alternet--2020-12-30--Prosecutors' Trump probe is 'well-developed' — there's just one 'final piece' missing: report

A new report from the Washington Post on Tuesday offered a fresh glimpse into the Manhattan district attorney 's investigation of President Donald Trump and the Trump organization .
Though the headline of the story focused on the finding that the probe is escalating and that D.A .
Cy Vance has hired `` forensic account experts , '' another claim in the report was perhaps more revealing and significant .
Reporters Shayna Jacobs and Jonathan O'Connell explained : While it 's long been public knowledge that Vance , like the Democrats in the House of Representatives , are pursuing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how far along the investigation of Trump and his businesses actually is .
The president and his defenders have accused Vance , a Democrat , of essentially conducting a politically motivated fishing expedition to undercut the president .
If this were true , Vance may be seeking the tax records without knowing much about what he would find there .
But the Post 's report points to another possibility : Vance has the bulk of the case wrapped up , and he wants the tax records as the last piece of evidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court that he had immunity from the New York investigation as president to block Vance from getting his tax returns .
But he has returned to the Supreme Court once again to argue that the subpoena for his records is unjust , an appeal most experts believe will fail .
If it does fail , Vance will receive the returns .
It should be said , though , that 's it 's not clear how reliable the Post 's source is about the state of the investigation .
And even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the D.A .
sees it , Vance could be overconfident in the strength of his case .
He has been repeatedly slapped down in his effort to bring charges against Trump ally Paul Manfort , as courts rejected his case on the predictable grounds of double jeopardy .
Vance reportedly began the probe to look into allegations surrounding the criminal hush money payments former attorney Michael Cohen made on Trump 's behalf during the 2016 campaign , but the scope of the investigation has since `` expanded , '' according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intriguing possibility that Trump may escape charges , even if his business does not : In addition to the Vance case , New York Attorney General Letitia James is known to be working on a civil investigation into the Trump Organization .
It may overlap substantially with Vance 's investigation .
Separately , the federal government has likewise reviewed Trump 's conduct .
While he has been protected from federal prosecution as long as he remained president , that protection disappears on Jan. 20 , 2021 .
President-elect Joe Biden has indicated he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump in his administration , but he said he will permit his attorney general to exercise their independent judgment on these matters .

A new report from the Washington Post on Tuesday offered a fresh glimpse into the Manhattan district attorney's investigation of President Donald Trump and the Trump organization.
Though the headline of the story focused on the finding that the probe is escalating and that D.A. Cy Vance has hired "forensic account experts," another claim in the report was perhaps more revealing and significant. Reporters Shayna Jacobs and Jonathan O'Connell explained:
Vance is engaged in a long-running legal battle to obtain eight years of Trump's tax records and other financial information from the president's accounting firm, Mazars USA. Those records are considered the final piece of what is already a well-developed investigation, according to the person.
While it's long been public knowledge that Vance, like the Democrats in the House of Representatives, are pursuing Trump's taxes., it's been unclear how far along the investigation of Trump and his businesses actually is. The president and his defenders have accused Vance, a Democrat, of essentially conducting a politically motivated fishing expedition to undercut the president. If this were true, Vance may be seeking the tax records without knowing much about what he would find there.
But the Post's report points to another possibility: Vance has the bulk of the case wrapped up, and he wants the tax records as the last piece of evidence. Trump failed to make the case to the Supreme Court that he had immunity from the New York investigation as president to block Vance from getting his tax returns. But he has returned to the Supreme Court once again to argue that the subpoena for his records is unjust, an appeal most experts believe will fail. If it does fail, Vance will receive the returns.
It should be said, though, that's it's not clear how reliable the Post's source is about the state of the investigation. And even if the source is presenting the information correctly as the D.A. sees it, Vance could be overconfident in the strength of his case. He has been repeatedly slapped down in his effort to bring charges against Trump ally Paul Manfort, as courts rejected his case on the predictable grounds of double jeopardy.
Vance reportedly began the probe to look into allegations surrounding the criminal hush money payments former attorney Michael Cohen made on Trump's behalf during the 2016 campaign, but the scope of the investigation has since "expanded," according to the Post.
The Post also notes an intriguing possibility that Trump may escape charges, even if his business does not:
It is possible Vance could find evidence that the Trump Organization as a business entity has broken the law, without attaching personal liability to Trump or other individuals at his company. To bring criminal charges, the district attorney must be able to prove there was an intent to break the law — which probably would require the testimony of an insider witness, experts have said.
It's unclear whether Vance has secured such testimony, though in recent weeks his team has spoken with employees at Deutsche Bank, a major lender for the Trump Organization, and the insurance brokerage Aon. Those discussion were first reported by the New York Times. Prosecutors have issued new subpoenas and met with witnesses at a steady pace, people familiar with the process have said.
In addition to the Vance case, New York Attorney General Letitia James is known to be working on a civil investigation into the Trump Organization. It may overlap substantially with Vance's investigation.
Separately, the federal government has likewise reviewed Trump's conduct. While he has been protected from federal prosecution as long as he remained president, that protection disappears on Jan. 20, 2021. President-elect Joe Biden has indicated he would prefer not to focus on investigations of Trump in his administration, but he said he will permit his attorney general to exercise their independent judgment on these matters.


alternet--2020-12-30--'Hypocrisy and horror': Trump's DOJ sparks outrage for refusing to take action in Tamir Rice killing

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it has closed its investigation of the fatal 2014 police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland , saying no criminal charges would be filed against the officers involved because video of the killing was not good enough to conclusively determine what happened .
`` The video footage is grainy , shot from a distance , does not show detail or perspective , and portions of the incident are not visible because of the location of the patrol car , '' the DOJ explained in a statement .
`` Further , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per second at a variable rate , which is incapable of capturing continuous action . ''
On November 22 , 2014 two Cleveland officers , Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback , responded to a police dispatch call regarding `` a guy with a pistol '' seen near the Cudell Recreation Center playground on the city 's West Side .
A 911 caller said that the person , `` probably a juvenile , '' was `` scaring the shit out of everyone , '' but added that `` the gun was probably fake .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pellet gun with the orange safety barrel cap removed when Loehmann , a rookie officer , fatally shot him .
A Cuyahoga County grand jury then elected to not prosecute the officers , sparking widespread national outrage and spurring the nascent Black Lives Matter movement .
In 2016 , Rice 's family and the city of Cleveland reached a $ 6 million settlement , although attorneys for the family said that `` there is no such thing as closure or justice '' in such situations .
The Justice Department said that `` after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragic event , career ... prosecutors have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Loehmann willfully violated Tamir Rice 's constitutional rights , or that Officers Loehmann or Garmback obstructed justice . ''
Subodh Chandra , an attorney for Rice 's family , issued a statement in the wake of Tuesday 's DOJ announcement claiming the government 's `` process was tainted . ''
`` It 's beyond comprehension that the [ Justice ] Department could n't recognize that an officer who claims he shouted commands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed and it was a winter day is lying , '' Chandra said .
`` The Rice family has been cheated of a fair process yet again . ''

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that it has closed its investigation of the fatal 2014 police shooting of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, saying no criminal charges would be filed against the officers involved because video of the killing was not good enough to conclusively determine what happened.
"The video footage is grainy, shot from a distance, does not show detail or perspective, and portions of the incident are not visible because of the location of the patrol car," the DOJ explained in a statement. "Further, the time lapse footage captures approximately two frames per second at a variable rate, which is incapable of capturing continuous action."
On November 22, 2014 two Cleveland officers, Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback, responded to a police dispatch call regarding "a guy with a pistol" seen near the Cudell Recreation Center playground on the city's West Side. A 911 caller said that the person, "probably a juvenile," was "scaring the shit out of everyone," but added that "the gun was probably fake."
Rice was playing with a replica pellet gun with the orange safety barrel cap removed when Loehmann, a rookie officer, fatally shot him.
A Cuyahoga County grand jury then elected to not prosecute the officers, sparking widespread national outrage and spurring the nascent Black Lives Matter movement.
In 2016, Rice's family and the city of Cleveland reached a $6 million settlement, although attorneys for the family said that "there is no such thing as closure or justice" in such situations.
The Justice Department said that "after extensive examination of the facts in this tragic event, career... prosecutors have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Officer Loehmann willfully violated Tamir Rice's constitutional rights, or that Officers Loehmann or Garmback obstructed justice."
Subodh Chandra, an attorney for Rice's family, issued a statement in the wake of Tuesday's DOJ announcement claiming the government's "process was tainted."
"It's beyond comprehension that the [Justice] Department couldn't recognize that an officer who claims he shouted commands when the patrol car's window was closed and it was a winter day is lying," Chandra said. "The Rice family has been cheated of a fair process yet again."


alternet--2020-12-30--Biden's pick to lead the intelligence community is a wolf in sheep's clothing

Even before President-Elect Joe Biden sets foot in the White House , the Senate Intelligence Committee may start hearings on his nomination of Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence .
Barack Obama 's top lawyer on the National Security Council from 2010 to 2013 followed by CIA Deputy Director from 2013 to 2015 , Haines is the proverbial wolf in sheep 's clothing .
She is the affable assassin who , according to Newsweek , would be summoned in the middle of the night to decide if a citizen of any country , including our own , should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a distant land in the greater Middle East .
Haines also played a key role in covering up the U.S. torture program , known euphemistically as `` enhanced interrogation techniques , '' which included repeated water boarding , sexual humiliation , sleep deprivation , dousing naked prisoners with ice cold water , and rectal rehydration .
For these reasons , among others , the activist groups CODEPINK , Progressive Democrats of America , World Beyond War and Roots Action have launched a campaign calling on the Senate to reject her confirmation .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden from choosing two other warmongering candidates for critical foreign policy positions : China-hawk Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense and torture apologist Mike Morell for CIA Director .
By hosting calling parties to Senators , launching petitions and publishing Open Letters from DNC delegates , feminists—including Alice Walker , Jane Fonda , and Gloria Steinem—and Guantanamo torture survivors , activists helped derail candidates who were once considered shoo-ins for Biden 's cabinet .
In 2015 , when Haines was CIA Deputy Director , CIA agents illegally hackedthe computers of the Senate Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the spy agency 's detention and interrogation program .
Haines overruled the CIA 's own Inspector General in failing to discipline the CIA agents who violated the U.S. Constitution 's separation of powers .
According to former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou , she not only shielded the hackers from accountability but even awarded them the Career Intelligence Medal .
And there 's more .
When the exhaustive 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture was finally complete , after five years of investigation and research , Haines took charge of redacting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know its full details , reducing the document to a 500-page , black-ink-smeared summary .
Page 45 of the redacted Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture .
This censorship went beyond merely `` protecting sources and methods '' ; it avoided CIA embarrassment , while ensuring her own career advancement .
Moreover , Haines supported torture apologist Gina Haspel as Trump 's CIA Director .
Haspel ran a secret black site prison in Thailand where torture was regularly inflicted .
Haspel also drafted the memo ordering the destruction of almost 100 videotapes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Demand Progress told CNN , `` Haines has an unfortunate record of repeatedly covering up for torture and torturers .
Her push for maximalist redactions of the torture report , her refusal to discipline the CIA personnel who hacked the Senate and her vociferous support for Gina Haspel -- which was even touted by the Trump White House as Democrats stood in nearly unanimous opposition to the then-nominee to lead the CIA -- should be interrogated during the confirmation process . ''
This sentiment was echoed by Mark Udall , a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished the torture report .
`` If our country is going to turn the page on the dark chapter of our history that was the CIA 's torture program , we need to stop nominating and confirming individuals who led this terrible program and helped cover it up . ''
Another reason Haines 's nomination should be rejected is her support for the proliferation of killer drones .
There has been a concerted effort by former Obama colleagues to paint Haines as a voice of restraint that tried to protect civilians .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haines regularly approved the drone bombings that killed not only suspected terrorists , but entire families , including children , who died as collateral damage .
`` It was Avril that decided whether it was legal to incinerate someone from the sky , '' said Kiriakou .
When human rights groups denounced Obama 's rash use of extrajudicial killings , including the assumption that all military-age males in the strike zone were `` enemy combatants '' and therefore legitimate targets , Haines was enlisted to co-author a new `` presidential policy guidance '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new `` guidance , '' issued on May 22 , 2013 , continued to blur the line between civilians and combatants , normalizing targeted assassinations and effectively repudiating the `` presumption of innocence '' that has been the bedrock principle of civilian law for over 800 years .
The drone playbook , `` PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING DIRECT ACTION AGAINST TERRORIST TARGETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES , '' says on page 1 that any `` direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic laws that define when extrajudicial killings outside of an active war zone are permitted .
On page 4 , the guidelines for drone strikes allow for lethal action against those who are not `` high value targets , '' without explaining the criteria the CIA would use to identify someone as an imminent threat to the security of the United States .
On page 12 , the co-authors , Haines among them , redacted the minimum profile requirements for an individual `` nominated '' for lethal action .
The very term `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeted assassination , as though the bombing target is recomended for a U.S. presidential cabinet position .
Page 12 of Haines 's guidelines for extrajudicial killings .
Required generic profile entries for individuals `` nominated '' for lethal action are redacted .
Moreover , the guidelines themselves were often totally disregarded .
The policy states , for example , that the U.S. `` prioritizes , as a matter of policy , the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action '' and that lethal action should be taken `` only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feasible . ''
But the Obama administration did nothing of the sort .
Under George Bush , at least 780 terrorist suspects were captured and thrown into the U.S.-run gulag in Guantanamo .
Haines 's guidelines prohibit transfer to Guantanamo so , instead , suspects were simply incinerated .
The guidelines required `` near certainty that non-combatants will not be killed or injured , '' but this requirement was routinely violated , as documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism .
Haines 's policy guidance also states that the U.S. would respect other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action when other governments `` can not or will not '' address a threat to the U.S .
This , too , became simply empty words on paper .
The U.S. barely even consulted with the governments in whose territory it was dropping bombs and , in the case of Pakistan , openly defied the government .
In December 2013 , the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously approved a resolution against U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan , calling them a violation of `` the charter of the United Nations , international laws and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated : `` The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country . ''
But the U.S. ignored the pleas of Pakistan 's elected government .
The proliferation of drone killings under Obama , from Yemen to Somalia , also violated U.S. law , which gives Congress the sole authority to authorize military conflict .
But Obama 's legal team , which included Haines , circumvented the law by insisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) , the law Congress passed to target Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks .
This specious argument provided fodder for the out-of-control misuse of that 2001 AUMF which , according to the Congressional Research Service , has been relied on to justify U.S. military action at least 41 times in 19 countries .
In addition , the guidelines do n't even require the CIA and other agencies participating in the drone program to notify the President , the Commander-in-Chief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a drone strike , except when a targeted individual is a U.S. citizen or when the agencies in charge can not agree on the target .
There are many other reasons to reject Haines .
She advocates intensifying crippling economic sanctions on North Korea that undermine a negotiated peace , and `` regime change '' -- hypothetically engineered by a U.S. ally -- that could leave a collapsed North Korea vulnerable to terrorist theft of its nuclear material ; she was a consultant at WestExec Advisors , a firm that exploits insider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon contracts ; and she was a consultant with Palantir , a data-mining company that facilitated Trump 's mass deportations of immigrants .
But Haines 's record on torture and drones , alone , should be enough for Senators to reject her nomination .
The unassuming spy—who got her start at the White House as a legal adviser in the Bush State Department in 2003 , the year the U.S. invaded Iraq—might look and sound more like your favorite college professor than someone who enabled murder by remote control or wielded a thick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but a clear examination of her past should convince the Senate that Haines is unfit for high office in an administration that promises to restore transparency , integrity , and respect for international law .
Tell your Senator : Vote NO on Haines .
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace , and author of several books , including Drone Warfare : Killing by Remote Control .
In 2013 she directly confronted President Obama about his drone killings .
Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party .
Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS , Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for progressive foreign policy legislation .

Even before President-Elect Joe Biden sets foot in the White House, the Senate Intelligence Committee may start hearings on his nomination of Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence.
Barack Obama's top lawyer on the National Security Council from 2010 to 2013 followed by CIA Deputy Director from 2013 to 2015, Haines is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. She is the affable assassin who, according to Newsweek, would be summoned in the middle of the night to decide if a citizen of any country, including our own, should be incinerated in a U.S. drone strike in a distant land in the greater Middle East. Haines also played a key role in covering up the U.S. torture program, known euphemistically as "enhanced interrogation techniques," which included repeated water boarding, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, dousing naked prisoners with ice cold water, and rectal rehydration.
For these reasons, among others, the activist groups CODEPINK, Progressive Democrats of America, World Beyond War and Roots Action have launched a campaign calling on the Senate to reject her confirmation.
These same groups ran successful campaigns to dissuade Biden from choosing two other warmongering candidates for critical foreign policy positions: China-hawk Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense and torture apologist Mike Morell for CIA Director. By hosting calling parties to Senators, launching petitions and publishing Open Letters from DNC delegates, feminists—including Alice Walker, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem—and Guantanamo torture survivors, activists helped derail candidates who were once considered shoo-ins for Biden's cabinet.
Now activists are challenging Avril Haines.
In 2015, when Haines was CIA Deputy Director, CIA agents illegally hackedthe computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee to thwart the Committee's investigation into the spy agency's detention and interrogation program. Haines overruled the CIA's own Inspector General in failing to discipline the CIA agents who violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers. According to former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, she not only shielded the hackers from accountability but even awarded them the Career Intelligence Medal.
And there's more. When the exhaustive 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture was finally complete, after five years of investigation and research, Haines took charge of redacting it to deny the public's right to know its full details, reducing the document to a 500-page, black-ink-smeared summary.
Page 45 of the redacted Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.
This censorship went beyond merely "protecting sources and methods"; it avoided CIA embarrassment, while ensuring her own career advancement.
Moreover, Haines supported torture apologist Gina Haspel as Trump's CIA Director. Haspel ran a secret black site prison in Thailand where torture was regularly inflicted. Haspel also drafted the memo ordering the destruction of almost 100 videotapes documenting CIA torture.
As David Segal of Demand Progress told CNN, "Haines has an unfortunate record of repeatedly covering up for torture and torturers. Her push for maximalist redactions of the torture report, her refusal to discipline the CIA personnel who hacked the Senate and her vociferous support for Gina Haspel -- which was even touted by the Trump White House as Democrats stood in nearly unanimous opposition to the then-nominee to lead the CIA -- should be interrogated during the confirmation process."
This sentiment was echoed by Mark Udall, a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee when it finished the torture report. "If our country is going to turn the page on the dark chapter of our history that was the CIA's torture program, we need to stop nominating and confirming individuals who led this terrible program and helped cover it up."
Another reason Haines's nomination should be rejected is her support for the proliferation of killer drones. There has been a concerted effort by former Obama colleagues to paint Haines as a voice of restraint that tried to protect civilians. But according to former CIA whistleblower Kiarikou, Haines regularly approved the drone bombings that killed not only suspected terrorists, but entire families, including children, who died as collateral damage."It was Avril that decided whether it was legal to incinerate someone from the sky," said Kiriakou.
When human rights groups denounced Obama's rash use of extrajudicial killings, including the assumption that all military-age males in the strike zone were "enemy combatants" and therefore legitimate targets, Haines was enlisted to co-author a new "presidential policy guidance" to tighten the regulations. But this new "guidance," issued on May 22, 2013, continued to blur the line between civilians and combatants, normalizing targeted assassinations and effectively repudiating the "presumption of innocence" that has been the bedrock principle of civilian law for over 800 years.
The drone playbook, "PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING DIRECT ACTION AGAINST TERRORIST TARGETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES," says on page 1 that any "direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets," yet the guidelines never reference international or domestic laws that define when extrajudicial killings outside of an active war zone are permitted.
On page 4, the guidelines for drone strikes allow for lethal action against those who are not "high value targets," without explaining the criteria the CIA would use to identify someone as an imminent threat to the security of the United States. On page 12, the co-authors, Haines among them, redacted the minimum profile requirements for an individual "nominated" for lethal action. The very term "nominated" suggests an effort to sugarcoat targeted assassination, as though the bombing target is recomended for a U.S. presidential cabinet position.
Page 12 of Haines's guidelines for extrajudicial killings. Required generic profile entries for individuals "nominated" for lethal action are redacted.
Moreover, the guidelines themselves were often totally disregarded. The policy states, for example, that the U.S. "prioritizes, as a matter of policy, the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action" and that lethal action should be taken "only when capture of an individual is not feasible." But the Obama administration did nothing of the sort. Under George Bush, at least 780 terrorist suspects were captured and thrown into the U.S.-run gulag in Guantanamo. Haines's guidelines prohibit transfer to Guantanamo so, instead, suspects were simply incinerated.
The guidelines required "near certainty that non-combatants will not be killed or injured," but this requirement was routinely violated, as documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Haines's policy guidance also states that the U.S. would respect other states' sovereignty, only undertaking lethal action when other governments "cannot or will not" address a threat to the U.S. This, too, became simply empty words on paper. The U.S. barely even consulted with the governments in whose territory it was dropping bombs and, in the case of Pakistan, openly defied the government. In December 2013, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously approved a resolution against U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, calling them a violation of "the charter of the United Nations, international laws and humanitarian norms" and Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: "The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country." But the U.S. ignored the pleas of Pakistan's elected government.
The proliferation of drone killings under Obama, from Yemen to Somalia, also violated U.S. law, which gives Congress the sole authority to authorize military conflict. But Obama's legal team, which included Haines, circumvented the law by insisting that these military interventions fell under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law Congress passed to target Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. This specious argument provided fodder for the out-of-control misuse of that 2001 AUMF which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has been relied on to justify U.S. military action at least 41 times in 19 countries.
In addition, the guidelines don't even require the CIA and other agencies participating in the drone program to notify the President, the Commander-in-Chief, as to who is to be killed in a drone strike, except when a targeted individual is a U.S. citizen or when the agencies in charge cannot agree on the target.
There are many other reasons to reject Haines. She advocates intensifying crippling economic sanctions on North Korea that undermine a negotiated peace, and "regime change"--hypothetically engineered by a U.S. ally--that could leave a collapsed North Korea vulnerable to terrorist theft of its nuclear material; she was a consultant at WestExec Advisors, a firm that exploits insider government connections to help companies secure plum Pentagon contracts; and she was a consultant with Palantir, a data-mining company that facilitated Trump's mass deportations of immigrants.
But Haines's record on torture and drones, alone, should be enough for Senators to reject her nomination. The unassuming spy—who got her start at the White House as a legal adviser in the Bush State Department in 2003, the year the U.S. invaded Iraq—might look and sound more like your favorite college professor than someone who enabled murder by remote control or wielded a thick black pen to cover up CIA torture, but a clear examination of her past should convince the Senate that Haines is unfit for high office in an administration that promises to restore transparency, integrity, and respect for international law.
Tell your Senator: Vote NO on Haines.
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. In 2013 she directly confronted President Obama about his drone killings.
Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS, Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for progressive foreign policy legislation.


alternet--2020-12-30--Steve Mnuchin on stimulus checks: 'May arrive as early as tonight'

Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin released a statement Tuesday afternoon regarding the status of stimulus checks and , get this : they could be delivered electronically as early as tonight .
`` Today , the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service will begin delivering a second round of Economic Impact Payments to millions of Americans as part of the implementation of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 , '' the statement began .
`` The initial direct deposit payments may begin arriving as early as tonight for some and will continue into next week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paper checks will begin to be mailed tomorrow , Wednesday , December 30 .
This second round of payments will provide critical economic support to those who , through no fault of their own , have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic . ''
`` Treasury and the IRS are working with unprecedented speed to issue a second round of Economic Impact Payments to eligible Americans and their families , '' Mnuchin said .
`` These payments are an integral part of our commitment to providing vital additional economic relief to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' According to the statement , eligible individuals will receive an Economic Impact Payment of up to $ 600 for individuals or $ 1200 for married couples and up to $ 600 for each qualifying child .
Generally , if you have adjusted gross income for 2019 up to $ 75,000 for individuals and up to $ 150,000 for married couples filing joint returns and surviving spouses , you will receive the full amount of the second payment .
For filers with income above those amounts , the payment amount is reduced .

Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin released a statement Tuesday afternoon regarding the status of stimulus checks and, get this: they could be delivered electronically as early as tonight.
"Today, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service will begin delivering a second round of Economic Impact Payments to millions of Americans as part of the implementation of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021," the statement began. "The initial direct deposit payments may begin arriving as early as tonight for some and will continue into next week."
The statement continued, "Paper checks will begin to be mailed tomorrow, Wednesday, December 30. This second round of payments will provide critical economic support to those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."
"Treasury and the IRS are working with unprecedented speed to issue a second round of Economic Impact Payments to eligible Americans and their families," Mnuchin said. "These payments are an integral part of our commitment to providing vital additional economic relief to the American people during this unprecedented time."
According to the statement, eligible individuals will receive an Economic Impact Payment of up to $600 for individuals or $1200 for married couples and up to $600 for each qualifying child. Generally, if you have adjusted gross income for 2019 up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns and surviving spouses, you will receive the full amount of the second payment. For filers with income above those amounts, the payment amount is reduced.


alternet--2020-12-31--How Trump turned himself into a historic loser

It is obvious by now that President Donald Trump is a narcissist desperately afraid of being thought of as a `` loser . ''
This is why he has gone to such incredible lengths to deny the results of the 2020 election : A man who regularly used the epithet `` loser '' as a go-to insult long before taking office will now be remembered as one of only a handful of sitting presidents to seek another term and be rebuffed by the American people .
Still , 77 % of Republicans claim ( whether sincerely or in bad faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimately win .
While America has had other one-term presidents , it has never had either a one-term president or a large group of that one-term president 's supporters react with such cringe-inducing , democracy-defying petulance .
Being defeated is embarrassing , to be sure , but nothing is more shameful than reacting to a defeat by throwing a giant temper tantrum and lying about the other side cheating .
For that , Trump and those backing his ego-salving coup attempt are in a category of their own in American history —making them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at how America 's other one-term presidents have reacted to their electoral defeats .
Before Trump , America had ten one-term presidents : John Adams , John Q. Adams , Martin Van Buren , Grover Cleveland , Benjamin Harrison , William H. Taft , Herbert Hoover , Gerald Ford , Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush .
The initial Adams is the most instructive of this group because he was the first president who had to give up power reluctantly .
( His predecessor and America 's first president , George Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term and was eager to relinquish power at the end of his second . )
Adams was extremely bitter about losing to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election and , to prove that point , refused to attend his successor 's inauguration .
At the same time , Adams made it clear that democracy could only work if those in power bowed to the will of the people , regardless of their personal wishes .
Jefferson later praised Adams ' peaceful transfer of power as the `` revolution of 1800 '' because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controlled `` by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform , the suffrage of the people . ''
This is n't to say that Adams did n't do what he could to figuratively kick Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican supporters in the shins , most notably by appointing a number of Federalists ( his party ) to judicial offices on his way out the door .
( The most famous of the bunch was John Marshall , who Adams chose as chief justice of the Supreme Court . )
Other one-term presidents have followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their legacies and/or engaging in vindictive trickery while still accepting the voters ' verdict .
Like his father , John Q. Adams refused to attend the inauguration of his successor , Andrew Jackson .
Martin Van Buren took solace in the fact that he actually won more votes during his reelection campaign in 1840 than when he had been first elected in 1836 ( as in 2020 , that advantage was offset by a massive increase in voter turnout , most of which benefited his opponent William H. Harrison ) and immediately began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although he ultimately failed in that effort .
In 1888 Grover Cleveland actually won the popular vote but still he lost his reelection campaign — the only sitting president to whom this has happened — and like Van Buren gracefully accepted his defeat and immediately began planning for the next campaign , which he actually won .
( Cleveland 's reelection in 1892 made him the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms . )
Some one-term presidents simply moved on with their lives .
Benjamin Harrison 's wife died of tuberculosis two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was so devastated that he focused on finding a healthy way to grieve and develop a post-political career when he learned he had n't been reelected .
William H. Taft , by contrast , felt acutely humiliated by being the only sitting president to do worse than a third-party candidate — he received 23.2 % of the popular vote , less than third-party candidate and former President Theodore Roosevelt , and only won the electoral votes of Utah and Vermont — but threw himself into a new job as a professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his successor , President Woodrow Wilson , both during and after the transition .
Indeed , Taft was so highly regarded as an ex-president that he was eventually appointed as chief justice to the Supreme Court , making him the only American to serve as both a president and a Supreme Court judge .
Herbert Hoover is one of the less impressive names on this list .
After losing in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 election because of the Great Depression , Hoover engaged in petty squabbles with Roosevelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Hoover was convinced that Roosevelt was a lightweight and completely unqualified to steer America out of the crisis .
The bitterness led to a number of petty swipes taken during and after Hoover 's presidency , and Hoover regularly fought his successor 's policies and accused him of being a tyrant , but never tried to defy the 1932 election results .
Gerald Ford is a unique case because he was never elected either president or vice president ; he reached the latter office because Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal .
Despite coming shockingly close to winning a term in his own right in the 1976 election , Ford was graceful in defeat and worked so closely with incoming President Jimmy Carter that the successor took the unusual step of praising Ford in his inaugural address .
Carter , by contrast , was less than thrilled when he lost in an unexpected landslide to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election , especially since Reagan was a far right-wing candidate whose views were anathema to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked with his successor , even successfully negotiating the release of 52 Americans who were being held hostage in Iran during the transition between their two administrations despite knowing Reagan would receive credit for their release .
George H. W. Bush , for his part , anticipated that he would lose to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election , given his poor polls and the underwhelming economy .
His deep disappointment did not stop him from gracefully working with his successor , however , and Clinton repaid the favor by striking Iraq after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plotted to assassinate the former president .
Bush and Clinton eventually became very close friends .
Now compare all of this — the good , the bad and the ugly — with Trump 's behavior .
Since 2016 , Trump has insisted that if he runs in an election and does not win , it is because the other side cheated .
He did this during his 2016 bid for the Republican presidential nomination when he lost the Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and , later , repeatedly claimed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton it would be because the election was `` rigged '' and that he would only accept the results `` if I win . ''
After Trump defeated Clinton in the electoral college ( coincidentally by the same margin , 306 to 232 , by which he lost to Biden in 2020 ) , he obsessed over the fact that he lost the popular vote and falsely claimed that he had actually won it , creating a voter fraud commission to prove his claim that eventually had to be disbanded because no such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the 2016 election .
Because he knew that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to vote by mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic , Trump tried to preemptively discredit mail-in votes with false claims that they were prone to fraud ; these were rejected in court , but that did not stop Trump from trying to cripple the Post Office so that `` they ca n't have universal mail-in voting . ''
As in 2016 , Trump also repeatedly said that the only way he could lose is if the Democrats stole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Wallace that he would not promise to accept the 2020 election results if they went against him , admitting that he is not a `` good loser '' and claiming that `` mail-in voting is going to rig the election . ''
This paved the way for him to prematurely claim victory on Election Night because in-person votes were generally counted first and made it look like he had a lead , and then falsely claim that there were `` vote dumps '' as mail-in ballots were counted and eventually showed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has resorted to gish galloping , or the practice of overwhelming someone with bad arguments in the hope that it will confuse third parties into not seeing that you 're lying and exhaust your opponents by forcing them to debunk all of them .
Yet despite repeatedly claiming in public that he was the victim of voter fraud , he never actually alleged voter fraud in more than two-thirds of the 60 cases he brought to court ( most likely because deliberately lying to a judge is a crime ) .
More importantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases he has brought related to the election , winning only in a small procedural case about how much extra time first-time voters in Pennsylvania could get to confirm their identifications in order for their mail-in votes to be counted .
Many of the judges who ruled against Trump were Republicans ; some were appointed by Trump himself .
Trump 's own attorney general , William Barr , admitted after investigating that there was no evidence that Biden stole the election .
( Trump fired Barr for this , not surprisingly . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's fraud claims had no merit , a decision that included the three judges Trump appointed to that bench .
Republican legislative leaders in key swing states have resisted Trump 's pressure campaign to overturn the election results for the simple reason that it would be illegal for them to do so .
Now Trump is left acting like James Buchanan , the president who was so bitter about Abraham Lincoln winning the 1860 election that he allowed the Civil War to break out rather than work with someone whose political philosophy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buchanan never contemplated actively stopping Lincoln from serving , or installing himself as a dictator , simply because he did not like the man 's views .
Trump initially stalled allowed Biden to begin transitioning into the White House , despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic taking thousands upon thousands of lives , and has allegedly considered imposing martial law so he can stay in power .
As of the time of this writing , he continues to insist that he won the 2020 election and is continuing to try to find a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what makes Trump one of American history 's biggest losers .
Of the 44 men who have served as president , exactly one-quarter of them were spurned by the voters , but Trump alone within that group has threatened to destroy democracy itself in order to stay in power .
Compared to the other ten one termers , Trump comes across as a spoiled brat , a petulant child , a would-be dictator motivated not by principle or necessity but a lifelong habit of crying like a baby if he does n't get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a child , this would merely be pathetic .
Because he is threatening democracy itself , however , Trump has sunk below pathetic and crashed through the floor into the realm of being a forever loser .
Anyone who supports him in his effort is , by extension , a forever loser too .

It is obvious by now that President Donald Trump is a narcissist desperately afraid of being thought of as a "loser." This is why he has gone to such incredible lengths to deny the results of the 2020 election: A man who regularly used the epithet "loser" as a go-to insult long before taking office will now be remembered as one of only a handful of sitting presidents to seek another term and be rebuffed by the American people.
Still, 77% of Republicans claim (whether sincerely or in bad faith) that President-elect Joe Biden didn't legitimately win. While America has had other one-term presidents, it has never had either a one-term president or a large group of that one-term president's supporters react with such cringe-inducing, democracy-defying petulance. Being defeated is embarrassing, to be sure, but nothing is more shameful than reacting to a defeat by throwing a giant temper tantrum and lying about the other side cheating.
For that, Trump and those backing his ego-salving coup attempt are in a category of their own in American history —making them historic losers. Let's briefly look at how America's other one-term presidents have reacted to their electoral defeats.
Before Trump, America had ten one-term presidents: John Adams, John Q. Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William H. Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. The initial Adams is the most instructive of this group because he was the first president who had to give up power reluctantly. (His predecessor and America's first president, George Washington, famously did not seek a third term and was eager to relinquish power at the end of his second.) Adams was extremely bitter about losing to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election and, to prove that point, refused to attend his successor's inauguration. At the same time, Adams made it clear that democracy could only work if those in power bowed to the will of the people, regardless of their personal wishes. Jefferson later praised Adams' peaceful transfer of power as the "revolution of 1800" because it established that in America the government is controlled "by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage of the people."
This isn't to say that Adams didn't do what he could to figuratively kick Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican supporters in the shins, most notably by appointing a number of Federalists (his party) to judicial offices on his way out the door. (The most famous of the bunch was John Marshall, who Adams chose as chief justice of the Supreme Court.) Other one-term presidents have followed his example, trying to shore up their legacies and/or engaging in vindictive trickery while still accepting the voters' verdict. Like his father, John Q. Adams refused to attend the inauguration of his successor, Andrew Jackson.
Martin Van Buren took solace in the fact that he actually won more votes during his reelection campaign in 1840 than when he had been first elected in 1836 (as in 2020, that advantage was offset by a massive increase in voter turnout, most of which benefited his opponent William H. Harrison) and immediately began planning another presidential run in 1844, although he ultimately failed in that effort.
In 1888 Grover Cleveland actually won the popular vote but still he lost his reelection campaign — the only sitting president to whom this has happened — and like Van Buren gracefully accepted his defeat and immediately began planning for the next campaign, which he actually won. (Cleveland's reelection in 1892 made him the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.)
Some one-term presidents simply moved on with their lives. Benjamin Harrison's wife died of tuberculosis two weeks before Election Day 1892, and he was so devastated that he focused on finding a healthy way to grieve and develop a post-political career when he learned he hadn't been reelected. William H. Taft, by contrast, felt acutely humiliated by being the only sitting president to do worse than a third-party candidate — he received 23.2% of the popular vote, less than third-party candidate and former President Theodore Roosevelt, and only won the electoral votes of Utah and Vermont — but threw himself into a new job as a professor at Yale Law School and worked closely with his successor, President Woodrow Wilson, both during and after the transition. Indeed, Taft was so highly regarded as an ex-president that he was eventually appointed as chief justice to the Supreme Court, making him the only American to serve as both a president and a Supreme Court judge.
Herbert Hoover is one of the less impressive names on this list. After losing in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 election because of the Great Depression, Hoover engaged in petty squabbles with Roosevelt's transition team over economic policy, as Hoover was convinced that Roosevelt was a lightweight and completely unqualified to steer America out of the crisis. The bitterness led to a number of petty swipes taken during and after Hoover's presidency, and Hoover regularly fought his successor's policies and accused him of being a tyrant, but never tried to defy the 1932 election results.
Gerald Ford is a unique case because he was never elected either president or vice president; he reached the latter office because Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned due to a bribery scandal and the former after President Richard Nixon resigned due to the Watergate scandal. Despite coming shockingly close to winning a term in his own right in the 1976 election, Ford was graceful in defeat and worked so closely with incoming President Jimmy Carter that the successor took the unusual step of praising Ford in his inaugural address.
Carter, by contrast, was less than thrilled when he lost in an unexpected landslide to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election, especially since Reagan was a far right-wing candidate whose views were anathema to the center-left Carter. Yet Carter still worked with his successor, even successfully negotiating the release of 52 Americans who were being held hostage in Iran during the transition between their two administrations despite knowing Reagan would receive credit for their release.
George H. W. Bush, for his part, anticipated that he would lose to Bill Clinton in the 1992 election, given his poor polls and the underwhelming economy. His deep disappointment did not stop him from gracefully working with his successor, however, and Clinton repaid the favor by striking Iraq after learning that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had plotted to assassinate the former president. Bush and Clinton eventually became very close friends.
Now compare all of this — the good, the bad and the ugly — with Trump's behavior.
Since 2016, Trump has insisted that if he runs in an election and does not win, it is because the other side cheated. He did this during his 2016 bid for the Republican presidential nomination when he lost the Iowa caucuses to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and, later, repeatedly claimed that if he lost to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton it would be because the election was "rigged" and that he would only accept the results "if I win." After Trump defeated Clinton in the electoral college (coincidentally by the same margin, 306 to 232, by which he lost to Biden in 2020), he obsessed over the fact that he lost the popular vote and falsely claimed that he had actually won it, creating a voter fraud commission to prove his claim that eventually had to be disbanded because no such evidence existed.
And that was just about the 2016 election. Because he knew that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to vote by mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump tried to preemptively discredit mail-in votes with false claims that they were prone to fraud; these were rejected in court, but that did not stop Trump from trying to cripple the Post Office so that "they can't have universal mail-in voting." As in 2016, Trump also repeatedly said that the only way he could lose is if the Democrats stole the election, telling Fox News' Chris Wallace that he would not promise to accept the 2020 election results if they went against him, admitting that he is not a "good loser" and claiming that "mail-in voting is going to rig the election." This paved the way for him to prematurely claim victory on Election Night because in-person votes were generally counted first and made it look like he had a lead, and then falsely claim that there were "vote dumps" as mail-in ballots were counted and eventually showed that he had lost.
Since then Trump has resorted to gishgalloping, or the practice of overwhelming someone with bad arguments in the hope that it will confuse third parties into not seeing that you're lying and exhaust your opponents by forcing them to debunk all of them. Yet despite repeatedly claiming in public that he was the victim of voter fraud, he never actually alleged voter fraud in more than two-thirds of the 60 cases he brought to court (most likely because deliberately lying to a judge is a crime). More importantly, he lost 59 of the 60 cases he has brought related to the election, winning only in a small procedural case about how much extra time first-time voters in Pennsylvania could get to confirm their identifications in order for their mail-in votes to be counted. Many of the judges who ruled against Trump were Republicans; some were appointed by Trump himself. Trump's own attorney general, William Barr, admitted after investigating that there was no evidence that Biden stole the election. (Trump fired Barr for this, not surprisingly.) The Supreme Court itself ruled unanimously that Trump's fraud claims had no merit, a decision that included the three judges Trump appointed to that bench. Republican legislative leaders in key swing states have resisted Trump's pressure campaign to overturn the election results for the simple reason that it would be illegal for them to do so.
Now Trump is left acting like James Buchanan, the president who was so bitter about Abraham Lincoln winning the 1860 election that he allowed the Civil War to break out rather than work with someone whose political philosophy differed from his own. Yet even Buchanan never contemplated actively stopping Lincoln from serving, or installing himself as a dictator, simply because he did not like the man's views. Trump initially stalled allowed Biden to begin transitioning into the White House, despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic taking thousands upon thousands of lives, and has allegedly considered imposing martial law so he can stay in power. As of the time of this writing, he continues to insist that he won the 2020 election and is continuing to try to find a way to stay in power.
This is what makes Trump one of American history's biggest losers. Of the 44 men who have served as president, exactly one-quarter of them were spurned by the voters, but Trump alone within that group has threatened to destroy democracy itself in order to stay in power. Compared to the other ten one termers, Trump comes across as a spoiled brat, a petulant child, a would-be dictator motivated not by principle or necessity but a lifelong habit of crying like a baby if he doesn't get what he wants.
If he actually was a child, this would merely be pathetic. Because he is threatening democracy itself, however, Trump has sunk below pathetic and crashed through the floor into the realm of being a forever loser. Anyone who supports him in his effort is, by extension, a forever loser too.


alternet--2020-12-31--How the religious lobby is killing porn

How the religious lobby is killing porn

On Tuesday , December 8th , porn-hosting giant Pornhub removed 10 million videos from its platform .
The reason for the massive scrub was the result of the company 's recognition that sex traffickers had used the site to post videos of rape , sexual assault , and child abuse .
On December 14th , released a statement , which said , `` Last week , we enacted the most comprehensive safeguards in user-generated platform history .
We banned unverified uploaders from posting new content , eliminated downloads , and partnered with dozens of non-profit organizations…As part of our policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now also suspended all previously uploaded content that was not created by content partners or members of the Model Program . ''
They should have said : Under pressure from the porn abolitionist movement that operates under the guise of thwarting sex trafficking , we are going to compromise the economic lives of hundreds of thousands of performers—during a pandemic , no less .
I respect and commend those writing and speaking for people who have been trafficked and teenagers whose abusers post revenge porn on Pornhub or other sites .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of pornographers whose economic livelihoods have been served upon an altar for penance ?
Certainly , sex trafficking is a scourge .
But censorship is not the answer .
As a Pornhub user put it , `` The internet is becoming more and more sanitized every day because of people taking extreme measures to make us 'safer . '
It 's censorship masquerading as public safety . ''
In Pornhub 's statement , the industry leader noted that the social media giant Facebook reported 84 million cases of flagged items involving sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three years .
At the same time , the Internet Watchdog Foundation found only 118 such cases on Pornhub .
Thus , as Pornhub wrote in their announcement , `` it is clear that Pornhub is being targeted not because of our policies and how we compare to our peers , but because we are an adult content platform . ''
Let me frame this differently : 0.0008 percent of videos on Pornhub featured sexual abuse .
As a result , Pornhub elected to purge over 10 million videos and users whose accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a far cry from the site decried as being `` infested with rape videos . ''
Yes , as Kristof says , we can agree that `` promoting assaults on children or anyone without consent is unconscionable . ''
However , Pornhub nor any other mainstream porn site is invested in such promotion .
Now , in this watershed moment , let us hope nobody falls asleep at the wheel .
Sleight of the hand can be hard to catch .
The organizations behind the curtain advocating for the purge , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hub , have an end game that is not merely about trafficking or the abuse of children .
These are abolitionist groups that see all porn as a public health crisis and that seek to abolish all porn as we know it .
Not only does the porn abolitionists ' momentum raise serious concerns regarding free speech and the First Amendment , but puts people 's livelihoods at risk .
`` Pornhub should have also stood up for sex workers , '' said , a sex worker and founder of .
When Pornhub @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not merely delete the accounts posting illegal content .
They removed videos from even their verified users .
The only content remaining was from people in their model program .
Many online pornographers believe that the end result was that Pornhub became a subscription site only and not public .
`` No viewers means no money , '' one Pornhub content producer said regarding the purge .
Compounding pornographers ' expected loss of wages , , immediately following the Pornhub purge , that they would no longer process payments from Pornhub , effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move was a reaction to Kristof 's Times article about the platform hosting videos depicting child abuse .
`` What bothers me is that Visa and Mastercard are major card companies that have now pulled back from allowing sex workers to make a living because of this one company 's giant misstep , '' Akynos told me .
`` It wo n't just be Pornhub that they are n't messing with , it will be everyone else… So , now we have to figure out new ways in order to make money , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do…we are constantly getting trampled on , and then we have to figure out how we can reinvent ourselves and go around and jump through these hoops just so we can make a living . ''
Something similar happened several years ago following Congress ' passage of two related bills whose acronyms stand for `` Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act '' and `` Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act '' respectively .
Though ostensibly a bill designed to halt sex trafficking , it had the ancillary effect of squelching the incomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or censoring the online platforms where they find clients .
Indeed , after FOSTA/SESTA 's passage , companies such as Payoneer , PayPal , and American Express stopped taking payments from sexual enterprises .
In many cases , this meant that sex workers now had to find new sources of income in more dangerous locales in real life .
Beyond Pornhub , the is calling for all credit card companies to stop taking payments from all porn sites .
, sex worker and co-founder of the Peepshow Podcast , and I discussed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she unpacks with sex workers on Jessie told me , `` I believe that this will have ripple effects on our industry that extend far beyond Pornhub .
Mindgeek [ Pornhub 's parent company ] is the largest company in the industry , and if Visa/Mastercard is willing to pull its financial services from them , the smaller companies are not far behind . ''
Further , Jessie went on to talk about the financial harms of censorship and the continuing knee-jerk moves from payment processors .
`` Right now , 100 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry .
About 30 % comes from advertising on the podcast ( which by the way , our advertisers are all pornographers ) , and the rest comes from phone sex , video sales , and Onlyfans .
So , if clip sites are no longer allowed to process payments , if the bank accounts of performers get shut down , if I ca n't sell my content to my customers , this will impact both my sex work revenue stream and my multi-media magazine ( Peepshow ) because it is all funded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment is a blip on the screen and part of a much longer history of the coalition between the anti-porn and religious lobbies to rid our society of the so-called `` filth '' that nets billions in profits yearly , providing an honest living for so many .
Pornhub 's new policy and the ricochet it caused did far more harm to content producers than it did to sex traffickers or pedophiles .
The purge caused irrevocable damage to pornographers , and compounds the precarity they and other sex workers have faced under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new policies will have the most devastating effects on marginalized pornographers .
People of color and trans performers , for example , have found spaces for individual entrepreneurship online , in an industry that historically would rarely hire them .
We must recognize that Pornhub 's censorship and the move to restrict payment processing for all sex workers will have the most devastating effects on the most marginalized .
Many content producers are scared , dismayed , concerned about the online porn industry 's future , and livelihoods .
I spoke with , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this situation 's stakes in detail .
Trip explained : We must listen to the voices of adult content producers .
Saving , protecting , and supporting sex trafficking and sexual abuse survivors do not have to come at the expense of other marginalized people .
This is not a zero-sum game , even if the politically savvy master illusionists in the anti-porn lobby want you to believe it is .

On Tuesday, December 8th, porn-hosting giant Pornhub removed 10 million videos from its platform. The reason for the massive scrub was the result of the company's recognition that sex traffickers had used the site to post videos of rape, sexual assault, and child abuse. On December 14th, Pornhub released a statement, which said, "Last week, we enacted the most comprehensive safeguards in user-generated platform history. We banned unverified uploaders from posting new content, eliminated downloads, and partnered with dozens of non-profit organizations…As part of our policy to ban unverified uploaders, we have now also suspended all previously uploaded content that was not created by content partners or members of the Model Program."
They should have said: Under pressure from the porn abolitionist movement that operates under the guise of thwarting sex trafficking, we are going to compromise the economic lives of hundreds of thousands of performers—during a pandemic, no less. I respect and commend those writing and speaking for people who have been trafficked and teenagers whose abusers post revenge porn on Pornhub or other sites. However, who is speaking for the hundreds of thousands of pornographers whose economic livelihoods have been served upon an altar for penance?
Certainly, sex trafficking is a scourge. But censorship is not the answer. As a Pornhub user put it, "The internet is becoming more and more sanitized every day because of people taking extreme measures to make us 'safer.' It's censorship masquerading as public safety."
In Pornhub's statement, the industry leader noted that the social media giant Facebook reported 84 million cases of flagged items involving sexual abuse on the platform over the past three years. At the same time, the Internet Watchdog Foundation found only 118 such cases on Pornhub. Thus, as Pornhub wrote in their announcement, "it is clear that Pornhub is being targeted not because of our policies and how we compare to our peers, but because we are an adult content platform."
Let me frame this differently: 0.0008 percent of videos on Pornhub featured sexual abuse. As a result, Pornhub elected to purge over 10 million videos and users whose accounts had already been verified. This is a far cry from the site Nicholas Kristof decried as being "infested with rape videos." Yes, as Kristof says, we can agree that "promoting assaults on children or anyone without consent is unconscionable." However, Pornhub nor any other mainstream porn site is invested in such promotion.
Now, in this watershed moment, let us hope nobody falls asleep at the wheel. Sleight of the hand can be hard to catch. The organizations behind the curtain advocating for the purge, such as the National Center on Exploitation and Trafficking Hub, have an end game that is not merely about trafficking or the abuse of children. These are abolitionist groups that see all porn as a public health crisis and that seek to abolish all porn as we know it.
Not only does the porn abolitionists' momentum raise serious concerns regarding free speech and the First Amendment, but puts people's livelihoods at risk. "Pornhub should have also stood up for sex workers," said Akynos , a sex worker and founder of the Black Sex Workers Collective .
When Pornhub hit the panic button, they did not merely delete the accounts posting illegal content. They removed videos from even their verified users. The only content remaining was from people in their model program. Many online pornographers believe that the end result was that Pornhub became a subscription site only and not public. "No viewers means no money," one Pornhub content producer said regarding the purge.
Compounding pornographers' expected loss of wages, Mastercard and Visa announced , immediately following the Pornhub purge, that they would no longer process payments from Pornhub, effectively blocking revenue from the site. The move was a reaction to Kristof's Times article about the platform hosting videos depicting child abuse.
"What bothers me is that Visa and Mastercard are major card companies that have now pulled back from allowing sex workers to make a living because of this one company's giant misstep," Akynos told me. "It won't just be Pornhub that they aren't messing with, it will be everyone else… So, now we have to figure out new ways in order to make money, and this is what sex workers have to do…we are constantly getting trampled on, and then we have to figure out how we can reinvent ourselves and go around and jump through these hoops just so we can make a living."
Something similar happened several years ago following Congress' passage of FOSTA/SESTA, two related bills whose acronyms stand for "Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" and "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act" respectively. Though ostensibly a bill designed to halt sex trafficking, it had the ancillary effect of squelching the incomes of millions of sex workers by suppressing or censoring the online platforms where they find clients. Indeed, after FOSTA/SESTA's passage, companies such as Payoneer, PayPal, and American Express stopped taking payments from sexual enterprises. In many cases, this meant that sex workers now had to find new sources of income in more dangerous locales in real life.
Beyond Pornhub, the anti-porn lobby is calling for all credit card companies to stop taking payments from all porn sites. Jessie Sage , sex worker and co-founder of the Peepshow Podcast, and I discussed the effects of this crisis on laborers—a subject she unpacks with sex workers on her newest episode. Jessie told me, "I believe that this will have ripple effects on our industry that extend far beyond Pornhub. Mindgeek [Pornhub's parent company] is the largest company in the industry, and if Visa/Mastercard is willing to pull its financial services from them, the smaller companies are not far behind."
Further, Jessie went on to talk about the financial harms of censorship and the continuing knee-jerk moves from payment processors. "Right now, 100% of my income comes from the sex industry. About 30% comes from advertising on the podcast (which by the way, our advertisers are all pornographers), and the rest comes from phone sex, video sales, and Onlyfans. So, if clip sites are no longer allowed to process payments, if the bank accounts of performers get shut down, if I can't sell my content to my customers, this will impact both my sex work revenue stream and my multi-media magazine (Peepshow) because it is all funded from the same sources."
This moment is a blip on the screen and part of a much longer history of the coalition between the anti-porn and religious lobbies to rid our society of the so-called "filth" that nets billions in profits yearly, providing an honest living for so many.
Pornhub's new policy and the ricochet it caused did far more harm to content producers than it did to sex traffickers or pedophiles. The purge caused irrevocable damage to pornographers, and compounds the precarity they and other sex workers have faced under the pandemic. Indeed, Pornhub's new policies will have the most devastating effects on marginalized pornographers. People of color and trans performers, for example, have found spaces for individual entrepreneurship online, in an industry that historically would rarely hire them. We must recognize that Pornhub's censorship and the move to restrict payment processing for all sex workers will have the most devastating effects on the most marginalized.
Many content producers are scared, dismayed, concerned about the online porn industry's future, and livelihoods. I spoke with Trip Richards , a successful online model, who described this situation's stakes in detail. Trip explained:
When I first heard of the decision by Visa and Mastercard to stop processing payments to verified adult models on Pornhub, I was dismayed. I knew immediately that the decision would do nothing to address concerns of illegal or objectionable content on the site (or anywhere else on the net) but rather that it would remove the income that tens of thousands of verified models, including myself, rely upon… Losing this income in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic and national economic crisis is especially devastating. During the pandemic, record numbers of adults have turned to online sex work—sharing their personal videos on platforms like Pornhub, Onlyfans, and Justforfans to make ends meet and joyfully share their own self-expression. The decision by the credit card companies to fundamentally shut down Pornhub disproportionately impacted minorities, including people of color, trans people, and people with disabilities—as they are the folks most likely to participate consensually in sex work due to its autonomy, scheduling flexibility, and inclusiveness of diverse bodies. They also represent the groups who are most economically vulnerable, especially during this pandemic when so many low-wage, gig-economy, and service-industry jobs have evaporated…But snatching away income from verified models who had already complied with all the legal requirements was not the right way to ensure a safe online space. In fact, the long-term consequences of such a move are invariably to push objectionable content deeper underground—where it is harder to discover, remove, and prosecute—while simultaneously forcing people currently involved in consensual online sex work, like myself, toward more risky ventures where we have less autonomy and less financial stability. Speaking personally, as a transgender man who has been a model since 2014, sharing my work on online platforms has offered me financial freedom and personal happiness I never thought possible, and has allowed me to stay safe while pursuing my own goals as an artist, educator, and activist. Losing this stability now is absolutely devastating.
We must listen to the voices of adult content producers. Saving, protecting, and supporting sex trafficking and sexual abuse survivors do not have to come at the expense of other marginalized people. This is not a zero-sum game, even if the politically savvy master illusionists in the anti-porn lobby want you to believe it is.