when the fire broke out.
There were no reports of injuries.
Part of 10 Freeway was temporarily closed. Smoke and flames could be seen from the freeway.
At least one of the building's walls collapsed. There are concerns that more walls could fall, fire officials said.
Details about how the fire started were not immediately available.


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--“Project Veritas” Releases More Footage From Antifa Infiltration

• None Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ We Just Kind of Wanted to , in This Space , Reframe the Idea of Self-Defense…You 're Being Acted Upon by an Aggressor .
But it 's Kind of a Decision You Make to Fight Back .
In a Lot of Ways to Say , I am Human , and I Occupy This Space and I Will Not be F**ked With.
” • None Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ Yeah , Yeah , Yeah .
So , if That Does n't Knock Them Out , Then Yeah .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eyes ...
Absolutely.
” • None Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ We Call this a Safe Space to Practice Aggression .
Not Aggression Against One Another , But Really Just a Space That , if You Want to or if You Want to Challenge Yourself , to Kind of Work on Harnessing That Kind of Energy.
” [ Mamaroneck , NY – June 4 , 2020 ] In a second video installment , Project Veritas today released footage exposing the violent nature of the New York-based Antifa chapter .
`` Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how far the group will go to engage in physical combat , evade arrests and promote the most damage possible on the streets , '' said James O'Keefe CEO and founder of Project Veritas .
Here are a few statements from Antifa members in our latest video : Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ If you get a good liver or kidney shot , it 's pretty much crippling them .
They 're going to be doubled over and in a lot of pain .
If you break one of the floating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down here .
Those are also very painful , it 's hard to move after that , to catch a breath .
So , one good body shot could potentially give you all the time in the world to run away while they 're doubled over in pain , or really put a beating on them after that if you really want to make it personal.
” Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ We just kind of wanted to , in this space , reframe the idea of self-defense as not simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aggressor .
But it 's kind of a decision you make to fight back .
In a lot of ways to say , I am human , and I occupy this space and I will not be f**ked with.
” Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ Yeah , yeah , yeah .
So , if that does n't knock them out , then yeah .
The nose , the eyes , poke the eyes ...
Absolutely.
” Chris , Antifa Fight Instructor : “ We call this a safe space to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another , but really just a space that , if you want to or if you want to challenge yourself , to kind of work on harnessing that kind of energy.
” Attorney General William Barr said Thursay : “ There are extremist agitators who are hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.
” Our latest video further proves how structured Antifa is , it is an international organization with sophisticated admission requirements and paramilitary physical training .
Project Veritas will continue to expose them , especially since they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization by President Trump .
We call upon Brave Insiders to take a stand and record Antifa as they continue to plan violence across our country .

Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “We Just Kind of Wanted to, in This Space, Reframe the Idea of Self-Defense…You're Being Acted Upon by an Aggressor. But it's Kind of a Decision You Make to Fight Back. In a Lot of Ways to Say, I am Human, and I Occupy This Space and I Will Not be F**ked With.”
Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. So, if That Doesn't Knock Them Out, Then Yeah. The Nose, the Eyes, Poke the Eyes... Absolutely.”
Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “We Call this a Safe Space to Practice Aggression. Not Aggression Against One Another, But Really Just a Space That, if You Want to or if You Want to Challenge Yourself, to Kind of Work on Harnessing That Kind of Energy.”
Play
[Mamaroneck, NY – June 4, 2020] In a second video installment, Project Veritas today released footage exposing the violent nature of the New York-based Antifa chapter.
"Our second #EXPOSEANTIFA installment, demonstrates just how far the group will go to engage in physical combat, evade arrests and promote the most damage possible on the streets," said James O'Keefe CEO and founder of Project Veritas.
Here are a few statements from Antifa members in our latest video:
Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “If you get a good liver or kidney shot, it's pretty much crippling them. They're going to be doubled over and in a lot of pain. If you break one of the floating ribs, which are small and right down here. Those are also very painful, it's hard to move after that, to catch a breath. So, one good body shot could potentially give you all the time in the world to run away while they're doubled over in pain, or really put a beating on them after that if you really want to make it personal.” Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “We just kind of wanted to, in this space, reframe the idea of self-defense as not simply, you're being acted upon by an aggressor. But it's kind of a decision you make to fight back. In a lot of ways to say, I am human, and I occupy this space and I will not be f**ked with.” Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, if that doesn't knock them out, then yeah. The nose, the eyes, poke the eyes... Absolutely.” Chris, Antifa Fight Instructor: “We call this a safe space to practice aggression. Not aggression against one another, but really just a space that, if you want to or if you want to challenge yourself, to kind of work on harnessing that kind of energy.”
Attorney General William Barr said Thursay: “There are extremist agitators who are hijacking the protests to pursue their own separate and violent agenda.”
Our latest video further proves how structured Antifa is, it is an international organization with sophisticated admission requirements and paramilitary physical training.
Project Veritas will continue to expose them, especially since they have been designated as a domestic terrorist organization by President Trump. We call upon Brave Insiders to take a stand and record Antifa as they continue to plan violence across our country.


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Another Major Coronavirus Study Is Retracted

( Newser ) – First , the esteemed Lancet medical journal retracted a major study on Thursday about hydroxychloroquine .
Then , the New England Journal of Medicine did the same with another big study related to COVID-19 and blood pressure drugs .
Both retractions have a common denominator : They relied on data supplied by a US analytics company called Surgisphere , which is coming under increasing scrutiny over the credibility of its international database .
The Lancet study had cast doubt on the effectiveness of the anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as a coronavirus treatment , reports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now renewing the hope that the drugs ( highly touted by President Trump ) can work safely after all , and the World Health Organization already has said it would resume trials , notes the New York Times .
`` It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute to this research during a time of great need , I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use , '' says Harvard 's Mandeep Mehra , who was the lead author of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all the disruptions—both directly and indirectly—I am truly sorry . ''
Both studies listed as a co-author Surgisphere founder/CEO Sapan Desai , whose name appears only on the NEMJ retraction .
His company claims to have collected patient data from hospitals all over the world , but now red flags are going up .
The Journal , for instance , got in touch with a dozen big US hospitals , and none shared patient data with the company .
Surgisphere previously said it could n't name the 671 hospitals in the Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversy illustrates the rushed state of research amid the pandemic , notes the Times .
( Read more hydroxychloroquine stories . )

First, the esteemed Lancet medical journal retracted a major study on Thursday about hydroxychloroquine. Then, the New England Journal of Medicine did the same with another big study related to COVID-19 and blood pressure drugs. Both retractions have a common denominator: They relied on data supplied by a US analytics company called Surgisphere, which is coming under increasing scrutiny over the credibility of its international database. The Lancet study had cast doubt on the effectiveness of the anti-malarial drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine as a coronavirus treatment, reports the Wall Street Journal . The retraction is now renewing the hope that the drugs (highly touted by President Trump ) can work safely after all, and the World Health Organization already has said it would resume trials, notes the New York Times .
"It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute to this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use," says Harvard's Mandeep Mehra, who was the lead author of both studies. "For that, and for all the disruptions—both directly and indirectly—I am truly sorry." Both studies listed as a co-author Surgisphere founder/CEO Sapan Desai, whose name appears only on the NEMJ retraction. His company claims to have collected patient data from hospitals all over the world, but now red flags are going up. The Journal, for instance, got in touch with a dozen big US hospitals, and none shared patient data with the company. Surgisphere previously said it couldn't name the 671 hospitals in the Lancet study out of privacy concerns. The controversy illustrates the rushed state of research amid the pandemic, notes the Times. (Read more hydroxychloroquine stories.)


bonginoreport--2020-06-05--Diane Feinstein Defends Robert Mueller’s “Extensive Brain Cells”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham warned Democrats they should `` think twice '' about inviting former special counsel Robert Mueller to testify again about his nearly two-year Russia investigation .
Mueller 's mental acuity , which came into question last year following halting testimony about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump , became a topic of discussion during a Thursday debate on granting Graham subpoena power in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein , the ranking member from California , said there are `` many outstanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller was the `` best suited '' to answer them .
Graham showered praise on Mueller but cautioned against calling the former FBI director in to testify .
`` Mr. Mueller is a great patriot who served this country for a long period of time .
I 'm not averse to having somebody from the Mueller team come and tell the committee what they did and how they did it .
As a matter of fact , I think that 's a really good idea .
I 'm not so sure Mr. Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but maybe Mr. Weissmann , '' he said , referring to Andrew Weissmann , a former Justice Department and FBI official who was a top prosecutor on Mueller 's team .
`` I agree with you , '' he added .
`` I think we need to understand how the Mueller team worked .
And I am very open to getting somebody from the Mueller team over here over the course of our inquiry . ''
`` I think Mr. Mueller is a man of extensive brain cells and can well recall the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think this side would very much like to have him here . ''
Later on in the meeting , Graham signaled he would consent to their demand but with a word of caution .
`` As to Mr. Mueller : If you want to call him , I will , '' Graham said , followed by a long pause .
`` I would just ask you to think twice about that .
If you can find somebody else involved in the Mueller investigation that would serve your purposes , I am very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller wrapped up his two-year investigation last spring .
His team was unable to find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia , but it did lay out 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice that Democrats seized on as a road map to impeachment .
The investigation did , however , lead to convictions and guilty pleas from Trump associates over charges unrelated to Russia collusion .
Trump and many of his allies have long derided the investigation as a `` witch hunt , '' and there are now efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress to seek out any misconduct by the investigators .
Mueller ’ s mental sharpness was scrutinized in July when he testified to Congress about the Russia investigation and appeared not to know key facts about the investigation .
He was previously considered to be sharp and competent .
People `` very close '' to Mueller , now 75 , claimed they believed “ something happened ” to the former FBI director over the course of the two-year Russia investigation , Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig said in January , One prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff , said in a recent podcast that he was surprised by Mueller 's shaky testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees .
The California Democrat agreed when asked whether he was `` shocked '' during a Daily Beast podcast last month .
`` I have known Bob Mueller for a long time .
I have tremendous respect for him .
I think he is just an amazing human being and public servant , '' Schiff said .
`` He was not the man that I knew just in terms of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was quite surprising . ''
Republican political consultant Rick Wilson , one of the hosts of the New Abnormal podcast , offered his take on why `` a lot '' of people felt the same way .
`` I do think a lot of folks had projected on Mueller a level of aggression that was not present in that testimony — in that hearing , '' he said .

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham warned Democrats they should "think twice" about inviting former special counsel Robert Mueller to testify again about his nearly two-year Russia investigation.
Mueller's mental acuity, which came into question last year following halting testimony about his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump, became a topic of discussion during a Thursday debate on granting Graham subpoena power in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member from California, said there are "many outstanding questions that remain unanswered" and insisted Mueller was the "best suited" to answer them.
Graham showered praise on Mueller but cautioned against calling the former FBI director in to testify.
"Mr. Mueller is a great patriot who served this country for a long period of time. I'm not averse to having somebody from the Mueller team come and tell the committee what they did and how they did it. As a matter of fact, I think that's a really good idea. I'm not so sure Mr. Mueller would be the best person now, but maybe Mr. Weissmann," he said, referring to Andrew Weissmann, a former Justice Department and FBI official who was a top prosecutor on Mueller's team.
"I agree with you," he added. "I think we need to understand how the Mueller team worked. And I am very open to getting somebody from the Mueller team over here over the course of our inquiry."
Feinstein then offered a defense of Mueller's mental ability.
"I think Mr. Mueller is a man of extensive brain cells and can well recall the situation," she said. "I think this side would very much like to have him here."
Later on in the meeting, Graham signaled he would consent to their demand but with a word of caution.
"As to Mr. Mueller: If you want to call him, I will," Graham said, followed by a long pause. "I would just ask you to think twice about that. If you can find somebody else involved in the Mueller investigation that would serve your purposes, I am very open-minded to calling that person."
Mueller wrapped up his two-year investigation last spring. His team was unable to find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, but it did lay out 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice that Democrats seized on as a road map to impeachment. The investigation did, however, lead to convictions and guilty pleas from Trump associates over charges unrelated to Russia collusion.
Trump and many of his allies have long derided the investigation as a "witch hunt," and there are now efforts underway by the Justice Department and Republicans in Congress to seek out any misconduct by the investigators.
Mueller’s mental sharpness was scrutinized in July when he testified to Congress about the Russia investigation and appeared not to know key facts about the investigation. He was previously considered to be sharp and competent. People "very close" to Mueller, now 75, claimed they believed “something happened” to the former FBI director over the course of the two-year Russia investigation, Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig said in January,
One prominent Democrat, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, said in a recent podcast that he was surprised by Mueller's shaky testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. The California Democrat agreed when asked whether he was "shocked" during a Daily Beast podcast last month.
"I have known Bob Mueller for a long time. I have tremendous respect for him. I think he is just an amazing human being and public servant," Schiff said. "He was not the man that I knew just in terms of his strength of presence, and so it was quite surprising."
Republican political consultant Rick Wilson, one of the hosts of the New Abnormal podcast, offered his take on why "a lot" of people felt the same way.
"I do think a lot of folks had projected on Mueller a level of aggression that was not present in that testimony — in that hearing," he said.


bonginoreport--2020-06-06--Dr. Fauci Cautions That Nationwide Protests Are a “Perfect Set-Up” for Spreading Coroanvirus

• Dr. Anthony Fauci said that many of the protests against racism and police brutality taking place across the country , involving congregation of large crowds , raises the risk for transmission of COVID-19 .
• Fauci told DC-radio station WTOP on Friday that `` it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges . ''
• Fauci emphasized that while protesters have a constitutional right to demonstrate , people gathering closely together , chanting , and possibly not wearing masks increases the likelihood of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delicate balance , because the reasons for demonstrating are valid , '' he said .
`` And yet , the demonstration itself puts one at an additional risk . ''
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said in a Friday interview on D.C.-based radio station WTOP he is concerned that the widespread protests taking place across the country could raise the risk of new COVID-19 outbreaks as the country seeks to re-open .
`` Every time I hear about or see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and geographic area where there is active infection transmission , it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges , '' Fauci said .
`` So I get very concerned . ''
Fauci emphasized that while demonstrators have both a constitutional right and a good reason to protest , he noted that people gathering in close proximity , shouting and chanting , and possibly being exposed to tear gas or pepper spray – crowd-controlling irritants that make people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes — increases the risk of transmitting the virus .
`` There certainly is a risk , I would say that with confidence , when you see the congregation of crowds , '' he said , `` particularly in a situation where you have a lot of confusion and a little bit of chaos , people running back and forth , taking their masks off , being close in proximity , that does pose a risk . ''
Fauci , who has frequently spoken out about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters are weighing between taking advantage of a constitutional right to demonstrate and possibly heightening the risk of creating new outbreaks .
`` It is a difficult situation , '' Fauci said .
`` We have the right to peaceably demonstrate , and the demonstrators are exercising that right ... it 's important to exercise your constitutional rights to be able to demonstrate , but it 's a delicate balance , because the reasons for demonstrating are valid .
And yet , the demonstration itself puts one at an additional risk . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself should caution protesters to wear a mask and keep it on at all times if they do go out to protest .
In addition to the COVID-19 crisis hitting black communities especially hard , other health experts have highlighted that police violence disproportionately affecting communities of color is , in and of itself , a public health crisis , as Insider 's Canela López recently reported .
`` One in every 1,000 Black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country , '' Harvard Medical School epidemiologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To me , this clearly illustrates why police brutality is a public health problem ; anything that causes mortality at such a scale is a public health problem . ''
`` People have asked 'what do the protests mean for COVID-19 transmission ? '
'' , epidemiologist Helen Jenkins recently wrote on Twitter .
`` My thoughts : The issue of violence against black people & the wider issue of systemic racism is big enough and endemic enough that it needs to be addressed now & I whole-heartedly support the protesters . ''

Dr. Anthony Fauci said that many of the protests against racism and police brutality taking place across the country, involving congregation of large crowds, raises the risk for transmission of COVID-19.
Fauci told DC-radio station WTOP on Friday that "it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges."
Fauci emphasized that while protesters have a constitutional right to demonstrate, people gathering closely together, chanting, and possibly not wearing masks increases the likelihood of more outbreaks.
"It's a delicate balance, because the reasons for demonstrating are valid," he said. "And yet, the demonstration itself puts one at an additional risk."
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in business, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley — delivered daily. Loading Something is loading. Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in a Friday interview on D.C.-based radio station WTOP he is concerned that the widespread protests taking place across the country could raise the risk of new COVID-19 outbreaks as the country seeks to re-open.
"Every time I hear about or see the congregation of large crowds at a time and geographic area where there is active infection transmission, it is a perfect set-up for the spread of the virus in the sense of creating these blips that might turn into some surges," Fauci said. "So I get very concerned."
Fauci emphasized that while demonstrators have both a constitutional right and a good reason to protest, he noted that people gathering in close proximity, shouting and chanting, and possibly being exposed to tear gas or pepper spray – crowd-controlling irritants that make people cough, sneeze, and rub their eyes — increases the risk of transmitting the virus.
"There certainly is a risk, I would say that with confidence, when you see the congregation of crowds," he said, "particularly in a situation where you have a lot of confusion and a little bit of chaos, people running back and forth, taking their masks off, being close in proximity, that does pose a risk."
Fauci, who has frequently spoken out about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on black communities, acknowledged the tricky trade-off many protesters are weighing between taking advantage of a constitutional right to demonstrate and possibly heightening the risk of creating new outbreaks.
"It is a difficult situation," Fauci said. "We have the right to peaceably demonstrate, and the demonstrators are exercising that right...it's important to exercise your constitutional rights to be able to demonstrate, but it's a delicate balance, because the reasons for demonstrating are valid. And yet, the demonstration itself puts one at an additional risk."
Fauci said that public health officials like himself should caution protesters to wear a mask and keep it on at all times if they do go out to protest.
In addition to the COVID-19 crisis hitting black communities especially hard, other health experts have highlighted that police violence disproportionately affecting communities of color is, in and of itself, a public health crisis, as Insider's Canela López recently reported.
"One in every 1,000 Black men and boys can expect to be killed by police in this country," Harvard Medical School epidemiologist Dr. Maia Majumder told Vox. "To me, this clearly illustrates why police brutality is a public health problem; anything that causes mortality at such a scale is a public health problem."
"People have asked 'what do the protests mean for COVID-19 transmission?'", epidemiologist Helen Jenkins recently wrote on Twitter. "My thoughts: The issue of violence against black people & the wider issue of systemic racism is big enough and endemic enough that it needs to be addressed now & I whole-heartedly support the protesters."


bonginoreport--2020-06-06--Chinese Nationals Sentenced for Entering and Photographing U.S. Naval Station

Three Chinese nationals were sentenced to prison after they illegally entered a restricted area at a US Navy base in Florida and took pictures , the Associated Press reported Friday .
Chinese national Liao Lyuyou , 27 , pleaded guilty to illegally entering the Naval Air Station Key West on Dec. 26 and taking photographs and video of property , according to the U.S. Attorney ’ s vOffice of the South District of Florida , the Associated Press reported .
Lyuyou was sentenced to 12 months in prison .
Jielun Zhang , 25 , and Yuhao Wang , 24 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jan. 4 and were sentenced to 12 months and 9 months in prison , respectively , for taking photographs of property .
Additionally , all three were ordered to serve one year of probation .
Liao was verbally warned not to enter the restricted area but did anyway , taking pictures of an annex and government buildings near sensitive military facilities , according to CNN .
He circumvented a security fence that had multiple warnings on it and walked into restricted areas , later telling officials that he reads and understands English better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also told officials that he was trying to take photos of the sunrise .
When military police looked through his camera , they saw images of the Truman Annex and photos of other government buildings , CNN reported .
( RELATED : US Ramps Up Crackdown On China ’ s Spying Efforts During Coronavirus ) Jielun and Yuhao arrived a week later at the guard station , and did not obey the security officer ’ s orders when they were told to leave the facility after not being able to provide military identification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premises for roughly 30 minutes .
With proper consent , officers searched their cell phones and cameras and found pictures of US military structures .
The U.S. government “ secretly expelled ” two Chinese Embassy officials in September 2019 after they drove onto a restricted military base in Virginia , and were suspected of espionage .
American officials believe at least one of the Chinese officials was an intelligence officer , according to the New York Times .

Three Chinese nationals were sentenced to prison after they illegally entered a restricted area at a US Navy base in Florida and took pictures, the Associated Press reported Friday.
Chinese national Liao Lyuyou, 27, pleaded guilty to illegally entering the Naval Air Station Key West on Dec. 26 and taking photographs and video of property, according to the U.S. Attorney’s vOffice of the South District of Florida, the Associated Press reported. Lyuyou was sentenced to 12 months in prison.
Jielun Zhang, 25, and Yuhao Wang, 24, illegally entered the same naval air station Jan. 4 and were sentenced to 12 months and 9 months in prison, respectively, for taking photographs of property. Additionally, all three were ordered to serve one year of probation.
Liao was verbally warned not to enter the restricted area but did anyway, taking pictures of an annex and government buildings near sensitive military facilities, according to CNN.
He circumvented a security fence that had multiple warnings on it and walked into restricted areas, later telling officials that he reads and understands English better than he can speak it. He also told officials that he was trying to take photos of the sunrise. When military police looked through his camera, they saw images of the Truman Annex and photos of other government buildings, CNN reported. (RELATED: US Ramps Up Crackdown On China’s Spying Efforts During Coronavirus)
Jielun and Yuhao arrived a week later at the guard station, and did not obey the security officer’s orders when they were told to leave the facility after not being able to provide military identification.
The two instead stayed at the premises for roughly 30 minutes. With proper consent, officers searched their cell phones and cameras and found pictures of US military structures.
The expulsions appear to be the first of Chinese diplomats suspected of espionage in more than 30 years. https://t.co/XOMEDyaBMm — Caitlin Yilek (@hausofcait) December 15, 2019
The U.S. government “secretly expelled” two Chinese Embassy officials in September 2019 after they drove onto a restricted military base in Virginia, and were suspected of espionage. American officials believe at least one of the Chinese officials was an intelligence officer, according to the New York Times.


bonginoreport--2020-06-06--The ACLU Unmasks Their Hypocrisy

The ACLU Unmasks Their Hypocrisy

After months of silence , the ACLU has finally taken a stand to protect civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Their stand , however , is not against the draconian lockdowns of society which have destroyed millions of jobs and ruined millions of lives .
No , instead of supporting freedom-loving , law-abiding people who want to work , eat out , travel , and educate their children , the ACLU is standing up for violent rioters and anarchists who want to burn down American cities .
Thus , on Wednesday , ACLU senior counsel Ahilan Arulanantham sent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barger urging her to lift the curfews that county officials have imposed during the past few days .
The letter , portions of which were published by the Los Angeles Times , argues that the Constitution does not permit the county to order such a sweeping restriction on free speech and travel to address “ a few localized attacks on property.
” The ACLU ’ s hypocrisy is jarring .
After all , just two months ago , ACLU legal director David Cole defended the indefinite lockdowns of society , telling USA Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being constrained right now .
They are restricted because there ’ s a reason to restrict them .
In a time like this , you have to defer substantially to public health experts.
” If public health experts have the discretion to lock down entire states for months , certainly law enforcement experts should have the discretion to impose a curfew for a few days to protect people and property from violent looters .
But that ’ s not how the ACLU sees it .
According to Arulanantham , this “ unlawful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency in the entire county that effectively places over 10 million people under house arrest for twelve hours every evening and morning.
” Has the ACLU been paying attention ?
Los Angeles County residents have effectively been under house arrest since March .
They ’ ve been stuck at home not because of anything they did but because of fear .
If fear of a virus can justify the indefinite lockdown of society , surely unlawful conduct like violent looting can justify a 12-hour curfew .
But that ’ s the problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people—law-abiding people who run businesses , pay their taxes , and respect the police—followed them .
As I ’ ve previously written , these lockdowns weren ’ t necessary .
Curfews , on the other hand , are necessary .
Of course , any sort of lockdown should be narrowly and appropriately tailored , lasting no longer than necessary .
Importantly , they should ensure that peaceful protestors have the right to gather at a reasonable time , place , and manner .
But the government has both the authority and the duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looting .
Indeed , during the riots that followed the Rodney King verdict in 1992 , Long Beach adopted a curfew between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. to stop rioting there .
In the case In re Juan C. ( 1993 ) , the family of a 14-year-old who was arrested and convicted of violating the curfew challenged it .
A panel of the California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction .
It stated that , like flooding , fire , and disease : Those interests also outweigh any First Amendment rights that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus , the court in In re Juan C. held that , as in other cases , a curfew could be used “ as a reasonable means of protecting the public welfare.
” The key is that the curfew is tailored and temporary , as it was in the In re Juan C. case .
In the past , courts have struck down indefinite curfews that were not issued in response to rioting and looting but were used as generic crime-fighting tools .
The Los Angeles curfew mimics the curfew from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court is going to strike it down , provided that the County lifts it soon .
Meanwhile , the ACLU should use its newfound interest in the Constitution to lobby California and its municipalities to lift their indefinite lockdown orders .
Ending the lockdowns will make a bigger difference than ending a temporary , 12-hour curfew—and it could help the ACLU get some of its credibility back .

After months of silence, the ACLU has finally taken a stand to protect civil liberties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Their stand, however, is not against the draconian lockdowns of society which have destroyed millions of jobs and ruined millions of lives. No, instead of supporting freedom-loving, law-abiding people who want to work, eat out, travel, and educate their children, the ACLU is standing up for violent rioters and anarchists who want to burn down American cities.
Thus, on Wednesday, ACLU senior counsel Ahilan Arulanantham sent a letter to Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger urging her to lift the curfews that county officials have imposed during the past few days.
The letter, portions of which were published by the Los Angeles Times, argues that the Constitution does not permit the county to order such a sweeping restriction on free speech and travel to address “a few localized attacks on property.”
The ACLU’s hypocrisy is jarring. After all, just two months ago, ACLU legal director David Cole defended the indefinite lockdowns of society, telling USA Today: “All kinds of constitutional liberties are being constrained right now. They are restricted because there’s a reason to restrict them. In a time like this, you have to defer substantially to public health experts.”
If public health experts have the discretion to lock down entire states for months, certainly law enforcement experts should have the discretion to impose a curfew for a few days to protect people and property from violent looters.
But that’s not how the ACLU sees it. According to Arulanantham, this “unlawful conduct cannot justify a state of emergency in the entire county that effectively places over 10 million people under house arrest for twelve hours every evening and morning.”
Has the ACLU been paying attention? Los Angeles County residents have effectively been under house arrest since March. They’ve been stuck at home not because of anything they did but because of fear. If fear of a virus can justify the indefinite lockdown of society, surely unlawful conduct like violent looting can justify a 12-hour curfew.
But that’s the problem with the lockdowns. They only worked because people—law-abiding people who run businesses, pay their taxes, and respect the police—followed them.
As I’ve previously written, these lockdowns weren’t necessary. Curfews, on the other hand, are necessary. Of course, any sort of lockdown should be narrowly and appropriately tailored, lasting no longer than necessary. Importantly, they should ensure that peaceful protestors have the right to gather at a reasonable time, place, and manner.
But the government has both the authority and the duty to protect communities from violent rioting and looting. Indeed, during the riots that followed the Rodney King verdict in 1992, Long Beach adopted a curfew between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. to stop rioting there.
In the case In re Juan C. (1993), the family of a 14-year-old who was arrested and convicted of violating the curfew challenged it. A panel of the California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. It stated that, like flooding, fire, and disease:
…rioting, looting and burning pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew. The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right. Temporary restrictions on the right to travel at night are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely.
Those interests also outweigh any First Amendment rights that may be chilled by a 12-hour curfew. Thus, the court in In re Juan C. held that, as in other cases, a curfew could be used “as a reasonable means of protecting the public welfare.” The key is that the curfew is tailored and temporary, as it was in the In re Juan C. case. In the past, courts have struck down indefinite curfews that were not issued in response to rioting and looting but were used as generic crime-fighting tools.
The Los Angeles curfew mimics the curfew from the In re Juan C. case. No court is going to strike it down, provided that the County lifts it soon. Meanwhile, the ACLU should use its newfound interest in the Constitution to lobby California and its municipalities to lift their indefinite lockdown orders. Ending the lockdowns will make a bigger difference than ending a temporary, 12-hour curfew—and it could help the ACLU get some of its credibility back.
Scott Street is a Democratic lawyer and consultant in Los Angeles. He regularly writes about legal and political issues.


bonginoreport--2020-06-06--GOP Ramps Up Legal Assault Against “Mail-In” Ballots

Republicans on Friday night stepped up their legal assault on expanding mail-in voting , asking a federal judge to issue @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Gavin Newsom from mailing ballots to all voters in the state .
The @ @ @ @ @ National Republican Congressional Committee , and the Republican Party of California filed the request in @ @ @ @ @ a pause in Newsom 's plan while they argue their lawsuit 's claims that Newsom @ @ @ @ @ ballots without safeguards is an illegal and brazen power grab .
`` Not only does @ @ @ @ @ to declare California a vote-by-mail state , the content of the order itself is a @ @ @ @ @ that would damage the integrity of elections in the state .
We will continue to @ @ @ @ @ laws are upheld and that California Democrats like Newsom can not continue their assault on @ @ @ @ @ , '' RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said .
You can read about the Republicans earlier @ @ @

Republicans on Friday night stepped up their legal assault on expanding mail-in voting, asking a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction stopping California Gov. Gavin Newsom from mailing ballots to all voters in the state.
The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the Republican Party of California filed the request in U.S. District Court, seeking a pause in Newsom's plan while they argue their lawsuit's claims that Newsom executive order to send absentee ballots without safeguards is an illegal and brazen power grab.
"Not only does Governor Newsom lack the authority to declare California a vote-by-mail state, the content of the order itself is a brazen and illegal power grab that would damage the integrity of elections in the state. We will continue to fight to ensure current election laws are upheld and that California Democrats like Newsom cannot continue their assault on the integrity of our elections," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said.
You can read about the Republicans earlier lawsuit here:
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/republicans-sue-california-gov-gavin-newsom-mail-voter-plan


bonginoreport--2020-06-06--Hostage Released From Iran Sends Thanks to Trump for ‘Making America Great Again’

How about we end the week with a good news story ?
Well , another good news story .
The first one this morning was huge – the May jobs report was a stunner , in the best way .
A Navy veteran held hostage in Iran was released Thursday after being held for almost two years .
Michael White traveled to Iran to visit his Iranian girlfriend in July 2018 and was imprisoned .
In March 2019 he was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges that he had insulted Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because of the coronavirus pandemic , he was recently placed on medical furlough but required to stay in the country .
He was released to the Swiss embassy .
Mr. White , a 48-year-old cancer patient , specifically thanked President Trump for his release and for “ making America great again.
” “ I do want to extend my personal thanks to President Trump for his efforts both diplomatically and otherwise to making America great again .
And I look forward to what ’ s going to happen here in the future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition has improved since being released , though noting he contracted COVID-19 while in Iran prior to being placed on furlough .
“ Getting a lot better as a result of Swiss Embassy and all the efforts of the Trump administration , ” he said .
The New York Times is calling the release of Michael R. White a prisoner exchange .
The Times reports the release of White is proof that despite the tension between the United States and Iran , the two countries have a line of communication open .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and the return of an Iranian scientist held by the American authorities to Iran is connected to the release of White .
Mr. White was flown out of Iran as federal prosecutors in Atlanta completed arrangements releasing an Iranian-American doctor who had been convicted in a 2018 exports violation case .
The doctor , Matteo Taerri , also known as Majid Taheri , who has lived in both Florida and the Atlanta area for many years , will be permitted to visit Iran , said Steven P. Berne , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exchange of Dr. Taerri for Mr. White had been proceeding quietly for months .
“ It ’ s a happy ending for all , ” he said by telephone .
Mr. White ’ s release also came a day after an Iranian scientist , Sirous Asgari , who had been held by United States immigration authorities for months , arrived in Tehran .
Both men had been infected with the coronavirus while in custody , and Iranian officials had indicated they would release Mr. White after the scientist had returned home .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her son ’ s release .
In a statement on Thursday , Joanne White , his mother , thanked the State Department and Swiss diplomats representing U.S. interests in Iran for helping to secure her son ’ s return home , saying she owes them “ a debt I can never repay.
” “ For the past 683 days my son , Michael , has been held hostage in Iran by the IRGC and I have been living a nightmare , ” Joanne White said .
“ I am blessed to announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my son is safely on his way home.
” U.S. Special Representative for Iran , Brian Hook , is credited for negotiating White ’ s release .
Bill Richardson , former New Mexico governor and former U.S .
Ambassador to the United Nations played a role in raising White ’ s with the Iranians .
“ We are bringing another American home .
Michael White , a U.S. Navy veteran who has been wrongfully jailed in Iran for nearly two years , has been released , ” Pompeo said in a statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the United States , where we look forward to reuniting him with his family .
I commend U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook for negotiating Mr. White ’ s release with the Iranians .
I thank the Swiss government and the work of our diplomats for facilitating this successful diplomacy.
” President Trump has had a notable amount of success in the release of U.S. citizens held hostage around the world .
He tweeted about White ’ s return .
Iran ’ s foreign minister , Mohammad Javad Zarif , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He claims a number of Iranians are being illegally held in the United States .
Prisoner releases are part of the Trump administration ’ s 12 demands made to Iran in order to ease sanctions and re-establish diplomatic and commercial ties in 2019 .
White ’ s mother says her son will tell his story when he is ready .

How about we end the week with a good news story? Well, another good news story. The first one this morning was huge – the May jobs report was a stunner, in the best way. A Navy veteran held hostage in Iran was released Thursday after being held for almost two years.
Michael White traveled to Iran to visit his Iranian girlfriend in July 2018 and was imprisoned. In March 2019 he was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges that he had insulted Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and posted a private photo on social media. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, he was recently placed on medical furlough but required to stay in the country. He was released to the Swiss embassy.
Mr. White, a 48-year-old cancer patient, specifically thanked President Trump for his release and for “making America great again.”
“I do want to extend my personal thanks to President Trump for his efforts both diplomatically and otherwise to making America great again. And I look forward to what’s going to happen here in the future,” White said. White said his condition has improved since being released, though noting he contracted COVID-19 while in Iran prior to being placed on furlough. “Getting a lot better as a result of Swiss Embassy and all the efforts of the Trump administration,” he said.
The New York Times is calling the release of Michael R. White a prisoner exchange. The Times reports the release of White is proof that despite the tension between the United States and Iran, the two countries have a line of communication open. An Iranian-American doctor convicted of export violations in the United States and the return of an Iranian scientist held by the American authorities to Iran is connected to the release of White.
Mr. White was flown out of Iran as federal prosecutors in Atlanta completed arrangements releasing an Iranian-American doctor who had been convicted in a 2018 exports violation case. The doctor, Matteo Taerri, also known as Majid Taheri, who has lived in both Florida and the Atlanta area for many years, will be permitted to visit Iran, said Steven P. Berne, his lawyer. Mr. Berne said negotiations involving the exchange of Dr. Taerri for Mr. White had been proceeding quietly for months. “It’s a happy ending for all,” he said by telephone. Mr. White’s release also came a day after an Iranian scientist, Sirous Asgari, who had been held by United States immigration authorities for months, arrived in Tehran. Both men had been infected with the coronavirus while in custody, and Iranian officials had indicated they would release Mr. White after the scientist had returned home.
White’s mother broke the news of her son’s release.
In a statement on Thursday, Joanne White, his mother, thanked the State Department and Swiss diplomats representing U.S. interests in Iran for helping to secure her son’s return home, saying she owes them “a debt I can never repay.” “For the past 683 days my son, Michael, has been held hostage in Iran by the IRGC and I have been living a nightmare,” Joanne White said. “I am blessed to announce that the nightmare is over, and my son is safely on his way home.”
U.S. Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, is credited for negotiating White’s release. Bill Richardson, former New Mexico governor and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations played a role in raising White’s with the Iranians.
Secretary of State Pompeo released a statement and acknowledged Hook.
“We are bringing another American home. Michael White, a U.S. Navy veteran who has been wrongfully jailed in Iran for nearly two years, has been released,” Pompeo said in a statement. “He is now on his way back to the United States, where we look forward to reuniting him with his family. I commend U.S. Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook for negotiating Mr. White’s release with the Iranians. I thank the Swiss government and the work of our diplomats for facilitating this successful diplomacy.”
President Trump has had a notable amount of success in the release of U.S. citizens held hostage around the world. He tweeted about White’s return.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1268670884501426182
Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, suggests more such exchanges are possible. He claims a number of Iranians are being illegally held in the United States.
Pleased that Dr. Majid Taheri and Mr. White will soon be joining their families. Prof. Sirous Asgari was happily reunited with his family on Weds. This can happen for all prisoners. No need for cherry picking. Iranian hostages held in—and on behalf of—the US should come home. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) June 4, 2020
Prisoner releases are part of the Trump administration’s 12 demands made to Iran in order to ease sanctions and re-establish diplomatic and commercial ties in 2019.
White’s mother says her son will tell his story when he is ready.