theintercept--2020-02-06--TikTok Livestreamed a User’s Suicide — Then Got Its PR Strategy in Place Before Calling the Police

last livestream of his life on a summer afternoon a year ago .
He was 19 and living in Curitiba , the capital of the state of Paraná in southern Brazil .
The day before , João issued an ominous warning to his fans that he had been planning a special performance .
Their eyes glued to the screens of their cellphones , some 280 people watched the young vlogger kill himself live on TikTok , last year ’ s fourth-most downloaded app in the world .
It was 3:23 p.m. on February 21 , 2019 .
The video , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained live for more than an hour and a half , simply showing João ’ s body .
( The Intercept is using a pseudonym for João to protect his family ’ s privacy . )
Officials at TikTok , which has seen a meteoric rise among a sea of phone apps , only became aware of the suicide at 5 p.m .
The company immediately began putting a public relations strategy in place to ensure that what had occurred never made headlines .
Between 5 p.m. and 7:56 p.m. , TikTok ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to minimize the impact any potential story would have in the press .
The company waited nearly three hours after learning about the suicide before reaching out to the police .
Instead of alerting authorities immediately , the company prepared a press statement — that it never released of its own volition — taking no responsibility for failures of the moderation mechanisms that left the livestream online for more than an hour .
Officials inside TikTok issued internal orders to ensure that the story did not go “ viral ” and said its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media platforms to see if the story surfaced publicly .
Details of the moves were revealed to The Intercept Brasil by a former employee of the Brazilian offices of ByteDance , TikTok ’ s parent company , who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation .
The source also provided The Intercept with an internal document that detailed the company ’ s management of the crisis , including a granular timeline of what happened .
The account of the events below is drawn from the company memo and interviews with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document , the day that João killed himself , the ByteDance office took action — not to alert the authorities or the young man ’ s family , but to prevent the incident from tarnishing the company ’ s image .
João is not the first person to have shown their own death on TikTok , although his was the first known case of an individual streaming it live on the app .
In India , a country with one of the largest TikTok user bases , at least two other suicides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indian judge even blocked the social networking platform temporarily , but the decision was ultimately reversed .
Social networks like Facebook and Twitter have strategies in place to deal with sensitive content such as suicides .
Those two sites have partnerships with institutions specializing in suicide prevention like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline .
In addition to support systems for users and artificial-intelligence filters that detect content for removal , these platforms also have teams that focus on streamlining contact and collaboration with local authorities , something that TikTok failed to do in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no legal obligation to deal with offensive or troubling content , many companies take some precautions to remove this content from their platforms .
“ Competitors have much more precise indicators of sensitive situations than TikTok appears to have , ” said Thiago Tavares , president of SaferNet Brazil , an organization that works on user protection and the defense of human rights on the internet .
Tavares added that TikTok did not demonstrate best practices in its attempt to make sure that the story did not blow up .
Last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , allegedly preceded by suicidal content and self-mutilation on Instagram , prompted the U.K. Children ’ s Commissioner Anne Longfield to write a letter urging tech companies to prioritize precautionary measures .
“ I would appeal to you to accept there are problems and to commit to tackling them — or admit publicly that you are unable to , ” she wrote .
Though TikTok ’ s Brazilian office did not respond to a list of 10 specific questions sent by The Intercept , the company did offer a short statement acknowledging that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed content related to a suicide from its network and alerted local authorities .
The TikTok statement said that the company does not allow “ content that promotes personal injury or suicide.
” In the past year , the company said , it had updated live broadcasting policies and reporting tools and protocols , but did not offer any specifics .
“ We remain deeply saddened by this tragic incident and sympathize with the family , ” the statement said .
“ We encourage anyone who needs support or is concerned about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide hotline.
” Suicide is the second-largest cause of death among young people between the ages of 15 and 24 , and in Brazil , the number of young people who die by suicide is only increasing .
The World Health Organization warns that , due to the risk of copycat syndrome , the issue should be treated with increased caution , especially among young and depressed populations .
It ’ s not hard to imagine the impact a livestreamed suicide that aired for over an hour may have had on those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was downloaded more than 18 million times in Brazil , making the country the sixth-largest market in the world for the app .
To capitalize on its potential for growth in Brazil , TikTok hired celebrities like the singer Anitta — one of Brazil ’ s top-grossing artists — and created influencer-led groups on the platform .
Last February , ByteDance opened its new office in São Paulo , Brazil ’ s commercial and financial center .
The company ’ s 60 or so employees were divided into teams focusing on social networks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderators , and administrators .
ByteDance manages activity on TikTok Brazil , from contact with users to the removal of videos from the platform .
It was in this office — a full floor in an expensive section of town — that company officials worked to manage the crisis of João ’ s suicide .
The team of moderators , referred to internally with the anodyne moniker of “ technical team , ” is the only unit that works alone , apart from other TikTok operators and staff .
This team ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TikTok ’ s terms of use or is offensive to the app ’ s user community .
Live broadcasts , however , are monitored by an even more elite team operating in China , where ByteDance has its global headquarters .
The team in China was responsible for monitoring the app and discovering João ’ s suicide as it was livestreamed .
Yet no one saw it .
According to the company ’ s internal timeline , TikTok only became aware of what was happening when a number of influencers began sending warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ByteDance employees .
The livestream of the suicide was on air for more than 40 minutes , briefly taken down automatically due to a lack of movement in the frame and then later reinstated .
In total , the livestream was up for more than an hour and a half .
Some users wrote frightened comments on the post , while others took the opportunity to make a series of macabre jokes as João ’ s inert body was on display .
When the group of concerned TikTok influencers warned moderators that evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to request the deletion of João ’ s account , at 5:13 p.m .
Following that request , employees working on the case contacted the PR team , which promptly crafted a condolence message addressed to users and a press statement .
The statement in case of any press attention said : We are extremely saddened by this tragedy .
At TikTok , it is our top priority to create a safe and positive in-app environment , and we have developed guidelines to foster a positive environment for everyone in this community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect users against misuse , including easy reporting mechanisms that enable users to report content that violates our terms of use and community guidelines .
We encourage users who need any support , or those who are concerned about a friend , to contact a suicide prevention hotline .
( Brazil : CVV 141 ) In the statement for users , TikTok said that it was “ extremely sad about this tragedy ” and guaranteed that its top priority was to “ foster a secure and positive environment on the application.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures in place to protect users from misusing the app , including simple mechanisms that allow you to report content that violates our terms of use.
” Insofar as these mechanisms exist , however , they had clearly not worked as well as advertised .
The TikTok statement marked an immediate attempt to respond to criticism if the livestreamed suicide attracted media attention , but TikTok also seemed to have a goal of keeping the story out of the press .
According to the ByteDance source , TikTok ’ s chief of operations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Brazilian office not to say anything about what had occurred .
“ Her orders were clear : ‘ Don ’ t let it go viral , ' ” the source told me .
“ The main issue was just how unprepared the Chinese team was for a situation like this , ” the former employee said , “ where the app ’ s algorithm didn ’ t catch that it was a suicide , let alone bring down the livestream , even after so many complaints.
” The story of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To this day , there has been no media coverage of João ’ s suicide .
The company ’ s PR statement never had to be used .
As TikTok continued its crisis-management efforts , awareness of the case was still limited to its employees .
It was only at 7:56 p.m. — more than two and a half hours after the PR team sprang into action and four and a half hours after the suicide — that TikTok informed Paraná police .
In João ’ s file at Curitiba ’ s morgue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s entry was recorded at 8:05 p.m. , a mere nine minutes after TikTok informed police of the suicide , according to the company ’ s internal timeline .
The internal TikTok document obtained by The Intercept highlighted the steps that the office team should take in the wake of the suicide : Monitor Twitter , Instagram , and TikTok for 48 hours to ensure that the matter did not become public .
When that 48-hour period passed , the story had not come out .
João ’ s suicide had not affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightest .
The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline offers 24-hour support for those experiencing difficulties or those close to them , by chat or by telephone at 1-800-273-8255 .

João filmed the last livestream of his life on a summer afternoon a year ago. He was 19 and living in Curitiba, the capital of the state of Paraná in southern Brazil. The day before, João issued an ominous warning to his fans that he had been planning a special performance.
Their eyes glued to the screens of their cellphones, some 280 people watched the young vlogger kill himself live on TikTok, last year’s fourth-most downloaded app in the world. It was 3:23 p.m. on February 21, 2019. The video, with 497 comments and 15 complaints, remained live for more than an hour and a half, simply showing João’s body. (The Intercept is using a pseudonym for João to protect his family’s privacy.)
Officials at TikTok, which has seen a meteoric rise among a sea of phone apps, only became aware of the suicide at 5 p.m. The company immediately began putting a public relations strategy in place to ensure that what had occurred never made headlines.
TikTok acted rapidly – not to alert the authorities or the young man’s family, but to avoid tarnishing the company’s image.
Between 5 p.m. and 7:56 p.m., TikTok’s Brazil office began to take steps to minimize the impact any potential story would have in the press. The company waited nearly three hours after learning about the suicide before reaching out to the police. Instead of alerting authorities immediately, the company prepared a press statement — that it never released of its own volition — taking no responsibility for failures of the moderation mechanisms that left the livestream online for more than an hour. Officials inside TikTok issued internal orders to ensure that the story did not go “viral” and said its local office should monitor TikTok and other social media platforms to see if the story surfaced publicly.
Details of the moves were revealed to The Intercept Brasil by a former employee of the Brazilian offices of ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. The source also provided The Intercept with an internal document that detailed the company’s management of the crisis, including a granular timeline of what happened. The account of the events below is drawn from the company memo and interviews with the source.
According to the source and the document, the day that João killed himself, the ByteDance office took action — not to alert the authorities or the young man’s family, but to prevent the incident from tarnishing the company’s image.
Suicide on Social Apps
João is not the first person to have shown their own death on TikTok, although his was the first known case of an individual streaming it live on the app. In India, a country with one of the largest TikTok user bases, at least two other suicides have occurred on the app. An Indian judge even blocked the social networking platform temporarily, but the decision was ultimately reversed.
Social networks like Facebook and Twitter have strategies in place to deal with sensitive content such as suicides. Those two sites have partnerships with institutions specializing in suicide prevention like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. In addition to support systems for users and artificial-intelligence filters that detect content for removal, these platforms also have teams that focus on streamlining contact and collaboration with local authorities, something that TikTok failed to do in João’s case.
While companies have no legal obligation to deal with offensive or troubling content, many companies take some precautions to remove this content from their platforms. “Competitors have much more precise indicators of sensitive situations than TikTok appears to have,” said Thiago Tavares, president of SaferNet Brazil, an organization that works on user protection and the defense of human rights on the internet. Tavares added that TikTok did not demonstrate best practices in its attempt to make sure that the story did not blow up.
Last year, the suicide of a 14-year-old girl, allegedly preceded by suicidal content and self-mutilation on Instagram, prompted the U.K. Children’s Commissioner Anne Longfield to write a letter urging tech companies to prioritize precautionary measures. “I would appeal to you to accept there are problems and to commit to tackling them — or admit publicly that you are unable to,” she wrote.
Though TikTok’s Brazilian office did not respond to a list of 10 specific questions sent by The Intercept, the company did offer a short statement acknowledging that around a year ago, it had removed content related to a suicide from its network and alerted local authorities.
The TikTok statement said that the company does not allow “content that promotes personal injury or suicide.” In the past year, the company said, it had updated live broadcasting policies and reporting tools and protocols, but did not offer any specifics. “We remain deeply saddened by this tragic incident and sympathize with the family,” the statement said. “We encourage anyone who needs support or is concerned about a friend or family member to contact a suicide hotline.”
Suicide is the second-largest cause of death among young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and in Brazil, the number of young people who die by suicide is only increasing. The World Health Organization warns that, due to the risk of copycat syndrome, the issue should be treated with increased caution, especially among young and depressed populations. It’s not hard to imagine the impact a livestreamed suicide that aired for over an hour may have had on those who watched it.
Images: Provided to The Intercept
Public Relations First
In 2018, TikTok was downloaded more than 18 million times in Brazil, making the country the sixth-largest market in the world for the app. To capitalize on its potential for growth in Brazil, TikTok hired celebrities like the singer Anitta — one of Brazil’s top-grossing artists — and created influencer-led groups on the platform.
Last February, ByteDance opened its new office in São Paulo, Brazil’s commercial and financial center. The company’s 60 or so employees were divided into teams focusing on social networks, content, influencers, partnerships, moderators, and administrators. ByteDance manages activity on TikTok Brazil, from contact with users to the removal of videos from the platform. It was in this office — a full floor in an expensive section of town — that company officials worked to manage the crisis of João’s suicide.
The team of moderators, referred to internally with the anodyne moniker of “technical team,” is the only unit that works alone, apart from other TikTok operators and staff. This team’s responsibility includes pulling any content that violates TikTok’s terms of use or is offensive to the app’s user community. Live broadcasts, however, are monitored by an even more elite team operating in China, where ByteDance has its global headquarters. The team in China was responsible for monitoring the app and discovering João’s suicide as it was livestreamed. Yet no one saw it.
According to the company’s internal timeline, TikTok only became aware of what was happening when a number of influencers began sending warnings to a WhatsApp group that included some ByteDance employees. The livestream of the suicide was on air for more than 40 minutes, briefly taken down automatically due to a lack of movement in the frame and then later reinstated.
In total, the livestream was up for more than an hour and a half. Some users wrote frightened comments on the post, while others took the opportunity to make a series of macabre jokes as João’s inert body was on display.
When the group of concerned TikTok influencers warned moderators that evening, the first step the company took was to request the deletion of João’s account, at 5:13 p.m.
“Her orders were clear: ‘Don’t let it go viral.'”
Following that request, employees working on the case contacted the PR team, which promptly crafted a condolence message addressed to users and a press statement. The statement in case of any press attention said:
For media: We are extremely saddened by this tragedy. At TikTok, it is our top priority to create a safe and positive in-app environment, and we have developed guidelines to foster a positive environment for everyone in this community. Moreover, we have robust measures to protect users against misuse, including easy reporting mechanisms that enable users to report content that violates our terms of use and community guidelines. We encourage users who need any support, or those who are concerned about a friend, to contact a suicide prevention hotline. (Brazil: CVV 141)
In the statement for users, TikTok said that it was “extremely sad about this tragedy” and guaranteed that its top priority was to “foster a secure and positive environment on the application.” The company wrote, “We have measures in place to protect users from misusing the app, including simple mechanisms that allow you to report content that violates our terms of use.” Insofar as these mechanisms exist, however, they had clearly not worked as well as advertised.
The TikTok statement marked an immediate attempt to respond to criticism if the livestreamed suicide attracted media attention, but TikTok also seemed to have a goal of keeping the story out of the press.
According to the ByteDance source, TikTok’s chief of operations in Brazil and Latin America advised employees of the Brazilian office not to say anything about what had occurred. “Her orders were clear: ‘Don’t let it go viral,'” the source told me.
“The main issue was just how unprepared the Chinese team was for a situation like this,” the former employee said, “where the app’s algorithm didn’t catch that it was a suicide, let alone bring down the livestream, even after so many complaints.”
No Media Coverage
The story of a suicide livestreamed on TikTok stayed quiet. To this day, there has been no media coverage of João’s suicide. The company’s PR statement never had to be used.
As TikTok continued its crisis-management efforts, awareness of the case was still limited to its employees. It was only at 7:56 p.m. — more than two and a half hours after the PR team sprang into action and four and a half hours after the suicide — that TikTok informed Paraná police.
In João’s file at Curitiba’s morgue, which we obtained, João’s entry was recorded at 8:05 p.m., a mere nine minutes after TikTok informed police of the suicide, according to the company’s internal timeline.
The internal TikTok document obtained by The Intercept highlighted the steps that the office team should take in the wake of the suicide: Monitor Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok for 48 hours to ensure that the matter did not become public. When that 48-hour period passed, the story had not come out. João’s suicide had not affected the company’s image in the slightest.
The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline offers 24-hour support for those experiencing difficulties or those close to them, by chat or by telephone at 1-800-273-8255.


theintercept--2020-02-06--Rigged: The Acquittal of Donald J. Trump

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

Subscribe to the Deconstructed podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Radio Public, and other platforms. New to podcasting? Click here.
As predicted, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Wednesday to find President Donald Trump not guilty on both articles of impeachment brought by the House of Representatives. It was a party-line vote, with one notable exception: Utah Sen. Mitt Romney became the first senator in U.S. history to vote to remove a president of his own party. Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who both voted to remove the president, joined Mehdi Hasan by phone shortly after the vote to discuss the implications of Trump’s acquittal for the future of the Senate.
Mehdi Hasan: Hello, this is Mehdi Hasan — a quick announcement before we start the show today: if you’re in LA this coming Monday, February 10th, we’re recording a special episode of Deconstructed on the massive issue of criminal justice reform and mass incarceration and racism in front of a live audience at the Writers Guild Theater, and with special, oh very special guests John Legend, yeah, that John Legend, and Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors. Go to the Intercept website or to my Twitter feed for details on how to buy tickets, before they’re all gone – and if you’re NOT in LA, well make sure you tell your friends and family in LA about it. You do not want to miss this show. Now, on to the show.
Jeff Merkley: I don’t believe you can truly be acquitted if you haven’t had a fair and full trial. This is the first time in the history of the United States of America that the majority leader conspired to ensure there was not a fair trial.
[Music interlude.]
MH: Welcome to a special early edition of Deconstructed at the end of the Senate impeachment trial. I’m Mehdi Hasan.
Donald Trump is in the clear. He may be an impeached president — only the third in American history — but he wasn’t convicted or removed from office on Wednesday. No, he was acquitted by the United States Senate — or, I should say, by every single Republican senator bar Mitt Romney.
Brian Schatz: Mitt Romney changed the equation. This is now the first instance of a United States senator voting to convict a president of his or her own party.
MH: That was the voice of Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is one of my guests on the show today, as is the Democratic Senator from Oregon, Jeff Merkeley, both of whom, like every other Democrat voted to remove the president from office. But they failed. And Trump lives to fight another day. So now what? What does this all mean?
John Roberts: The Senate having tried Donald john Trump, President of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment, exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said Donald John Trump be, and he is hereby acquitted of the charges in said articles.
MH: There you have it. The Senate voting to acquit Donald John Trump, 45th president of the United States, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, charges for which he was impeached in the House of Representatives.
In the Senate though, it wasn’t really a trial. I mean, have you ever heard of a trial with no witnesses in it? None. Nada. Zero. In fact, it was the first Senate impeachment trial in American history not to feature any witnesses. Even though one potential witness, John Bolton, the president’s own former national security adviser, one-time hero of the Republican Party, volunteered to testify in the Senate, and even has a book coming out filled with his eye-witness testimony. He, by the way, says in that book, yeah Trump did do what the Democrats accuse him of doing, of holding up aid to Ukraine in order to get the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens — ergo he was not called by Republican senators. They didn’t wanna know. You remember that old saying: “See no evil, hear no evil and then do…lots of evil.”
Republicans bent over backwards to try and defend Trump or justify keeping him in office: yeah he did bad things, but they’re not impeachable. They’re not crimes — and you have to commit a crime to be impeached and removed — a position, by the way, shared by no constitutional scholars or legal experts on this subject with the exception of former Jeffrey Epstein lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
Meanwhile, House Democrats, who I criticized on this show for not going bigger on impeachment —not going after Trump for all his other high crimes and misdemeanors, from his corruption and violation of the Emoluments Clause, to his obstruction of justice over the Russia investigation, to his kidnapping of migrant children from their parents at the border — those House Democrats, to be fair to them, led by Adam Schiff, did make a pretty strong case for convicting Trump over abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in relation to his attempt to extort and pressure the president of Ukraine, to use U.S. aid money to try and trigger a bogus corruption investigation into a domestic political rival.
Adam Schiff: Donald Trump has betrayed his oath to protect and defend the Constitution but it’s not too late for us to honor ours, to wield our power to defend our democracy.
MH: But the whole thing was rigged from the get-go. Not just in terms of no witnesses, even when John Bolton was volunteering in the midst of the Senate trial to testify, and dodgy Trump donor and indicted Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas was producing secret recordings of Trump ordering the taking out of the US ambassador to Ukraine, but also in terms of the trial itself and the “jurors” themselves. Because that’s what senators were supposed to be: independent and impartial jurors, they took an oath to that effect, and yet before it even began you had Senate Majority Leader Republican Mitch McConnell saying:
Mitch McConnell: Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position.
MH: And Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying:
Lindsey Graham: I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I’ve made up my mind. I am not pretending to be a fair juror here.
MH: Got that? Jurors, on tape, bragging that they have no intention of being fair or impartial and that they’re openly coordinating with the defendant. That’s the “trial” we just had in the Senate – surely a low point in the modern history of that body. I mean, first confirming Brett Kavanaugh and now acquitting Donald Trump.
So what happens now? Well, giving leaders impunity, especially reckless power-hungry rulers like Trump, has consequences and they tend not to be good ones. Do you remember what happened the day after Robert Mueller testified in Congress last July and then… nothing happened? There were no consequences for Trump, no impeachment of the president. Well, the next day, the very next day, an emboldened Trump made his “perfect” phone call to the Ukrainian president asking him to investigate the Bidens. One can only imagine what the acquitted yet still very corrupt and crooked president will be doing on Thursday, the morning after he’s acquitted: who he’ll be calling, what he’ll be demanding.
It is not an overstatement, it’s not hyperbole, to say that American politics, American democracy, is in crisis. I mean: How can a presidential system like America’s survive when you have a president who isn’t constrained by any constitutional checks or balances? When his own party says he can do what he likes and he won’t be stopped, he won’t be touched?
Listen to presidential history Jon Meacham speaking the other day on television:
Jon Meachem: President Trump is functionally a monarch at this point. If the king does it, it’s okay that’s what we’re seeing unfold in Washington right now.
MH: But, with this shameful vote, the Republicans have decided, and announced to the world, that their party is officially the Trump Party, the Trump Cult, that the constitution doesn’t matter, that Congress doesn’t matter, checks and balances don’t matter, foreign policy and national security doesn’t matter.
Well, Republicans with the exception of Mitt Romney. On Wednesday, the junior Republican senator from Utah, former Republican presidential candidate, decided to do the right thing and voted to convict and remove Donald Trump becoming the first senator in U.S. history to vote to remove a president of his own party from office:
Mitt Romney: Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine. With my vote, I will tell my children, their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability believing that my country expected it of me.
MH: I want to say a couple of things about Mitt Romney. First off, and I never thought I’d say this: but respect to Romney. It’s not easy to go against your own friends, colleagues, many of your own constituents, your own political party, especially one as intolerant and cultish as the modern Republican Party. I’ve been a massive and long-standing critic of Romney. I thought he ran an awful campaign against Obama in 2012, and I thought he was a bit of a hypocrite for taking money and an endorsement from Trump in 2012, then attacking Trump in 2016, then trying to get a job in the Trump administration after Trump won, and getting Trump’s endorsement when he ran for the Senate in Utah. But, credit where credit’s due, he did the right thing today. He voted with his conscience — the only Republican to do so.
Secondly, though, what’s so ironic about the Romney vote is that almost immediately Don Jr, the president’s failson, took to Twitter, demanding Romney be expelled from the GOP. And yet, just a week ago, Republicans were clutching their pearls and pretending to be outraged when Adam Schiff referred to a CBS News report saying they were too afraid of voting against Trump because they’d been told “your head will be on a pike.”
James Landford: One of the most remarkable moments of the entire day was when Adam Schiff ended the night by saying “Republicans have been told their head will be on a pike by the president if they vote against him.” That is completely, totally false and all of us were shaking our heads like where in the world did that story come from?
MH: Well, turns out Trump and co do indeed want Romney’s head on a pike. They can’t tolerate the fact that even one Republican senator voted against the absolute monarch. Voted against King Trump.
Look, I know it’s fashionable to say that Americans don’t care about impeachment, it’s all very technical, it’s not a kitchen table issue, it’s too complicated, and it’s too distant from ordinary people’s lives, but let me be clear: if you care about democracy in this country, if you care about accountability, the rule of law, checks and balances, the constitution, if you care about the ongoing slide into full blown authoritarianism and open criminality, then you need to care about what happened today, you need to be angry and outraged that this trial was rigged by a Republican Party who wanted to impeach Hillary Clinton over Benghazi but give Donald Trump, who’s a thousand times more lawless and a million times more corrupt, a complete pass. So yes, please, get angry.
[Music interlude.]
MH: Joining me now to discuss this, from Capitol Hill, where the Senate trial of Donald Trump has just ended, is Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Senator, great to have you back on the show, shame it’s under these circumstances.
JM: Yes, yes. Well, I’m feeling the weight of this dark and tragic day.
MH: I’m looking at a screen in front of me saying Donald Trump Acquitted is the banner headline on all the new sites. You’ve just come out of that trial and the voting. How do you feel about that?
JM: Well, I don’t believe you can truly be acquitted if you haven’t had a fair and full trial. And certainly, this is a tragic day because this is the first time in the history of the United States of America that the majority leader conspired, as he put it, hand in glove to work with the defendant to ensure there was not a fair trial. This is not doing impartial justice. And as every American knows a trial is not a trial if it does not have witnesses and documents. So, this was a cover up and it should be considered nothing more than that.
MH: Completely agree with you on your analysis of the cover up. But here’s a question for you as someone who deals with Republican senators, they’re your colleagues on Capitol Hill every day, even if they’d voted for witnesses, let’s say John Bolton had turned up and said, “Yes, the President told me last summer hold back the aid until we get the investigations into the Bidens,” do you think that they still wouldn’t have voted to acquit him?
JM: I believe that once the door was open to all of the machinations that were going inside, among the cabinet secretaries, among the Office of Management and Budget, we would have seen the profile of a much more extensive scandal, something that would have persuaded much of America that indeed, this was a crime against the Constitution, and that would have had a big impact on the vote.
MH: Now I understand what you’re saying and you might be right. I’m just looking at the polling which shows you know, half of Americans already so supported conviction and removal. Three quarters of Americans supported witnesses. The evidence the House managers brought forward from Trump employees, from members of you know, the administration was pretty damning. And yet you couldn’t get more than one Republican senator to join you in the vote today. That’s how they’ve doubled down behind Donald Trump, the Republicans in the Senate.
JM: Well, think about it this way: the more the scandal penetrated various departments of President Trump’s administration, the Secretary of State or the State Department, the Department of Defense, you of course, had the Foreign Service engaged in this. You had the Department of Energy engaged in this, the more determination of this administration to apply pressure to make sure that the lid was not lifted on this can of worms. And that pressure in this very partisan age, won out over the oath to do impartial justice and the oath to honor the constitution and of course, the constitution in calling for the Senate to hold a trial envisioned all of the protections of a trial for full justice, and that is witnesses and documents. So, people violated their oath to the constitution and violated their oath of impartial justice because of that pressure, and that’s what makes this a very tragic day in America.
MH: One person who says he had to break with his party because of his oath to the Constitution, he said, because of his conscience, because of his faith was former Republican presidential candidate, the Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney. What did you make of his vote today to convict and remove a president from his own party?
JM: It was a powerful statement that he delivered. I happened to be walking by a television as he came on to the screen. So, I heard at least a share of his statement and this is extraordinarily difficult to do. Remember you have the combined force of Mitch McConnell, who said he’d work hand in glove with the president to produce exoneration, you had all of these officials that serve the president, you have this extraordinary pressure to show that you are a member of the team, not the American team, not the team of senators assigned to do impartial justice but the Republican team assigned to defend the president. And that individual, Mitt Romney, did something remarkable that will be remembered through the decades to come as an act of extraordinary courage and fidelity to an oath that he took as he put it, not just to the Constitution and not just impartial justice, but to do so before God.
MH: And just on the House Democrats who brought the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, do you think there’s anything they could have done differently either in the House or in terms of making their arguments in the Senate? What do you think about the Democratic approach to this whole thing?
JM: I don’t believe there’s anything else that they could have done that would have made a difference. Would I suggest to them that they had brought in Emoluments Clause? Yes. Would I suggest to them they should have brought forth an article of impeachment that addressed the four cases in the Mueller report, in which Muller found substantial evidence on all three key points of the law for obstruction of justice, including one obstruction of justice that included witness tampering? Absolutely. In fact, on those four cases, we received a letter from over 1,000 former federal prosecutors who said anyone else America would be indicted. I really disagreed with their decision not to lay out that set of cases. I would have liked to seen the House absolutely lay out the criminal issues. It is a crime to solicit foreign interference in an election. If that interference is worth over $25,000, it is a felony and if you’re holding up over $300 million of aid, you can anticipate the value of that contribution you’re seeking is over $25,000. This was a felony act. The House did not make that clear. I do not believe any of those things would have changed the outcome. But I do believe it would have been a much fuller exploration addressing the criminal conduct of Donald Trump.
MH: Do you think Democrats now should let go or there’s talk of actually expanding investigations back in the House, subpoenaing John Bolton, do you support that?
JM: That’s a decision for the House to make. I do feel that the window to explore this effort has from my perspective, closed. And that now we turn to the court of judgment that will occur in November with the election in the United States of America.
MH: And in that election, that’s coming up. We saw the Iowa caucuses. A little bit of a disaster for your party this week. What did you make of the fallout from Iowa?
JM: You know, time and again, I’ve seen software rolled out when it hadn’t been fully tested, and create a fiasco. The City of Portland, Oregon, had a water billing system that was a complete disaster. The State of Oregon was not prepared for a clean roll-out of the Affordable Care Act and we had to resort to paper because the website was such a mess. In this case, had we not — It’s just frustrating that they hadn’t learned the lessons of that, that you have to do a full test. It’s great to run a pilot project. It’s great to make the use optional, but be prepared for it not to work. I know that those who are evaluating this right now are going to make sure that it runs like clockwork four years from now. I don’t consider this a major flaw in the course, think of this is the first lap of a 50-lap race. And the track was messed up on that first track, on that first loop around the track, but it will be in good shape for the next 49.
MH: Senator, last time you were on the show back in 2018, you said you were considering running for president yourself you ended up deciding not to run? Do you have a candidate? Do you have a favorite? Have you picked anyone yet?
JM: No, I decided not to endorse, at least for now in the near future. And I must say it’s partly to celebrate the tremendous number of folks who are bringing their talents to bear who have so much to say about putting our nation back on track, about taking on the challenge of carbon pollution that’s destroying our planet. We see the ramifications all over my home state of Oregon, about taking on equality of opportunity for every American and certainly for the LGBTQ community and passing Equality Act, for taking on the fundamentals for families to thrive, because there’s four foundations, there’s healthcare, there’s education, there’s housing, and there’s good paying jobs, and there’s so much work to be done. And so I celebrate the many ideas that have been put forward, the dialogue that’s happened in this primary.
MH: That group that you’re celebrating, do you include in that former Republican mayor of New York, former George W. Bush supporter, Michael Bloomberg?
JM: Well, he will soon be entering the contest. And I do have reservations about the fact that we’ve reached the point in the extraordinary maldistribution of wealth, where a few individuals who have benefited so much from the infrastructure laid down by the preceding generation are in a position to essentially take a shortcut to prominence in the election. I don’t want to see a country and basically where you have to be a mega-millionaire to to run for office because we will not get the view of ordinary Americans expressed. I live in a blue collar community. I grew up in that blue collar community. My dad was a mechanic. We need more people who live in communities where families are experiencing the challenges of the shortcomings of government over the last four decades.
MH: One last question before I let you go, just circling back to the president and impeachment, now that he’s been “acquitted,” are we going to see an even more emboldened and reckless Trump who thinks “I can get away with anything?” Is he going to do even more crazier, more criminal things between now and November because he believes there are no constraints on him?
JM: Well, I do think that those around him will try to constrain the craziest acts he might embark on. But that’s never worked to date. In fact the lesson that he can take from this is not that be wary about abusing your office, but that if you abuse your office, you have a partisan team that will make sure that neither the judicial process nor the impeachment process can hold you accountable. That is a horrific lesson. That’s another reason today is a very dark and tragic day.
MH: On that note Senator Jeff Merkley. Thanks for joining me on deconstructed You’re welcome. Thank you.
[Music interlude.]
MH: That was Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregan, speaking to me from the Senate. One of the most fascinating and depressing things about watching this trial has been the way in which Republicans and their enablers in the media have been gaslighting us on a near daily basis, making demonstrably false claims, about how Republicans weren’t allowed to question witnesses in the House, which is a lie, or how the impeachment process itself is a violation of the Constitution, which is of course a lie.
One of the Democrats who has been best at calling at Republican hypocrisy, mendacity and gaslighting, and calling at the media’s failure to fully hold Trump and Co. to account is Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who I would add is a very amusing politician to follow on Twitter. He joins me now on his way out of Capitol Hill, on the phone, after the vote:
Senator Brian Schatz thanks for joining me on Deconstructed.
BS: Happy to be here.
MH: You’ve just come out of the Senate vote. Donald Trump has been acquitted. What’s your first reaction?
BS: Well, it’s mixed feelings and I’ll tell you why. This was horrifying for American democracy. And partly because of the Dershowitz arguments that were being made over the final week. It became even more worrisome not just for Trump, but for any president and the idea that undergirds their theory of executive power is really dangerous for our constitutional order. So, that’s one thing. The other thing is that just on a personal level, I was deeply disappointed in some of my Republican colleagues, with whom I, by necessity have a functional working relationship, but to see them through this process, disappoint me and not be willing to even vote for something that would resemble a fair trial had gotten me down.
Now, let me tell you the good news. The good news is that Mitt Romney changed the equation. This is now the first instance of a United States senator voting to convict a president of his or her own party and that was an extraordinary act of courage. I worked really hard for Barack Obama and against Mitt Romney but Mitt has become my friend. Mitt is an example of the Republican Party of the 70s and 80s and 90s, with which I disagreed vehemently, but they were not doing the institutional damage that that Trump’s party is doing. So, it was just personally gratifying for me to see that and I think it’s got political implications too because they now have a bipartisan guilty vote. And also Doug Jones, who represents Alabama, Joe Manchin, who represents West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema, who represents Arizona they all voted guilty on both counts.
MH: All Democrats in swing states.
BS: All democrats in swing states, all did the right thing and did it for the right reasons. And so perhaps unusually, but perhaps auguring well for unity and moral clarity, all of the Democrats were together, and the Republicans were at least ever so slightly split because I think what Adam Schiff tried to attempt to do was really smart. He knew he wasn’t going to win a conviction, but he just wanted to prick the consciences not just of the nation, but of individual senators and I thought it was extraordinary. And I was, for the first time in probably several weeks, I was, again, proud to be part of this institution.
MH: So let me just pick up you made a couple of points there. I’ll come back to Mitt Romney in a moment and that was a fascinating vote by him. But just in terms of you mentioned, kind of the implications for presidential power. You also mentioned your Republican colleagues. Let’s just start with the Republican colleagues, you said you were disappointed. Isn’t that a bit of an understatement given, it’s not just that all of them but Romney voted to clear the president. But they spent the last week or two and you saw this up close and personal, not just saying “Oh, we’re going to defend the president, we’re not going to vote to convict him,” but just lying and not just like gaslighting on a daily basis saying things like there’s no new evidence and there’s no need for witnesses and there are no witnesses and just the number of sheer lies they told over the last couple of weeks.
BS: Sure, but those are not the ones that disappointed me. I know Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn and all of these folks who make a living in that sort of fever swamp universe. They’re not capable of disappointing me.
MH: Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, they’re still capable of disappointing even now?
BS: Susan did not disappoint me and I will just leave it there. But Lisa and I are friends and she was there on the Brent Kavanaugh vote and she was there on the Affordable Care Act vote and she was personally not sure what to do all the way to the end. That was a personal disappointment to me. But I think you’re right that the behavior, to characterize what happened as disappointing is to understate the sort of venal, craven dishonest thing that’s going on right now and to underestimate the potential impact. Now, the silver lining on the Dershowitz theory of the case is that I mean, even the President’s Counsel basically benched him after he had that riff late at night. It was sort of, I likened it to a, you know, a sort of a self indulgent guitar solo, which starts out kind of interesting, but then sort of takes the song in a direction and everyone wants him to stop. I mean, that was about Alan Dershowitz.
MH: Just to clarify for our listeners, you’re referring to when Alan Dershowitz said, basically, if the president does something because he thinks he’s gonna get reelected, it’s in the public interest, whatever the President thinks is good for him is good for the country.
BS: Yeah, well, there were actually two arguments. That was sort of so outrageous that I don’t know that anybody really embraced it. But the other one is a little more insidious because what they’re basically saying is the president possesses power. And if he uses that power lawfully then it can’t be impeachable, and that is exactly upside down because the reason you give the impeachment authorities in Congress is because you’re giving a president this extraordinary Constitutional power. So let me give you an example. If a president decided to use the pardon power, which is total, which is plenary, which is sort of unquestioned as a matter of law, if he decided to pardon in people only in blue states or red states are only people who were for him or punish those who are against them, no one could say that he was unlawfully using his power. What we would say is he’s abusing the authority in his possession and therefore must be impeached. And what Dershowitz does is turn that whole thing on its head and say no, as long as it’s an Article Two power, it cannot be abused and that is terrifying.
MH: It’s terrifying also amusing. Of course, as you know, once there’s a Democratic president in office, they won’t be pushing these legal theories at all. It’s only lots of executive power if you’re a Republican president.
BS: Well, fair enough. I think that’s absolutely right. And, you know, one of our structural disadvantages is they are able to accomplish a lot of their goals, destroying the government’s — Doing everything they can to deregulate industries, getting a lot of federal judges through. They don’t need institutions to work in order to get what they want. We need institutions to work in order to pass our agenda. So the kind of maximalist sort of game theory, you know, the kind of internet strategist that says, “Why don’t you guys kick more ass and be more tough?” Fair enough, I think sometimes we are a little bit too focused on decorum and stability, but we do have to remember that we need these institutions and these guys don’t. They have what they need just as long as they can stack the federal judiciary and gut —
MH: But you don’t need, for example, a filibuster, which, you know, Republican behavior in recent days is another reminder of why candidates like Elizabeth Warren who say get rid of the filibuster probably are more practical about what needs to be done under a Democratic president than maybe other candidates who think I could still work with the Republicans.
BS: Yeah, I think, you know, listen, I think that we’ll see whose theory of the case ends up being right, but I have a strong, strong suspicion that the moment we have a Democratic president whether it’s anywhere anywhere from Joe Biden to Elizabeth to Amy Klobuchar to Bernie that they will treat them the same which is to block everything and then we’ll have some decisions to make.
MH: And let me just circle back to Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney. You mentioned that you know, you were disappointed, what happened. One of the things Lisa Murkowski said, “I was was very upset when Adam Schiff mentioned —” You know, a lot of these senators came out and said “We’re horrified that Adam Schiff could say that we’re being threatened by the White House, that our heads will be on pikes,” was a CBS News report. The irony is today after Mitt Romney voted to convict and remove Donald Trump, Donald Trump’s failson, Don Jr. took to Twitter to say he should be expelled from the GOP. Oh, the irony.
BS: Yeah, well, I mean, look, it was, yes, of course, they have heads on pikes. And by the way, I don’t know. I work in politics. Heads on pikes is not an uncommon phrase. I hate to say it when you’re talking about consequences politically, electorally, that’s one of the things people say maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s not so beyond the pale to imagine that a White House political advisor, whether it’s Eric Ueland or Rahm Emanuel, frankly, would talk like that. So, that’s number one. But I think the broader point is, remember, it was first that Nancy Pelosi used too many signing pens, right?
And then it was Jerry Nadler used the word treachery and then it was heads on pikes, and then it was Elizabeth Warren, asked the question of the Chief Justice that got someone’s nose out of joint. And my friend Sheldon Whitehouse, you know, we were sort of ruminating on what they do here because certainly you don’t want to give them any openings to claim grievances and outrage but in the end, you can’t execute perfectly and give them the aperture for outrage because they’re looking for one.
And especially in that moment, when Adam Schiff had the room and I could feel their guilt emanating almost had a physical sensation of how they were experiencing their conscience for that moment. And then he quoted the heads on pikes thing, and then Tom Cotton started shouting and James Lankford, you know, and what they found was, what Sheldon Whitehouse called the “outrage offramp”. That whatever Trump is doing, it is only just as bad as whatever the Democrats did.
MH: That’s their get out, obviously. And one the reasons I enjoy following you on Twitter, Senator, is you’re one of the few high profile Democrats who’s willing to basically call out the fact that the Republicans now, the vast majority of them, are bad faith actors, you can’t really take seriously a lot of what they say and their media enablers.
BS: Yeah, I mean, it’s sad for me to say but there are no moderates. You know, now the Cable News World characterizes the moderate as someone who doesn’t decide instantly the most right wing thing, but eventually comes around. Pat Toomey’s a moderate. Rob Portman’s a moderate. Pat Roberts is a moderate. I mean, they’re not. I mean, that doesn’t mean I’m never able to work with any of them. But the idea that you get your moderate card by not immediately racing to the Ted Cruz position is a sign of how much we’ve lowered the bar and I certainly hope that people who used to find themselves attracted to conservative principles understand that it’s not really a small-c Conservative Party, this is a corporatist party and they are Trump’s party.
MH: It’s a Trump party indeed. Just before we finish on Trump himself, now that he’s got this acquittal from his party, with the exception of Mitt Romney, what does this mean politically for him? Is this good for him? Is he emboldened? Can he kind of do a victory lap? Or is he going to do more reckless, crazy criminal stuff, like he did after the Mueller report failed to land a blow?
BS: I have a hard time seeing around too many corners right now. I think there are a lot of variables here both in terms of his behavior and what he believes to be his political imperatives. I mean, the one thing that I think is worth remembering, you know, there’s a lot of retrospective analysis of the 2016 race. But one of the things that people forget is that — I don’t want to, I’m not sure whether it’s three or five weeks or even less, I don’t know, I don’t remember. But at the end of the race, Donald Trump stuck to a script. And so I think when he needs to, he’s going to contain his worst political instincts and do poll-tested stuff and look plausible for just long enough to try to capture back, you know, high income white women and the suburbs. So, I don’t think we should, I really believe that our strategy cannot depend on Donald Trump doing insane things because while that may happen, he may pull it together for seven weeks that he knows his political life and possibly his freedom depends on it.
MH: And you have no regrets about anything to do with his impeachment, how it was handled by the Democrats?
BS: No, I mean, I think in the big picture, we got everything right. I think the House managers did really well. You know, everybody who’s a lawyer or like an amateur lawyer, like me, has an idea of what should have been included in the articles like, my hobby horse was always the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution because I think there’s such a clear violation but I think part of what what ended up in the articles was a function of what could get a majority in the House, and I don’t think that those moderate Democrats who were just elected lots of with national security credentials were ready to impeach on emoluments. They were particularly offended by this because it had foreign policy and national security implications and it’s a Democratic process so you know, I lost out on that, but overall I thought manager Schiff, Jefferies, Zoe Lofgren, the whole team was extraordinary and I’m proud to be a Democrat and I would just say we just have to go win this election.
MH: And on that note, last last question, who’s gonna win the election for you? Do you have a candidate?
BS: I have no candidate and that’s just me being careful. I don’t have a candidate. I like a lot of them personally. I work with a lot of them personally. I would be thrilled to charge up the mountain for any of the major frontrunners.
MH: Including Bernie?
BS: Yes.
MH: Okay, Senator Brian Schatz, thanks so much for joining me on Deconstructed.
BS: Thank you very much.
[Music interlude.]
MH:That was Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii. Reminding us that this impeachment trial has not just been about Ukraine or foreign policy or national security or the Bidens, but it’s also reminded us of the importance of having checks and balances of having limits on presidential power, so that you have an elected president bound by the Constitution, not a functional monarch, and that you have a party in Congress that stands up for the country, and isn’t just a Trump cult.
Anyways, next week, we won’t be talking impeachment, but we will be talking law and order, crime and punishment, mass incarceration, and the crisis in America’s prison system. How do you fix the criminal injustice system in the United States? That’s the question I’ll be asking my special guests: John legend, musician, activist, philanthropist, and Patrisse Cullors, activist, co-founder of Black Lives Matter. You can get tickets to be in the audience in LA next Monday, February 10. That special edition of Deconstructed will air later in the week.
[Music interlude.]
MH: That’s our show for today! Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our producer is Zach Young. The show was mixed by Bryan Pugh. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.
And I’m Mehdi Hasan. You can follow me on Twitter @mehdirhasan. If you haven’t already, please do subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice, iPhone, Android, whatever. If you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review – it helps new people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Thanks so much! See you next week.


theintercept--2020-02-06--Brazilian Judge Declines to Move Forward With Charges Against Glenn Greenwald “for Now”

“ I decline , for now , to receive the complaint against GLENN GREENWALD , due to the controversy over the extent of the injunction granted by Minister Gilmar Mendes in ADPF nº 601 , on 08/24/2019 , ” Leite wrote , referring to the ruling by Mendes , a Supreme Court minister .
In a decision announced Thursday , Judge Ricardo Augusto Soares Leite ruled that Greenwald ’ s prosecution would not go forward , but only on account of a previous finding by the Brazilian Supreme Court that The Intercept ’ s reporting on Operation Car Wash had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absence of the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister that prohibited investigations into Greenwald related to this case , Leite said he would have let the charges against Greenwald move forward .
The judge also said that , if the Supreme Court injunction were to be overturned , he would be open to charging Greenwald .
A judge today declined to proceed with cybercrime charges lodged against Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald for his reporting on prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in Brazil .
Greenwald had been accused of criminal misconduct related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wide-ranging anti-corruption investigation .
The cybercrimes charges stemmed from allegations by a public prosecutor that Greenwald worked in collaboration with hackers to obtain an online chat group used by prosecutors and judges in the Car Wash cases .
“ While I welcome the fact that this investigation will not move forward , this decision is insufficient to guarantee the rights of a free press , ” Greenwald said in a statement .
“ The rejection is based on the fact that the Supreme Court already issued an injunction against attempts of official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
We seek a decisive rejection from the Supreme Court of this abusive prosecution on the grounds that it is a clear and grave assault on core press freedoms .
Anything less would leave open the possibility of further erosion of the fundamental freedom of the press against other journalists.
” “ We will continue the fight against this authoritarian escalation before the Supreme Court , all while we will keep reporting on the archive provided by our source , ” Greenwald said .
The Intercept also welcomed the ruling , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightly rejects the charges against Glenn Greenwald .
As federal police investigators affirmed last year , he did nothing wrong , ” said Betsy Reed , The Intercept ’ s editor-in-chief .
“ However , the ruling is narrow and procedural , based on the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister last year.
” “ There remains enormous pressure to prosecute Glenn in retaliation for his work on The Intercept ’ s Secret Brazil Archive series , ” Reed continued .
“ We will continue to fight for the complete exoneration Glenn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all journalists to exercise the freedoms they are entitled to under the Brazilian constitution.
” Beginning last June , The Intercept has published a series of stories , in both English and Portuguese , based on leaks about Operation Car Wash .
Car Wash rocked Brazilian politics by charging high-profile companies , as well as two former presidents .
Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was imprisoned as part of the investigation and prevented from running in the 2018 presidential election , clearing the way for the far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stories document high-level misconduct in the Brazilian justice system relating to the sweeping investigation .
The Intercept reported on leaked chats between prosecutors and judges in the case — revealing scheming by purportedly apolitical prosecutors to ensure that Lula ’ s Workers ’ Party did not win the election ; prohibited collaboration between the Car Wash prosecutors and a key judge ; and controversial personal enrichment by prosecutors through speaking events , among many other noteworthy details .

A judge today declined to proceed with cybercrime charges lodged against Intercept co-founder Glenn Greenwald for his reporting on prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in Brazil.
In a decision announced Thursday, Judge Ricardo Augusto Soares Leite ruled that Greenwald’s prosecution would not go forward, but only on account of a previous finding by the Brazilian Supreme Court that The Intercept’s reporting on Operation Car Wash had not transgressed any legal boundaries. In the absence of the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister that prohibited investigations into Greenwald related to this case, Leite said he would have let the charges against Greenwald move forward. The judge also said that, if the Supreme Court injunction were to be overturned, he would be open to charging Greenwald.
“I decline, for now, to receive the complaint against GLENN GREENWALD, due to the controversy over the extent of the injunction granted by Minister Gilmar Mendes in ADPF nº 601, on 08/24/2019,” Leite wrote, referring to the ruling by Mendes, a Supreme Court minister.
Greenwald had been accused of criminal misconduct related to his reporting on Operation Car Wash, a wide-ranging anti-corruption investigation. The cybercrimes charges stemmed from allegations by a public prosecutor that Greenwald worked in collaboration with hackers to obtain an online chat group used by prosecutors and judges in the Car Wash cases.
“While I welcome the fact that this investigation will not move forward, this decision is insufficient to guarantee the rights of a free press,” Greenwald said in a statement. “The rejection is based on the fact that the Supreme Court already issued an injunction against attempts of official persecution against me. This is not enough. We seek a decisive rejection from the Supreme Court of this abusive prosecution on the grounds that it is a clear and grave assault on core press freedoms. Anything less would leave open the possibility of further erosion of the fundamental freedom of the press against other journalists.”
“We will continue the fight against this authoritarian escalation before the Supreme Court, all while we keep reporting on the archive provided by our source,” Greenwald said.
The Intercept also welcomed the ruling, with reservations.
“Today’s ruling rightly rejects the charges against Glenn Greenwald. As federal police investigators affirmed last year, he did nothing wrong,” said Betsy Reed, The Intercept’s editor-in-chief. “However, the ruling is narrow and procedural, based on the injunction issued by a Supreme Court minister last year.”
“There remains enormous pressure to prosecute Glenn in retaliation for his work on The Intercept’s Secret Brazil Archive series,” Reed continued. “We will continue to fight for the complete exoneration Glenn deserves, and for the rights of all journalists to exercise the freedoms they are entitled to under the Brazilian constitution.”
Beginning last June, The Intercept has published a series of stories, in both English and Portuguese, based on leaks about Operation Car Wash. Car Wash rocked Brazilian politics by charging high-profile companies, as well as two former presidents. Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was imprisoned as part of the investigation and prevented from running in the 2018 presidential election, clearing the way for the far-right politician Jair Bolsonaro to take office.
The Intercept’s stories document high-level misconduct in the Brazilian justice system relating to the sweeping investigation. The Intercept reported on leaked chats between prosecutors and judges in the case — revealing scheming by purportedly apolitical prosecutors to ensure that Lula’s Workers’ Party did not win the election; prohibited collaboration between the Car Wash prosecutors and a key judge; and controversial personal enrichment by prosecutors through speaking events, among many other noteworthy details.
The decision to dismiss the charges against Greenwald, albeit while leaving the door open to his prosecution should the Supreme Court change its decision, comes in the wake of an international campaign of support for Greenwald and condemnation of the Bolsonaro government. Last week, a coalition of more than 40 civil liberties groups denounced the legal intimidation of Greenwald and The Intercept Brasil. That message has also been echoed by high-profile political figures in the United States, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., both 2020 presidential hopefuls. Other progressive figures, such as Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., also condemned the charges. A statement from the Committee to Protect Journalists described the charges as “a disproportionate abuse of power by Brazilian authorities [that] poses a threat to any investigative journalist.”
Bolsonaro has attempted to throttle civil liberties in Brazil since coming to power, waging a campaign of intimidation against rival politicians, the independent press, and civil society activists. The Car Wash investigation represented arguably the largest and most embarrassing episode for Bolsonaro since he came to power, highlighting, based on internal leaks, conversations that had taken place between Bolsonaro allies to help subvert Brazil’s democratic institutions.
Greenwald and The Intercept Brasil never planned to cease or scale back coverage at any time since being charged.


theintercept--2020-02-06--Bloomberg Plagiarized Parts of At Least Eight of His Plans

campaign plagiarized portions of its plans for maternal health , LGBTQ equality , the economy , tax policy , infrastructure , and mental health from research publications , media outlets , and a number of nonprofit , educational , and policy groups .
The Intercept found that exact passages from at least eight Bloomberg plans or accompanying fact sheets were direct copies of material from media outlets including CNN , Time , and CBS , a research center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice , the American Medical Association , Everytown for Gun Safety , Building America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations .
Bloomberg co-founded Everytown for Gun Safety , a political organization focused on gun control , and Building America ’ s Future Educational Fund , a nonprofit working on infrastructure investment and reform , and has chaired them in the past , and he was listed as a co-author on the educational fund ’ s reports .
He is not clearly affiliated with the other sources .
The plagiarized sections ranged in length from entire paragraphs to individual sentences and fragments in documents that were between five and 14 pages long .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a detailed query to the Bloomberg campaign .
By Thursday morning , one of the plans was completely taken down , while others were changed .
Asked about the plan that was removed , spokesperson Julie Wood said the campaign would notify The Intercept when it was posted again .
The Bloomberg campaign did not deny the plagiarism .
In a statement , the campaign said , “ Much of what you flagged were fact sheets that went out via MailChimp ” — an online newsletter service — “ which doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy platforms , we put together detailed fact sheets with context and supporting background , so that reporters understand the problem we ’ re trying to solve with our policy .
For sourcing , we often look to the organizations that Mike has led or worked with in the past , like the City of New York and Building America ’ s Future .
We have since added citations and links to these documents .
”

Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign plagiarized portions of its plans for maternal health, LGBTQ equality, the economy, tax policy, infrastructure, and mental health from research publications, media outlets, and a number of nonprofit, educational, and policy groups.
The Intercept found that exact passages from at least eight Bloomberg plans or accompanying fact sheets were direct copies of material from media outlets including CNN, Time, and CBS, a research center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the American Medical Association, Everytown for Gun Safety, Building America’s Future Educational Fund, and other organizations. Bloomberg co-founded Everytown for Gun Safety, a political organization focused on gun control, and Building America’s Future Educational Fund, a nonprofit working on infrastructure investment and reform, and has chaired them in the past, and he was listed as a co-author on the educational fund’s reports. He is not clearly affiliated with the other sources. The plagiarized sections ranged in length from entire paragraphs to individual sentences and fragments in documents that were between five and 174 pages long.
On Wednesday afternoon, The Intercept sent a detailed query to the Bloomberg campaign. By Thursday morning, one of the plans was completely taken down, while others were changed. The campaign reposted the plan that had been removed on Thursday evening, after this story was published.
The Bloomberg campaign did not deny the plagiarism. In a statement, the campaign said, “Much of what you flagged were fact sheets that went out via MailChimp” — an online newsletter service — “which doesn’t support footnote formatting. When we announce policy platforms, we put together detailed fact sheets with context and supporting background, so that reporters understand the problem we’re trying to solve with our policy. For sourcing, we often look to the organizations that Mike has led or worked with in the past, like the City of New York and Building America’s Future. We have since added citations and links to these documents.”
Bloomberg’s own media entity, Bloomberg News, takes a hard line against plagiarism in its style guide, “The Bloomberg Way.” “Plagiarism—the unattributed copying of others’ work—is inexcusable,” the style guide, which was updated in 2017, reads. “Plagiarism is theft. Be prepared to lose your job if you plagiarize. Always credit original reporting to those who did the legwork, and never reproduce quotes made to others if we heard them ourselves. Press summaries must cite the publication that did the reporting and explain the attribution used in the original story.”
Bloomberg, an American oligarch who jumped into the presidential race in late November and has spent more than $300 million of his own money on campaign ads so far, is expected to qualify for his first presidential debate this month, following a late January rule change from the Democratic National Committee. The DNC doubled the polling threshold and eliminated a requirement that a candidate had to hit 225,000 individual donors to make the debate stage, drawing criticisms that the rules were changed for Bloomberg’s benefit (Bloomberg is completely self-funding his campaign). Asked during Monday’s Iowa caucus about backlash to the rule change in relation to Bloomberg, DNC communications director Xochitl Hinojosa said, “He has not qualified for the debate.”
Accusations of plagiarism have tanked past political campaigns. In 1987, during his first presidential campaign, former Vice President Joe Biden was caught plagiarizing campaign speeches, and was also exposed for an incident during law school where he plagiarized a law review journal in a paper. At the time, Biden apologized, saying, “I did not intentionally move to mislead anybody.” But days of negative press effectively pushed him out of the race.
Below are excerpts from Bloomberg’s platforms compared alongside identical or substantially similar other online sources, broken up by issue area. The identical portions of the text have been highlighted.
The Bloomberg campaign’s plan for green infrastructure was taken down in its entirety following The Intercept’s request for comment. It was reposted following publication of our piece.
Campaign Literature Original Source Our towns and cities were designed around cars. People once gathered in the streets and town squares; now they crawl through traffic on highways and multi-lane roads. Too much of the time we used to spend with each other is now wasted in congestion and traffic. Yet, over time, as our towns and cities were designed around the automobile, roads overtook the community centers. Where people once gathered in the streets and town squares, there are now highways and multi-lane roads. Perhaps worst of all, time we used to spend with each other is now often wasted in congestion and traffic.
–“Ford CEO: Together, Let’s Take Back the Streets for Living,” Recode, Jan. 9, 2018 In the early days after President Trump’s inauguration, Steve Bannon predicted that infrastructure was an issue that could give the president the key to “an entirely new political movement, as exciting as the 1930s,” even “greater than the Reagan revolution.” It was such a good idea, the White House believed, that the president’s team boosted the target of his infrastructure plan to $1.5 trillion. … Everyone, especially this president, seems to love the idea of investment in infrastructure, but no one has figured out how to pay for it. In the early days after Trump’s inauguration, Republican strategist Steve Bannon predicted that infrastructure would give the president an added bonus, the key to “an entirely new political movement, as exciting as the 1930s,” even “greater than the Reagan revolution.” It was such a good idea, the White House believed, that Trump’s team boosted the target to $1.5 trillion. But nearly two years after the election, the plan is by all reports dead. Everyone seems to love the idea of investment in infrastructure, but no one has figured out how to pay for it.
–“Trump’s Failed Infrastructure Plan Is a Wasted Opportunity,” Governing, October 2018 When we invest in infrastructure, we should strive to ensure that all people benefit from these public investments, everyone—including and especially residents of low-income communities and communities of color, and people with disabilities. To ensure all people benefit from these public investments, everyone—including and especially residents of low-income communities and communities of color —must have a seat at the negotiating table.
–“Infrastructure Equity,” PolicyLink During that time, the city experienced a remarkable renaissance, one that may have seemed unthinkable in the wake of the September 11th attacks and the 2008 recession. It’s true that during Bloomberg’s three terms as mayor, the city experienced a remarkable renaissance, one that may have seemed unthinkable in the wake of the September 11th attacks and the 2008 recession.
–“Bloomberg’s Track Record on NYC Housing Policy Is Only So-So,” Curbed New York, Nov. 25, 2019 Although Queens comprised just 19.7% of the population in 1950, this number is projected to climb to over 28% by 2030, when 2.57 million of the city’s anticipated 9.12 million residents will reside in Queens. The consistent growth in Queens will result in a new peak population for the borough by 2030. This growth is fueled by a mix of immigrants from more than 100 countries. Although Queens comprised just 19.7% of the population in 1950, this number is projected to climb to over 28% by 2030, when 2.57 million of the city’s 9.12 million residents will reside in Queens. The consistent growth in Queens will result in a new peak population for the borough by 2030. This growth is fueled by a mix of immigrants from more than 100 countries.
–“PLANYC: A Greener, Greater New York,” The City of New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, 2007 Done right, infrastructure helps us open new markets to goods and services, cuts the costs of transportation, speeds deliveries and lowers prices for consumers. Capital and jobs flow to the most efficient markets, and the most efficient markets are dependent on modern, reliable, high-tech infrastructure. Done right, infrastructure helps us open new markets to goods and services, drops the costs of transportation, speeds deliveries, and lowers prices for consumers. Capital and jobs flow to the most efficient markets, and the most efficient markets are dependent on modern, reliable, high-tech infrastructure.
–“Transportation Infrastructure Report 2012,” Building America’s Future Educational Fund (co-founded by Bloomberg)
Bloomberg’s “All-in Economy” Agenda Fact Sheet
Campaign Literature Original Source In the four years prior to the passage of the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the nearly two years since the law passed, average job creation has actually declined by an average of 11,000 per month. The White House promised that the tax cuts would result in an annual wage increase of $4,000 per household. It didn’t happen. In the two years since the law passed, wage growth, after accounting for inflation, rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year for nonsupervisory workers, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That difference — even if it were fully attributable to the tax cuts — amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker. So much for your $4,000 raise. In the four years prior to the passage of the GOP tax law, the economy added an average of 213,000 jobs each month, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the nearly two years since the law passed, average job creation has actually declined by an average of 11,000 per month. The White House promised that the tax cuts would result in an annual wage increase of $4,000 per household. Again, not even close. In the two years since the law passed, wage growth, after accounting for inflation, rose only slightly, from 1% to just under 1.4% per year for nonsupervisory workers, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That difference — even if it were fully attributable to the tax cuts — amounts to less than $400 for a full-time worker. So much for your $4,000 raise.
–“Opinion: After Two Years, Trump’s Tax Cuts Have Failed Americans,” CNN, Dec. 20, 2019
Bloomberg’s “LGBTQ+ Equality Policy” Fact Sheet
The Bloomberg campaign edited this fact sheet following The Intercept’s request for comment.
Campaign Literature Original Source 25% of transgender people say they’ve experienced a problem with their insurance over 12 months related to being transgender, such as being denied coverage for care related to gender transition. 25 percent of respondents experienced a problem with their insurance in the past year related to being transgender, such as being denied coverage for care related to gender transition.
–“Health Insurance Coverage For Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender Patients,” American Medical Association, March 2019 Half of transgender people report they are uncomfortable seeking police assistance. Half of transgender people report they are uncomfortable seeking police assistance.
–“Blueprint for Equality: A Transgender Federal Agenda for the Next Presidential Administration and Congress,” National Center for Transgender Equality, October 2016 Nearly half of all Black transgender Americans have been incarcerated. While the overall prevalence of TGNC individuals in the U.S. may be low, this community is disproportionately represented in America’s correctional system: almost one in six transgender people in the U.S. has been locked up in a state or federal prison, and nearly half of all black transgender Americans have been incarcerated.
–“Now You See Me: Problems and Strategies for Introducing Gender Self-Determination into the Eighth Amendment for Gender Nonconforming Prisoners,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, January 2018 Crimes targeting the LGBTQ+ community increased by about 6% from 2017 and the FBI has reported a significant increase in hate crimes motivated by gender identity bias. Crimes targeting the LQBTQ community increased about 6% from 2017, and the FBI reports a significant increase in hate crimes motivated by gender identity bias.
–“FBI: Hate Crime Murders Hit Record in 2018; Crimes Targeting Transgender People Soar,” CBS News, Nov. 12, 2019 Today, nearly a quarter of LGBTQ+ people say they have avoided doctors or health care out of concern they would be discriminated against and 31% say they have no regular doctor or form of health care. Nearly a quarter of transgender individuals avoid doctors or health care out of concern they will be discriminated against, and 31% say they don’t have a regular doctor, according to a 2017 poll by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard.
–“Donald Trump Campaigned as a President for LGBTQ Americans. But He Keeps Rolling Back Protections for Them,” Time, May 26, 2019 Transgender people are about six times more likely to have had a mood or anxiety disorder health-care visit, or have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt. The study also found that compared with the general population, transgender individuals with a gender incongruence were about six times as likely to have had a mood or anxiety disorder health care visit … and more than six times as likely to have been hospitalized after a suicide attempt.
–“Study Finds Long-Term Mental Health Benefits of Gender-Affirming Surgery for Transgender Individuals,” American Psychiatric Association, Oct. 4, 2019
“Plan to Address the Nation’s Maternal Health Crisis and Improve Access to Women’s Health Services” Fact Sheet
The Bloomberg campaign edited this fact sheet following The Intercept’s request for comment.
Campaign Literature Original Source Black mothers died most often from heart conditions and blood pressure complications like preeclampsia. And black women who earn higher incomes still die at higher rates than white women of the same economic background. … Nearly two-thirds of Alabama moms reported having some kind of medical problem during pregnancy, according to Alabama’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a CDC-based survey of pregnancy-related experiences in the United States. … The state ranks 46th in the nation in women’s and children’s health, according to the United Health Foundation And nearly two-thirds of Alabama mothers reported having some kind of medical problem during pregnancy, according to Alabama’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a CDC -based survey of pregnancy-related experiences in the United States. The state ranks 46th in the nation in women’s and children’s health, according to the United Health Foundation. … Black mothers died most often from heart conditions and blood pressure complications like preeclampsia and eclampsia. And black women who earn higher incomes still die at higher rates than white women of the same economic background.
–“Deaths From Pregnancy and Child Birth Are Often Preventable; Alabama Finally Starts to Take Notice,” AL.com, June 9, 2019, updated Jan. 14, 2020 Trump’s efforts to take away the ACA’s mandatory health benefits — including maternity coverage and well-woman exams … President Trump has worked to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — which could roll back significant gains in the proportion of people of color with access to health care. Trump has worked to: … Attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — which could roll back significant gains in the proportion of people of color with access to health care. Attempt to take away the ACA’s mandatory health benefits — including maternity coverage and well-woman exams.
–“Twenty-Five Terrible Ways Trump Has Undermined Reproductive Health,” Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Aug. 15, 2019
Bloomberg’s “Housing Affordability and Homelessness Strategy” Fact Sheet
Campaign Literature Original Source HUD’s inspector general concluded that HUD failed to ensure that public housing authorities properly identified and eliminated lead hazards. Meanwhile, a 2018 report by the HUD Inspector General’s office, the agency’s internal watchdog, found that HUD failed to ensure that the nation’s 3,300 public housing authorities properly identified and eliminated lead hazards, “thus increasing the potential of exposing children to lead poisoning due to unsafe living conditions.”
–“HUD Spends Millions on Lead Abatement. Why Are Public Housing Authorities Still Struggling?” Stateline/Pew Charitable Trusts, Dec. 17, 2019
Campaign Literature Original Source By cutting the corporate rate to 21 percent from a high of 35 percent, the law has reduced the effective tax rate that many companies pay. That has fueled after-tax corporate profits. The tax law was clearly a driver of that increase — because profits before taxes rose at a much slower rate. By cutting the corporate rate to 21 percent from a high of 35 percent, the law has reduced the effective tax rate that many companies pay. That has fueled after-tax corporate profits, which rose nearly 20 percent in the third quarter from the previous year. The tax law was clearly a driver of that increase — because profits before taxes rose at a much slower rate.
–“One Year Into Trump’s Tax Cuts, Few Major Benefits,” SFGate, Dec. 28, 2018
Bloomberg’s “21st Century Infrastructure Plan” Fact Sheet
The Bloomberg campaign edited this fact sheet following The Intercept’s request for comment.
Campaign Literature Original Source The U.S. rail network has been neglected and underfinanced for decades, and thanks to choke points and outdated grade crossings and bridges, trains in the U.S. run at slower speeds today than they did in the mid-20th century. We must also address the chronic neglect and under-funding of America’s passenger rail network. Because our rail network is riddled with choke points, passenger trains in the U.S. run at slower speeds today than they did in the mid-20th century.
–“Building America’s Future 2020 Vision,” Building America’s Future Educational Fund (co-founded by Bloomberg) American households now spend an average of 17.6% of their budgets on transportation, the second-largest expense after housing and one-third more than what they spend on food. These costs are particularly acute for lower-income Americans: The country’s poorest households spend more than 40% of their take-home pay on transportation. … Done right, infrastructure helps us open new markets to goods and services, cuts the costs of transportation, speeds deliveries and lowers prices for consumers. Capital and jobs flow to the most efficient markets, and the most efficient markets are dependent on modern, reliable, high-tech infrastructure. Done right, infrastructure helps us open new markets to goods and services, drops the costs of transportation, speeds deliveries, and lowers prices for consumers. Capital and jobs flow to the most efficient markets, and the most efficient markets are dependent on modern, reliable, high-tech infrastructure. … American households now spend an average of 17.6% of their budgets on transportation, the second largest expense after housing and one-third more than what they spend on food. These costs are particularly acute for lower-income Americans: the country’s poorest households spend more than 40% of their take-home pay on transportation.
–“Building America’s Future: Falling Apart and Falling Behind: Transportation Infrastructure Report 2012,” Building America’s Future Educational Fund (co-founded by Bloomberg)
Bloomberg’s Gun Safety Policy Plan
Campaign Literature Original Source Eight states generally allow permit holders to carry guns in K-12 schools (DE, HI, KS, MS, NH, OR, RI, UT), while an additional nine states have laws explicitly aimed at allowing K-12 teachers or school personnel to be armed (FL, GA, MO, ND, OK, SD, TN, TX, WY). Eight states generally allow permit holders to carry guns in public schools: Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah.
–“Keeping Our Schools Safe: A Plan to Stop Mass Shootings and End Gun Violence in American Schools,” Everytown for Gun Safety (co-founded by Bloomberg), Feb. 11, 2019 In the South Bronx, one Cure Violence program was associated with a 37 percent decline in gun injuries and a 63 percent reduction in the number of shooting victims. The area of the South Bronx served by Cure Violence experienced strong and significant declines in both measures of gun violence: a 37 percent decline in gun injuries and a 63 percent reduction in shooting victimizations, compared with 29 and 17 percent reductions in the comparison area (East Harlem).
–“The Effects of Cure Violence in the South Bronx and East New York, Brooklyn,” John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation Center, Oct. 2, 2017
Update: February 7, 2020
This article has been updated to state that the Bloomberg campaign reposted its green infrastructure plan after this story was published. The article was also updated with information about the Bloomberg News style guide.