vox--2020-09-25--Why we’re still years away from having self-driving cars

For the last five years , all anybody in the car world has talked about — well , apart from electrification — is autonomous driving .
Carmakers began dropping the terms “ self-driving ” and “ mobility ” at car shows , Uber and its competitors poached engineers from university robotics labs en masse , and Tesla fans began squabbling on Twitter about whether the company ’ s Autopilot system can be called “ autonomous.
” ( It can ’ t . )
Meanwhile , Cadillac , Mercedes , Volvo , and others rolled out similarly equipped vehicles that aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or less capable of driving themselves down highways , as long as drivers maintain a persistent vigil and nothing too weird happens along the way .
Meanwhile , visionary urban planners began rethinking city designs to envision what was sure to be a future uncluttered by automotive detritus — no more traffic signs or stoplights , no more cars parked by the side of the road .
Vehicles would simply drop you off at your destination and vanish … somewhere .
We were told cars would chat with each other and the roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that car accidents would no longer be a thing .
In fact , the world was so optimistic about this future that then-US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx declared in 2016 that we ’ d have fully autonomous cars everywhere by 2021 .
Flash forward to today , and precious little has changed about our daily driving .
You probably hear a lot less about self-driving cars than you did a few years ago , and the prospect of safely dozing off behind the wheel on long drives remains a distant fantasy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ startups like Waymo , Cruise , Argo , and Zoox on the technology .
Why the radio silence ?
There are a lot of knotty problems to solve that are conspiring to delay the arrival of the technology — in fact , answers to these problems may redefine how self-driving cars will work .
Everything from programming vehicles to follow the rules of the road to getting them to communicate with human drivers and pedestrians — forever ending , for instance , that infuriating indecisiveness we all encounter when trying to determine who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is giving engineers fits .
Even further in the weeds : developing sensors that can work flawlessly in all kinds of weather and visibility conditions , and teaching cars how to respond to all the so-called “ edge cases ” they ’ ll encounter on the road , such as comprehending the difference between a flock of birds dashing across the road or wind-blown leaves that are fine to run down .
Also , cars don ’ t drive in a vacuum — the roads and infrastructure , as well as federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to accommodate fleets of robocars , and the public has to be on board , too .
Many puzzle pieces must fall perfectly into place .
To put it more simply : Five years ago , as companies developing this tech talked a big game to lure talent and investment dollars , we were all more optimistic than realistic about the timeline for rolling out autonomous cars that are predictable , reliable , and as safe as possible .
“ Those early estimates with really aggressive timelines for rolling out the services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vehicles on the road by 2020 , ” notes Jeremy Carlson , an autonomy analyst with auto-industry research firm IHS Markit .
“ Even that might have been optimistic in some cases.
” The reality is that while roads themselves are generally orderly and well-known environments , what actually happens on them is anything but .
Humans are proficient behind the wheel , but they ’ re also imprecise and occasionally wayward .
So until 100 percent of the vehicles on the road are fully autonomous — something many analysts think is actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to be able to respond to the edge cases plus countless quirks and tics exhibited by human drivers on a daily basis .
It ’ s the stuff we ’ re able to swat away without missing a beat while driving ourselves , but getting computers to try to manage it is a really big deal .
Pittsburgh-based Argo and the Bay Area ’ s Waymo , both frontrunners in the race to perfect self-driving tech , are solving for this challenge by training their autonomous-drive systems to rely as much on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on sensors used to “ paint ” the environment around them .
That means they will also be limited to areas that are fully mapped , as though operating in a real-world video game .
It ’ s a process most developers will likely need to rely on , even though it requires persistent , continuously updated maps and will likely limit the ability to take vehicles “ off-grid ” as an owner or user might need from time to time .
But don ’ t fret .
Highly automated driving remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s being enabled not merely by fast-talking CEOs but by technology that ’ s indeed racing forward — even if it ’ s not as fast as we ’ d hoped .
Computer-processing capabilities continue to surge annually while sophisticated artificial intelligence systems are learning to , if not necessarily think like humans , at least run through enough options for every decision to pick the best solutions .
The onboard sensor systems that are required to detect vehicles , monitor their behavior , and “ read ” the environment grow more compact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the ubiquitous communication systems that will tie everything together — namely , cloud computing and the forthcoming 5G cellular network , which will eventually make wireless speeds exponentially faster than the 4G you ’ re already familiar with and is deploying around the world .
The cloud system allows engineers to offload a lot of the data processing away from the vehicles themselves and onto more capable and rigorously updated servers — meaning that the autonomous-drive systems remain persistently state of the art .
But it ’ s the 5G network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ features within these systems .
Though the cars will by and large be able to operate without connectivity , having a more robust , faster , higher-bandwidth wireless data system will significantly boost the autonomous vehicle network ’ s capabilities .
Cities will be able to optimize traffic patterns , cars will know ahead of time what the traffic signals will be at every intersection , and vehicles will communicate with each other to ease everything from lane changes to routing strategies based on congestion or weather .
According to Carlson , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the part of vehicles , akin to the way GPS navigation will today reroute you based on congestion .
“ With a better and more robust network , you ’ ll have longer detection ranges for other vehicles and incidents and have lots of different types of information pumped into the system , ” he says .
“ There ’ s real value there in terms of how it can make driving better and more efficient.
” Researchers have already demonstrated the systems ’ abilities to precisely coordinate autonomous vehicles threading their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thanks to all the vehicles automatically gauging their relative positions and deciding who goes where .
This can only be done when vehicles are communicating wirelessly with each other .
Finally , at the risk of further muddying the waters about when and what we can expect , there ’ s another variable that ’ s slowing down self-driving cars : Covid-19 .
Many carmakers are yet again recalibrating their expectations and timelines for the vehicles , noting that consumer behavior might change permanently as a result of the pandemic and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared-car services — which many had targeted as a significant launching pad for the technology — or , conversely , an increased desire to stay away from mass transit , thus making self-driving options more appealing .
Ford announced in April that it would delay its anticipated 2021 rollout of its autonomous car service to 2022 , using the time to gauge reassess the market .
The pandemic might also spur increased interest in contactless delivery , of the sort Mountain View , California-based autonomy startup Nuro ’ s engineers are developing via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nearly the size of a small car .
It ’ s a more compact form of the same kind of technology that passenger-carrying vehicles would possess , adhering to the same principles and rules of the road , both real and virtual .
“ As an industry , we ’ ve seen an unprecedented shift in consumer demand for on-demand home delivery since the beginning of the pandemic — with online grocery sales increasing nearly five times , ” says David Estrada , Nuro ’ s chief legal and policy officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help make meal deliveries for local food banks , deliver quarantine kits for those sheltering in place , and use R2 to bring meals to frontline workers who were treating Covid-19 positive patients in pop-up medical facilities.
” Of course , plenty of other technologies for autonomous systems are already appearing in full-sized vehicles , as well , in the guise of advanced driver assistance systems ( ADAS ) , such as adaptive cruise control , traffic signal alerts , and emergency braking and maneuvering .
( Technically , all semi-autonomous or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s just that some are more advanced than others . )
These will ease consumers into accepting and using them over time while the development of technology for the fully evolved systems continues in the background .
The path to autonomy truly does appear to be starting out small , working up to something much larger and more impactful as all the pieces fall into place .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as $ 3 .

For the last five years, all anybody in the car world has talked about — well, apart from electrification — is autonomous driving. Carmakers began dropping the terms “self-driving” and “mobility” at car shows, Uber and its competitors poached engineers from university robotics labs en masse, and Tesla fans began squabbling on Twitter about whether the company’s Autopilot system can be called “autonomous.” (It can’t.) Meanwhile, Cadillac, Mercedes, Volvo, and others rolled out similarly equipped vehicles that aren’t quite autonomous but are more or less capable of driving themselves down highways, as long as drivers maintain a persistent vigil and nothing too weird happens along the way.
Meanwhile, visionary urban planners began rethinking city designs to envision what was sure to be a future uncluttered by automotive detritus — no more traffic signs or stoplights, no more cars parked by the side of the road. Vehicles would simply drop you off at your destination and vanish … somewhere. We were told cars would chat with each other and the roads themselves to modulate traffic flow, and that car accidents would no longer be a thing. In fact, the world was so optimistic about this future that then-US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx declared in 2016 that we’d have fully autonomous cars everywhere by 2021.
Flash forward to today, and precious little has changed about our daily driving. You probably hear a lot less about self-driving cars than you did a few years ago, and the prospect of safely dozing off behind the wheel on long drives remains a distant fantasy, even if old-school carmakers are working with startups like Waymo, Cruise, Argo, and Zoox on the technology.
Why the radio silence? There are a lot of knotty problems to solve that are conspiring to delay the arrival of the technology — in fact, answers to these problems may redefine how self-driving cars will work.
Everything from programming vehicles to follow the rules of the road to getting them to communicate with human drivers and pedestrians — forever ending, for instance, that infuriating indecisiveness we all encounter when trying to determine who should go first at a four-way stop — is giving engineers fits. Even further in the weeds: developing sensors that can work flawlessly in all kinds of weather and visibility conditions, and teaching cars how to respond to all the so-called “edge cases” they’ll encounter on the road, such as comprehending the difference between a flock of birds dashing across the road or wind-blown leaves that are fine to run down. Also, cars don’t drive in a vacuum — the roads and infrastructure, as well as federal, state, and local regulations, have to accommodate fleets of robocars, and the public has to be on board, too. Many puzzle pieces must fall perfectly into place.
To put it more simply: Five years ago, as companies developing this tech talked a big game to lure talent and investment dollars, we were all more optimistic than realistic about the timeline for rolling out autonomous cars that are predictable, reliable, and as safe as possible.
“Those early estimates with really aggressive timelines for rolling out the services have turned into having a few research vehicles on the road by 2020,” notes Jeremy Carlson, an autonomy analyst with auto-industry research firm IHS Markit. “Even that might have been optimistic in some cases.”
The reality is that while roads themselves are generally orderly and well-known environments, what actually happens on them is anything but. Humans are proficient behind the wheel, but they’re also imprecise and occasionally wayward. So until 100 percent of the vehicles on the road are fully autonomous — something many analysts think is actually highly unlikely — every autonomous vehicle will have to be able to respond to the edge cases plus countless quirks and tics exhibited by human drivers on a daily basis. It’s the stuff we’re able to swat away without missing a beat while driving ourselves, but getting computers to try to manage it is a really big deal.
Pittsburgh-based Argo and the Bay Area’s Waymo, both frontrunners in the race to perfect self-driving tech, are solving for this challenge by training their autonomous-drive systems to rely as much on precisely scanned basemaps of the road as on sensors used to “paint” the environment around them. That means they will also be limited to areas that are fully mapped, as though operating in a real-world video game. It’s a process most developers will likely need to rely on, even though it requires persistent, continuously updated maps and will likely limit the ability to take vehicles “off-grid” as an owner or user might need from time to time.
But don’t fret. Highly automated driving remains a very real proposition, one that’s being enabled not merely by fast-talking CEOs but by technology that’s indeed racing forward — even if it’s not as fast as we’d hoped. Computer-processing capabilities continue to surge annually while sophisticated artificial intelligence systems are learning to, if not necessarily think like humans, at least run through enough options for every decision to pick the best solutions. The onboard sensor systems that are required to detect vehicles, monitor their behavior, and “read” the environment grow more compact and affordable every year.
Then there’s the ubiquitous communication systems that will tie everything together — namely, cloud computing and the forthcoming 5G cellular network, which will eventually make wireless speeds exponentially faster than the 4G you’re already familiar with and is deploying around the world. The cloud system allows engineers to offload a lot of the data processing away from the vehicles themselves and onto more capable and rigorously updated servers — meaning that the autonomous-drive systems remain persistently state of the art. But it’s the 5G network that could enable a lot of key features within these systems. Though the cars will by and large be able to operate without connectivity, having a more robust, faster, higher-bandwidth wireless data system will significantly boost the autonomous vehicle network’s capabilities. Cities will be able to optimize traffic patterns, cars will know ahead of time what the traffic signals will be at every intersection, and vehicles will communicate with each other to ease everything from lane changes to routing strategies based on congestion or weather.
According to Carlson, that will generate a kind of universal awareness on the part of vehicles, akin to the way GPS navigation will today reroute you based on congestion. “With a better and more robust network, you’ll have longer detection ranges for other vehicles and incidents and have lots of different types of information pumped into the system,” he says. “There’s real value there in terms of how it can make driving better and more efficient.” Researchers have already demonstrated the systems’ abilities to precisely coordinate autonomous vehicles threading their way past each other with millisecond timing, thanks to all the vehicles automatically gauging their relative positions and deciding who goes where. This can only be done when vehicles are communicating wirelessly with each other.
Finally, at the risk of further muddying the waters about when and what we can expect, there’s another variable that’s slowing down self-driving cars: Covid-19. Many carmakers are yet again recalibrating their expectations and timelines for the vehicles, noting that consumer behavior might change permanently as a result of the pandemic and that could mean both a reluctance to use shared-car services — which many had targeted as a significant launching pad for the technology — or, conversely, an increased desire to stay away from mass transit, thus making self-driving options more appealing. Ford announced in April that it would delay its anticipated 2021 rollout of its autonomous car service to 2022, using the time to gauge reassess the market.
The pandemic might also spur increased interest in contactless delivery, of the sort Mountain View, California-based autonomy startup Nuro’s engineers are developing via R2, its self-driving delivery vehicle that’s nearly the size of a small car. It’s a more compact form of the same kind of technology that passenger-carrying vehicles would possess, adhering to the same principles and rules of the road, both real and virtual. “As an industry, we’ve seen an unprecedented shift in consumer demand for on-demand home delivery since the beginning of the pandemic — with online grocery sales increasing nearly five times,” says David Estrada, Nuro’s chief legal and policy officer. “We partnered with several nonprofits to help make meal deliveries for local food banks, deliver quarantine kits for those sheltering in place, and use R2 to bring meals to frontline workers who were treating Covid-19 positive patients in pop-up medical facilities.”
Of course, plenty of other technologies for autonomous systems are already appearing in full-sized vehicles, as well, in the guise of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), such as adaptive cruise control, traffic signal alerts, and emergency braking and maneuvering. (Technically, all semi-autonomous or “self-driving” systems are ADAS, it’s just that some are more advanced than others.) These will ease consumers into accepting and using them over time while the development of technology for the fully evolved systems continues in the background. The path to autonomy truly does appear to be starting out small, working up to something much larger and more impactful as all the pieces fall into place.


vox--2020-09-25--The past 48 hours of Justice Department political shenanigans, explained

Though Election Day is approaching and voting has already started in some states , Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department has been involved in a whirlwind two days of unusual , politically charged activity .
Most notably , a US attorney made a vague , partially inaccurate statement Thursday about problems with a handful of military ballots in one Pennsylvania county — a statement that went out of its way to say the ballots were cast for Donald Trump .
This seemed designed to boost the president ’ s claims that mail voting is riddled with fraud , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed that the White House had a heads-up about it .
Also Thursday , Barr released some information that he suggested cast further doubt on a major source for the Steele dossier , sending it in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) .
The Steele dossier was clearly deeply flawed , and Trump ’ s supporters have zeroed in on the FBI ’ s use of it as part of their larger project to discredit the Russia investigation .
But the political dimension of this revelation was obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tout his findings and to ask Fox viewers for donations to help him in his own tough reelection .
Meanwhile , in advance of a hearing next week at which a judge will consider whether the Justice Department can withdraw the false statements case to which Michael Flynn pleaded guilty , the Department sent new internal FBI documents about the case to Flynn ’ s lawyers , and released notes from a recent interview of an FBI agent who worked on the case and says he was skeptical about it .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at affecting the election ; the timeline for these proceedings has been set by the judge in the case , Emmet Sullivan .
But they are part of the broader unusual situation in which Barr has ordered a review of the Flynn case in an apparent attempt to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation .
Typically , custom dictates that Justice Department officials should be deeply careful about taking actions that could affect an election in the weeks before it takes place — though then-FBI Director James Comey famously violated that tradition in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ made its priorities clear : They want to advance the political narratives of President Trump .
And they ’ re clearly not going to stop doing so in the weeks before election day .
The most alarming move from the Justice Department lately came from a surprising source : the US attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania , David Freed .
Many details about the underlying situation here are still murky .
But on Monday , Freed ’ s office and the FBI began “ an inquiry into reports of potential issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Luzerne County Board of Elections , ” Freed said in a statement .
If there are reports of issues with ballots , the Justice Department should naturally investigate .
But the way this information was dribbled out seemed designed to bolster President Trump ’ s baseless claims that mail voting is deeply flawed — when Freed ’ s actual findings have so far revealed no such thing .
The first public indications that something was up came when Trump himself told a Fox host in a radio interview that “ Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” were found in “ a certain state , ” and when White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany mentioned at a press briefing that “ ballots for the president were found in Pennsylvania.
” Then Freed released his first statement on the matter .
The brief , vague statement said he could confirm that “ a small number of military ballots ” — nine — were “ discarded.
” It didn ’ t explain how or why , or whether there was intentional malfeasance .
But the statement made sure to point out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for presidential candidate Donald Trump.
” ( This statement turned out to be wrong .
Freed corrected it to say that seven of the nine were cast for Trump , the other two were resealed and their candidate preference is unknown . )
The statement about an ongoing investigation was strange in and of itself .
But the revelation that the discarded ballots for Trump seemed particularly politicized , as former Justice Department official Justin Levitt tweeted : And indeed , Trump campaign spokesperson Matt Wolking quickly tweeted out Freed ’ s statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania .
100 % of them were cast for President Trump .
Democrats are trying to steal the election.
” ( Wolking eventually deleted the tweet after it had been retweeted thousands of times . )
But Freed ’ s longer letter about his findings so far , released later Thursday , contains nothing to back up the inflammatory “ steal the election ” claim .
Indeed , it seemed entirely possible that the military ballots were opened accidentally because the election board staff thought they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots themselves .
It ’ s also unclear whether the local election board ’ s practice was simply in keeping with a recent ruling from the Pennsylvania supreme court — that any mailed ballots lacking an inner “ secrecy envelope ” have to be discarded .
Republicans in the state have supported this ruling , and Freed ’ s statement did not comment on the issue .
So it ’ s uncertain whether local officials did anything wrong at all , and there ’ s certainly been no evidence of a dastardly plot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s statement seemed designed to bolster Trump ’ s baseless claims to this effect .
And ABC News ’ Alexander Mallin reported that Barr had personally briefed Trump about the investigation , explaining why the White House was so prepared to pounce .
Meanwhile , Barr himself made another unusual release of information on another topic — the infamous “ Steele dossier ” about Trump ’ s ties to Russia .
The Steele dossier has not aged well .
Its most specific allegations were not corroborated by the Mueller investigation .
Former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a problem for the investigation , because it sent people off on a series of wild goose chases.
” And inspector general Michael Horowitz as criticized the FBI ’ s use of Steele ’ s claims to justify the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page .
As Horowitz wrote last year , “ Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting .
Steele instead relied on a Primary sub-source for information , who used his/her network of sub-sources to gather information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem was that , when the FBI finally reached out to that primary sub-source directly , he largely disavowed Steele ’ s claims , saying that the information he gave Steele was “ just talk , ” should be taken with “ a grain of salt , ” and included statements he heard made in “ jest.
” Steele ’ s write-up , he said , was more “ conclusive ” than it should ’ ve been .
Barr ’ s new release — made in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the primary sub-source .
Specifically , he himself was under counterintelligence investigation by the FBI from 2009 to 2011 , and the investigation found he ’ d had some contact with Russian intelligence officers .
( The government has not named the primary sub-source , but he is reportedly Igor Danchenko , who previously worked for the Brookings Institution think tank . )
However , the whole point of the dossier , in theory , was that Steele ’ s sources were supposed to talk to connected Russians , including government officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going on .
So it doesn ’ t make sense that mere contact with these officials would discredit the dossier .
The bigger problem would be if those officials ( or Danchenko himself ) were deliberately seeding disinformation that Steele then unskeptically parroted .
In any case , both Barr and Graham are framing this new release as simply part of the congressional oversight process — Graham ’ s committee is investigating the dossier , and Barr is responding to that oversight .
But the obvious political dimension was made clear when Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tout his findings — and , both times , pleaded for campaign donations from Fox viewers .
( Graham ’ s Democratic opponent , Jaime Harrison , has raised an extraordinary amount of money recently , and Graham claimed that he is getting “ killed financially.
” ) Barr also writes that the new information was brought to his attention by US Attorney John Durham , whose review of the Trump-Russia probe is ongoing .
Barr has reportedly pressured Durham ’ s team in recent weeks to submit some findings before the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nora Dannehy , resigned in protest .
Trump and Barr have made clear they want Durham ’ s findings made public , and this may be one roundabout way in revealing part of them .
Finally , the Justice Department made new disclosures related to the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn .
Back in December 2017 , Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his phone conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition , in a case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government and his case was set for sentencing in December 2018 .
But when the judge in that case , Emmet Sullivan , harshly criticized Flynn ’ s conduct and sounded surprisingly likely to give him some prison time , Flynn asked to delay his sentencing so he could continue to cooperate with the government .
But Flynn ’ s cooperation fell apart , and he changed his legal strategy in 2019 by hiring an aggressive conservative lawyer , Sidney Powell , who sought to discredit the government ’ s case against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Powell had an important ally in this effort : the attorney general .
Barr assigned Jeff Jensen , the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri , to review Justice Department and FBI decision-making in the Flynn case .
Then , in May , prosecutors announced that they would drop the case against Flynn , claiming that it wouldn ’ t serve the interests of justice .
Judge Sullivan , however , was skeptical .
Sounding suspicious of the government ’ s motives , he did not allow the case to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing in which he will question attorneys will take place on Tuesday .
What ’ s important to understand here is that the Justice Department and Flynn ’ s defense lawyers are now essentially working together , to try and get the case thrown out .
That ’ s the context for this week ’ s new disclosures .
First , the government handed over a new set of internal FBI notes and messages to Flynn ’ s defense team .
Some of these messages revealed some skepticism from agents about the strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
However , that was before Flynn ’ s contacts with the Russian ambassador .
Powell also distorted or misinterpreted some other messages — claiming that an FBI analyst ’ s statement that “ i think some of these guys want a clinton presidency ” was about the FBI , when the context makes clear “ these guys ” was referring to Russians .
Second , prosecutors filed notes from an interview US Attorney Jeff Jensen ’ s team conducted in his review of the Flynn case .
The interview , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former FBI case agent William Barnett , who handled the counterintelligence investigation against Flynn and later worked in Mueller ’ s office .
In it , Barnett reveals that he was often quite skeptical of the Flynn investigation , while other prosecutors and agents were more suspicious .
He also was surprised to have been left out when Peter Strzok and another agent interviewed Flynn ( the interview that was the basis for the charges against Flynn ) .
And he expresses his opinion that Flynn ’ s prosecution was a way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary itself is a series of contradictions , ” Politico ’ s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein write .
They continue : “ Though Barnett voices deep doubts about the motivations of some of his colleagues , he ultimately agreed that Flynn lied to the FBI .
He also indicated that he believed the other investigations led by the Crossfire Hurricane team were meritorious , though he says he often offered more benign theories about actions taken by Trump and his team when other agents were inclined to view them in a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seem designed to bolster the government ’ s and Flynn ’ s arguments that the case against him should be thrown out .
But they don ’ t appear to reveal any actual misconduct .
And though it ’ s entirely possible that Judge Sullivan will eventually let the case against Flynn be dropped , he ’ ll want to ask some tough questions first at Tuesday ’ s hearing .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Though Election Day is approaching and voting has already started in some states, Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department has been involved in a whirlwind two days of unusual, politically charged activity.
Most notably, a US attorney made a vague, partially inaccurate statement Thursday about problems with a handful of military ballots in one Pennsylvania county — a statement that went out of its way to say the ballots were cast for Donald Trump. This seemed designed to boost the president’s claims that mail voting is riddled with fraud, and indeed, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany revealed that the White House had a heads-up about it.
Also Thursday, Barr released some information that he suggested cast further doubt on a major source for the Steele dossier, sending it in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The Steele dossier was clearly deeply flawed, and Trump’s supporters have zeroed in on the FBI’s use of it as part of their larger project to discredit the Russia investigation. But the political dimension of this revelation was obvious: Graham quickly went on Fox News to tout his findings and to ask Fox viewers for donations to help him in his own tough reelection.
Meanwhile, in advance of a hearing next week at which a judge will consider whether the Justice Department can withdraw the false statements case to which Michael Flynn pleaded guilty, the Department sent new internal FBI documents about the case to Flynn’s lawyers, and released notes from a recent interview of an FBI agent who worked on the case and says he was skeptical about it.
The Flynn moves aren’t necessarily aimed at affecting the election; the timeline for these proceedings has been set by the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan. But they are part of the broader unusual situation in which Barr has ordered a review of the Flynn case in an apparent attempt to discredit the Trump-Russia investigation.
Typically, custom dictates that Justice Department officials should be deeply careful about taking actions that could affect an election in the weeks before it takes place — though then-FBI Director James Comey famously violated that tradition in 2016.
But Barr’s Justice Department has made its priorities clear: They want to advance the political narratives of President Trump. And they’re clearly not going to stop doing so in the weeks before election day.
The Pennsylvania ballots
The most alarming move from the Justice Department lately came from a surprising source: the US attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, David Freed.
Many details about the underlying situation here are still murky. But on Monday, Freed’s office and the FBI began “an inquiry into reports of potential issues with a small number of mail-in ballots at the Luzerne County Board of Elections,” Freed said in a statement.
If there are reports of issues with ballots, the Justice Department should naturally investigate. But the way this information was dribbled out seemed designed to bolster President Trump’s baseless claims that mail voting is deeply flawed — when Freed’s actual findings have so far revealed no such thing.
The first public indications that something was up came when Trump himself told a Fox host in a radio interview that “Trump ballots” in “a trash can” were found in “a certain state,” and when White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany mentioned at a press briefing that “ballots for the president were found in Pennsylvania.”
Then Freed released his first statement on the matter. The brief, vague statement said he could confirm that “a small number of military ballots” — nine — were “discarded.” It didn’t explain how or why, or whether there was intentional malfeasance. But the statement made sure to point out that “all nine ballots were cast for presidential candidate Donald Trump.” (This statement turned out to be wrong. Freed corrected it to say that seven of the nine were cast for Trump, the other two were resealed and their candidate preference is unknown.)
The statement about an ongoing investigation was strange in and of itself. But the revelation that the discarded ballots for Trump seemed particularly politicized, as former Justice Department official Justin Levitt tweeted:
An investigation here may be reasonable. But there is NO legit reason for:
1) a DOJ press release on a pending investigation, that
2) announces a partial list of unconfirmed facts, including
3) the identity of one of the candidates on specific ballots.https://t.co/T92nz8tZpV — Justin Levitt (@_justinlevitt_) September 24, 2020
And indeed, Trump campaign spokesperson Matt Wolking quickly tweeted out Freed’s statement, writing: “BREAKING: FBI finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania. 100% of them were cast for President Trump. Democrats are trying to steal the election.” (Wolking eventually deleted the tweet after it had been retweeted thousands of times.)
But Freed’s longer letter about his findings so far, released later Thursday, contains nothing to back up the inflammatory “steal the election” claim. Indeed, it seemed entirely possible that the military ballots were opened accidentally because the election board staff thought they could have been ballot requests instead of the ballots themselves.
It’s also unclear whether the local election board’s practice was simply in keeping with a recent ruling from the Pennsylvania supreme court — that any mailed ballots lacking an inner “secrecy envelope” have to be discarded. Republicans in the state have supported this ruling, and Freed’s statement did not comment on the issue.
So it’s uncertain whether local officials did anything wrong at all, and there’s certainly been no evidence of a dastardly plot to steal the election. Yet Freed’s statement seemed designed to bolster Trump’s baseless claims to this effect. And ABC News’ Alexander Mallin reported that Barr had personally briefed Trump about the investigation, explaining why the White House was so prepared to pounce.
The Steele source
Meanwhile, Barr himself made another unusual release of information on another topic — the infamous “Steele dossier” about Trump’s ties to Russia.
The Steele dossier has not aged well. Its most specific allegations were not corroborated by the Mueller investigation. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok recently called it “a problem for the investigation, because it sent people off on a series of wild goose chases.” And inspector general Michael Horowitz as criticized the FBI’s use of Steele’s claims to justify the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.
As Horowitz wrote last year, “Steele himself was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting. Steele instead relied on a Primary sub-source for information, who used his/her network of sub-sources to gather information that was then passed to Steele.”
The problem was that, when the FBI finally reached out to that primary sub-source directly, he largely disavowed Steele’s claims, saying that the information he gave Steele was “just talk,” should be taken with “a grain of salt,” and included statements he heard made in “jest.” Steele’s write-up, he said, was more “conclusive” than it should’ve been.
Barr’s new release — made in a letter to Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham — reveals more information casting doubt on the primary sub-source. Specifically, he himself was under counterintelligence investigation by the FBI from 2009 to 2011, and the investigation found he’d had some contact with Russian intelligence officers. (The government has not named the primary sub-source, but he is reportedly Igor Danchenko, who previously worked for the Brookings Institution think tank.)
However, the whole point of the dossier, in theory, was that Steele’s sources were supposed to talk to connected Russians, including government officials, to try to learn what was going on. So it doesn’t make sense that mere contact with these officials would discredit the dossier. The bigger problem would be if those officials (or Danchenko himself) were deliberately seeding disinformation that Steele then unskeptically parroted.
In any case, both Barr and Graham are framing this new release as simply part of the congressional oversight process — Graham’s committee is investigating the dossier, and Barr is responding to that oversight.
But the obvious political dimension was made clear when Graham went on Fox News twice Thursday to tout his findings — and, both times, pleaded for campaign donations from Fox viewers. (Graham’s Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, has raised an extraordinary amount of money recently, and Graham claimed that he is getting “killed financially.”)
Barr also writes that the new information was brought to his attention by US Attorney John Durham, whose review of the Trump-Russia probe is ongoing. Barr has reportedly pressured Durham’s team in recent weeks to submit some findings before the election, and one prosecutor on the team, Nora Dannehy, resigned in protest. Trump and Barr have made clear they want Durham’s findings made public, and this may be one roundabout way in revealing part of them.
The Flynn wrangling
Finally, the Justice Department made new disclosures related to the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Back in December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his phone conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition, in a case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team.
Flynn pledged to cooperate with the government and his case was set for sentencing in December 2018. But when the judge in that case, Emmet Sullivan, harshly criticized Flynn’s conduct and sounded surprisingly likely to give him some prison time, Flynn asked to delay his sentencing so he could continue to cooperate with the government.
But Flynn’s cooperation fell apart, and he changed his legal strategy in 2019 by hiring an aggressive conservative lawyer, Sidney Powell, who sought to discredit the government’s case against Flynn, making claims of investigative misconduct.
Powell had an important ally in this effort: the attorney general. Barr assigned Jeff Jensen, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to review Justice Department and FBI decision-making in the Flynn case. Then, in May, prosecutors announced that they would drop the case against Flynn, claiming that it wouldn’t serve the interests of justice.
Judge Sullivan, however, was skeptical. Sounding suspicious of the government’s motives, he did not allow the case to be thrown out just yet. A hearing in which he will question attorneys will take place on Tuesday.
What’s important to understand here is that the Justice Department and Flynn’s defense lawyers are now essentially working together, to try and get the case thrown out. That’s the context for this week’s new disclosures.
First, the government handed over a new set of internal FBI notes and messages to Flynn’s defense team. Some of these messages revealed some skepticism from agents about the strength of the Flynn investigation back in late 2016. However, that was before Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador. Powell also distorted or misinterpreted some other messages — claiming that an FBI analyst’s statement that “i think some of these guys want a clinton presidency” was about the FBI, when the context makes clear “these guys” was referring to Russians.
Second, prosecutors filed notes from an interview US Attorney Jeff Jensen’s team conducted in his review of the Flynn case. The interview, which took place last week, was of former FBI case agent William Barnett, who handled the counterintelligence investigation against Flynn and later worked in Mueller’s office.
In it, Barnett reveals that he was often quite skeptical of the Flynn investigation, while other prosecutors and agents were more suspicious. He also was surprised to have been left out when Peter Strzok and another agent interviewed Flynn (the interview that was the basis for the charges against Flynn). And he expresses his opinion that Flynn’s prosecution was a way to “get Trump.”
“The interview summary itself is a series of contradictions,” Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein write. They continue: “Though Barnett voices deep doubts about the motivations of some of his colleagues, he ultimately agreed that Flynn lied to the FBI. He also indicated that he believed the other investigations led by the Crossfire Hurricane team were meritorious, though he says he often offered more benign theories about actions taken by Trump and his team when other agents were inclined to view them in a more incriminating light.”
These releases, overall, seem designed to bolster the government’s and Flynn’s arguments that the case against him should be thrown out. But they don’t appear to reveal any actual misconduct. And though it’s entirely possible that Judge Sullivan will eventually let the case against Flynn be dropped, he’ll want to ask some tough questions first at Tuesday’s hearing.


vox--2020-09-26--Demand grows for Kentucky AG to release the grand jury report in the Breonna Taylor case

After a grand jury ’ s decision to not indict a single officer in Breonna Taylor ’ s killing , the rallying cry has turned from “ arrest the cops ” to “ release the attorney general ’ s report.
” At a Friday morning Louisville press conference , Taylor ’ s family and attorneys gathered to express their dissatisfaction with the decision and the criminal justice system .
“ I was reassured Wednesday of why I have no faith in the legal system and the police and the law that are not made to protect those black and brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tamika Palmer , wrote in a letter that was read aloud by her sister Bianca Austin .
Taylor ’ s family and their attorneys are calling for Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to release his report of the proceedings , questioning what Cameron presented to the grand jury .
“ Did he present any evidence on Breonna Taylor ’ s behalf ?
Or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on the scales of justice ?
” attorney Benjamin Crump asked .
The press conference came after a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the streets to demonstrate their frustration over the grand jury decision .
Palmer had also made an appearance at the site of a memorial for her daughter at Jefferson Square Park on Thursday evening , sporting a T-shirt with Cameron ’ s face and the words “ Mitch Bitch ” — a reference to Cameron ’ s close ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
Palmer told reporters she was “ mad , pissed , upset , hurt , ” and had “ a lot of emotions.
” “ I wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have faith in them to begin with .
I was holding out hope.
” On Wednesday , the country learned that no one was directly charged in Taylor ’ s death .
Former Louisville Metro police officer Brett Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor ’ s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor ’ s apartment into theirs .
The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night — Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly and detective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The decision before my office as the special prosecutor in this case was not to decide if the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life was a tragedy .
The answer to that question is , unequivocally , yes , ” Cameron said at a press conference after the announcement in Louisville .
“ My job as a special prosecutor in this case was to put emotions aside and investigate the facts to determine if criminal violations of state law resulted in the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ awaiting the decision in the criminal investigation all summer .
Cameron said he presented his findings to the grand jury beginning on Monday , and the jury made its decision by noon on Wednesday .
The announcement came nearly 200 days after Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13 .
As news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month , protests broke out across the country .
Over time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who killed Breonna Taylor ” became a rallying cry for activists — as well as the focal point of countless memes .
The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys .
Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don ’ t often receive as much attention , or justice , in matters of police violence , and now was the time to correct that .
“ When I speak on it , I ’ m considered an angry Black woman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Friday ’ s press conference .
“ But know this : I am an angry Black woman .
I am not angry for the reasons that you would like me to be — but angry because our Black women keep dying at the hands of police officers .
And Black men.
” The grand jury decision caused outcry across the nation over what many see as a weak indictment charge .
Hankinson wasn ’ t charged with killing Taylor , but with endangering her neighbors .
Wanton endangerment in the first degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kentucky .
If convicted , Hankison could face up to five years in prison for each count .
He could , conversely , be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service .
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as : While there are six charges of homicide under Kentucky law , Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , shot at them that night .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was justified to protect themselves .
This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges , ” Cameron said .
Hankison , meanwhile , was only charged in connection to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor ’ s apartment to a neighboring residence where three civilians were at the time , according to the special investigation .
During the course of the investigation , the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “ displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired 10 rounds into Taylor ’ s apartment , according to his termination letter .
The reason for Hankison ’ s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury .
Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May .
The grand jury announcement revealed a new version of what happened during the early hours of March 13 Cameron ’ s version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , police relied on a no-knock warrant to enter her apartment in search of two people suspected of selling drugs , neither of whom was Taylor .
While police say they announced themselves , Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend who was inside the apartment at the time , disputes that claim .
On Wednesday , Cameron announced developments on this particular detail .
According to the attorney general , there was an independent witness ( a civilian ) near Taylor ’ s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a no-knock warrant , ” Cameron said .
When no one answered the door , officers breached it .
The first officer to enter was Mattingly , who , in a statement , said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — Walker and Taylor — with the man holding a gun with his arms extended in a shooting stance .
“ Sergeant Mattingly saw the man ’ s gun fire , heard a boom , and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballistics report , Mattingly was shot once by a 9 mm handgun , the gun that belonged to Walker .
Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway .
Meanwhile , Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times , all in a matter of seconds .
In total , six bullets hit Taylor , Cameron revealed ( her death certificate had noted she was shot five times and Taylor ’ s lawyer had previously said she was struck a total of eight times ) , with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who fired the fatal shot was integral to the investigation and extended the length of it , Cameron said .
But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force since they were fired upon by Walker , Cameron said , he would not be charged .
Hankison , meanwhile , fired 10 shots from outside the apartment , with some bullets going through the bedroom window , through Taylor ’ s apartment and into the neighboring one .
At the time , three residents of that apartment were at home , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a child .
“ There is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from Detective Hankison ’ s weapons struck Ms. Taylor , ” Cameron said .
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence , 911 calls , police radio traffic , and interviews .
Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location .
They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Quantico .
At the Friday morning press conference , attorney Crump cast doubt on Cameron ’ s investigation and demanded that the attorney general release the transcripts of the case he presented before the grand jury .
According to Crump , the public needs answers about what evidence Cameron presented to the grand jury .
Crump also alleged that Cameron may have left out key details and witnesses in his presentation .
“ Did he tell them about the 12 neighbors ... that live in close proximity of Breonna ’ s apartment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police knock and announce their presence — did he let him testify before the grand jury , ” Crump said .
“ Did he let the cops who shot over 30 rounds of bullets in Breonna ’ s apartment ... testify before the grand jury ?
Did he allow Breonna ’ s boyfriend , Kenny Walker , to testify before the grand jury ?
” He also raised concerns about policy lapses around the “ no-knock ” warrant , saying , “ If he didn ’ t present these things to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand jury proceeding was this ?
” Crump explained that the lack of transparency follows a pattern of “ blatant disrespect and marginalization of Black people , ” but especially Black women who have been killed by the police in America .
As Anna North reports , many others wonder if the attorney general , a protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who spoke glowingly of President Trump at the Republican National Convention , truly did his best as a prosecutor to secure indictments in the Taylor case .
( Cameron ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request for comment . )
“ There are questions as to whether he really did the job he could ’ ve done , ” Dewey Clayton , a political science professor at the University of Louisville , told North .
Amy McGrath , who is running for McConnell ’ s Senate seat , has also called on Cameron to be more transparent .
“ AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now , including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present , ” McGrath tweeted on Thursday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ take his word for it.
” What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville In the wake of the grand jury announcement , protests erupted in Chicago , Los Angeles , Philadelphia , New York , Seattle , Washington , DC , and Portland on Wednesday .
In Louisville , where the decision was delivered , protesters didn ’ t let barricades , a curfew , the presence of LMPD officers in riot gear , or the presence of the National Guard deter them from pouring out into the streets to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People marched around downtown declaring that the city and law enforcement officials had failed them .
By early Thursday morning , police had arrested 127 people in Louisville , according to the Courier-Journal , and one suspect was taken into custody in connection to the shooting of two LMPD officers who sustained non-life-threatening injuries , according to interim LMPD chief Robert Schroeder .
On Thursday , protests continued .
In Louisville , at least two dozen more were arrested , according to the Courier-Journal .
Among those arrested were Kentucky state Rep. Attica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ban no-knock warrants , and activist Shameka Parrish-Wright of Louisville ’ s Bail Project .
At First Unitarian Church , hundreds of protesters sought sanctuary to avoid being arrested for violating the city ’ s 9 pm curfew .
In Los Angeles on Thursday , protesters took to the streets and police detained a man for reportedly driving his vehicle through a crowd of protesters .
In Portland , after police declared the local Breonna Taylor protest a riot and used OC gas ( similar to pepper spray ) to disperse crowds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same happened in Seattle , where an officer was captured on video rolling a bike over a protester ’ s head the night prior ( the officer has since been placed on administrative leave ) .
Protests also continued in Rochester , Baltimore , Kansas City , Las Vegas , and Philadelphia .
Friday marked a third night of protests around the country , with Louisville protesters continuing to clash with police .
In New York , protesters held a sit-in on the Brooklyn Bridge for over an hour before heading back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thousands marched from police headquarters to a park carrying Black Lives Matter signs .
In smaller cities like Kansas City and Providence protests also continued and are expected to through the weekend .
A week ago , the city of Louisville announced that it had reached a $ 12 million settlement with Taylor ’ s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a police misconduct suit .
The settlement was in response to a lawsuit that Taylor ’ s family filed in April , alleging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the officers .
A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear out a block in Taylor ’ s neighborhood .
While the settlement included a list of police reforms , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the city ’ s part .
On Tuesday , Cameron announced that he would create a task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and elected officials to review the state ’ s process for securing , reviewing , and executing search warrants .
He also acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury ’ s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “ the truth ” and for elected officials to do whatever it takes to “ maintain law and order.
” “ Mob justice is not justice , ” he said .
“ Justice sought by violence is not justice .
It just becomes revenge.
” Cameron was assigned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation .
Meanwhile , activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department .
While Louisville ’ s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants , it also approved a budget that wouldn ’ t even begin to defund LMPD .
The new spending plan will merely “ require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force , additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FBI is still investigating Taylor ’ s killing for possible civil rights violations .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Kentucky attorney general’s office released about 20 hours of audio recordings from the Breonna Taylor grand jury on Friday, after being ordered by a judge to do so.
The highly anticipated audio files capture the full case that AG Daniel Cameron presented to the grand jury from September 21 to 23, including which witnesses they heard and the team’s presentation that led to the indictment of former Louisville Metro Police Department officer Brett Hankison.
On September 23, Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor’s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor’s apartment into theirs. The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night hitting Taylor — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and detective Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted.
Rallying cries across the nation turned from “arrest the cops” to “release the transcripts” of the grand jury proceedings shortly after the decision was announced, as many wondered why no officers were charged with actually killing Taylor and what the attorney general’s office specifically presented to the jury.
On Monday, a juror filed a motion criticizing Cameron’s public characterization of the case and demanding the release of the transcripts. According to the unidentified juror, Cameron did not give the panel the opportunity to indict the two officers who shot Taylor. In the motion, the juror said their request to have the recordings released is an effort to share “only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Cameron’s office confirmed on Monday that the only charge he recommended to the grand jury was wanton endangerment, not any of the six felony homicide charges under Kentucky law, according to the Washington Post. Cameron had previously declined to say what charges he presented to the grand jury.
At a Louisville press conference last Friday, Taylor’s family and their attorneys gathered to express their dissatisfaction with the grand jury’s decision and questioned what Cameron presented. “Did he present any evidence on Breonna Taylor’s behalf? Or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on the scales of justice?” attorney Benjamin Crump asked.
The nation had been awaiting the decision in the criminal investigation all summer. Cameron said he presented his findings to the grand jury beginning on Monday, September 21, and the jury made its decision by noon on Wednesday, September 23. The announcement came nearly 200 days after Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13. As news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month, protests broke out across the country.
Over time, the phrase “Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor” became a rallying cry for activists — as well as the focal point of countless memes. The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys. Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don’t often receive much attention, or justice, in matters of police violence, and now was the time to correct that.
The tapes might answer a number of questions that activists and the Taylor family’s attorneys have raised, like which witnesses Cameron’s office allowed to testify and whether the office presented pieces of evidence — sending the ambulance away before the raid, the many witnesses who have said they did not hear the police knock and announce themselves — that reportedly show the police violated protocol. As the tapes are parsed, the coming days may reveal new insight in the decision.
What is wanton endangerment?
The grand jury decision caused outcry across the nation over what many see as a weak indictment charge. Hankison was charged not with killing Taylor, but with endangering her neighbors.
Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony in the state of Kentucky. If convicted, Hankison could face up to five years in prison for each count. He could, alternatively, be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service.
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as:
A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.
While there are six charges of homicide under Kentucky law, Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, shot at them that night. “Use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges,” Cameron said.
Hankison, meanwhile, was only charged in connection to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor’s apartment to a neighboring residence where three civilians were at the time, according to the special investigation.
During the course of the investigation, the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life” when he “wantonly and blindly” fired 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment, according to his termination letter. The reason for Hankison’s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury. Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May.
The grand jury announcement revealed a new version of what happened during the early hours of March 13
Cameron’s version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months.
On the night Taylor was killed, police relied on a no-knock warrant to enter her apartment in search of two people suspected of selling drugs, neither of whom was Taylor. While police say they announced themselves, Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, who was inside the apartment at the time, disputes that claim.
In his grand jury announcement on September 23, Cameron announced developments on this particular detail. According to the attorney general, there was an independent witness (a civilian) near Taylor’s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves. “The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,” Cameron said.
When no one answered the door, officers breached it. The first officer to enter was Mattingly, who, in a statement, said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — Walker and Taylor — with the man holding a gun with his arms extended in a shooting stance. “Sergeant Mattingly saw the man’s gun fire, heard a boom, and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh,” Cameron said.
According to the ballistics report, Mattingly was shot once by a 9 mm handgun, the gun that belonged to Walker. Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway. Meanwhile, Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times, all in a matter of seconds.
In total, six bullets hit Taylor, Cameron revealed (her death certificate had noted she was shot five times, and Taylor’s lawyer had previously said she was struck a total of eight times), with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. Determining who fired the fatal shot was integral to the investigation and extended the length of it, Cameron said. But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force because they were fired upon by Walker, Cameron said, he would not be charged.
Hankison, meanwhile, fired 10 shots from outside the apartment, with some bullets going through the bedroom window, through Taylor’s apartment and into the neighboring one. At the time, three residents of that apartment were at home, including a man, a pregnant woman, and a child. “There is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from Detective Hankison’s weapons struck Ms. Taylor,” Cameron said.
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence, 911 calls, police radio traffic, and interviews. Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location. They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner’s lab and the FBI crime lab in Quantico.
At the September 25 press conference, the family’s attorney, Crump, cast doubt on Cameron’s investigation and demanded that the attorney general release the transcripts of the case he presented before the grand jury. Crump alleged that Cameron may have left out key details and witnesses in his presentation.
“Did he tell them about the 12 neighbors ... that live in close proximity of Breonna’s apartment that all said they did not hear the police knock and announce their presence — did he let him testify before the grand jury?” Crump said. “Did he let the cops who shot over 30 rounds of bullets in Breonna’s apartment ... testify before the grand jury? Did he allow Breonna’s boyfriend, Kenny Walker, to testify before the grand jury?”
He also raised concerns about policy lapses around the no-knock warrant, saying, “If he didn’t present these things to the grand jury, what kind of sham grand jury proceeding was this?”
Crump said the lack of transparency follows a pattern of “blatant disrespect and marginalization of Black people,” but especially Black women who have been killed by police.
At the press conference, attorney Lonita Baker also demanded that Cameron tell the public whether he recommended charges to the grand jury.
“I don’t want to hear that the grand jury determined this, if it’s your office that unilaterally determined not to charge any officers with the death of Breanna Taylor,” Baker said. “You can’t pawn this on the grand jury if your office made that decision. We the voters deserve to know who is it that we need to say got it wrong.”
Now that Cameron has confirmed he recommended the wanton endangerment charge for Hankison, this new information sheds light on some of the constraints the grand jury faced. As the jurors wrote in their motion, “Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors.”
As Anna North reports, many others wonder if the attorney general, a protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who spoke glowingly of President Trump at the Republican National Convention, truly did his best as a prosecutor to secure indictments in the Taylor case. (Cameron’s office has not responded to Vox’s request for comment.)
“There are questions as to whether he really did the job he could’ve done,” Dewey Clayton, a political science professor at the University of Louisville, told North.
Amy McGrath, who is running for McConnell’s Kentucky Senate seat, had also called on Cameron to be more transparent. “AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now, including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present,” McGrath tweeted on September 24. “We shouldn’t have to take his word for it.”
What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville
In the wake of the grand jury announcement, protests erupted in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Portland on September 23. In Louisville, where the decision was delivered, protesters didn’t let barricades, a curfew, the presence of police officers in riot gear, or the presence of the National Guard deter them from pouring out into the streets to say Breonna Taylor’s name. People marched around downtown declaring that the city and law enforcement officials had failed them.
By early the next morning, police had arrested 127 people in Louisville, according to the Courier-Journal, and one suspect was taken into custody in connection with the shooting of two city police officers, who sustained non-life-threatening injuries, according to interim Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder.
Later that night, protests continued throughout the country. In Louisville, at least two dozen more were arrested, according to the Courier-Journal. Among those arrested were Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott, who led the local effort to ban no-knock warrants, and activist Shameka Parrish-Wright of Louisville’s Bail Project. At First Unitarian Church, hundreds of protesters sought sanctuary to avoid being arrested for violating the city’s 9 pm curfew.
In Los Angeles, protesters took to the streets and police detained a man for reportedly driving his vehicle through a crowd of protesters. In Portland, after police declared the local Breonna Taylor protest a riot and used OC gas (similar to pepper spray) to disperse crowds the previous night, protesters returned. The same happened in Seattle, where an officer was captured on video rolling a bike over a protester’s head the night prior (the officer has since been placed on administrative leave). Protests also continued in Rochester, Baltimore, Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia and in other cities throughout the week and into the weekend.
On September 15, the city of Louisville announced it had reached a $12 million settlement with Taylor’s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a police misconduct suit. The settlement was in response to a lawsuit Taylor’s family filed in April, alleging excessive force and gross negligence on the part of the officers. A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot, and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear out a block in Taylor’s neighborhood.
While the settlement included a list of police reforms, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the city’s part. Cameron also announced he would create a task force of citizens, law enforcement officials, and elected officials to review the state’s process for securing, reviewing, and executing search warrants.
He also acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury’s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “the truth.” But with the recordings of the sessions set to be released this week, the public may get a fuller picture of the truth. According to critics, the truth requires that Cameron be more transparent with his process and accountable to the public.
Cameron was assigned the case as special prosecutor in May and in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation. Meanwhile, activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department. While Louisville’s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants, it also approved a budget that wouldn’t even begin to defund LMPD. The new spending plan will merely “require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force, additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers,” according to the Courier-Journal.
The FBI is still investigating Taylor’s killing for possible civil rights violations.