bonginoreport--2020-05-29--DNI Ratcliffe Transmits Declassified Flynn/Kislyak Call Transcripts to Congress

The conversations between retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and a Russian envoy that have been at the center of a yearslong political firestorm were declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and made public on Friday .
Revealed was a key exchange that took place on Dec. 29 , 2016 , in which Flynn , then Trump 's incoming national security adviser , urged Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to have Moscow limit itself to `` reciprocal '' actions in response to U.S. penalties on Russia for interfering in the election .
Flynn would be removed as national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tenure in February 2017 after it was believed he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about what he said in this conversation , and it became the crux of a criminal case that was woven into special counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation into links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin .
“ What I would ask you guys to do — and make sure you , make sure that you convey this , okay ?
— do not , do not uh , allow this administration to box us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Flynn said , according to the transcript .
Kislyak said he ’ d conveyed that to Russian leadership .
`` Depending on what actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff , you know , where they 're looking like they 're gon na , they 're gon na dismiss some number of Russians out of the country … but what I would ask Russia to do is … to only make it reciprocal , ” Flynn said , adding , “ Do n't go any further than you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want us to get into something that has to escalate , on a , you know , on a tit for tat.
” “ You might appreciate the sentiments that are raging in Moscow , ” Kislyak replied .
“ I know , I — believe me , I do appreciate it , I very much appreciate it , '' Flynn said .
`` But I really do n't want us to get into a situation where we 're going , you know , where we do this and then you do something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody 's got to go back and forth and everybody 's got to be the tough guy here , you know ?
” Flynn urged Russia to keep things “ even-keeled ” and said that when the Trump administration took office “ we can then have a better conversation about where , where we 're gon na go … regarding our relationship.
” Earlier that day , the Obama administration responded to Russia ’ s election interference by expelling 35 Russian officials and leveling sanctions against Russia .
The transcripts , which have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Friday and shared with the media , including the Washington Examiner , shortly thereafter .
They include discussions from a Dec. 23 , 2016 , call involving Flynn , Kislyak , and Russian diplomat Aleksandr Pchelyakov ; a Dec. 29 , 2016 , call between Flynn and Kislyak ; a Dec. 31 , 2016 , call between Flynn and Kislyak ; a Jan. 12 , 2017 , call between Flynn and Kislyak ; and a Jan. 19 , 2017 , voicemail from Kislyak to Flynn .
The new records also include what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 , 2016 , call between a redacted participant , Flynn , and Kislyak ; an entirely redacted Dec. 22 , 2016 , conversation ; the Dec. 23 , 2016 , call between Flynn , Kislyak , and Pchelyakov ; a voicemail for Flynn from Kislyak ’ s chief of staff Dmitry Chernyshev Andreyevitch ; and the Dec. 29 , 2016 , call between Flynn and Kislyak .
During the Dec. 31 , 2016 discussion , Kislyak told Flynn , “ Our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow and ... your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold heads , uh , is exactly what is uh , invested in the decision.
” Kislyak also claimed that the actions by the Obama administration “ have targeted not only against Russia , but also against the president elect [ Trump ] .
” The Russian ambassador said he believed Obama took the actions he did “ because people are dissatisfied with the lost of elections . ''
Kislyak also said , “ We are hoping within two weeks we will be able to start working in more constructive way.
” Director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn-in after taking over for former acting spy chief and U.S .
Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell , released a statement explaining his decision to make the Flynn-Kislyak conversations public .
“ As I stated throughout the confirmation process , transparency is vital to allowing the American people to have confidence in the Intelligence Community , ” Ratcliffe said .
“ As the director of national intelligence , it is my obligation to review declassification requests with the overarching priority of protecting sources and methods while also providing transparency whenever possible .
Accordingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director of National Intelligence declassified transcripts concerning Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
” Earlier this month , Grenell released a declassified National Security Agency document containing a list of dozens of Obama administration officials , including former Vice President Joe Biden , who were authorized recipients of information in response to `` unmasking '' requests that revealed Flynn 's identity in surveillance intercepts .
The former Trump national security adviser 's name was reportedly not masked in the FBI reports on his conversations with Kislyak during the presidential transition period .
Working with his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about his December 2016 conversations with Kislyak about sanctions on Russia and a United Nations resolution on Israel .
The FBI intercepted Flynn 's discussions with Kislyak , after which fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and another agent , believed to be Joseph Pientka , grilled him on the contents of the conversation on Jan. 24 , 2017 .
Sidney Powell , a former federal prosecutor , took over Flynn 's representation last summer and fought to dismiss the government 's case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismiss the false statements charges against Flynn earlier this month , telling the court that “ this crime , however , requires a statement to be not simply false , but ‘ materially ’ false with respect to a matter under investigation ” and emphasized that “ materiality is an essential element of the offense.
” “ The Government is not persuaded that the January 24 , 2017 , interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn ’ s statements were material even if untrue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his court filing .
“ Moreover , we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.
” Former FBI Director James Comey admitted last year he took advantage of the chaos in the early days of Trump 's administration when he sent Strzok and Pientka to talk to Flynn in January 2017 .
Flynn 's lawyers have touted FBI records released last week as exculpatory evidence that was concealed from the defense team .
The documents suggest that Strzok and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from closing its investigation into Flynn in early January 2017 after investigators had uncovered “ no derogatory information ” on him .
Emails from later that month show Strzok , along with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others , sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn , including by deploying the Logan Act .
Among the other records unveiled to the public were handwritten notes from former FBI Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap on the day the FBI interviewed Flynn .
“ I agreed yesterday that we shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t admit , ” but “ I thought about it last night , and I believe we should rethink this , ” Priestap wrote .
“ What is our goal ?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” After the release of the transcripts , House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said , `` These transcripts clearly demonstrate that Lt. General Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and the Vice President when he denied discussing sanctions in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ambassador . ''
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley , who had sought access to the Flynn-Kislyak calls since 2017 , said , “ Lt .
Gen. Mike Flynn , his legal team , the judge , and the American people can now see with their own eyes — for the first time — that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole time was totally bunk ” and that “ there was nothing improper about his call , and the FBI knew it.
” '' For too long , the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been fueled by pernicious leaks , likely for political purposes , instead of the facts , '' said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson .
The Wisconsin Republican , who is carrying out an inquiry into the broader unmasking saga , added that “ this is an important step in my committee ’ s ongoing investigation of the apparent flurry of ‘ unmasking ’ of U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign and transition teams by numerous members of President Obama ’ s administration.
” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr selected John Bash , the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas , to carry out a deep dive into the unmaskings to assist the broader review of the Trump-Russia investigators being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham .
Johnson and Grassley of Iowa told Grenell they were expanding the scope of their `` unmasking '' investigation requests to include information as early as January 2016 .
Graham sent a letter to Grenell last week asking him to declassify any unmasking requests made between Trump ’ s November 2016 victory and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity of anyone in Trump ’ s orbit .
Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia , the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , asked for the intelligence reports related to Flynn ’ s conversations to be declassified .

The conversations between retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and a Russian envoy that have been at the center of a yearslong political firestorm were declassified by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and made public on Friday.
Revealed was a key exchange that took place on Dec. 29, 2016, in which Flynn, then Trump's incoming national security adviser, urged Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to have Moscow limit itself to "reciprocal" actions in response to U.S. penalties on Russia for interfering in the election.
Flynn would be removed as national security adviser a few short weeks into his tenure in February 2017 after it was believed he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about what he said in this conversation, and it became the crux of a criminal case that was woven into special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
“What I would ask you guys to do — and make sure you, make sure that you convey this, okay? — do not, do not uh, allow this administration to box us in, right now, okay?” Flynn said, according to the transcript.
Kislyak said he’d conveyed that to Russian leadership.
"Depending on what actions they take over this current issue of the cyber stuff, you know, where they're looking like they're gonna, they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country … but what I would ask Russia to do is … to only make it reciprocal,” Flynn said, adding, “Don't go any further than you have to. Because I don't want us to get into something that has to escalate, on a, you know, on a tit for tat.”
“You might appreciate the sentiments that are raging in Moscow,” Kislyak replied.
“I know, I — believe me, I do appreciate it, I very much appreciate it," Flynn said. "But I really don't want us to get into a situation where we're going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody's got to go back and forth and everybody's got to be the tough guy here, you know?”
Flynn urged Russia to keep things “even-keeled” and said that when the Trump administration took office “we can then have a better conversation about where, where we're gonna go … regarding our relationship.”
Earlier that day, the Obama administration responded to Russia’s election interference by expelling 35 Russian officials and leveling sanctions against Russia.
The transcripts, which have some redactions, were sent to Congress on Friday and shared with the media, including the Washington Examiner, shortly thereafter. They include discussions from a Dec. 23, 2016, call involving Flynn, Kislyak, and Russian diplomat Aleksandr Pchelyakov; a Dec. 29, 2016, call between Flynn and Kislyak; a Dec. 31, 2016, call between Flynn and Kislyak; a Jan. 12, 2017, call between Flynn and Kislyak; and a Jan. 19, 2017, voicemail from Kislyak to Flynn.
The new records also include what appear to be summaries of a Jan. 5, 2016, call between a redacted participant, Flynn, and Kislyak; an entirely redacted Dec. 22, 2016, conversation; the Dec. 23, 2016, call between Flynn, Kislyak, and Pchelyakov; a voicemail for Flynn from Kislyak’s chief of staff Dmitry Chernyshev Andreyevitch; and the Dec. 29, 2016, call between Flynn and Kislyak.
During the Dec. 31, 2016 discussion, Kislyak told Flynn, “Our conversation was also taken into account in Moscow and ... your proposal that we need to act with cold heads, uh, is exactly what is uh, invested in the decision.”
Kislyak also claimed that the actions by the Obama administration “have targeted not only against Russia, but also against the president elect [Trump].” The Russian ambassador said he believed Obama took the actions he did “because people are dissatisfied with the lost of elections." Kislyak also said, “We are hoping within two weeks we will be able to start working in more constructive way.”
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, newly sworn-in after taking over for former acting spy chief and U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, released a statement explaining his decision to make the Flynn-Kislyak conversations public.
“As I stated throughout the confirmation process, transparency is vital to allowing the American people to have confidence in the Intelligence Community,” Ratcliffe said. “As the director of national intelligence, it is my obligation to review declassification requests with the overarching priority of protecting sources and methods while also providing transparency whenever possible. Accordingly, today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declassified transcripts concerning Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.”
Earlier this month, Grenell released a declassified National Security Agency document containing a list of dozens of Obama administration officials, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who were authorized recipients of information in response to "unmasking" requests that revealed Flynn's identity in surveillance intercepts. The former Trump national security adviser's name was reportedly not masked in the FBI reports on his conversations with Kislyak during the presidential transition period.
Working with his initial team from Covington & Burling LLP, Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators about his December 2016 conversations with Kislyak about sanctions on Russia and a United Nations resolution on Israel. The FBI intercepted Flynn's discussions with Kislyak, after which fired FBI agent Peter Strzok and another agent, believed to be Joseph Pientka, grilled him on the contents of the conversation on Jan. 24, 2017.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, took over Flynn's representation last summer and fought to dismiss the government's case against him.
The Justice Department moved to dismiss the false statements charges against Flynn earlier this month, telling the court that “this crime, however, requires a statement to be not simply false, but ‘materially’ false with respect to a matter under investigation” and emphasized that “materiality is an essential element of the offense.”
“The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017, interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue,” U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said in his court filing. “Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Former FBI Director James Comey admitted last year he took advantage of the chaos in the early days of Trump's administration when he sent Strzok and Pientka to talk to Flynn in January 2017.
Flynn's lawyers have touted FBI records released last week as exculpatory evidence that was concealed from the defense team. The documents suggest that Strzok and the FBI’s leadership stopped the bureau from closing its investigation into Flynn in early January 2017 after investigators had uncovered “no derogatory information” on him. Emails from later that month show Strzok, along with then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page and several others, sought out ways to continue investigating Flynn, including by deploying the Logan Act.
Among the other records unveiled to the public were handwritten notes from former FBI Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap on the day the FBI interviewed Flynn. “I agreed yesterday that we shouldn’t show Flynn [REDACTED] if he didn’t admit,” but “I thought about it last night, and I believe we should rethink this,” Priestap wrote. “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
After the release of the transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said, "These transcripts clearly demonstrate that Lt. General Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and the Vice President when he denied discussing sanctions in a then-secret set of conversations with the Russian Ambassador."
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, who had sought access to the Flynn-Kislyak calls since 2017, said, “Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, his legal team, the judge, and the American people can now see with their own eyes — for the first time — that all of the innuendo about Lt. General Flynn this whole time was totally bunk” and that “there was nothing improper about his call, and the FBI knew it.”
"For too long, the investigation of Lt. Gen. Flynn and others has been fueled by pernicious leaks, likely for political purposes, instead of the facts," said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson. The Wisconsin Republican, who is carrying out an inquiry into the broader unmasking saga, added that “this is an important step in my committee’s ongoing investigation of the apparent flurry of ‘unmasking’ of U.S. persons affiliated with the Trump campaign and transition teams by numerous members of President Obama’s administration.”
DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec announced on Wednesday that Attorney General William Barr selected John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, to carry out a deep dive into the unmaskings to assist the broader review of the Trump-Russia investigators being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham.
Johnson and Grassley of Iowa told Grenell they were expanding the scope of their "unmasking" investigation requests to include information as early as January 2016. Graham sent a letter to Grenell last week asking him to declassify any unmasking requests made between Trump’s November 2016 victory and his January 2017 inauguration that revealed the identity of anyone in Trump’s orbit. Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked for the intelligence reports related to Flynn’s conversations to be declassified.


bonginoreport--2020-05-29--Apparently This Is News: Kylie Jenner Misled About Billionaire Status

Earlier this year , Kylie Jenner sold half of her cosmetics company in one of the greatest celebrity cash-outs of all time .
But the deal ’ s fine print reveals that she has been inflating the size and success of her business .
For years .
More than a decade into their fame , the Kardashian-Jenners tend to induce eye rolls and sighs among jaded media consumers .
But when it comes to their wealth , even critics of reality TV ’ s first family are intrigued ; the Kardashian-Jenner machine—and the cash it generates—has been the subject of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But no one cares more about the topic than the family itself , which has spent years fighting Forbes for higher spots on our annual wealth and celebrity earnings lists .
So when the youngest of the clan , Kylie Jenner , sold 51 % of her Kylie Cosmetics to beauty giant Coty in a deal valued at $ 1.2 billion this January , it was a watershed moment for the family .
One of the greatest celebrity cash-outs of all time , the transaction seemed to confirm what Kylie had been saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March 2019 : that Kylie Jenner was , indeed , a billionaire—at least before the coronavirus .
“ Kylie is a modern-day icon , with an incredible sense of the beauty consumer , ” Coty chairman Peter Harf gushed when announcing the acquisition in November .
But in the deal ’ s fine print , a less flattering truth emerged .
Filings released by publicly traded Coty over the past six months lay bare one of the family ’ s best-kept secrets : Kylie ’ s business is significantly smaller , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent years leading the cosmetics industry and media outlets , including Forbes , to believe .
Of course , white lies , omissions and outright fabrications are to be expected from the family that perfected—then monetized—the concept of “ famous for being famous.
” But , similar to Donald Trump ’ s decades-long obsession with his net worth , the unusual lengths to which the Jenners have been willing to go—including inviting Forbes into their mansions and CPA ’ s offices , and even creating tax returns that were likely forged—reveals just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look even richer .
“ It ’ s fair to say that everything the Kardashian-Jenner family does is oversized , ” says Stephanie Wissink , an equity analyst covering consumer products at Jefferies .
“ To stay on-brand , it needs to be bigger than it is.
” Based on this new information—plus the impact of Covid-19 on beauty stocks and consumer spending—Forbes now thinks that Kylie Jenner , even after pocketing an estimated $ 340 million after taxes from the sale , is not a billionaire .
As with other Kardashian ventures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to cash in on a minor scandal .
The youngest of the family , she spent more than a year denying tabloid speculation that she was using lip filler injections before eventually finally fessing up to it in May 2015 .
Far from being embarrassed about being caught in a lie , she—and her shrewd mother , Kris—seized it as a marketing opportunity .
With $ 250,000 of her earnings from modeling , endorsements and Keeping Up With The Kardashians appearances , Kylie launched her first batch of 15,000 lip kits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matching lipstick , in November 2015 .
Thanks to clever Instagram marketing , the $ 29 kits were gone in less than a minute .
`` Before I even refreshed the page , everything was sold out , '' she later told Forbes .
By the end of 2016 , Kylie had dozens of new products and a reputation as a skyrocketing new entrant in the cosmetics industry .
A few months after her sister Kim Kardashian West scored a Forbes cover in July 2016 , Jenner publicists began a campaign to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revenues were $ 400 million over the business ’ first 18 months , they said , with a personal take-home pay of $ 250 million for Kylie .
Pressed for proof , they opened up their books .
During meetings at Kris Jenner ’ s palatial Hidden Hills , California , estate and the family accountant ’ s office nearby , Forbes was shown tax returns detailing $ 307 million in 2016 revenues and personal income of more than $ 110 million for Kylie that year .
It would have been enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Celebrity 100 list , behind only Taylor Swift , the accountant was quick to point out .
But the documents , despite looking authentic and bearing Kylie Jenner ’ s signature , weren ’ t exactly convincing since the story they told , of e-commerce brand Kylie Cosmetics growing from nothing to $ 300 million in sales in a single year , was hard to believe .
After speaking with a handful of analysts and industry experts who also found the Jenners ’ claims implausible , we settled on a more reasonable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : $ 41 million in overall earnings for Kylie , good for the No .
59 spot .
Kris was “ so frustrated , ” the Jenners ’ PR flack shot back .
“ We ’ ve done so much.
” Two months later , a story appeared in WWD , a trade publication known as “ the bible of fashion , ” using the exact numbers the Jenners first tried to give Forbes .
“ There has been raging speculation about the size of her business , with guesstimates ranging from $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the story reads .
“ Well , here ’ s the bad news for more-established beauty players : Jenner ’ s surpassed the higher figure with ease .
Kylie Cosmetics actually has done $ 420 million in retail sales—in just 18 months—Kris Jenner revealed .
.
.
.
” It was the first time the Jenners had publicly disclosed the size of the business , the story boasted— “ and they provided WWD with documentation.
” That sky-high revenue number—repeated everywhere from People to CNBC and Fortune—took hold .
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to calculate Kylie ’ s net worth for our list of the richest self-made women , the industry ’ s opinion of Kylie ’ s business had shifted .
Those huge revenues were “ totally possible , ” said one analyst , adding that she had heard similar numbers herself .
Another suggested revenues were around $ 350 million .
The estimates kept climbing .
Revenues were $ 400 million , according to a Piper Jaffray research note in 2018 .
An Oppenheimer report projected sales would top $ 700 million by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own number : 2017 revenues were up 7 % , they said , to $ 330 million .
“ No other influencer has ever gotten to the volume or had the rabid fans and consistency that Kylie has had for the last two and a half years , ” an executive at e-commerce platform Shopify , which manages Kylie ’ s online store , told Forbes at the time .
Based on her rapid success—certified by industry sources , plus those 2016 tax returns—Kylie appeared on the cover of Forbes magazine in July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our listing of the richest self-made women .
At age 20 , she was worth $ 900 million , we estimated , and would soon become the youngest self-made billionaire ever .
“ Thank you for this article and the recognition , ” Kylie Instagrammed .
Kim Kardashian West tweeted her congratulations—twice .
“ I am SO proud , ” Kris Jenner wrote , finally pleased .
The next month Kylie celebrated her 21st birthday at West Hollywood nightclub Delilah , in a Barbie-themed blowout complete with a pink ball pit , performances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in black T-shirts with Kylie ’ s Forbes cover printed on them , her face plastered next to the words “ America ’ s Women Billionaires.
” By early the next year , she officially crossed the ten-digit threshold .
Any doubts that Kylie wasn ’ t a billionaire were seemingly erased in November 2019 , when $ 8.6 billion ( revenues ) Coty announced it was snapping up 51 % of Kylie Cosmetics for $ 600 million , effectively valuing the business at about $ 1.2 billion .
The deal gave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media-savvy brand to help turn around its sagging balance sheet .
It gave Kylie a major chance at expansion , plus a boatload of cash and apparently clear proof of her billionaire status .
In a call with stock analysts , Coty ’ s chief financial officer heralded the deal as “ a compelling financial equation ” that would help “ make Coty a modern , growing and profitable beauty player.
” The analysts were immediately skeptical .
It looked like Coty was paying way too much for a celebrity brand that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one charged .
Another asked how Coty could be sure Kylie will remain committed to promoting the business in the years to come .
Then there were Kylie ’ s financials .
Revenues over a 12-month period preceding the deal : $ 177 million , according to the Coty presentation—far lower than the published estimates at the time .
More problematic , Coty said that sales were up 40 % from 2018 , meaning the business only generated about $ 125 million that year , nowhere near the $ 360 million the Jenners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s skin care line , which launched in May 2019 , did $ 100 million in revenues in its first month and a half , Kylie ’ s reps told us .
The filings show the line was actually “ on track ” to finish the year with just $ 25 million in sales .
“ I think everybody was surprised , ” says Wissink , the Jefferies analyst , who was on the call .
“ The negative that came out of that announcement was that the business was a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much smaller , in fact , that there ’ s virtually no way the numbers the Jenners were peddling in earlier years could be true either .
If Kylie Cosmetics did $ 125 million in sales in 2018 , how could it have done $ 307 million in 2016 ( as the company ’ s supposed tax returns state ) or $ 330 million in 2017 ?
One explanation : Kylie ’ s business quietly fell by more than half in a single year .
If so , Coty paid up for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much smaller business than it was just a few years ago .
( Coty would not answer any questions about Kylie Cosmetics for this story . )
Data from e-commerce firm Rakuten , which tracks a select number of receipts , suggests there was a 62 % decline in Kylie ’ s online sales between 2016 and 2018 .
Still , virtually every industry expert polled by Forbes thinks the business couldn ’ t have collapsed by so much so quickly .
“ It seems unlikely that much revenue could have evaporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saad .
“ There doesn ’ t seem to be any evidence the business has cratered , ” adds cosmetics veteran Jeffrey Ten , who has led companies like Note Cosmetics , Nyx and Calvin Klein Beauty .
“ If so , why would Coty buy it ?
” More likely : The business was never that big to begin with , and the Jenners have lied about it every year since 2016—including having their accountant draft tax returns with false numbers—to help juice Forbes ’ estimates of Kylie ’ s earnings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t prove that those documents were fake ( though it ’ s likely ) , it ’ s clear that Kylie ’ s camp has been lying .
There ’ s also the issue of profit : Forbes had been estimating that her business , which has little overhead , was notching 44 % net margins .
But Coty ’ s filings indicate that Kylie ’ s profits are likely lower than we figured , since her Ebitda margin—which factors in some , but not all , of her expenses—is only around 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insisted that all of those profits went directly to Kylie because she owned the business outright .
But Coty ’ s purchase agreement specifically lists a “ KMJ 2018 Irrevocable Trust , ” controlled by Kristen M. Jenner , as owning a profit interest in Kylie Cosmetics .
Upon the sale , the document says the trust would get a capital , or ownership , interest in the company .
The Jenners initially told Forbes that the trust holds money Kylie Jenner earned before she turned 18 and that Kylie is its beneficiary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been created well after Kylie turned 18 , and the Jenners declined to offer any proof to back up their claims .
Given the lack of clarity—and the history of lies—we ’ re erring on the side of caution and assuming that the trust belongs to Kris Jenner .
That means Kylie Jenner owns an estimated 44.1 % of Kylie Cosmetics , rather than 49 % .
“ You have to remember they are in the entertainment business , ” says Ten .
“ Everything in entertainment has to be exaggerated to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into account and factoring in the pandemic , Forbes has recalculated Kylie ’ s net worth and concluded that she is not a billionaire .
A more realistic accounting of her personal fortune puts it at just under $ 900 million , despite the headlines surrounding the Coty deal that seemed to confirm her billionaire status .
More than a third of that is the estimated $ 340 million in post-tax cash she would have pocketed from selling a majority of her company .
The rest is made up of revised earnings based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more conservative estimate of its profitability , plus the value of her remaining share of Kylie Cosmetics—which is not only smaller than the Jenners led us to believe but is also worth less now than it was when the deal was announced in November , given the economic effects of the coronavirus .
Coty ’ s share price has fallen more than 60 % since the deal was struck , and even better-performing competitors like Ulta Beauty and Estée Lauder are still down single digits .
Add that to the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much to begin with and there is no way to realistically peg Kylie ’ s net worth above a billion—despite her massive cash-out .
As usual , we asked the Jenners for input on our numbers .
But pressed for answers on the many discrepancies , the typically chatty family did something out of character : They stopped answering our questions .

Earlier this year, Kylie Jenner sold half of her cosmetics company in one of the greatest celebrity cash-outs of all time. But the deal’s fine print reveals that she has been inflating the size and success of her business. For years.
Editor’s note, June 1, 2020: This story has been updated to include a statement from Kylie Jenner’s representatives.
More than a decade into their fame, the Kardashian-Jenners tend to induce eye rolls and sighs among jaded media consumers. But when it comes to their wealth, even critics of reality TV’s first family are intrigued; the Kardashian-Jenner machine—and the cash it generates—has been the subject of articles, podcasts, even books. But no one cares more about the topic than the family itself, which has spent years fighting Forbes for higher spots on our annual wealth and celebrity earnings lists.
So when the youngest of the clan, Kylie Jenner, sold 51% of her Kylie Cosmetics to beauty giant Coty in a deal valued at $1.2 billion this January, it was a watershed moment for the family. One of the greatest celebrity cash-outs of all time, the transaction seemed to confirm what Kylie had been saying all along and what Forbes had declared in March 2019: that Kylie Jenner was, indeed, a billionaire—at least before the coronavirus.
When we visited Kylie Jenner in 2018, she claimed her cosmetics company was on track to sell more than $300 million in makeup that year. In reality? It only did $125 million. Jamel Toppin for Forbes
“Kylie is a modern-day icon, with an incredible sense of the beauty consumer,” Coty chairman Peter Harf gushed when announcing the acquisition in November.
But in the deal’s fine print, a less flattering truth emerged. Filings released by publicly traded Coty over the past six months lay bare one of the family’s best-kept secrets: Kylie’s business is significantly smaller, and less profitable, than the family has spent years leading the cosmetics industry and media outlets, including Forbes, to believe.
Of course, white lies, omissions and outright fabrications are to be expected from the family that perfected—then monetized—the concept of “famous for being famous.” But, similar to Donald Trump’s decades-long obsession with his net worth, the unusual lengths to which the Jenners have been willing to go—including inviting Forbes into their mansions and CPA’s offices, and even creating tax returns that were likely forged—reveals just how desperate some of the ultra-rich are to look even richer.
“It’s fair to say that everything the Kardashian-Jenner family does is oversized,” says Stephanie Wissink, an equity analyst covering consumer products at Jefferies. “To stay on-brand, it needs to be bigger than it is.”
Based on this new information—plus the impact of Covid-19 on beauty stocks and consumer spending—Forbes now thinks that Kylie Jenner, even after pocketing an estimated $340 million after taxes from the sale, is not a billionaire.
As with other Kardashian ventures, Kylie’s business began as a way to cash in on a minor scandal. The youngest of the family, she spent more than a year denying tabloid speculation that she was using lip filler injections before eventually finally fessing up to it in May 2015. Far from being embarrassed about being caught in a lie, she—and her shrewd mother, Kris—seized it as a marketing opportunity.
With $250,000 of her earnings from modeling, endorsements and Keeping Up With The Kardashians appearances, Kylie launched her first batch of 15,000 lip kits, consisting of a lip liner and matching lipstick, in November 2015. Thanks to clever Instagram marketing, the $29 kits were gone in less than a minute. "Before I even refreshed the page, everything was sold out," she later told Forbes.
Reality TV made the Kardashian-Jenner family wildly famous—but how they leveraged that fame through their businesses, ranging from mobile games to makeup, is how they amassed most of their fortunes. E! Entertainment
By the end of 2016, Kylie had dozens of new products and a reputation as a skyrocketing new entrant in the cosmetics industry. A few months after her sister Kim Kardashian West scored a Forbes cover in July 2016, Jenner publicists began a campaign to “get a Forbes cover for Kylie.” Revenues were $400 million over the business’ first 18 months, they said, with a personal take-home pay of $250 million for Kylie. Pressed for proof, they opened up their books. During meetings at Kris Jenner’s palatial Hidden Hills, California, estate and the family accountant’s office nearby, Forbes was shown tax returns detailing $307 million in 2016 revenues and personal income of more than $110 million for Kylie that year. It would have been enough to put her at N0. 2 on the Celebrity 100 list, behind only Taylor Swift, the accountant was quick to point out. But the documents, despite looking authentic and bearing Kylie Jenner’s signature, weren’t exactly convincing since the story they told, of e-commerce brand Kylie Cosmetics growing from nothing to $300 million in sales in a single year, was hard to believe.
After speaking with a handful of analysts and industry experts who also found the Jenners’ claims implausible, we settled on a more reasonable estimate for our 2017 Celebrity 100 list: $41 million in overall earnings for Kylie, good for the No. 59 spot. Kris was “so frustrated,” the Jenners’ PR flack shot back. “We’ve done so much.”
Two months later, a story appeared in WWD, a trade publication known as “the bible of fashion,” using the exact numbers the Jenners first tried to give Forbes. “There has been raging speculation about the size of her business, with guesstimates ranging from $50 million up to $300 million,” the story reads. “Well, here’s the bad news for more-established beauty players: Jenner’s surpassed the higher figure with ease. Kylie Cosmetics actually has done $420 million in retail sales—in just 18 months—Kris Jenner revealed. . . . ” It was the first time the Jenners had publicly disclosed the size of the business, the story boasted—“and they provided WWD with documentation.”
That sky-high revenue number—repeated everywhere from People to CNBC and Fortune—took hold. By the summer of 2018, when Forbes set out to calculate Kylie’s net worth for our list of the richest self-made women, the industry’s opinion of Kylie’s business had shifted. Those huge revenues were “totally possible,” said one analyst, adding that she had heard similar numbers herself. Another suggested revenues were around $350 million. The estimates kept climbing. Revenues were $400 million, according to a Piper Jaffray research note in 2018. An Oppenheimer report projected sales would top $700 million by 2020.
Jenner on the August 31, 2018 issue of Forbes Forbes
The Jenners offered us their own number: 2017 revenues were up 7%, they said, to $330 million. “No other influencer has ever gotten to the volume or had the rabid fans and consistency that Kylie has had for the last two and a half years,” an executive at e-commerce platform Shopify, which manages Kylie’s online store, told Forbes at the time. Based on her rapid success—certified by industry sources, plus those 2016 tax returns—Kylie appeared on the cover of Forbes magazine in July 2018, ranking No. 27 on our listing of the richest self-made women. At age 20, she was worth $900 million, we estimated, and would soon become the youngest self-made billionaire ever.
“Thank you for this article and the recognition,” Kylie Instagrammed. Kim Kardashian West tweeted her congratulations—twice. “I am SO proud,” Kris Jenner wrote, finally pleased.
The next month Kylie celebrated her 21st birthday at West Hollywood nightclub Delilah, in a Barbie-themed blowout complete with a pink ball pit, performances by Travis Scott and Dave Chappelle—and bartenders in black T-shirts with Kylie’s Forbes cover printed on them, her face plastered next to the words “America’s Women Billionaires.” By early the next year, she officially crossed the ten-digit threshold.
Any doubts that Kylie wasn’t a billionaire were seemingly erased in November 2019, when $8.6 billion (revenues) Coty announced it was snapping up 51% of Kylie Cosmetics for $600 million, effectively valuing the business at about $1.2 billion. The deal gave the struggling 116-year-old Coty a hip, social media-savvy brand to help turn around its sagging balance sheet. It gave Kylie a major chance at expansion, plus a boatload of cash and apparently clear proof of her billionaire status.
In a call with stock analysts, Coty’s chief financial officer heralded the deal as “a compelling financial equation” that would help “make Coty a modern, growing and profitable beauty player.” The analysts were immediately skeptical. It looked like Coty was paying way too much for a celebrity brand that could prove to be just a fad, one charged. Another asked how Coty could be sure Kylie will remain committed to promoting the business in the years to come.
Then there were Kylie’s financials. Revenues over a 12-month period preceding the deal: $177 million, according to the Coty presentation—far lower than the published estimates at the time. More problematic, Coty said that sales were up 40% from 2018, meaning the business only generated about $125 million that year, nowhere near the $360 million the Jenners had led Forbes to believe. Kylie’s skin care line, which launched in May 2019, did $100 million in revenues in its first month and a half, Kylie’s reps told us. The filings show the line was actually “on track” to finish the year with just $25 million in sales.
“I think everybody was surprised,” says Wissink, the Jefferies analyst, who was on the call. “The negative that came out of that announcement was that the business was a lot smaller than everybody had expected.”
So much smaller, in fact, that there’s virtually no way the numbers the Jenners were peddling in earlier years could be true either. If Kylie Cosmetics did $125 million in sales in 2018, how could it have done $307 million in 2016 (as the company’s supposed tax returns state) or $330 million in 2017?
Kylie's signature Lip Kits, which consist of a lipstick and a matching lip liner, were first released in late 2015 and sold out in minutes. She now sells them both online and in Ulta stores. Getty Images
One explanation: Kylie’s business quietly fell by more than half in a single year. If so, Coty paid up for a “high-growth” brand that is actually a much smaller business than it was just a few years ago. (Coty would not answer any questions about Kylie Cosmetics for this story.) Data from e-commerce firm Rakuten, which tracks a select number of receipts, suggests there was a 62% decline in Kylie’s online sales between 2016 and 2018.
Still, virtually every industry expert polled by Forbes thinks the business couldn’t have collapsed by so much so quickly. “It seems unlikely that much revenue could have evaporated overnight," says Evercore analyst Omar Saad. “There doesn’t seem to be any evidence the business has cratered,” adds cosmetics veteran Jeffrey Ten, who has led companies like Note Cosmetics, Nyx and Calvin Klein Beauty. “If so, why would Coty buy it?”
More likely: The business was never that big to begin with, and the Jenners have lied about it every year since 2016—including having their accountant draft tax returns with false numbers—to help juice Forbes’ estimates of Kylie’s earnings and net worth. While we can’t prove that those documents were fake (though it’s likely), it’s clear that Kylie’s camp has been lying.
There’s also the issue of profit: Forbes had been estimating that her business, which has little overhead, was notching 44% net margins. But Coty’s filings indicate that Kylie’s profits are likely lower than we figured, since her Ebitda margin—which factors in some, but not all, of her expenses—is only around 25%.
Kris Jenner, the Kardashian-Jenner family matriarch, helps guide her daughters through business decisions—for a price. She takes 10% of their earnings, including an estimated $60 million haul, pretax, from the Coty sale. Getty Images
For years, the Jenners insisted that all of those profits went directly to Kylie because she owned the business outright. But Coty’s purchase agreement specifically lists a “KMJ 2018 Irrevocable Trust,” controlled by Kristen M. Jenner, as owning a profit interest in Kylie Cosmetics. Upon the sale, the document says the trust would get a capital, or ownership, interest in the company. The Jenners initially told Forbes that the trust holds money Kylie Jenner earned before she turned 18 and that Kylie is its beneficiary. But the trust appears to have been created well after Kylie turned 18, and the Jenners declined to offer any proof to back up their claims. Given the lack of clarity—and the history of lies—we’re erring on the side of caution and assuming that the trust belongs to Kris Jenner. That means Kylie Jenner owns an estimated 44.1% of Kylie Cosmetics, rather than 49%.
“You have to remember they are in the entertainment business,” says Ten. “Everything in entertainment has to be exaggerated to get attention.”
Taking all this new information into account and factoring in the pandemic, Forbes has recalculated Kylie’s net worth and concluded that she is not a billionaire. A more realistic accounting of her personal fortune puts it at just under $900 million, despite the headlines surrounding the Coty deal that seemed to confirm her billionaire status. More than a third of that is the estimated $340 million in post-tax cash she would have pocketed from selling a majority of her company. The rest is made up of revised earnings based on her business’ smaller size and a more conservative estimate of its profitability, plus the value of her remaining share of Kylie Cosmetics—which is not only smaller than the Jenners led us to believe but is also worth less now than it was when the deal was announced in November, given the economic effects of the coronavirus.
Coty’s share price has fallen more than 60% since the deal was struck, and even better-performing competitors like Ulta Beauty and Estée Lauder are still down single digits. Add that to the fact that Wall Street tends to think Coty paid too much to begin with and there is no way to realistically peg Kylie’s net worth above a billion—despite her massive cash-out.
As usual, we asked the Jenners for input on our numbers. But pressed for answers on the many discrepancies, the typically chatty family did something out of character: They stopped answering our questions.
Editor’s note, June 1, 2020: Following publication of this story, representatives of Kylie and Kris Jenner sent a letter to Forbes denying that Kylie has lied or that the tax returns the Jenners sent us contained false numbers. “The accusations that the Jenners, and/or their accountants, falsified tax returns and then lied about their 2016 revenues for the last four years, are absolutely false,” the letter reads, in part.
Additional reporting by Chloe Sorvino and Natalie Robehmed


bonginoreport--2020-05-29--Planned Parenthood Admitted the Truth About “Selling Baby Body Parts” Under Oath

An explosive new video from the Center for Medical Progress ( CMP ) contradicts past claims from Planned Parenthood that the corporation never participated in the sale of aborted baby body parts but merely donated them and was compensated for expenses .
Featuring testimony from Planned Parenthood officials under oath in 2019 , as well as documents from those officials ’ admissions , the video shows these executives and directors admitting to actually selling body parts , which is illegal .
Numerous depositions are featured in the video , including from Tram Nguyen ( Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Dorothy Furgerson ( Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte ) , and Dr. Deborah Nucatola , the former senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America , among others .
More testimony and documents are available on the CMP website .
After CMP ’ s undercover videos were released , Planned Parenthood retaliated with a bogus lawsuit , while its political allies in California pressed charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt , the journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood ’ s illegal behavior .
Planned Parenthood publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ videos were doctored and heavily edited ( an accusation that was disproven by forensic analyses ) and claiming they never broke any laws regarding the trafficking of aborted body parts .
But this newly released video shows otherwise .
Featured in the video are email contracts sent to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast .
While publicly , Planned Parenthood told the New York Times they turned the deal down , in video testimony of her deposition under oath , Tram Nguyen is seen admitting in that she actually intended to move forward with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument that money received was nothing more than reimbursement for costs sustained by Planned Parenthood .
Testimony revealed that payment was only made to Planned Parenthood if StemExpress was able to obtain “ usable ” body parts from one of its abortion centers — meaning Planned Parenthood deceived the public when it claimed it only collected reimbursements for employees ’ time and costs .
While the law allows for reimbursements of specific costs when donating fetal organs , those reimbursements must meet specific guidelines ; they must be fees associated with transportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Planned Parenthood did none of these things , yet they collected money when they provided StemExpress with marketable body parts .
During some of the featured testimony in the video , an attorney can be heard in the background repeatedly instructing her client not to answer when asked how much money Planned Parenthood may have received from selling the body parts of aborted children .
Yet invoices showed some Planned Parenthood centers receiving upwards of $ 10,000 in a single month , lending credence to StemExpress ’ advertised promises of “ financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for abortion facilities .
READ : Former StemExpress employee smashes claim that Planned Parenthood had ‘ shipping costs ’ for aborted baby body parts Other documents showed that top level executives at Planned Parenthood ’ s national headquarters were aware of the body parts sales .
Deborah Nucatola , an abortionist herself , admitted under oath that she knew Planned Parenthood Los Angeles was receiving payments for body parts yet claimed she never bothered to ensure everything was taking place legally .
Nucatola is the abortionist seen in CMP ’ s first video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegally altered abortion procedures to better harvest body parts .
Dr. Mary Gatter was also featured in the under-oath testimony , and was previously caught undercover haggling over prices for aborted body parts , infamously stating , “ I want a Lamborghini.
” In her deposition , Gatter admitted to setting up a business arrangement with the now-closed , for-profit fetal tissue harvesting firm Novogenix .
StemExpress and Advanced Bioscience Resources ( ABR ) are still in operation , and ABR is still working with Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest to obtain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Planned Parenthood officials admit to wrongdoing under oath , the journalists who uncovered their illegal behavior remain under investigation by authorities—allowing Planned Parenthood to continue its scheme with no repercussions .
In a press release , David Daleiden , project lead for CMP , called for action .
“ The time has come for federal consequences for Planned Parenthood , ” he said .
“ Planned Parenthood lied to the public and to Congress , but now there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood sold fetal body parts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating pregnant women like a cash crop .
The U.S. Department of Justice must escalate the enforcement of laws against fetal trafficking to the highest level of priority.
” “ Like ” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary !

An explosive new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) contradicts past claims from Planned Parenthood that the corporation never participated in the sale of aborted baby body parts but merely donated them and was compensated for expenses. Featuring testimony from Planned Parenthood officials under oath in 2019, as well as documents from those officials’ admissions, the video shows these executives and directors admitting to actually selling body parts, which is illegal.
Numerous depositions are featured in the video, including from Tram Nguyen (Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s Senior Director of Abortion Access), Dr. Dorothy Furgerson (Chief Medical Officer of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte), and Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the former senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, among others. More testimony and documents are available on the CMP website.
After CMP’s undercover videos were released, Planned Parenthood retaliated with a bogus lawsuit, while its political allies in California pressed charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, the journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal behavior. Planned Parenthood publicly went on the attack, claiming the videos were doctored and heavily edited (an accusation that was disproven by forensic analyses) and claiming they never broke any laws regarding the trafficking of aborted body parts. But this newly released video shows otherwise.
READ: Late-term abortionist harvests baby body parts ‘within minutes’ of abortion
Featured in the video are email contracts sent to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast. While publicly, Planned Parenthood told the New York Times they turned the deal down, in video testimony of her deposition under oath, Tram Nguyen is seen admitting in that she actually intended to move forward with the financial arrangement.
This video also disputes the argument that money received was nothing more than reimbursement for costs sustained by Planned Parenthood. Testimony revealed that payment was only made to Planned Parenthood if StemExpress was able to obtain “usable” body parts from one of its abortion centers — meaning Planned Parenthood deceived the public when it claimed it only collected reimbursements for employees’ time and costs. While the law allows for reimbursements of specific costs when donating fetal organs, those reimbursements must meet specific guidelines; they must be fees associated with transportation, processing, and other such costs. Planned Parenthood did none of these things, yet they collected money when they provided StemExpress with marketable body parts.
During some of the featured testimony in the video, an attorney can be heard in the background repeatedly instructing her client not to answer when asked how much money Planned Parenthood may have received from selling the body parts of aborted children. Yet invoices showed some Planned Parenthood centers receiving upwards of $10,000 in a single month, lending credence to StemExpress’ advertised promises of “financial benefit” and “fiscal reward” for abortion facilities.
READ: Former StemExpress employee smashes claim that Planned Parenthood had ‘shipping costs’ for aborted baby body parts
Other documents showed that top level executives at Planned Parenthood’s national headquarters were aware of the body parts sales. Deborah Nucatola, an abortionist herself, admitted under oath that she knew Planned Parenthood Los Angeles was receiving payments for body parts yet claimed she never bothered to ensure everything was taking place legally. Nucatola is the abortionist seen in CMP’s first video discussing over wine and salad how she illegally altered abortion procedures to better harvest body parts. Dr. Mary Gatter was also featured in the under-oath testimony, and was previously caught undercover haggling over prices for aborted body parts, infamously stating, “I want a Lamborghini.” In her deposition, Gatter admitted to setting up a business arrangement with the now-closed, for-profit fetal tissue harvesting firm Novogenix.
StemExpress and Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) are still in operation, and ABR is still working with Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest to obtain aborted body parts for researchers. And while Planned Parenthood officials admit to wrongdoing under oath, the journalists who uncovered their illegal behavior remain under investigation by authorities—allowing Planned Parenthood to continue its scheme with no repercussions.
In a press release, David Daleiden, project lead for CMP, called for action. “The time has come for federal consequences for Planned Parenthood,” he said. “Planned Parenthood lied to the public and to Congress, but now there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood sold fetal body parts, commodifying living children in the womb and treating pregnant women like a cash crop. The U.S. Department of Justice must escalate the enforcement of laws against fetal trafficking to the highest level of priority.”
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


bonginoreport--2020-05-29--Twitter Is Not Neutral, and Needs to Be Treated Like Any Other Publisher

If Twitter wants to editorialize and 'factcheck ' President Trump ’ s tweets with disclaimers , then it should be treated like any other publisher .
Twitter ’ s decision this week to append a disclaimer to President Trump ’ s tweets about the risks of mail-in ballot fraud should be enough , at long last , for us to dispense with the fiction that Twitter is nothing more than a neutral platform .
It ’ s not , it never has been , and it ’ s time to stop pretending otherwise .
Set aside the relative merits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate about whether mass voting by mail is a good idea , because that ’ s not what ’ s important here .
By stepping in to flag Trump ’ s tweet with a warning label and a link so users can “ get the facts ” about mail-in ballots ( which ironically links to a CNN article by Chris Cillizza ) , Twitter abandoned any claim it had to being a neutral facilitator .
It crossed over , in other words , from being a supposedly unbiased social media platform to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publisher with a very clear editorial position .
This has been true for some time now .
Everyone knows that Silicon Valley is politically progressive and , as Vox reported Wednesday , its top executives are working hard to elect presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
The only difference now is that Twitter decided to make it bone-crushingly obvious .
Social media companies like Twitter , Facebook , and Google have been censoring and editorializing for years under the absurd pretext that they were just enforcing their own “ community guidelines , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what their users were saying or embedding their own biases into the site ’ s rules .
Who writes and enforces these community guidelines ?
People like Yoel Roth , Twitter ’ s Head of Site Integrity , whose anti-Trump tweets from 2016 and 2017 resurfaced recently .
Roth called Trump and his officials “ ACTUAL NAZIS , ” compared Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a “ bag of farts , ” and implied that Trump supporters are racists .
What changed this week is that Twitter essentially came out and admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a neutral platform .
The company itself , it turns out , has a point of view—in this case , about absentee voting—and it is willing to push that point of view on its users , not just by employing people like Roth to write and enforce its rules , but by explicitly fact-checking the President of the United States .
By doing this , Twitter hasn ’ t just waded into politics in an overt way , it has exposed the fiction at the heart of what social media companies are : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re biased , and like their peer organizations in the mainstream media , they ’ re overwhelmingly biased against conservatives and in favor of progressives .
Twitter Needs To Be Held To The Same Standards As Traditional Publishers Here ’ s why that ’ s a big deal .
For decades , social media companies have wanted to have it both ways .
They wanted to be able to enjoy liability protections that traditional publishers don ’ t have while censoring opinions they don ’ t like and promoting those they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do this in part thanks to federal law .
Back in the late 1990s when the internet was young , Congress exempted Internet companies from liability for publishing things that were inaccurate or potentially libelous , so long as they were uploaded by a third party .
Specifically , Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , passed in 1996 , protects companies like Twitter from being sued for allowing users to post crazy conspiracy theories , malicious lies , and outright falsehoods .
That ’ s why , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news stories on Twitter like this one from December 2017 , in which CNN claimed Donald Trump Jr. had been tipped off about hacked Wikileaks documents before they were made public : All of this to say , Twitter , Facebook , Google , and other tech giants with massive social media platforms obviously have an editorial slant , much like the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN .
Unlike those outlets , however , these tech firms have been able to hide behind the canard that they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exchange ideas , so they can ’ t be held liable for what their users post .
No more .
If Twitter wants to start fact-checking everything that gets posted by influential people , fine .
But there ’ s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner , and no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protections .
As Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said Wednesday , “ It ’ s pretty simple : if Twitter and Google and the rest are going to editorialize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230.
” Hawley has the right instincts here .
At the very least , he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate should call on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to explain why his company should continue to enjoy Section 230 protections when it has clearly decided to act like a traditional publisher .
While he ’ s at it , maybe Dorsey can explain what he meant when he told Sam Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore.
” Then again , maybe he doesn ’ t need to .
We all know what he meant .

Twitter’s decision this week to append a disclaimer to President Trump’s tweets about the risks of mail-in ballot fraud should be enough, at long last, for us to dispense with the fiction that Twitter is nothing more than a neutral platform.
It’s not, it never has been, and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise.
Set aside the relative merits of Trump’s comments and the entire debate about whether mass voting by mail is a good idea, because that’s not what’s important here. By stepping in to flag Trump’s tweet with a warning label and a link so users can “get the facts” about mail-in ballots (which ironically links to a CNN article by Chris Cillizza), Twitter abandoned any claim it had to being a neutral facilitator. It crossed over, in other words, from being a supposedly unbiased social media platform to being a traditional publisher—in this case, a publisher with a very clear editorial position.
This has been true for some time now. Everyone knows that Silicon Valley is politically progressive and, as Vox reported Wednesday, its top executives are working hard to elect presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
The only difference now is that Twitter decided to make it bone-crushingly obvious. Social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google have been censoring and editorializing for years under the absurd pretext that they were just enforcing their own “community guidelines,” not weighing in on the merits of what their users were saying or embedding their own biases into the site’s rules. Who writes and enforces these community guidelines? People like Yoel Roth, Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity, whose anti-Trump tweets from 2016 and 2017 resurfaced recently. Roth called Trump and his officials “ACTUAL NAZIS,” compared Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to a “bag of farts,” and implied that Trump supporters are racists.
This person is the “head of site integrity” at Twitter pic.twitter.com/hyZcl5VIe0 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) May 27, 2020
What changed this week is that Twitter essentially came out and admitted these biases, discarding the façade of a neutral platform. The company itself, it turns out, has a point of view—in this case, about absentee voting—and it is willing to push that point of view on its users, not just by employing people like Roth to write and enforce its rules, but by explicitly fact-checking the President of the United States.
By doing this, Twitter hasn’t just waded into politics in an overt way, it has exposed the fiction at the heart of what social media companies are: they’re not neutral platforms, they’re biased, and like their peer organizations in the mainstream media, they’re overwhelmingly biased against conservatives and in favor of progressives.
Twitter Needs To Be Held To The Same Standards As Traditional Publishers
Here’s why that’s a big deal. For decades, social media companies have wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to enjoy liability protections that traditional publishers don’t have while censoring opinions they don’t like and promoting those they do.
They’ve been able to do this in part thanks to federal law. Back in the late 1990s when the internet was young, Congress exempted Internet companies from liability for publishing things that were inaccurate or potentially libelous, so long as they were uploaded by a third party.
Specifically, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, protects companies like Twitter from being sued for allowing users to post crazy conspiracy theories, malicious lies, and outright falsehoods.
That’s why, for example, you’ll occasionally see completely false news stories on Twitter like this one from December 2017, in which CNN claimed Donald Trump Jr. had been tipped off about hacked Wikileaks documents before they were made public:
Exclusive: Donald Trump, Trump Jr. and others in the Trump Organization got an email in September 2016 offering a decryption key and link for hacked WikiLeaks documents https://t.co/hEJLhtiYKm pic.twitter.com/DCCMNhtzge — CNN (@CNN) December 8, 2017
(Contra CNN, there was no story here at all. Trump Jr. had simply gotten an email from someone telling him about Wikileaks documents that had already been released. CNN chalked it up to an honest mistake.)
All of this to say, Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other tech giants with massive social media platforms obviously have an editorial slant, much like the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN. Unlike those outlets, however, these tech firms have been able to hide behind the canard that they’re just providing a space for third parties to exchange ideas, so they can’t be held liable for what their users post.
No more. If Twitter wants to start fact-checking everything that gets posted by influential people, fine. But there’s no way it can do so in an even-handed or fair manner, and no way it can continue to insist on Section 230 protections.
As Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said Wednesday, “It’s pretty simple: if Twitter and Google and the rest are going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers, they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230.”
Hawley has the right instincts here. At the very least, he and his Republican colleagues in the Senate should call on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to explain why his company should continue to enjoy Section 230 protections when it has clearly decided to act like a traditional publisher. While he’s at it, maybe Dorsey can explain what he meant when he told Sam Harris last year, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore.”
Then again, maybe he doesn’t need to. We all know what he meant.
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.


bonginoreport--2020-05-29--U.S. Takes More Aggressive Stance Towards China Over Uighur Persecution

The United States is poised to take a more aggressive stance toward China 's mistreatment of Uighur Muslims , with both Congress and President Trump speaking out against the communist state .
Trump on Friday is expected to hold a press conference in which he will criticize China , just days after Congress sent to his desk the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act , which addresses the communist state ’ s history of religious persecution .
The bill passed the House of Representatives Wednesday in a near-unanimous vote .
It passed the Senate by unanimous consent earlier this month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ public outcry against China following widespread revelations last year that the totalitarian state was pursuing an aggressive persecution of Uighur Muslims in its Xinjiang province .
Trump has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill , which would require him to impose sanctions on Chinese party leaders , specifically those in Xinjiang , a first in U.S. relations with China .
The president on Tuesday did say , however , that he was “ taking a look at it very strongly , ” along with possible action on Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights policies have also raised alarm bells .
Gary Bauer , commissioner at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom , a State Department-sponsored watchdog , told the Washington Examiner that he hopes Trump will sign the bill and issue sanctions to the “ fullest extent ” possible .
The bill , Bauer said , is a major step forward for religious liberty policy because , for the first time , it “ explicitly links U.S. policy toward China to the human rights of Uighur Muslims.
” And yet , he added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment of Uighurs should only be the start of a dedicated opposition to “ China ’ s war on faith.
” “ The government has initiated crackdowns against Christians , Buddhists , Falun Gong , and others , ” he said .
“ The United States government must stand up for all of these groups and insist that the Communist Party respect their right under international law to practice their faith.
” USCIRF , along with many other international organizations , have for years condemned China for its treatment of religious minority groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the watchdog recommended that U.S. government officials the 2022 Chinese Winter Olympic Games because of the Uigur issue .
The group also found in March that , during the coronavirus pandemic , the Chinese regime of Uighurs , forcing them to continue working in Wuhan factories as the virus ravaged the city .
The coronavirus pandemic heightened a distrust of China that first became widespread during massive protests in Hong Kong last year over the communist regime ’ s overreach into the semi-autonomous island ’ s affairs .
The combined memories of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment of Uighurs only compounds that distrust in the pandemic , Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton said .
“ Governments that treat their own people in such brutal ways would think nothing of lying about a virus death toll to preserve their own power , ” he the Washington Examiner in April .
Cotton is a self-professed China hawk , but the passage of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act prompted elected leaders who do not normally speak on the issue to offer condemnations of the communist state .
“ The United States Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing ’ s horrific human rights abuses against the Uighurs , ” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said just before the bill ’ s passage .
“ We must continue to raise a drumbeat and shine the light of abuse perpetrated by Beijing against the Uighurs whenever we can , from this House floor to the State Department to other multilateral institutions.
” Pelosi appointed Nury Turkel , a Uighur rights activist , to the USCIRF the day before the bill passed .
His new role will be in part dedicated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization .
Turkel , who was born in a Chinese reeducation camp , fled to the U.S. in 1995 .
Following the bill ’ s passage , he said in a statement that he hopes “ other countries will follow the U.S. government ’ s lead and take action on this issue .
”

The United States is poised to take a more aggressive stance toward China's mistreatment of Uighur Muslims, with both Congress and President Trump speaking out against the communist state.
Trump on Friday is expected to hold a press conference in which he will criticize China, just days after Congress sent to his desk the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act, which addresses the communist state’s history of religious persecution.
The bill passed the House of Representatives Wednesday in a near-unanimous vote. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent earlier this month. It is a culmination of a bipartisan public outcry against China following widespread revelations last year that the totalitarian state was pursuing an aggressive persecution of Uighur Muslims in its Xinjiang province.
Trump has not indicated whether or not he will sign the bill, which would require him to impose sanctions on Chinese party leaders, specifically those in Xinjiang, a first in U.S. relations with China. The president on Tuesday did say, however, that he was “taking a look at it very strongly,” along with possible action on Hong Kong, where critics of China’s human rights policies have also raised alarm bells.
Gary Bauer, commissioner at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a State Department-sponsored watchdog, told the Washington Examiner that he hopes Trump will sign the bill and issue sanctions to the “fullest extent” possible. The bill, Bauer said, is a major step forward for religious liberty policy because, for the first time, it “explicitly links U.S. policy toward China to the human rights of Uighur Muslims.”
And yet, he added, sanctioning party leaders because of their treatment of Uighurs should only be the start of a dedicated opposition to “China’s war on faith.”
“The government has initiated crackdowns against Christians, Buddhists, Falun Gong, and others,” he said. “The United States government must stand up for all of these groups and insist that the Communist Party respect their right under international law to practice their faith.”
USCIRF, along with many other international organizations, have for years condemned China for its treatment of religious minority groups. In its annual report this year, the watchdog recommended that U.S. government officials boycott the 2022 Chinese Winter Olympic Games because of the Uigur issue. The group also found in March that, during the coronavirus pandemic, the Chinese regime took advantage of Uighurs, forcing them to continue working in Wuhan factories as the virus ravaged the city.
The coronavirus pandemic heightened a distrust of China that first became widespread during massive protests in Hong Kong last year over the communist regime’s overreach into the semi-autonomous island’s affairs. The combined memories of Hong Kong and the regime’s treatment of Uighurs only compounds that distrust in the pandemic, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton said.
“Governments that treat their own people in such brutal ways would think nothing of lying about a virus death toll to preserve their own power,” he told the Washington Examiner in April.
Cotton is a self-professed China hawk, but the passage of the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act prompted elected leaders who do not normally speak on the issue to offer condemnations of the communist state.
“The United States Congress is taking a firm step to counter Beijing’s horrific human rights abuses against the Uighurs,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said just before the bill’s passage. “We must continue to raise a drumbeat and shine the light of abuse perpetrated by Beijing against the Uighurs whenever we can, from this House floor to the State Department to other multilateral institutions.”
Pelosi appointed Nury Turkel, a Uighur rights activist, to the USCIRF the day before the bill passed. His new role will be in part dedicated to leading Uighur advocacy, according to the organization. Turkel, who was born in a Chinese reeducation camp, fled to the U.S. in 1995. Following the bill’s passage, he said in a statement that he hopes “other countries will follow the U.S. government’s lead and take action on this issue.”


bonginoreport--2020-05-29--Online Poker Sees a Boom During Pandemic

With most sports leagues on hiatus and casinos across the country closed because of the coronavirus , a lot of people have been placing bets online from home , leading to several records in online gambling numbers in 2020 .
Among the states that have seen huge jumps in online poker numbers are New Jersey and Pennsylvania .
New Jersey took in a record $ 79.9 million from online poker and casino games in April — a 118 % increase from the $ 36.6 million in revenue the state had in April 2019 , according to the state .
Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poker and casino games , as the state has doubled its revenue from online games since February , according to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board .
The four most popular online games are slots , blackjack , craps and roulette , according to PlayUSA .
Google searches for online poker reached a five-year peak during the coronavirus pandemic , with the increase beginning in mid-March — the week when most sports leagues shut down .
While the boom in online poker has helped the struggling sportsbooks during the pandemic , it has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The revenue from a typical month of sports betting when sports were still operating dwarfs any extra revenue sportsbooks have seen from online poker .
For example , Pennsylvania ’ s total sports betting handle betting was $ 46 million in April 2020 compared with $ 348.4 million in January 2020 .
That handle is made up largely from international sports like Korean baseball , NASCAR and betting on popular video games and virtual competitions like “ League of Legends.
” “ There will likely be long-term implications from this surge in online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes online gambling permanently more popular is likely to continue even after casinos reopen , ” Valerie Cross , analyst for PlayPennsylvania , said in an email to MarketWatch .
“ But the reality is that despite the gains made at online casinos , the closing of land-based casinos left a revenue hole that can ’ t be made up .
”

With most sports leagues on hiatus and casinos across the country closed because of the coronavirus, a lot of people have been placing bets online from home, leading to several records in online gambling numbers in 2020.
Among the states that have seen huge jumps in online poker numbers are New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
The online poker industry is booming, but can it make up for what casinos are losing? MarketWatch
New Jersey took in a record $79.9 million from online poker and casino games in April — a 118% increase from the $36.6 million in revenue the state had in April 2019, according to the state.
Pennsylvania also had a record-breaking April with online poker and casino games, as the state has doubled its revenue from online games since February, according to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.
The four most popular online games are slots, blackjack, craps and roulette, according to PlayUSA.
Google searches for online poker reached a five-year peak during the coronavirus pandemic, with the increase beginning in mid-March — the week when most sports leagues shut down.
While the boom in online poker has helped the struggling sportsbooks during the pandemic, it has not made up for all the losses. The revenue from a typical month of sports betting when sports were still operating dwarfs any extra revenue sportsbooks have seen from online poker.
For example, Pennsylvania’s total sports betting handle betting was $46 million in April 2020 compared with $348.4 million in January 2020. That handle is made up largely from international sports like Korean baseball, NASCAR and betting on popular video games and virtual competitions like “League of Legends.”
“There will likely be long-term implications from this surge in online gambling interest. A behavioral shift that makes online gambling permanently more popular is likely to continue even after casinos reopen,” Valerie Cross, analyst for PlayPennsylvania, said in an email to MarketWatch. “But the reality is that despite the gains made at online casinos, the closing of land-based casinos left a revenue hole that can’t be made up.”


bonginoreport--2020-05-30--Minnesota Leaders Attempt to Blame White Supremacists and Drug Cartels for Riots

President Trump on Saturday blamed at-times violent protests that took place across the U.S. a day earlier on Antifa and other left-wing groups -- as Minnesota officials claimed that white supremacists and even drug cartels were involved in stoking violence .
“ It ’ s ANTIFA and the Radical Left .
Don ’ t lay the blame on others !
” Trump tweeted Saturday , referring to far-left violent groups who often describe themselves as “ anti-fascist.
” MINNESOTA GOVERNOR , MAYOR SLAMMED BY LOCAL PRESS , POLITICIANS FOR RESPONSE TO DEATH , RIOTING On Friday night , protests and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the death of Minneapolis man George Floyd 's death while in police custody earlier this week .
Video emerged of a police officer pressing his knee into Floyd ’ s neck , what protesters have called another incidence of police brutality against black men .
Minnesota Gov .
Tim Walz announced Saturday he has authorized `` full mobilization '' of the state 's National Guard -- something that has never been done in the 164-year history of the Minnesota National Guard -- in response to the protests that have turned increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before flying to Florida , Trump said a “ lot of radical left , bad people ” were to blame for the violence in Minneapolis and elsewhere and said “ they have to be tougher ” fighting back against the rioters .
“ We can have our military there very quickly , ” he said .
“ They 've got to be tough , they 've got to be strong , they 've got to be respected , because these people , these Antifa -- it ’ s a lot of radical left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to be taught that you ca n't do this.
” FOX NEWS CREW HARASSED , CHASED BY ANGRY MOB WHILE REPORTING ON PROTESTS OUTSIDE WHITE HOUSE Meanwhile Walz , Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and other officials have suggested that organized outsiders , including but not limited to anarchists , white supremacists and gangs from other states , were behind the destruction and chaos in Minneapolis .
“ We are now confronting white supremacists , members of organized crime , out of state instigators , and possibly even foreign actors to destroy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Frey tweeted Saturday .
Asked if he was aware of reports that white supremacists had been involved in the looting , Walz said that based on his “ suspicions and what I 've seen on this , yes . ''
He went on to raise the possibility that drug cartels were getting involved , too , according to NBC .
`` It gets worse than that , '' he went on to say .
`` The cartels , who are wondering if there was a break in their drug transmissions , are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That 's why this situation is on a federal level . ''
Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington , meanwhile , said that they were analyzing those who had been arrested and seeing if they were linked to extremist groups .
“ We have seen things like white supremacists organizers who have hosted things on platforms about coming to Minnesota , ” he said , adding that officials are looking to see if people involved in the protests are connected to criminal organizations .
He went on to say that officials are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners to see “ is this organized crime , is this an organized cell of terror , where is the linkage ?
” It is not clear what groups the officials were referring to , or what the evidence is that white supremacists or drug groups are involved .
There were no obvious signs of white supremacy on display in footage of the protests .
A USA Today report quoted a security consultant saying intelligence reports indicate many of the more serious protesters are far-left or anarchists , without a significant appearance yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and outsiders could be involved in conflicts with authorities .
Multiple officials said that those engaging in violence were not from the area .
Frey said that `` the people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents , '' while St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter said at a news conference that everyone arrested in the protests “ was from out of state.
” However , a report by KARE 11 showed `` about 86 percent '' of the 36 arrests listed their address in Minnesota , and that they live in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data the outlet analyzed from the Hennepin County Jail 's roster .
Five out-of-state cases came from Arkansas , Florida , Illinois , Michigan and Missouri , according to KARE 11 .
The Minneapolis Mayor ’ s office and police department did not return Fox News ' repeated calls for comment .
The idea that people were traveling across state lines to cause trouble and violence was one that appeared to be shared by the federal government .
Both Attorney General William Barr and President Trump warned Saturday about those crossing state lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEWS APP '' Crossing State lines to incite violence is a FEDERAL CRIME ! ''
Trump tweeted .
`` Liberal Governors and Mayors must get MUCH tougher or the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done , and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests .
Thank you ! ''
He also tweeted that `` 80 % of the RIOTERS in Minneapolis last night were from OUT OF STATE . ''
`` They are harming businesses ( especially African American small businesses ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good , hardworking Minneapolis residents who want peace , equality , and to provide for their families , '' he said .
Amid the allegations about Antifa 's possible involvement , meanwhile , critics circulated on social media a picture of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison posing with an Antifa book :

President Trump on Saturday blamed at-times violent protests that took place across the U.S. a day earlier on Antifa and other left-wing groups -- as Minnesota officials claimed that white supremacists and even drug cartels were involved in stoking violence.
“It’s ANTIFA and the Radical Left. Don’t lay the blame on others!” Trump tweeted Saturday, referring to far-left violent groups who often describe themselves as “anti-fascist.”
MINNESOTA GOVERNOR, MAYOR SLAMMED BY LOCAL PRESS, POLITICIANS FOR RESPONSE TO DEATH, RIOTING
On Friday night, protests and riots broke out across the country in response to the death of Minneapolis man George Floyd's death while in police custody earlier this week. Video emerged of a police officer pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck, what protesters have called another incidence of police brutality against black men.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced Saturday he has authorized "full mobilization" of the state's National Guard -- something that has never been done in the 164-year history of the Minnesota National Guard -- in response to the protests that have turned increasingly violent.
Later, speaking to reporters before flying to Florida, Trump said a “lot of radical left, bad people” were to blame for the violence in Minneapolis and elsewhere and said “they have to be tougher” fighting back against the rioters.
“We can have our military there very quickly,” he said. “They've got to be tough, they've got to be strong, they've got to be respected, because these people, these Antifa -- it’s a lot of radical left, bad people -- and they've got to be taught that you can't do this.”
FOX NEWS CREW HARASSED, CHASED BY ANGRY MOB WHILE REPORTING ON PROTESTS OUTSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Meanwhile Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and other officials have suggested that organized outsiders, including but not limited to anarchists, white supremacists and gangs from other states, were behind the destruction and chaos in Minneapolis.
“We are now confronting white supremacists, members of organized crime, out of state instigators, and possibly even foreign actors to destroy and destabilize our city and our region,” Frey tweeted Saturday.
Asked if he was aware of reports that white supremacists had been involved in the looting, Walz said that based on his “suspicions and what I've seen on this, yes." He went on to raise the possibility that drug cartels were getting involved, too, according to NBC.
"It gets worse than that," he went on to say. "The cartels, who are wondering if there was a break in their drug transmissions, are trying to take advantage of the chaos. That's why this situation is on a federal level."
Minnesota Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, meanwhile, said that they were analyzing those who had been arrested and seeing if they were linked to extremist groups.
“We have seen things like white supremacists organizers who have hosted things on platforms about coming to Minnesota,” he said, adding that officials are looking to see if people involved in the protests are connected to criminal organizations.
He went on to say that officials are working with state, local and federal partners to see “is this organized crime, is this an organized cell of terror, where is the linkage?”
It is not clear what groups the officials were referring to, or what the evidence is that white supremacists or drug groups are involved. There were no obvious signs of white supremacy on display in footage of the protests.
A USA Today report quoted a security consultant saying intelligence reports indicate many of the more serious protesters are far-left or anarchists, without a significant appearance yet by far-right groups – while noting locals and outsiders could be involved in conflicts with authorities.
Multiple officials said that those engaging in violence were not from the area. Frey said that "the people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents," while St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter said at a news conference that everyone arrested in the protests “was from out of state.”
However, a report by KARE 11 showed "about 86 percent" of the 36 arrests by Minneapolis-based police listed their address in Minnesota, and that they live in Minneapolis or the metro area, according to data the outlet analyzed from the Hennepin County Jail's roster. Five out-of-state cases came from Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri, according to KARE 11.
Carter later walked his comments back.
The Minneapolis mayor’s office, after repeated requests for comment from Fox News including about the KARE 11 reporting, said Saturday evening they "will look into this." A separate official from the mayor's office told Fox News: "You'll have to contact the Governor's office."
The idea that people were traveling across state lines to cause trouble and violence was one that appeared to be shared by the federal government. Both Attorney General William Barr and President Trump warned Saturday about those crossing state lines.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"Crossing State lines to incite violence is a FEDERAL CRIME!" Trump tweeted. "Liberal Governors and Mayors must get MUCH tougher or the Federal Government will step in and do what has to be done, and that includes using the unlimited power of our Military and many arrests. Thank you!"
He also tweeted that "80% of the RIOTERS in Minneapolis last night were from OUT OF STATE."
"They are harming businesses (especially African American small businesses), homes, and the community of good, hardworking Minneapolis residents who want peace, equality, and to provide for their families," he said.
Amid the allegations about Antifa's possible involvement, meanwhile, critics circulated on social media a picture of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison posing with an Antifa book:
Fox News’ Barnini Chakraborty contributed to this report.


bonginoreport--2020-05-30--Contrary to Claims of Governor, Most Arrested in Minneapolis Protests Live In-State

The overwhelming majority of people arrested in connection with the Minneapolis unrest have Minnesota addresses , a search of the @ @ @ @ @ shows .
Of the 45 people arrested for rioting , unlawful assembly , stolen property @ @ @ @ @ May 29 and May 30 so far , 38 had Minnesota addresses , according to @ @ @ @ @ by FOX 9 .
Six had out-of-state address , and one person did n't have @ @ @ @ @ and state officials have repeatedly said over the past day that most rioters are from @ @ @ @ @ .
Tim Walz said Saturday morning that as many as 80 percent of the people @ @ @ @ @ people reviewed by FOX 9 were arrested by Minneapolis Police , the Hennepin County Sheriff @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota Police , or Minnesota State Patrol .
Speaking Saturday , Minneapolis police spokesman John @ @ @ @ @ that sometimes people arrested will provide false information .
He says background checks are showing @ @ @ @ @ from other areas .

article
The overwhelming majority of people arrested in connection with the Minneapolis unrest have Minnesota addresses, a search of the online Hennepin County Jail log shows.
Of the 45 people arrested for rioting, unlawful assembly, stolen property, burglary or robbery on May 29 and May 30 so far, 38 had Minnesota addresses, according to publicly available jail records reviewed by FOX 9.
Six had out-of-state addresses, and one person didn't have address information listed.
City and state officials have repeatedly said over the past day that most rioters are from out of state. Gov. Tim Walz said Saturday morning that as many as 80 percent of the people were outsiders.
The 45 people reviewed by FOX 9 were arrested by Minneapolis Police, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, University of Minnesota Police, or Minnesota State Patrol.
A searchable jail roster is available online.
Speaking Saturday, Minneapolis police spokesman John Elder, however, said that sometimes people arrested will provide false information. He says background checks are showing some people arrested have records from other areas.
Meanwhile, St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter is backtracking after saying that 100 percent of the people arrested for causing disorder in his city Friday were from out of state.
Three-quarters of the people arrested in St. Paul had Minnesota addresses, according to data provided to FOX 9 by police.
Of the 18 total arrests, 12 had Minnesota addresses, four were from out of state, and two were unknown.
Saturday evening, Carter acknowledged his earlier statement was inaccurate.