bonginoreport--2020-06-07--Media Twists President Trump’s Words to Stir Racial Strife

After falsely accusing the U.S. Park Police of tear-gassing peaceful protesters on behalf of President Trump , many media outlets and politicians are claiming that he called on governors to forcibly “ dominate protestors.
” Quite the opposite , Trump explicitly stated he is an “ ally of all peaceful protesters ” and that it is the “ professional anarchists , violent mobs , arsonists , looters ” and other lawbreakers who should be stopped .
Beyond their failure to draw a distinction between peaceful demonstrators and violent lawbreakers , the same cadre of media outlets are stirring racial strife @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a false picture of systemic police violence against African Americans .
Also , contrary to antifa supporters and others who assert that government has no obligation to protect citizens from theft , property destruction , and violence , the Constitutional facts prove that federal , state , and local governments are required to do just that .
Moreover , it is their primary duty and core reason for their existence .
During a conference call with the nation ’ s governors on June 1st , President Trump told them that they need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rioters , and people who are assaulting others .
He emphasized that some of these crimes were caught “ on tape ” and the perpetrators need to be arrested and prosecuted .
To stop the carnage caused by such lawbreakers , Trump told the governors that they “ have to dominate.
” As an example of this , he complimented Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for restoring order with help from the National Guard and stated “ I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days.
” Later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump gave a speech in which he reiterated : “ Today , I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.
” Making clear that he was not talking about peaceful demonstrators , he stressed that he is “ an ally of all peaceful protesters ” and : • “ we can not allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.
” • “ the biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I will fight to keep them safe.
” • “ a number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents.
” • “ innocent people have been savagely beaten , like the young man in Dallas , Texas , who was left dying on the street , or the woman in Upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs.
” • “ these are not acts of peaceful protest .
These are acts of domestic terror.
” • “ all Americans were rightly sickened and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd .
My administration is fully committed that , for George and his family , justice will be served.
” Yet , a slew of media outlets and politicians distorted the president ’ s words by claiming that he told governors to “ dominate protesters.
” This includes but is not limited to CNN , Bloomberg News , Newsweek , and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer .
The New York Times amplified the disinformation and drama by reporting that “ Trump vowed to ‘ dominate ’ protesters ” and has deployed the “ full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests.
” CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper took it another step further by saying that Trump “ seems to think that dominating black people , dominating peaceful protesters is law and order.
” This is akin to what many media outlets , politicians , and activists did in 2017 when they accused Trump of calling white supremacists “ very fine people.
” In reality , Trump used that phrase to describe “ innocent ” protestors—and at the same press conference—he explicitly “ condemned ” the white supremacists two times , said they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasized that he was not calling them “ very fine people.
” A reporter at the conference even tried to put this spin on his words , and Trump responded , “ No , no.
” Yet , three years later , Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns of the New York Times are still repeating this falsehood .
In addition to twisting Trump ’ s words in a racially provocative manner , many people with large public platforms are also distorting the facts about police violence against African Americans .
This , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hatred , and murders of police officers .
For one of many examples , the editorial board of the New York Times recently published a commentary titled “ America ’ s Protests Won ’ t Stop Until Police Brutality Does.
” As proof that police are systemically violent and racist , they named 12 “ black Americans brutalized or killed by law enforcement , ” starting with George Floyd and going back to Amadou Diallo in 1999 .
This list also includes Michael Brown , despite the fact the Obama administration Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the police officer shot Brown in a clear-cut case of self-defense .
The Times editors claim there are “ countless more ” such cases ; yet they populated this list with a patently false one .
Most importantly , the 12 cases cited by the Times occurred over 21 years and amount to roughly one out of every 27,0000 murders committed over this period .
Like the Times editorial , virtually every major media outlet repetitively focus on just a few of the 15,000 murders and 6.9 million violent crimes that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the potential to stir racial strife .
The same outlets then use these cases , which amount to a minuscule fraction of all violence , to spread false , sweeping narratives .
Such journalism exploits the statistical fact that anecdotes can be highly deceitful and the psychological fact that people are easily misled by them because it ’ s easier to grasp stories than data .
It is also disregards the Times own news and editorial standards , which claim that “ we tell our readers the complete , unvarnished truth as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same Times editorial claims that “ racial inequality remains rampant ” in “ enforcement of the law , ” but the comprehensive facts of this matter reveal just the opposite .
As documented in a 2018 paper in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science : • “ The most common means of testing for racial disparity in police use of deadly force is to compare the odds of being fatally shot for blacks to the odds of being fatally shot for whites.
” • That common approach is misleading because it uses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people commit life-threatening crimes at the same rates .
• The cogent way to analyze this issue is to compare the odds of being fatally shot to each race ’ s “ involvement in those situations where the police may be more likely to use deadly force.
” • Based on four different national datasets on “ murder/nonnegligent manslaughter , violent crime , and weapons violations , ” “ in nearly every case , whites were either more likely to be fatally shot by police or police showed no significant disparity in either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the left-leaning Center for Policing Equity reveals that police are 42 % less likely to use lethal force when arresting black people than when arresting whites .
Yet , the authors of this study buried that data on the 19th page of a 29-page report .
Then , the Washington Post cited this report as proof that police are more likely to kill blacks than whites and that there is “ there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.
” Other facts about murder rates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point to the same conclusion : the allegation of systemic violence by whites and police against people of color is false .
Even though there more than 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the U.S. , some argue that even one unjust killing by a police officer is too much .
Regardless of whether this ideal is achievable , it is irrational to accuse police of systemic racism based on the actions of far less than 1 % of them .
Especially since comprehensive facts show nothing of the sort .
Trump began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ My first and highest duty as President is to defend our great country and the American people.
” He later said that “ a number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents , ” and that he would “ protect the rights of law-abiding Americans ” if they do not .
Contrary to those who argue that federal and state governments have no Constitutional obligation to protect the rights of citizens , Trump is correct that this is his and their foremost duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s statement mirrors the Declaration of Independence , which established the foundational principles of the U.S. government and its obligations to the people .
Like Trump ’ s speech , the opening sentence of this seminal document states that “ Governments are instituted ” to “ secure ” people ’ s “ rights.
” Likewise , James Madison—the primary author of the Bill of Rights and Father of the Constitution ” : • stated at the Constitutional Convention that the defining purpose of the new government they were forming was to provide “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.
” • wrote in the Federalist Papers that “ the first object of government ” is the “ protection ” of the “ faculties of men , from which the rights of property originate.
” However , the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights left most of those responsibilities to the states , many of which were unwilling to join the union unless they maintained a large degree of independence .
As summarized by a 1991 paper in the Duke Law Review , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protection of the rights of individuals under the control of the states.
” As such , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1833 case of Barron v Baltimore that the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights only had to be respected by the federal government and could be infringed by state governments .
That changed after the Civil War with the 13th Amendment ’ s ban on slavery and the later passage of the 14th Amendment , which forbids states from : • enacting or enforcing “ any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immunities of citizens of the United States.
” • depriving “ any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law.
” • denying “ any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
” The Amendment also gives the U.S. Congress the “ power to enforce , by appropriate legislation , the provisions ” above .
Congress had since passed multitudes of such laws , and the President “ is responsible for implementing and enforcing ” them .
The primary impetus for the 14th Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the newly freed African Americans and failing to protect them from groups like the Ku Klux Klan that were terrorizing and killing them .
Hence , Congressman John Bingham ( R–OH ) , who drafted the 14th Amendment and introduced it in the House of Representatives , repeatedly stated that it would require state governments to provide “ equal protection ” to every person ’ s “ life , liberty , and property.
” The same applies to local governments , which are offsprings of the states .
As detailed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guide for Municipal and County Managers , “ Local governments derive their authority from their states ” and “ have no independent authority unless the state grants it to them.
” Despite the 14th Amendment and the founders declarations that the main purpose of government is to protect people ’ s rights , there are some who claim that the Constitution does not require federal or state governments to defend people ’ s life , liberty , or property .
For a prime example , P.E .
Moskowitz writes in The Nation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens ( members of antifa or otherwise ) from interrupting someone ’ s protest .
Nor does it guarantee police protection for white nationalists .
It only limits the ability of Congress from passing laws that interfere with speech.
” This blatant half-truth ignores the 14th Amendment , which requires all governments to equally protect the Constitutional rights of all people .
Other such arguments are grounded in misinterpretations of court decisions .
One of the most common is Warren v. District of Columbia , in which the majority of judges on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the District that stemmed from its failure to protect three women from two men who held them captive , beat , and raped them for 14 hours after they called the police for help .
According to Scott Unzicker writing at Guns.com , the Warren ruling means “ that police have no legal obligation to ‘ protect and serve ’ the population.
” However , the ruling says just the opposite but notes that this duty can not be enforced through a private lawsuit for “ negligence ” except under special circumstances : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately , the law properly does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages.
” • “ The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large , and , absent a special relationship between the police and an individual , no specific legal duty exists.
” • “ Dereliction in the performance of police duties may , therefore , be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and not in a private suit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ’ s 1989 ruling in DeShaney v. Winnebago as evidence that the Constitution does not require government to defend people .
In reality , the decision is far more narrow and declares “ that a State ’ s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause ” of the 14th Amendment .
The Due Process clause forbids states from depriving “ any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law , ” and thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is “ a limitation on the State ’ s power to act , not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.
” However , the Court also noted that a state “ may not , of course , selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.
” That last statement accords with John Bingham ’ s answer to a question posed to him by Congressman Robert Hale ( R–NY ) , a leading opponent of the 14th Amendment .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hale asked him if it gives Congress powers to protect people ’ s “ life , liberty , and personal property.
” Bingham replied that it “ certainly does ” and added that “ it confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.
” Hale then asked what part of the Amendment contains this provision , and Bingham answered , “ The words ‘ equal protection ’ contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the rulings in DeShaney and Warren apply to specific circumstances and say nothing about the general duty of government .
This duty was spelled out in the Supreme Court ’ s 1911 ruling in Chicago v. Sturges : Speaking even more directly to Trump ’ s remarks , the same Supreme Court ruling states that it is the “ obligation of the state to preserve social order and the property of the citizen against the violence of a riot or a mob.
” During the 150+ years since the 14th Amendment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various rulings that wavered between enforcing the rights it acknowledged and disregarding them .
Some of these rulings are textbook examples of judicial activism where certain justices prioritized their personal views over the Constitution , and the result was that people ’ s rights were violated .
For instance , the Court ’ s 5–4 decision in the 1875 case of United States v. Cruikshank trampled on the 14th Amendment and unleashed white militias and mobs to subjugate black people through violence and intimidation for decades .
Many of those rulings have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , the majority of the Supreme Court has clung to a doctrine called “ selective incorporation.
” Under this invention of the Court , state governments don ’ t have to honor all Constitutional rights but merely those that the Court deems “ fundamental ” to the American “ scheme of ordered liberty.
” The U.S. founders , the primary author of the 14th Amendment , and the U.S. Supreme Court have made clear that the protection of people ’ s life , liberty , and property is the core purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 1948 paper in the Indiana Law Journal states : To buttress that statement , the paper cites a 1939 brief by the American Bar Association , which declares that people “ need not give up their lawful rights simply because the lawless insist on attacking them .
Traditionally , officials must enforce the law the lawful way , not the easiest way.
” Thus , the brief says that when people ’ s rights are threatened by violence : Trump has called on governors to honor their Constitutional duty to do just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public about this vital issue , many media outlets are falsely reporting that Trump wants to “ dominate protesters.
” Some journalists , like CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper , have twisted this even further by saying that Trump wants to dominate “ black people.
” In conjunction with that inflammatory rhetoric , nearly all major media outlets are spreading counterfactual narratives , half-truths , and outright falsehoods about racial inequities .
In his famed “ Letter from a Birmingham Jail , ” Martin Luther King , Jr. wrote that the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ facts to determine whether injustices exist.
” Similarly , Abraham Lincoln said , “ I have faith in the people .
They will not consent to disunion .
The danger is , that they are misled .
Let them know the truth and the country is safe.
” The vast bulk of media is not providing the relevant facts or even a semblance of truth to the people , and this imperils both justice and safety .

By James D. Agresti
June 6, 2020
Overview
After falsely accusing the U.S. Park Police of tear-gassing peaceful protesters on behalf of President Trump, many media outlets and politicians are claiming that he called on governors to forcibly “dominate protestors.” Quite the opposite, Trump explicitly stated he is an “ally of all peaceful protesters” and that it is the “professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters” and other lawbreakers who should be stopped.
Beyond their failure to draw a distinction between peaceful demonstrators and violent lawbreakers, the same cadre of media outlets are stirring racial strife by using anecdotes and half-truths to paint a false picture of systemic police violence against African Americans.
Also, contrary to antifa supporters and others who assert that government has no obligation to protect citizens from theft, property destruction, and violence, the Constitutional facts prove that federal, state, and local governments are required to do just that. Moreover, it is their primary duty and core reason for their existence.
Twisting Trump’s Statements
During a conference call with the nation’s governors on June 1st, President Trump told them that they need to “get much tougher” on looters, rioters, and people who are assaulting others. He emphasized that some of these crimes were caught “on tape” and the perpetrators need to be arrested and prosecuted.
To stop the carnage caused by such lawbreakers, Trump told the governors that they “have to dominate.” As an example of this, he complimented Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for restoring order with help from the National Guard and stated “I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days.”
Later that day in the Rose Garden, Trump gave a speech in which he reiterated: “Today, I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets.” Making clear that he was not talking about peaceful demonstrators, he stressed that he is “an ally of all peaceful protesters” and:
“we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.”
“the biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their President, I will fight to keep them safe.”
“a number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents.”
“innocent people have been savagely beaten, like the young man in Dallas, Texas, who was left dying on the street, or the woman in Upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs.”
“these are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror.”
“all Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served.”
Yet, a slew of media outlets and politicians distorted the president’s words by claiming that he told governors to “dominate protesters.” This includes but is not limited to CNN, Bloomberg News, Newsweek, and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.
The New York Times amplified the disinformation and drama by reporting that “Trump vowed to ‘dominate’ protesters” and has deployed the “full might of federal law enforcement to crush protests.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper took it another step further by saying that Trump “seems to think that dominating black people, dominating peaceful protesters is law and order.”
This is akin to what many media outlets, politicians, and activists did in 2017 when they accused Trump of calling white supremacists “very fine people.” In reality, Trump used that phrase to describe “innocent” protestors—and at the same press conference—he explicitly “condemned” the white supremacists two times, said they were “very bad people,” and emphasized that he was not calling them “very fine people.” A reporter at the conference even tried to put this spin on his words, and Trump responded, “No, no.” Yet, three years later, Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns of the New York Times are still repeating this falsehood.
Stirring Racial Strife
In addition to twisting Trump’s words in a racially provocative manner, many people with large public platforms are also distorting the facts about police violence against African Americans. This, in turn, has fueled widespread societal divisions, hatred, and murders of police officers.
For one of many examples, the editorial board of the New York Times recently published a commentary titled “America’s Protests Won’t Stop Until Police Brutality Does.” As proof that police are systemically violent and racist, they named 12 “black Americans brutalized or killed by law enforcement,” starting with George Floyd and going back to Amadou Diallo in 1999.
This list also includes Michael Brown, despite the fact the Obama administration Department of Justice found physical and eyewitness evidence that the police officer shot Brown in a clear-cut case of self-defense. The Times editors claim there are “countless more” such cases; yet they populated this list with a patently false one.
Most importantly, the 12 cases cited by the Times occurred over 21 years and amount to roughly one out of every 27,000 murders committed over this period. Like the Times editorial, virtually every major media outlet repetitively focus on just a few of the 15,000 murders and 6.9 million violent crimes that are committed per year in the U.S.—particularly those with the potential to stir racial strife. The same outlets then use these cases, which amount to a minuscule fraction of all violence, to spread false, sweeping narratives.
Such journalism exploits the statistical fact that anecdotes can be highly deceitful and the psychological fact that people are easily misled by them because it’s easier to grasp stories than data. It also disregards the Times own news and editorial standards, which claim that “we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it.”
The same Times editorial claims that “racial inequality remains rampant” in “enforcement of the law,” but the comprehensive facts of this matter reveal just the opposite. As documented in a 2018 paper in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science:
“The most common means of testing for racial disparity in police use of deadly force is to compare the odds of being fatally shot for blacks to the odds of being fatally shot for whites.”
That common approach is misleading because it uses the false assumption that white and black people commit life-threatening crimes at the same rates.
The cogent way to analyze this issue is to compare the odds of being fatally shot to each race’s “involvement in those situations where the police may be more likely to use deadly force.”
Based on four different national datasets on “murder/nonnegligent manslaughter, violent crime, and weapons violations,” “in nearly every case, whites were either more likely to be fatally shot by police or police showed no significant disparity in either direction.”
Likewise, a study conducted by the left-leaning Center for Policing Equity reveals that police are 42% less likely to use lethal force when arresting black people than when arresting whites. Yet, the authors of this study buried that data on the 19th page of a 29-page report. Then, the Washington Post cited this report as proof that police are more likely to kill blacks than whites and that “there is no correlation between violent crime and who is killed by police officers.”
Other facts about murder rates, unsolved murders, and interracial murders all point to the same conclusion: the allegation of systemic violence by whites and police against people of color is false.
Even though there are more than 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the U.S., some argue that even one unjust killing by a police officer is too much. Regardless of whether this ideal is achievable, it is irrational to accuse police of systemic racism based on the actions of far less than 1% of them. Especially since comprehensive facts show nothing of the sort.
The Primary Purpose of Government
Trump began his speech on June 1st by stating, “My first and highest duty as President is to defend our great country and the American people.” He later said that “a number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents,” and that he would “protect the rights of law-abiding Americans” if they do not.
Contrary to those who argue that federal and state governments have no Constitutional obligation to protect the rights of citizens, Trump is correct that this is his and their foremost duty.
First of all, Trump’s statement mirrors the Declaration of Independence, which established the foundational principles of the U.S. government and its obligations to the people. Like Trump’s speech, the opening sentence of this seminal document states that “Governments are instituted” to “secure” people’s “rights.”
Likewise, James Madison—the primary author of the Bill of Rights and Father of the Constitution”:
stated at the Constitutional Convention that the defining purpose of the new government they were forming was to provide “more effectually for the security of private rights and the steady dispensation of Justice.”
wrote in the Federalist Papers that “the first object of government” is the “protection” of the “faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.”
However, the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights left most of those responsibilities to the states, many of which were unwilling to join the union unless they maintained a large degree of independence. As summarized by a 1991 paper in the Duke Law Review, “in most respects, the Constitution left the protection of the rights of individuals under the control of the states.”
As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1833 case of Barron v Baltimore that the rights of the people in the Bill of Rights only had to be respected by the federal government and could be infringed by state governments.
That changed after the Civil War with the 13th Amendment’s ban on slavery and the later passage of the 14th Amendment, which forbids states from:
enacting or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The Amendment also gives the U.S. Congress the “power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions” above. Congress had since passed multitudes of such laws, and the President “is responsible for implementing and enforcing” them.
The primary impetus for the 14th Amendment was that states were violating the rights of the newly freed African Americans and failing to protect them from groups like the Ku Klux Klan that were terrorizing and killing them. Hence, Congressman John Bingham (R–OH), who drafted the 14th Amendment and introduced it in the House of Representatives, repeatedly stated that it would require state governments to provide “equal protection” to every person’s “life, liberty, and property.”
The same applies to local governments, which are offsprings of the states. As detailed in the book Managing Local Government: An Essential Guide for Municipal and County Managers, “Local governments derive their authority from their states” and “have no independent authority unless the state grants it to them.”
Court Decisions
Despite the 14th Amendment and the founders declarations that the main purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, there are some who claim that the Constitution does not require federal or state governments to defend people’s life, liberty, or property.
For a prime example, P.E. Moskowitz writes in The Nation that “nothing in the First Amendment prevents citizens (members of antifa or otherwise) from interrupting someone’s protest. Nor does it guarantee police protection for white nationalists. It only limits the ability of Congress from passing laws that interfere with speech.” This blatant half-truth ignores the 14th Amendment, which requires all governments to equally protect the Constitutional rights of all people.
Other such arguments are grounded in misinterpretations of court decisions. One of the most common is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which the majority of judges on a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit against the District that stemmed from its failure to protect three women from two men who held them captive, beat, and raped them for 14 hours after they called the police for help.
According to Scott Unzicker writing at Guns.com, the Warren ruling means “that police have no legal obligation to ‘protect and serve’ the population.” However, the ruling says just the opposite but notes that this duty cannot be enforced through a private lawsuit for “negligence” except under special circumstances:
“Although recognizing the obligation of public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately, the law properly does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages.”
“The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
“Dereliction in the performance of police duties may, therefore, be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and not in a private suit for money damages.”
Others cite the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in DeShaney v. Winnebago as evidence that the Constitution does not require government to defend people. In reality, the decision is far more narrow and declares “that a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause” of the 14th Amendment.
The Due Process clause forbids states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” and thus, the Court ruled in DeShaney that this is “a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security.” However, the Court also noted that a state “may not, of course, selectively deny its protective services to certain disfavored minorities without violating the Equal Protection Clause.”
That last statement accords with John Bingham’s answer to a question posed to him by Congressman Robert Hale (R–NY), a leading opponent of the 14th Amendment. When Bingham introduced the Amendment in the House, Hale asked him if it gives Congress powers to protect people’s “life, liberty, and personal property.” Bingham replied that it “certainly does” and added that “it confers upon Congress power to see to it that the protection given by the laws of the States shall be equal in respect to life and liberty and property to all persons.” Hale then asked what part of the Amendment contains this provision, and Bingham answered, “The words ‘equal protection’ contain it, and nothing else.”
Furthermore, the rulings in DeShaney and Warren apply to specific circumstances and say nothing about the general duty of government. This duty was spelled out in the Supreme Court’s 1911 ruling in Chicago v. Sturges:
Primarily, governments exist for the maintenance of social order. Hence it is that the obligation of the government to protect life, liberty, and property against the conduct of the indifferent, the careless, and the evil-minded may be regarded as lying at the very foundation of the social compact.
Speaking even more directly to Trump’s remarks, the same Supreme Court ruling states that it is the “obligation of the state to preserve social order and the property of the citizen against the violence of a riot or a mob.”
During the 150+ years since the 14th Amendment was enacted, the Supreme Court has issued various rulings that wavered between enforcing the rights it acknowledged and disregarding them. Some of these rulings are textbook examples of judicial activism where certain justices prioritized their personal views over the Constitution, and the result was that people’s rights were violated. For instance, the Court’s 5–4 decision in the 1875 case of United States v. Cruikshank trampled on the 14th Amendment and unleashed white militias and mobs to subjugate black people through violence and intimidation for decades.
Many of those rulings have been effectively overturned, but even in modern times, the majority of the Supreme Court has clung to a doctrine called “selective incorporation.” Under this invention of the Court, state governments don’t have to honor all Constitutional rights but merely those that the Court deems “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty.”
Conclusion
The U.S. founders, the primary author of the 14th Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court have made clear that the protection of people’s life, liberty, and property is the core purpose of government. In keeping with this, a 1948 paper in the Indiana Law Journal states:
The right to engage in lawful conduct and to be protected therein against the lawless is the fundamental reason for the existence of organized government. The protection of the right, therefore, is equally vital to government regardless of the benefits which its exercise may or may not confer, for if the right is not protected, government has failed in its basic function.
To buttress that statement, the paper cites a 1939 brief by the American Bar Association, which declares that people “need not give up their lawful rights simply because the lawless insist on attacking them. Traditionally, officials must enforce the law the lawful way, not the easiest way.” Thus, the brief says that when people’s rights are threatened by violence:
The only proper remedy for such a situation, small or serious, is the police protection to which citizens are entitled, whether they are singly or in groups.
Trump has called on governors to honor their Constitutional duty to do just that. Yet, instead of educating the public about this vital issue, many media outlets are falsely reporting that Trump wants to “dominate protesters.” Some journalists, like CNN’s Anderson Cooper, have twisted this even further by saying that Trump wants to dominate “black people.”
In conjunction with that inflammatory rhetoric, nearly all major media outlets are spreading counterfactual narratives, half-truths, and outright falsehoods about racial inequities.
In his famed “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that the first step in achieving justice is to gather “facts to determine whether injustices exist.” Similarly, Abraham Lincoln said, “I have faith in the people. They will not consent to disunion. The danger is, that they are misled. Let them know the truth and the country is safe.” The vast bulk of media is not providing the relevant facts or even a semblance of truth to the people, and this imperils both justice and safety.


bonginoreport--2020-06-07--Minneapolis City Council Announces Commitment to Disbanding Their Police Department

Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council announced their support for de-funding the Minneapolis Police Department and replacing it with a community-based public safety model at a rally in Powderhorn Park Sunday afternoon .
At the end of the rally , the councilmembers and some community activisits committed to ending the Minneapolis Police Department through the budget process .
The group also announced its intention to engage every willing community member to ask what safety means to them and ceate a “ new transformative model for cultivating safety.
” Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender , Council Vice President Andrea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jeremiah Ellison , Steve Fletcher , Cam Gordon and Jeremy Schroeder joined activists from Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block for the announcement .
With the support of the nine councilmembers , they have created a veto-proof supermajority in support of disbanding the police department .
“ It is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe , ” said Bender .
“ Our efforts at incremental reform have failed , period.
” Bender went on to say she and the eight other councilmembers that joined the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s relationship with the police force and “ to end policing as we know it and recreate systems that actually keep us safe.
” Councilmember Ellison said frankly , `` This council is going to dismantle this police department . ''
Similarly , Councilmember Cano said the council would `` abolish the Minneapolis Police system as we know it . ''
Said Councilmember Phillippe Cunningham of the community-based policing alternative the councilors are proposing , `` All of that money is going to the police department and what do we have in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' At the end of the rally , the crowd gathered at Powderhorn Park began a chant of `` De-fund , MPD . ''
There are a total of 12 Minneapolis City Councilmembers .
A majority of them now support ending the city 's relationship with the MPD .
Notably , Mayor Jacob Frey did not attend the rally Sunday .
He was booed at a de-fund the police rally in Minneapolis Saturday afternoon .
In a statement after the rally , Frey said the following : I ’ ll work relentlessly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , structural reform and addressing systemic racism in police culture .
And we ’ re ready to dig in and enact more community-led , public safety strategies on behalf of our city .
But I do not support abolishing the Minneapolis Police Department .

article
Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council announced their support for de-funding the Minneapolis Police Department and replacing it with a community-based public safety model at a rally in Powderhorn Park Sunday afternoon.
At the end of the rally, the councilmembers and some community activists committed to ending the Minneapolis Police Department through the budget process. The group also announced its intention to engage every willing community member to ask what safety means to them and create a “new transformative model for cultivating safety.”
Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender, Council Vice President Andrea Jenkins, and Council Members Alondra Cano, Jeremiah Ellison, Steve Fletcher, Cam Gordon and Jeremy Schroeder joined activists from Black Visions Collective and Reclaim the Block for the announcement.
With the support of the nine councilmembers, they have created a veto-proof supermajority in support of disbanding the police department. However, to make significant changes to the department or funding for the department, they will likely need a public vote to change the charter.
“It is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe,” said Bender. “Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period.”
Bender went on to say she and the eight other councilmembers that joined the rally are committed to ending the city’s relationship with the police force and “to end policing as we know it and recreate systems that actually keep us safe.”
Councilmember Ellison said frankly, "This council is going to dismantle this police department."
Similarly, Councilmember Cano said the council would "abolish the Minneapolis Police system as we know it."
Said Councilmember Phillippe Cunningham of the community-based policing alternative the councilors are proposing, "All of that money is going to the police department and what do we have in return? Pain, trauma and hurt"
At the end of the rally, the crowd gathered at Powderhorn Park began a chant of "De-fund, MPD."
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar supports the nine councilmembers’ pledge.
“No one is advocating for lawlessness. No one is advocating for our community to be in danger or crime to happen in Minneapolis without there being accountability,” Omar said.
“This is an opportunity for us to get rid of a system that was built not to provide safety and serve and to start to put into place a system that does provide that safety,” she added.
There are a total of 12 Minneapolis City Councilmembers. A majority of them now support ending the city's relationship with the MPD.
Notably, Mayor Jacob Frey did not attend the rally Sunday. He was booed at a de-fund the police rally in Minneapolis Saturday afternoon.
In a statement after the rally, Frey said the following:
I’ll work relentlessly with Chief Arradondo and alongside community toward deep, structural reform and addressing systemic racism in police culture. And we’re ready to dig in and enact more community-led, public safety strategies on behalf of our city. But I do not support abolishing the Minneapolis Police Department.
The mayor wasn't the only one expressing skepticism Sunday. Some, like Dominique Howard, engaged in the conversation in small groups at Powderhorn Park Sunday with people he doesn't agree with in search of answers.
"I think that de-funding the police in general is not the immediate solution," Howard said. "I feel like it's an impulsive reaction to what is going on."
The Anoka County Sheriff also voiced his opposition to the proposal, warning the city that abolishing its police force could hinder the Sheriff's relationship with the city going forward.


bonginoreport--2020-06-07--NY Times Editorial Page Editor Resigns Following Tom Cotton Op-Ed “Scandal”

After a week of brutal criticism — which featured an open staff revolt — over the publication of a column by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton that called for the military to crush the George Floyd protests , New York Times Op-Ed section editor James Bennet has resigned .
Publisher A.G. Sulzberger announced the news to staff in an email on Sunday .
Katie Kingsbury , who joined The Times in 2017 , has been named as acting Editorial Page Editor through the November election .
In addition , Jim Dao , the deputy editorial page editor responsible for the section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will step off the masthead and will be reassigned to the newsroom .
“ James is a journalist of enormous talent and integrity who believes deeply in the mission of The Times , ” said Sulzberger in a statement .
“ He oversaw a significant transformation of the Opinion department , which broadened the range of voices we publish and pushed us into new formats like video , graphics and audio .
I ’ m grateful for his many contributions.
” “ Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve experienced in recent years , ” Sulzberger added.
” James and I agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.
” Also Read : New York Times Staff Protest Tom Cotton Op-Ed on Social Media Bennet ’ s tenure as Op-Ed editor , which began in 2016 , has been marked by considerable criticism , particularly for his aggressive hiring of right-wing pundits like Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss .
He has also been criticized for dozens of editorials published under his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a guest column by Blackwater founder Erik Prince that called for the U.S. to increase the use of private military contractors in war zones , which critics said was a flagrant conflict of interest .
Despite this , Bennet was reported to be in high regard with NYT leadership and considered a frontrunner to succeed Dean Baquet as editor-in-chief of the paper .
But the criticism finally reached a boiling point over Cotton ’ s piece , which was widely slammed as both racist and fascist because it urged the U.S. military to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Floyd ’ s death at the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin .
Dozens of Times staffers broke the company ’ s unevenly applied social media policies to publicly denounce the article , tweeting “ This puts Black @ nytimes staff in danger , ” and they were joined by some of the paper ’ s highest profile contributors .
Added to this , the New York Times guild condemned the paper ’ s decision , calling it “ a clear threat to the health and safety of journalists we represent.
” Also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Publishing Tom Cotton Op-Ed Urging Military to Crush Protests But the backlash , even from staff , might not have been the primary reason for Bennet ’ s resignation .
According to an internal Slack exchange obtained by Slate , the Times ’ customer service center reported over 200 subscription cancellations in one hour last week , the highest ever recorded by the paper .
As it happens , this was the second time since Bennet was hired that the Times has been beset with a mass defection of subscribers in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred in 2017 after the paper published Bret Stephens ’ debut column , which advocated outright climate denialism .
So many users canceled their subscriptions in response that Bennet was forced to publicly defend the decision .
During a staff call on Friday , Sulzberger called Cotton ’ s editorial “ contemptuous ” and admitted that it never should have been published .
The staff call also revealed that the Times approached Cotton to write the piece instead of the other way around , and that it was put through a “ rushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication .
This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards .
As a result , we ’ re planning to examine both short term and long term changes , to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish , ” said a spokesperson in a statement to TheWrap .
Also Read : NY Times Says Tom Cotton 'Send in the Troops ' Op-Ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Promises Reform In his statement announcing Bennet ’ s departure , Sulzberger said that the NYT would not “ retreat from its responsibility to help people understand a range of voices across the breadth of public debate .
That role is as important as it ’ s ever been.
” “ Because we have faced questions in recent days about our core values , I want to say this plaintly : As an institution we are opposed to racism in every corner of society .
We are opposed to injustice .
We believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and human rights .
Those values animate both our news report and our opinion report.
” Bennet ’ s departure was criticized by President Donald Trump , who called Cotton ’ s column “ excellent.
” “ The State of Arkansas is very proud of Tom , ” Trump tweeted .
“ The New York Times is Fake News !
!
!
”

After a week of brutal criticism — and an open staff revolt — over the publication of a column by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton that called for the military to crush the George Floyd protests, New York Times Op-Ed section editor James Bennet has resigned.
Publisher A.G. Sulzberger announced the news to staff in an email on Sunday. Katie Kingsbury, who joined The Times in 2017, has been named as acting Editorial Page Editor through the November election. In addition, Jim Dao, the deputy editorial page editor responsible for the section Cotton’s op-ed was published in, will step off the masthead and will be reassigned to the newsroom.
“James is a journalist of enormous talent and integrity who believes deeply in the mission of The Times,” said Sulzberger in a statement. “He oversaw a significant transformation of the Opinion department, which broadened the range of voices we publish and pushed us into new formats like video, graphics and audio. I’m grateful for his many contributions.”
“Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years,” Sulzberger added.”James and I agreed that it would take a new team to lead the department through a period of considerable change.”
James Bennet has resigned as head of @nytopinion.
Here’s the note from NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger. pic.twitter.com/EWrF68bjHo – Cliff Levy (@cliffordlevy) June 7, 2020
Bennet’s tenure as Op-Ed editor, which began in 2016, has been marked by considerable criticism, particularly for his hiring of right-wing pundits like Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. He has also been criticized for dozens of editorials published under his watch, which among other things included a guest column by Blackwater founder Erik Prince that called for the U.S. to increase the use of private military contractors in war zones, which critics said was a flagrant conflict of interest.
Despite this, Bennet was reported to be in high regard with NYT leadership and considered a frontrunner to succeed Dean Baquet as editor-in-chief of the paper. But the criticism finally reached a boiling point over Cotton’s piece, which was widely slammed as both racist and fascist because it urged the U.S. military to crush nationwide protests and unrest following the Floyd’s death at the hands of police officer Derek Chauvin.
Dozens of Times staffers broke the company’s unevenly applied social media policies to publicly denounce the article, tweeting “This puts Black @nytimes staff in danger,” and they were joined by some of the paper’s highest profile contributors. Added to this, the New York Times guild condemned the paper’s decision, calling it “a clear threat to the health and safety of journalists we represent.”
But the backlash, even from staff, might not have been the primary reason for Bennet’s resignation. According to an internal Slack exchange obtained by Slate, the Times’ customer service center reported over 200 subscription cancellations in one hour last week, the highest ever recorded by the paper.
As it happens, this was the second time since Bennet was hired that the Times has been beset with a mass defection of subscribers in response to an Op-Ed article. The first occurred in 2017 after the paper published Bret Stephens’ debut column, which advocated outright climate denialism. So many users canceled their subscriptions in response that Bennet was forced to publicly defend the decision.
During a staff call on Friday, Sulzberger called Cotton’s editorial “contemptuous” and admitted that it never should have been published. The staff call also revealed that the Times approached Cotton to write the piece instead of the other way around, and that it was put through a “rushed editorial process.”
“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish,” said a spokesperson in a statement to TheWrap.
In his statement announcing Bennet’s departure, Sulzberger said that the NYT would not “retreat from its responsibility to help people understand a range of voices across the breadth of public debate. That role is as important as it’s ever been.”
“Because we have faced questions in recent days about our core values, I want to say this plaintly: As an institution we are opposed to racism in every corner of society. We are opposed to injustice. We believe deeply in principles of fairness, equality and human rights. Those values animate both our news report and our opinion report.”
Bennet’s departure was criticized by President Donald Trump, who called Cotton’s column “excellent.”
“The State of Arkansas is very proud of Tom,” Trump tweeted. “The New York Times is Fake News!!!”


bonginoreport--2020-06-07--Supreme Court Nears Ruling on Landmark Abortion Case

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on June Medical Services , LLC v. Russo , a case that calls into question the constitutionality of an abortion clinic regulation in Louisiana , in the coming month .
The imminent ruling has the potential to reshape the future of abortion industry litigation , advancing the pro-life movement in one of the most significant ways since Roe v. Wade .
The law in question is Louisiana ’ s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act , which requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get around this requirement , even though it applied to all other doctors .
The regulation passed with bipartisan support in 2014 .
As is the case with many regulations meant to protect the safety of women during an abortion , the abortion industry sued to enjoin the law the same year it was passed .
They alleged that the act curtails a women ’ s right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade .
Most interesting about this case is the fact that the plaintiffs , who claim that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have a questionable background in this regard .
Bossier City Medical Suite , a plaintiff in the action , surrendered its license and shut its doors in 2017 because it had performed abortions on at least five minor children and did not file the required statutory rape reports with the authorities .
Another abortion clinic in the lawsuit , Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge , was closed for a time because a patient suffering from severe bleeding after an abortion was rushed to a local hospital .
The clinic was cited in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did not have sufficient supplies to stabilize the patient ’ s bleeding .
Recently , a medical emergency was reported in a New Orleans abortion facility during the COVID-19 pandemic — yet another documented case revealing the tendency of abortion clinics to put profits before patient safety .
Women seeking abortions have the same right to competent and quality care as patients involved in other surgical procedures .
Louisiana 's admitting-privileges law protects that right as it protects women from injuries received from abortion providers such as these plaintiffs .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as these two have , be allowed to challenge in court a state abortion regulation that protects the health of women ?
Further , how can they be allowed to assert that they are suing on behalf of women ?
The answer to these questions is found in the twisted rules on standing that apply in the case of abortion .
The law now allows abortion providers the ability to challenge regulations that protect the lives of mothers .
In doing so , the law creates a legal fiction granting abortion providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women they injure .
This is similar to allowing a car manufacturing company to represent consumer interests when challenging a car safety law .
Although not often discussed , this issue of third-party standing could be the linchpin in this case .
If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Louisiana that abortion providers have no standing to sue to block laws intended to protect women from them , then the lawsuit must be dismissed .
Who is an injured party from abortion regulations such as the Louisiana law in question ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties would undoubtedly be women who are harmed by the hospital requirement .
However , no woman has sued for an injury that has resulted from these hospital regulations .
Instead , the very parties who have injured women through abortion are allowed to bring suit , allegedly to protect such women .
In actuality , they are bringing suit to protect their own interests .
All states , including Louisiana , have an interest in regulating abortion and a duty to protect women .
If the Supreme Court rules to prohibit such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future litigation from the abortion industry against state pro-life laws will be difficult to pursue .
If this occurs , this Supreme Court case and decision will be a significant development in the future of abortion and Roe v. Wade .
Thomas Glessner , J.D.
, is the president and founder of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — a national nonprofit group that made history and headlines in the Supreme Court case NIFLA v. Becerra .
Angie Thomas , J.D.
, is a NIFLA attorney and also serves as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, a case that calls into question the constitutionality of an abortion clinic regulation in Louisiana, in the coming month. The imminent ruling has the potential to reshape the future of abortion industry litigation, advancing the pro-life movement in one of the most significant ways since Roe v. Wade.
The law in question is Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. The law closed a loophole that allowed abortionists to get around this requirement, even though it applied to all other doctors. The regulation passed with bipartisan support in 2014.
As is the case with many regulations meant to protect the safety of women during an abortion, the abortion industry sued to enjoin the law the same year it was passed. They alleged that the act curtails a women’s right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade.
Most interesting about this case is the fact that the plaintiffs, who claim that they are acting to protect women’s rights, have a questionable background in this regard. Bossier City Medical Suite, a plaintiff in the action, surrendered its license and shut its doors in 2017 because it had performed abortions on at least five minor children and did not file the required statutory rape reports with the authorities.
Another abortion clinic in the lawsuit, Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, was closed for a time because a patient suffering from severe bleeding after an abortion was rushed to a local hospital. The clinic was cited in violation of the law when authorities discovered it did not have sufficient supplies to stabilize the patient’s bleeding. Recently, a medical emergency was reported in a New Orleans abortion facility during the COVID-19 pandemic — yet another documented case revealing the tendency of abortion clinics to put profits before patient safety.
Women seeking abortions have the same right to competent and quality care as patients involved in other surgical procedures. Louisiana's admitting-privileges law protects that right as it protects women from injuries received from abortion providers such as these plaintiffs.
So, why can abortion clinics that harm women, as these two have, be allowed to challenge in court a state abortion regulation that protects the health of women? Further, how can they be allowed to assert that they are suing on behalf of women?
The answer to these questions is found in the twisted rules on standing that apply in the case of abortion. The law now allows abortion providers the ability to challenge regulations that protect the lives of mothers. In doing so, the law creates a legal fiction granting abortion providers standing to represent the interests of the women they injure. This is similar to allowing a car manufacturing company to represent consumer interests when challenging a car safety law.
Although not often discussed, this issue of third-party standing could be the linchpin in this case. If the Supreme Court agrees with the state of Louisiana that abortion providers have no standing to sue to block laws intended to protect women from them, then the lawsuit must be dismissed.
Who is an injured party from abortion regulations such as the Louisiana law in question? If there are any, the injured parties would undoubtedly be women who are harmed by the hospital requirement. However, no woman has sued for an injury that has resulted from these hospital regulations. Instead, the very parties who have injured women through abortion are allowed to bring suit, allegedly to protect such women. In actuality, they are bringing suit to protect their own interests.
All states, including Louisiana, have an interest in regulating abortion and a duty to protect women. If the Supreme Court rules to prohibit such self-serving litigation from abortion providers, then future litigation from the abortion industry against state pro-life laws will be difficult to pursue. If this occurs, this Supreme Court case and decision will be a significant development in the future of abortion and Roe v. Wade.
Thomas Glessner, J.D., is the president and founder of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — a national nonprofit group that made history and headlines in the Supreme Court case NIFLA v. Becerra. Angie Thomas, J.D., is a NIFLA attorney and also serves as the associate director of Louisiana Right to Life.


bonginoreport--2020-06-07--Some Cities Won’t Be Prosecuting Their Rioters

Footage of violent riots and rampant looting is coming out of nearly every major city in the U.S. , but states vary wildly in their efforts to prosecute those responsible for the unrest .
While local police have had no issues arresting those engaging in violence , some jurisdictions have declined to prosecute them .
Others , however , such as Texas and Missouri , are taking a far more strict approach and partnering with the federal government to press charges .
Arguably the most relaxed reaction to rioters came out of St. Louis , Missouri , where local prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people arrested for rioting .
“ In a stunning development , our office has learned that every single one of the St. Louis looters and rioters arrested were released back onto the streets by local prosecutor Kim Gardner , ” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted Wednesday .
Gardner ’ s brazen move led Republican Missouri Gov .
Mike Parson to announce a partnership with U.S. attorneys to prosecute the state ’ s rioters , most of whom were arrested in St. Louis .
( RELATED : EXCLUSIVE : Former Mayor Criticizes Local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who seek to use these protests to destroy property and commit acts of violence , including those who come to Missouri from out of state , will be held accountable for their actions by federal and state authorities , ” Schmitt said in a news release , according to Fox4 .
“ Those acts of destruction and violence will not be tolerated.
” The partnership has already brought results in the state , with authorities pressing federal charges against two people this week .
One man was charged with distributing information on explosives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man was charged with intent to organize a riot .
Police in Chicago have arrested more than 1,500 protesters as well , but nearly 80 % of them were charged with disorderly conduct , according to a local ABC affiliate .
( RELATED : Ivanka Trump Blasts ‘ Cancel Culture ’ After WSU Disinvites Her From Commencement Over ‘ Social Justice Issues ’ ) Of the 1,500 , police only referred 235 to the prosecutors office for serious felony consideration , most of them gun cases .
The office reportedly authorized 88 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defendants have been tracked down thanks to social media .
One case in Chicago arose from footage of a man dressed as the Joker movie character setting fire to a police vehicle .
A tattoo on the man ’ s neck connected him to one South Side Chicago resident Timothy O ’ Donnell , 31 .
O ’ Donnell has now been charged with arson .
Prosecutors in California say footage of incidents will be the primary factor in whether rioters , looters and arsonists are ultimately charged and convicted for their crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide request for photos and videos that can lead to the arrest of rioters .
As it stands , there is no shortage of video evidence of crimes being committed all across the country , but it can take time for authorities to find the evidence on social media or news broadcasts and connect it to a local suspect .
“ It ’ s going to be a while , ” one California police officer told the San Diego Union-Tribune .
“ We are hopeful.
” Republican Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnering with the federal district attorneys in his state to prosecute violent rioters , especially those who are coming from out of state .
“ Texans must be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of having agitators , including those coming from out-of-state , hijack their peaceful protest , ” Abbott and the U.S. attorneys said in a joint statement .
“ Today ’ s announcement will ensure there are harsh consequences for those breaking the law and that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Attorney General Bill Barr has made it a federal priority to prosecute those who cross state lines to participate in protests .
( RELATED : ‘ NO KNEELING ’ : Trump Slams Drew Brees For Apologizing Over Pro-Flag Stance ) Out-of-state protesters were responsible for inciting much of the violence and looting at the original demonstrations in Minneapolis , Minnesota .
Other cities across the country have experienced similar trends .
President Donald Trump has pinned the blame on Antifa , an anarchist protest group that has been extremely active in inciting violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking to declare the group a terrorist organization , though it is unclear how such a designation would affect a domestic group .

Footage of violent riots and rampant looting is coming out of nearly every major city in the U.S., but states vary wildly in their efforts to prosecute those responsible for the unrest.
While local police have had no issues arresting those engaging in violence, some jurisdictions have declined to prosecute them. Others, however, such as Texas and Missouri, are taking a far more strict approach and partnering with the federal government to press charges.
Arguably the most relaxed reaction to rioters came out of St. Louis, Missouri, where local prosecutor Kim Gardner refused to charge nearly 40 people arrested for rioting.
“In a stunning development, our office has learned that every single one of the St. Louis looters and rioters arrested were released back onto the streets by local prosecutor Kim Gardner,” Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted Wednesday.
In a stunning development, our office has learned that every single one of the St. Louis looters and rioters arrested were released back onto the streets by local prosecutor Kim Gardner. pic.twitter.com/tMZVAyHssw — Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) June 3, 2020
Gardner’s brazen move led Republican Missouri Gov. Mike Parson to announce a partnership with U.S. attorneys to prosecute the state’s rioters, most of whom were arrested in St. Louis. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Former Mayor Criticizes Local Governments For Allowing Riots)
“Those who seek to use these protests to destroy property and commit acts of violence, including those who come to Missouri from out of state, will be held accountable for their actions by federal and state authorities,” Schmitt said in a news release, according to Fox4. “Those acts of destruction and violence will not be tolerated.”
The partnership has already brought results in the state, with authorities pressing federal charges against two people this week. One man was charged with distributing information on explosives and other destructive devices. The second man was charged with intent to organize a riot.
Police in Chicago have arrested more than 1,500 protesters as well, but nearly 80% of them were charged with disorderly conduct, according to a local ABC affiliate. (RELATED: Ivanka Trump Blasts ‘Cancel Culture’ After WSU Disinvites Her From Commencement Over ‘Social Justice Issues’)
Of the 1,500, police only referred 235 to the prosecutors office for serious felony consideration, most of them gun cases. The office reportedly authorized 88% of the cases.
Some of the defendants have been tracked down thanks to social media. One case in Chicago arose from footage of a man dressed as the Joker movie character setting fire to a police vehicle. A tattoo on the man’s neck connected him to one South Side Chicago resident Timothy O’Donnell, 31. O’Donnell has now been charged with arson.
Prosecutors in California say footage of incidents will be the primary factor in whether rioters, looters and arsonists are ultimately charged and convicted for their crimes. The FBI has also issues a nationwide request for photos and videos that can lead to the arrest of rioters.
As it stands, there is no shortage of video evidence of crimes being committed all across the country, but it can take time for authorities to find the evidence on social media or news broadcasts and connect it to a local suspect.
“It’s going to be a while,” one California police officer told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “We are hopeful.”
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has taken a similar approach to Missouri, partnering with the federal district attorneys in his state to prosecute violent rioters, especially those who are coming from out of state.
“Texans must be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without fear of having agitators, including those coming from out-of-state, hijack their peaceful protest,” Abbott and the U.S. attorneys said in a joint statement. “Today’s announcement will ensure there are harsh consequences for those breaking the law and that they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
The federal-state partnerships come as U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has made it a federal priority to prosecute those who cross state lines to participate in protests. (RELATED: ‘NO KNEELING’: Trump Slams Drew Brees For Apologizing Over Pro-Flag Stance)
Out-of-state protesters were responsible for inciting much of the violence and looting at the original demonstrations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Other cities across the country have experienced similar trends.
President Donald Trump has pinned the blame on Antifa, an anarchist protest group that has been extremely active in inciting violence at the protests. Trump is currently seeking to declare the group a terrorist organization, though it is unclear how such a designation would affect a domestic group.


bonginoreport--2020-06-07--Big Surprise:  Colin Powell Won’t Vote for Trump

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he will be voting for Joe Biden in the 2020 election .
“ He is now the candidate , and I will be voting for him , ” Powell told CNN ’ s State of the Union on Sunday .
Powell , who served under Republican President George W. Bush , said President Trump has “ drifted away ” from the Constitution with his response to protesters who oppose racial injustice and police brutality .
“ I certainly can not in any way support President Trump this year , ” said Powell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , adding , “ He lies .
He lies about things .
And he gets away with it because people will not hold him accountable.
” Trump went on the attack shortly after Powell revealed his plans .
`` Colin Powell , a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous Middle East Wars , just announced he will be voting for another stiff , Sleepy Joe Biden .
Didn ’ t Powell say that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction ? '
They didn ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he tweeted .
`` Somebody please tell highly overrated Colin Powell that I will have gotten almost 300 Federal Judges approved ( a record ) , Two Great Supreme Court Justices , rebuilt our once depleted Military , Choice for Vets , Biggest Ever Tax & Regulation Cuts , Saved Healthcare & 2A , & much more ! ''
the president followed up in another tweet .

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said he will be voting for Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
“He is now the candidate, and I will be voting for him,” Powell told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.
Powell, who served under Republican President George W. Bush, said President Trump has “drifted away” from the Constitution with his response to protesters who oppose racial injustice and police brutality.
“I certainly cannot in any way support President Trump this year,” said Powell, who did not vote for Trump in 2016, adding, “He lies. He lies about things. And he gets away with it because people will not hold him accountable.”
Trump went on the attack shortly after Powell revealed his plans.
"Colin Powell, a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous Middle East Wars, just announced he will be voting for another stiff, Sleepy Joe Biden. Didn’t Powell say that Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction?' They didn’t, but off we went to WAR!" he tweeted.
Colin Powell, a real stiff who was very responsible for getting us into the disastrous Middle East Wars, just announced he will be voting for another stiff, Sleepy Joe Biden. Didn’t Powell say that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction?” They didn’t, but off we went to WAR! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2020
"Somebody please tell highly overrated Colin Powell that I will have gotten almost 300 Federal Judges approved (a record), Two Great Supreme Court Justices, rebuilt our once depleted Military, Choice for Vets, Biggest Ever Tax & Regulation Cuts, Saved Healthcare & 2A, & much more!" the president followed up in another tweet.


bonginoreport--2020-06-08--Contradicting Earlier Reports, Israeli Study Finds Nicotine to Be a Potential Therapeutic for Corona

Contradicting Earlier Reports, Israeli Study Finds Nicotine to Be a Potential Therapeutic for Coronavirus

By subscribing I accept the terms of use

Konstantinos
Smoking may offer some protection against the coronavirus, an Israeli study has found. The results support recent similar findings by researchers in France, China and Italy, although a British study has found the opposite.Noting that conflicting reports exist regarding the impact of smoking on the likelihood of contracting the coronavirus, the Israeli team led by Dr. Ariel Israel undertook a population-based study pulling in data from over three million adult members of the Clalit Health Service, Israel's largest healthcare provider.Their results, presented in a non-peer reviewed paper published in medRxiv on Friday, found that "the risk of infection by COVID-19 appears to be reduced by half among current smokers."Of the more than three million adults included in the study, 114,545 had been tested for the virus, of whom just 4% tested positive. The researchers matched those who tested positive to those testing negative at a ratio of 1:4, taking into account as closely as possible variables such as age, sex and ethnicity. They found that among those who had tested positive, 9.8% were smokers against 19% of the overall population.A previous smoking habit also appeared to confer some benefit, as 11.7% of those tested positive were former smokers against 13.9% in the general research population. Therefore, those who had previously smoked had a 19% lower risk of catching the virus, the results suggested.These results appeared to hold even when previously existing conditions were taken into account – and of those who did test positive, there was no evidence that smoking worsened the symptoms of the disease."The magnitude of association observed for current smoking, with odds of infection reduced by about a half in smokers, suggests a genuine protective effect of smoking on the risk of COVID-19."The findings reflect comparable results in a recent study carried out by Prof. Zahir Amoura from Pitié Salpétrière Hospital in Paris, who found that, of 482 COVID-19 patients that presented to the hospital between February 28 and April 9, just 4.4% of in-patients and 5.3% of outpatients were daily smokers, against 25.4% of the general population.That study also found that smokers were 80% less likely to develop severe symptoms, leading researchers to suggest that the nicotine in cigarettes binds to cell receptor sites, preventing the virus from taking hold by blocking access.Similarly, University College, London, surveyed 28 papers and found the number of coronavirus victims who were smokers was "lower than expected"; a review of 13 Chinese studies found just 6.5% of 5,300 people hospitalized with corona were smokers; and a study by America's Center for Disease control found that a mere 1.3% of more than 7,000 people who tested positive were smokers, against 14% of all Americans, according to The Daily Mail.ON THE other hand, Dr. Nicholas Hopkinson's team at Imperial College, London, assessed data from 2.4 million users of the COVID Sympto Study app, developed by Kings's College London and Zoe.On first use the app records key characteristics such as location, age, height, weight, smoking and common disease. Of the group, 11% were recorded as smokers, a little below the national average of 14%.The study found that, of "standard users" – that is, someone who had not been tested for coronavirus – smokers were 14% more likely to experience three core symptoms of the disease: fever, a persistent cough and shortness of breath, The Daily Mail reported."Our results provide compelling evidence for an association between current smoking and individual risk from COVID-19, including symptom burden and risk of attending hospital," the researchers wrote in their paper.Despite this counter-evidence, some researchers are looking into nicotine as a potential therapeutic for COVID-19. They are giving nicotine patches to patients to see whether they reduce the instance and severity of coronavirus, particularly as the drug appeared to have beneficial effects in countering a phenomenon known as a cytokine storm , which occurs when the natural immune response goes into overdrive – an effect that can result in death."Nicotine has effects on the immune system that could be beneficial in reducing the intensity of the cytokine storm," Dr.Farsalinos, from the University of West Attica, Greece, wrote in Internal and Emergency Medicine, according to The Daily Mail."The potential benefits of nicotine... could explain, at least in part, the increased severity or adverse outcome among smokers hospitalized for COVID-19, since these patients inevitably experience abrupt cessation of nicotine intake during hospitalization."This may be feasible through repurposing already approved pharmaceutical nicotine products such as nicotine patches."


bonginoreport--2020-06-08--Norwegian Scientist Claims to Have Proof Coronavirus Was Created in Lab

Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen has claimed the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is not natural in origin .
The claims by the co-author of the British-Norwegian study—published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—are supported by the former head of Britain ’ s MI6 , Sir Richard Dearlove .
The study from Sørensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus 's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted .
They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery , which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans .
The study goes on to explain the rationale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate vaccine for COVID-19 that is now in advanced pre-clinical development .
Properties that have never been found in nature Sørensen told NRK that the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS , and which have never been detected in nature .
He explained that China and the United States have collaborated for many years on coronavirus research .
Sørensen claimed that both countries participate in `` gain of function '' studies , in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens can be enhanced in order to understand them better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the virus was created in the advanced virology lab in Wuhan .
Lab bosses told Chinese state television that the claims were “ total fabrication ” and that the lab had never done any research into viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 .
According to Sørensen , it was Chinese scientists that first released the sequences that the British-Norwegian study later claimed to have been unnatural in origin .
He claims that China has since put a lid on other such studies .
Sir Dearlove , who was head of MI6 from 1999 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the research shows that the pandemic that paralyzes the world may have started in a lab .
He suggested that a biosecurity failure might have led to the virus escaping during an experiment with bat coronaviruses .
Dearlove added that he thought it unlikely to have been released deliberately , but that China had clearly tried to cover up the release .
“ I I think this started as an accident .
This raises the question of whether China will assume responsibility and whether China should pay compensation .
I think this will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China and how they relate to China 's leadership , ” said Dearlove .
He also added that the report had been rejected by multiple scientific publications to avoid angering China .

Wuhan Institute of Virology is one of China's leading research centres and has been the subject of ... [+] claims from senior Trump administration officials that it was linked with the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. AFP via Getty Images
June 8: This article has been substantially updated to reflect criticism of the published study, along with the general scientific consensus on Covid-19. It also clarifies Sørensen’s financial interest in the development of the Biovacc-19 coronavirus vaccine. This context did not appear in the original post. June 10: Updated with additional comment from Gunnveig Grødeland.
New claims that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 was engineered have been dismissed by scientific and intelligence experts.
The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study—accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics—claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.
In their paper, the Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified "inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface" that explains how the virus interacts with cells in the human body. Virologists, however, note that similar sections appear naturally in other viruses.
Accidental release claims challenged
Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, told the Daily Telegraph that Sørensen and Dalgleish’s research shows that the pandemic may have started at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He added that he thought it unlikely to have been released deliberately, but that China had clearly tried to cover up the release.
However, intelligence sources from Britain’s MI5 dismissed the idea as “rumor and conspiracy,” according to the Times of London. Dearlove was previously criticized in the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War for promoting “flawed intelligence.”
Since the coronavirus took hold in the United States, senior officials in the Trump administration have amplified rumors that the virus emerged from a virology lab in Wuhan. However, public health researchers have traced the earliest recorded cases of the virus to an animal market in the city.
Management at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have previously told Chinese state television that such claims were “total fabrication” and that the lab had not encountered SARS-CoV-2 until samples from patients with an then unidentified pneumonia-like disease were referred to them in December.
Scientific claims questioned
Sørensen and Dalgleish’s work contradicts the international scientific consensus that although the coronavirus pandemic originated in Wuhan, there is no evidence that it had been artificially engineered.
An analysis of the first 41 Covid-19 patients published in medical journal the Lancet found that in 27 cases, there had been direct exposure to the Wuhan market, although not with the first known case. The World Health Organization has since released guidance to those working in and visiting such markets, to reduce animal-human transmission of emerging pathogens.
The report’s authors also claim the lack of mutation in the virus since its discovery, suggests it was already fully adapted to humans. However, there have been several published studies noting evolution and mutation among SARS-CoV-2 strains.
Sørensen told Norwegian broadcaster NRK that the virus has properties that differ greatly from SARS, another coronavirus, and have never been detected in nature. He claimed that China and the United States have collaborated for many years on coronavirus research through "gain of function" studies, in which the pathogenicity or transmissibility of potential pandemic pathogens can be enhanced in order to understand them better.
Examples found in other viruses
Gunnveig Grødeland, vaccine researcher at the University of Oslo, is one of the scientists voicing their disagreement with Sørensen. She explains that what Sørensen referred to as "inserted sequences" can enable the development of a more serious disease, but this is not unusual in nature: "Examples can be found in other viruses including subtypes of influenza (including "bird flu"), HIV, and several human coronaviruses (MERS, OC43, HKU1)." Grødeland also says that Sørensen's paper offered no biological confirmation on the relevance of positively charged patches.
Other leading voices in the scientific community and fight against the pandemic have dismissed claims that the coronavirus was man-made. Anthony Fauci, director of U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has stated there is no scientific evidence for the claims, while leading researchers from the World Health Organization and Galveston National Laboratory also dismissed the rumours.
The report was allegedly previously rejected
The Telegraph claimed that the study was initially rejected by several academic journals, including "Nature" and "Journal of Virology," which indicates they considered the article unsuitable for publication. Sørensen claimed the original study tied the vaccine development to the origin research, and that they have since split the research. He claimed a second study with more details on the origin of the virus will be published soon.
The report published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics explains the rationale for the development of Biovacc-19, a candidate vaccine for COVID-19 that is now in advanced preclinical development. Sørensen has a financial interest in Immunor, the Norwegian company behind the vaccine.
No, COVID-19 Coronavirus Was Not Bioengineered. Here’s The Research That Debunks That Idea (Forbes)
Fauci, Top U.S. General Throw Cold Water On Trump’s Coronavirus Claim (Forbes)
The Controversial Rumor COVID-19 Originated In A Wuhan Lab Creeps Into The GOP Mainstream (Forbes)
A Timeline Of The COVID-19 Wuhan Lab Origin Theory (Forbes)


bonginoreport--2020-06-08--Lindsey Graham Says He’s Been Denied Interviews With FBI Employees Who Met With Key Dossier Source

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he has been denied access to interview an FBI agent and an FBI analyst who met with a key source for the Steele dossier who disavowed the salacious document .
Graham has sought interviews with the FBI case agent and supervisory intelligence analyst to discuss their interview in January 2017 with the primary source for Christopher Steele , the former British spy who investigated the Trump campaign for Democrats .
Steele ’ s source disputed many of the allegations attributed to him in the dossier , which the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FBI and Justice Department failed to disclose those red flags in applications to federal judges for authority to surveil Page .
“ I made a request to interview the case agent and the intel analyst…and they ’ re denying me the ability to do that , ” Graham said in an interview on Fox News ’ “ Sunday Morning Futures.
” “ I ’ m going to keep working the system , ” Graham said .
Graham , who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee , did not say whether the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request to interview the FBI employees .
Graham is considering a subpoena for 53 current and former government officials as part of a sweeping review of the investigation of the Trump campaign ’ s possible ties to the Russian government .
Graham has said he wants to get to the bottom of how information from the source was handled at the FBI and Justice Department .
( RELATED : FBI Agent Faulted For ‘ Significant ’ Role In Surveillance Abuse Worse Many Hats During Trump Probe ) “ The question is , did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tell the system about exculpatory information ?
Does the fault lie with two or three people , or was it a system out of control ?
” Graham said on Fox News .
“ Here ’ s what I think .
Every time there was a stop sign for Carter Page or Flynn , the system moved forward because the people at the top did not want to stop.
” Graham said he plans to call former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to find out whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputed information in the dossier .
“ I find it hard to believe that McCabe and Comey did not know that the Russian subsource told the FBI in January , ‘ oh , by the way , the documents you ’ re using to get a warrant against Carter Page , the Steele dossier , it ’ s a bunch of hearsay , bar talk and garbage , ' ” Graham said .
One of the agents who took part in the initial interviews with the source is Stephen Somma , a counterintelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York field office .
An inspector general report faulted Somma — who is identified as “ Case Agent 1 ” — for numerous errors and omissions in the FBI ’ s investigation of the Trump campaign .
Two Justice Department officials also took part in the interview with the Steele source and failed to disclose the information that undermined the dossier .
Graham is seeking to interview one of those officials , David Laufman .
Laufman served as chief of the Justice Department ’ s counterintelligence division through 2018 .
Content created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that he has been denied access to interview an FBI agent and an FBI analyst who met with a key source for the Steele dossier who disavowed the salacious document.
Graham has sought interviews with the FBI case agent and supervisory intelligence analyst to discuss their interview in January 2017 with the primary source for Christopher Steele, the former British spy who investigated the Trump campaign for Democrats.
Steele’s source disputed many of the allegations attributed to him in the dossier, which the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. The FBI and Justice Department failed to disclose those red flags in applications to federal judges for authority to surveil Page.
“I made a request to interview the case agent and the intel analyst…and they’re denying me the ability to do that,” Graham said in an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
“I’m going to keep working the system,” Graham said.
Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not say whether the FBI or the Justice Department have blocked his request to interview the FBI employees.
Graham is considering a subpoena for 53 current and former government officials as part of a sweeping review of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s possible ties to the Russian government.
Graham has said he wants to get to the bottom of how information from the source was handled at the FBI and Justice Department. (RELATED: FBI Agent Faulted For ‘Significant’ Role In Surveillance Abuse Worse Many Hats During Trump Probe)
“The question is, did the case agent and intel agent refuse to tell the system about exculpatory information? Does the fault lie with two or three people, or was it a system out of control?” Graham said on Fox News.
“Here’s what I think. Every time there was a stop sign for Carter Page or Flynn, the system moved forward because the people at the top did not want to stop.”
WATCH:
Graham said he plans to call former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to find out whether they knew that Steele’s source disputed information in the dossier.
“I find it hard to believe that McCabe and Comey did not know that the Russian subsource told the FBI in January, ‘oh, by the way, the documents you’re using to get a warrant against Carter Page, the Steele dossier, it’s a bunch of hearsay, bar talk and garbage,'” Graham said.
One of the agents who took part in the initial interviews with the source is Stephen Somma, a counterintelligence investigator in the FBI’s New York field office. An inspector general report faulted Somma — who is identified as “Case Agent 1” — for numerous errors and omissions in the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign.
Two Justice Department officials also took part in the interview with the Steele source and failed to disclose the information that undermined the dossier. Graham is seeking to interview one of those officials, David Laufman. Laufman served as chief of the Justice Department’s counterintelligence division through 2018.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


bonginoreport--2020-06-08--McEnany Rips Romney During Briefing

McEnany Rips Romney During Briefing

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized Sen. Mitt Romney 's decision to march with Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Washington , D.C. , over the weekend .
`` Mitt Romney can say three words outside on Pennsylvania Avenue , '' McEnany said Monday during a briefing with reporters at the White House .
`` President Trump won 8 % of the black vote .
Mitt Romney won 2 % of the black vote.
” Exit polls show Romney took 6 % of the African American vote when he ran for president in 2012 .
Romney earned praise from activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was seen marching with protesters in the nation 's capital on Sunday .
The Republican from Utah said he was marching `` to make sure that people understand that Black Lives Matter . ''
McEnany also pointed to comments Romney made along the campaign trail in 2012 .
`` He said that 47 % of the nation is dependent upon government .
Believes they are victims , '' she said , calling his words `` empty . ''
`` The president takes great offense to those words .
That 's not America @ @

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany criticized Sen. Mitt Romney's decision to march with Black Lives Matter demonstrators in Washington, D.C., over the weekend.
"Mitt Romney can say three words outside on Pennsylvania Avenue," McEnany said Monday during a briefing with reporters at the White House. "President Trump won 8% of the black vote. Mitt Romney won 2% of the black vote.”
Exit polls show Romney took 6% of the African American vote when he ran for president in 2012.
Romney earned praise from activists and colleagues in both political parties after he was seen marching with protesters in the nation's capital on Sunday.
The Republican from Utah said he was marching "to make sure that people understand that Black Lives Matter."
McEnany also pointed to comments Romney made along the campaign trail in 2012.
"He said that 47% of the nation is dependent upon government. Believes they are victims," she said, calling his words "empty." "The president takes great offense to those words. That's not America."