coloradopeakpolitics--2019-09-04--NOT FAKE NEWS Newspaper Embraces Crappy Fiction for Climate Change Reporting

NOT FAKE NEWS: Newspaper Embraces Crappy Fiction for Climate Change ‘Reporting’

The High Country News has taken journalism to a whole new level of extreme absurdity with a new genre they call “speculative journalism,” also known as making up stuff.  They’re writing pure fiction now as an alternative way to interest readers in the dangers of climate change, because readers are getting bored with forecasting facts and figures and warnings of what might happen in their regular reporting.  So “journalists” at the Paonia paper are instead writing completely made up stories about climate-changer deniers hunted down like criminals by international task forces in the year 2068; and, ski resorts using soldier flies to dispose of human waste, but instead swarming the slopes resulting in a wave of lawsuits.  It’s not journalism at all, it’s the stuff of Junior High notebook scribblings.  They arrived in July of 2062, the time of year when the salmon memorials begin. The two E-series Black Hawks hugged the fire-scarred spruce of the Chugach National Forest, pounding into a parched blueberry field. Two dozen paramilitary police, members of the Old Bears, grabbed their gear, leaped from the choppers and disappeared into the treeline. It would be their final mission. The Old Bears, an internationally funded joint task force developed to hunt down and arrest fugitive climate criminals, were led by Lieutenant Colonel Aoife Viejo. They hiked through the rawboned lowland forests for nearly two hours toward Katalla, a remote smuggling hub controlled by the United Provinces of Alaska Militia (UPAM). Their target was 84-year-old Stephen Brower, a former physician and Republican senator from Massachusetts who would later be convicted of crimes against the environment, specifically for “denying and downplaying life-threatening climate change impacts for personal gain.” Intelligence sources said Brower had been living near Katalla for more than a year with his wife, his daughter, her husband, their twins, two armed guards and a courier who came and went regularly.  Such nonsense is applauded by a website for journalists in the UK as a bold new strategy — using fictionalized stories to help us better understand reality.  Do serious journalists seriously think this garbage will help us grasp reality?  The brown goop of dead flies smeared across her ski goggles impeded the view, but Nataša Sarec still saw the man fall. It was an ugly crash, an unintentional cartwheel, the man’s skis akimbo and his limbs awkwardly splayed as he smacked onto the slushy slope. Then black soldier flies swarmed the man, obscuring the scene. Sarec could scarcely see the fallen skier, but she could hear him screaming. As Sarec, Vail Resort’s chief entomologist, raced down the mountain, her tangled brown ponytail whipped her face. She skidded to a halt beside him, gasping for breath.  Not only have journalists embraced the charge of “fake news,” they’ve taken it to a whole new level and zombified it into crappy science fiction.


drudgereport--2019-04-05--Cuba cuts newspaper size circulation due to paper scarcity

Cuba cuts newspaper size, circulation due to paper scarcity...

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba says a paper shortage is forcing it to cut back on pages and circulation at several state-run newspapers including the Communist Party daily Granma, highlighting the severity of the country’s cash crunch as scarcity of basic goods increases.  The Communist government said on Thursday that it was halving the edition size of some weeklies as well as Granma on certain days due to the lack of newsprint, which it imports. It will also no longer publish the Union of Young Communists’ newspaper, Juventud Rebelde, on Saturdays.  It was the first time Cuba had taken such a measure since the 1990s depression spawned by the fall of former ally the Soviet Union. It comes as Cubans are having to queue sometimes for hours for basics such as eggs and flour whenever they appear on store shelves.  Last year’s introduction of mobile internet and a state app called “Donde Hay” (“Where there is”) have to some extent multiplied the mayhem as they have made it easier for Cubans to find out in real time when new stock has arrived.  “There’s nothing at the moment, and when they finally put something in the shops there are huge queues and you have to fight for it,” said Niurka Fontana, 33, a Havana resident who works at an ice-cream parlour. “Every day it’s worse.”  While Cubans have long faced sporadic shortages of particular items due to external shocks to the state-run economy and often dysfunctional central planning, widespread scarcity of some basic goods has picked up over the past few months.  First it was medicine and then flour, then vegetable oil and now eggs and meat.  “I’ve had this prescription for renal antibiotics on me for two months now, but you can’t find them anywhere,” said pensioner Georgie Pi.  The shortages have pushed up prices of some goods on the black market that not all Cubans can afford given the average state salary is around $30 per month.  The government has acknowledged that some shortages, like medicines, are due to a lack of imports of goods necessary for production.  Cuba announced austerity measures three years ago due to lower exports and liquidity problems as aid from key ally Venezuela shrank amid its own economic crisis.  It has since also had to contend with a tightening of the decades-old U.S. trade embargo under President Donald Trump and the end of medical services exports to Brazil following the election of far-right Jair Bolsonaro as president.  It faces another threat to its exports of doctors and nurses as protests roil old friend Algeria.  President Miguel Diaz-Canel told the National Assembly in December that the government would be increasing austerity this year.  The Economy Minister Alejandro Gil Fernandez said last month that egg production had recently been affected by problems with the importation of avian feed. Cuba would import more of certain basic goods in upcoming months and take measures to avoid hoarding, he added.  Many state-run shops are already rationing sales, creating a new headache for private eateries that do not have access to wholesale markets.  Most Cubans say they are used to shortages, although some fear they will only get worse.  “If there is a crisis in Venezuela, it affects us directly,” said state worker Carlos Perez, 51.


21stcenturywire--2019-02-04--UK COLUMN Jackals Eye Venezuela Twitters Regime Change Dept Trumps Nuke Treaty Renege

UK COLUMN: Jackals Eye Venezuela, Twitter’s Regime Change Dept, Trump’s Nuke Treaty Renege

As the jackals of Langley eye the oil riches of Venezuela, Twitter’s digital fascist brigade sprung into action at the behest of NeoCon Marco Rubio to delete pro-Maduro accounts in Caracas, LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman’s elite defamation operation, New Knowledge, teamed-up with NBC News to spearhead a smear campaign targeting 2020 Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard. Trump announces a US withdrawal of US from Cold War era INF Missile Treaty raising fears of a new and dangerous arms race. All this and more…  Co-hosts Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen bring you the early week news round-up. Watch:  .   21WIRE.TV MEMBERS CAN WATCH THE BONUS SESSION:   UKC Extra Time: Off-Air Discussion with Patrick & Mike  SEE MORE UK COLUMN EPISODES HERE


activistpost--2019-01-21--Study On Facebook And Twitter Your Privacy Is At RiskEven If You Dont Have An Account

Study: On Facebook And Twitter Your Privacy Is At Risk—Even If You Don’t Have An Account

A new study shows that privacy on social media is like second-hand smoke. It’s controlled by the people around you.  Individual choice has long been considered a bedrock principle of online privacy. If you don’t want to be on Facebook, you can leave or not sign up in the first place. Then your behavior will be your own private business, right?  The new study presents powerful evidence that the answer to that question is no.  The team of scientists, from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide, gathered more than thirty million public posts on Twitter from 13,905 users. With this data, they showed that information within the Twitter messages from 8 or 9 of a person’s contacts make it possible to predict that person’s later tweets as accurately as if they were looking directly at that person’s own Twitter feed.  The new study also shows that if a person leaves a social media platform—or never joined—the online posts and words of their friends still provide about 95% of the “potential predictive accuracy,” the scientists write, of a person’s future activities—even without any of that person’s data.  Looked at from the other direction, when you sign up for Facebook or another social media platform “you think you’re giving up your information, but you’re giving up your friends’ information too!” says University of Vermont mathematician James Bagrow who led the new research.  The study was published January 21 in the journal Nature Human Behavior.  The research raises profound questions about the fundamental nature of privacy—and how, in a highly networked society, a person’s choices and identity are embedded in that network. The new study shows that, at least in theory, a company, government or other actor can accurately profile a person—think political party, favorite products, religious commitments—from their friends, even if they’ve never been on social media or delete their account.  “There’s no place to hide in a social network,” says Lewis Mitchell, a co-author on the new study who was a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Vermont and is now senior lecturer in applied mathematics at the University of Adelaide in Australia.  How information moves on social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, has become a powerful factor in protest movements, national elections, and the rise and fall of commercial brands. Along the way, people on these platforms reveal massive amounts of information about themselves—and their friends. However, scientists have not known if there is a fundamental limit to how much predictability is contained within this tidal wave of data. In the new study, the scientists used their analysis of Twitter writings to show that there is a mathematical upper limit on how much predictive information a social network can hold—but that it makes little difference if the person being profiled, or whose behavior is being predicted, is on or off that network when their friends are on the network. “You alone don’t control your privacy on social media platforms,” says UVM professor Jim Bagrow, “Your friends have a say too.”


abcnews--2019-12-19--At least 15 million TV viewers watch impeachment vote

At least 15 million television viewers watched the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Donald Trump after a full day of rancorous debate.  Both Fox News Channel and NBC had roughly 5 million viewers during the hour, starting at 8 p.m. Eastern, when the House took separate votes Wednesday on two articles of impeachment, the Nielsen company said. MSNBC had 3.2 million viewers and CNN had 2.84 million.  The preliminary Nielsen numbers don't take into account other networks, like CSPAN, where the impeachment vote was carried. There was no reliable number immediately for daytime coverage.  The ratings also seemed to justify decisions made in network executive suites about coverage of the impeachment vote. Both CBS and ABC left the debate to air entertainment coverage, while NBC stuck with the news.  At 8 p.m., CBS had 6.7 million viewers for the “Survivor” season finale, while ABC had 5.7 million for its live remakes of two classic Norman Lear sitcoms, Nielsen said. That's almost certainly more viewers than they would have attracted if they had stuck with news.  Since NBC had scheduled a repeat episode of an Ellen DeGeneres holiday giveaway show — in effect conceding the hour to its broadcast rivals — news coverage brought in more viewers than the network would otherwise have gotten.  A review of newspaper front pages across the country showed banner headlines for the impeachment story virtually everywhere. The one-word headline “Impeached” dominated the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska, the Arizona Republic, the Boston Globe and the Baltimore Sun.  The handful of newspapers that didn't lead with the story were ones that appeared to focus almost solely on local news up front. The Clarion-Ledger in Biloxi, Mississippi, for example, led with the death of a Domino's Pizza delivery person.  In Battle Creek, Michigan, where Trump spoke at a rally Thursday night, the front page headline was “Trump Comes to Battle Creek.” The impeachment story was bumped to page 8-A.  The New York Post, owned by conservative media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, featured a picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the headline “It's Your Funeral.” The secondary headline was “Swamp mistress Pelosi dresses in black for historic vote.”


abcnews--2019-12-20--At least 15 million TV viewers watch impeachment vote


activistpost--2019-01-11--Fake News In LIVE Real-time TV What Next

Fake News In LIVE Real-time TV; What Next?

They say, “Seeing is believing” and “A picture is worth a thousand words.”  Well, get ready for what seems like an incredibly unbelievable display of fake news reporting.  If you watched President Trump’s talk to the Nation regarding the border wall the evening of January 9, 2019, you may, or may not have seen, what amounts to a deliberate fake news report, insofar as a TV station editing and inserting into their live feed, something President Trump did NOT do: i.e., stick out his tongue to the camera.  Hopefully, that display of unprofessional media madness was local to the Seattle area TV audience.  Note the difference in President Trump’s facial skin color: Orange, as opposed to the juxtaposed side-by-side real live CNN feed of the President’s speech!  InfoWars reported “SEATTLE NEWS STATION CAUGHT DOCTORING TRUMP VIDEO TO MAKE PRESIDENT LOOK STUPID   Deep fake technology used to portray Trump as an idiot; Media ignores.”  This type of flagrant fake news doctoring, in particular, needs to be prosecuted as a criminal act, which it is, and in violation of the TV station’s code of operations, plus ethics.  What more proof do citizens need to understand that the U.S. news media, 90% of which is owned by six corporations, are NOT reporting most of the ‘news’ accurately.  For those who are unfamiliar with the advancement of this type of technology, please see Melissa Dykes’ report “Reality” Edited in Real Time: New Tech Shows Why You Can’t Trust Anything You See on the News and view the video below.


activistpost--2019-01-12--Fake News In LIVE Real-time TV What Next


activistpost--2019-05-31--The US Press Is It Guilty Of Sedition Former CIA Agent Kevin Shipp Thinks So

The U.S. Press: Is It Guilty Of Sedition? Former CIA Agent Kevin Shipp Thinks So.

Alexandra Bruce, editor at Forbidden Knowledge TV, produced the following narrative based upon the Greg Hunter interview with Kevin Shipp, a former CIA agent-officer, on May 30, 2019.  Get ready for some unbelievable discussions.  The Shadow Government has been pretty much in an unbridled fashion, controlling the Congress, controlling the Judiciary and controlling the President of the United States and no one has stood up against it, until enter Donald J Trump a candidate that they did not figure on who is not bound financially or otherwise – this Shadow Government or their threats and he has got them quaking in their boots, because they’ve been engaged in illegal surveillance, they’ve been engaged in a false counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign, literally planting spies in the Trump campaign and I can guarantee you that they are scrambling like rats, trying to get off a ship. They’re now pointing fingers at each other. Comey’s pointing fingers at Clapper’s pointing fingers at Comey’s me pointing fingers at Loretta Lynch and on another there they are scared because if this stuff is declassified, the American people will see how they have broken the law and some of these parties what they have done amounts essentially to treason that they literally were spying and attempted a coup against a duly elected sitting president of the United States…  Every time you see CNN or The Washington Post, for example quote sources, quote intelligence sources, quote high-level sources, they’re referring to the CIA feeding them information to twist that the reporting that goes out to the American people…  It’s very difficult to prosecute journalists and it should be so prosecuting some of the executive members of MSNBC CNN and the Washington Post, I don’t think that’s going to happen and maybe it shouldn’t, because we want our press to remain free and free to be wrong, although in this case, they were manipulated, so I don’t think they’re going to be held legally accountable…we wish they would be charged but since they’re journalists, they’ll use that as their cover against prosecution and it will probably unless these documents reveal a direct intentional role without without [sic] a reasonable doubt, then you could probably go into the prosecution realm but the umbrella protection over journalists is pretty strong what they’ll do I think is clearly indict to the government officials who were involved .  GREG HUNTER: There are some people out there saying that some of these journalists took money. If they have a paper trail, where they took money, they took bribes and intentionally put out false stories, are they toast?      KEVIN SHIPP: They’re toast. In that case, you got them. In that case, you can indict them and in that case, you can charge them for Sedition.     [CJF emphasis]


activistpost--2019-05-05--Freedom of the Press Is Dying Assange Sentenced to 50 Weeks Facebook Admits It Will Block Certain

Freedom of the Press Is Dying — Assange Sentenced to 50 Weeks; Facebook Admits It Will Block Certain People Using Link Filter System; Poynter Ministry Of Truth

Freedom of the press is dying as the most hated are being targeted by the establishment, opening up a door for censorship and control of information like the world has never seen, undoubtedly in preparation for the 2020 U.S. elections.  This week Julian Assange was sentenced in a Kangaroo Court in London for “skipping bail” for 50 weeks of a defunct bail warrant and fraudulent rape case, as well as having his first hearing on his extradition trial. Which, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden expressed, “it is not just a man who stands in jeopardy, but the future of the free press.” It is a sentiment shared and echoed by historic antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department analyst who worked for the RAND Corporation and leaked the Pentagon Papers, this is possibly “The beginning of the end of Press Freedom.”  It’s not only Julian Assange — the U.S. has recently been added to the list of most dangerous countries for journalists.  At least 63 professional journalists were killed doing their jobs in 2018, a 15 percent increase over last year, according to a Reporters Without Borders annual report.  That’s just statistics for 2018. A journalist ignored by the mainstream press, Serena Shim, also uncovered the smuggling of ISIS soldiers through the Turkish and Syrian border using NGO trucks. The Turkish MIT accused her of spying and 2 days later she was killed in a suspicious accident with a cement truck.  Further, Shim was banned from Turkey by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself, only to be allowed back in and then murdered.  [RELATED: THE MURDER YOU NEVER HEARD OF SERENA SHIM]  The U.S. has also failed to address the Saudis for the issue of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman who is accused of being behind the death of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was accused by the CIA of brutally dismembering Khashoggi last year. Now, Trump’s son in law and senior White House advisor Jared Kushner has just admitted that he believes Khashoggi was killed by the Saudis and they should be transparent. However, he doesn’t think that the deals he organized should be walked back, while stating Saudi Arabia should be held accountable.  Now the U.S. is going after Julian Assange’s extradition for claims of hacking under the CFAA, as a starting point for the charges they no doubt intend to pile on if they can get him to the United States. This sends a very clear message to nations like Saudi Arabia and others that “it’s okay to punish truth-tellers and muckrakers for doing their jobs even if that means death.”  That’s not all. At the same time that arguably one of the most influential journalists was told he will spend 50 weeks in Britain’s Belmarsh prison — a move that has drawn a request for visitation from Assange’s longtime friend Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire — Facebook decided to remove users who it deemed deplorable. Facebook also stated that it would use a new censorship link filter to block users from talking about certain sources unless it’s in a negative light; these sources need to be clearly condemned, and if you talk about them you will get banned, too — their words not mine.  What everyone is missing is the power that Facebook is now openly displaying with a riveting message that should shock those who even hate the aforementioned individuals — Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, white supremacist Paul Nehlen, Infowars hosts Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Laura Loomer.  Now, with a system in place or admitted to the public eye, Facebook can openly remove anyone they see fit for violating their rules about certain ideas.  At the same time, the Poynter Institute — a partner in Facebook’s war against false claims and fake news — decided to release a list of 515 “unreliable” news websites”Unnews,”  including 29 conservative websites, NewsBusters reported.  That list included several popular news sites — Breitbart, CNSNews.com, Daily Signal, Daily Wire, Drudge Report, Free Beacon, Judicial Watch, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, LifeZette, LiveAction News, the Media Research Center, PJ Media, Project Veritas, Red State, The Blaze, Twitchy, and the Washington Examiner.  The article was written by a Southern Poverty Law Center producer, Barrett Golding, even though the SPLC has been exposed for its own hate in recent months. Golding, combined five major lists of websites marked “unreliable.”  Poynter further recommended that advertisers “who want to stop funding misinformation” should use its list. It stated that while marketers can create their own “blacklists,” those lists might be incomplete. Golding wrote that “Advertisers don’t want to support publishers that might tar their brand with hate speech, falsehoods or some kinds of political messaging.”  So the agenda here is clear censorship of information and the death of opposition and competition.  It’s incredibly interesting that Poynter would allow the SPLC to write such a smear job since it has been dropped by Twitter from its Trust and Safety Council and slammed by the mainstream media after multiple scandals have rocked the organization, as ZeroHedge reported.  After the smear job was published, Poynter tried to rewind its actions and apologize for the release, but the damage has already been done.  “Soon after we published, we received complaints from those on the list and readers who objected to the inclusion of certain sites, and the exclusion of others. We began an audit to test the accuracy and veracity of the list, and while we feel that many of the sites did have a track record of publishing unreliable information, our review found weaknesses in the methodology,” Poynter’s managing editor Barbara Allen said in a statement on their website. “We detected inconsistencies between the findings of the original databases that were the sources for the list and our own rendering of the final report.”  Poynter is funded by Open Society Foundations, liberal billionaire George Soros’ massive foundations, as well as the Omidyar Network. The two combined for “$1.3 million in grant funding.”  Defending the right to Freedom Of Press means that you may have to stand up for those human beings whose speech is so vile and grotesque. Why? Because once one person’s rights are violated then the rest of us can soon follow.  This is a corporate social media giant telling its users that it will take action against them if they see fit and don’t meet their criteria. For the big giants like Alex Jones, it can be absorbed; but for newer and less-established people, this means Facebook now decides whether you succeed or fail in your venture. This easily could be used as a means to silence independent journalism and not just the above-mentioned people.  Ultimately, the list and the agenda show how far Poynter has fallen from its role as “the world’s most influential school for journalists,” to now attempting to censor those they disagree with, which coincidentally included mostly conservative news websites.  Do some of the sites listed produce propaganda without naming names? Sure, but so do those on the left as well as corporate media giants, which were conveniently left off the list. So this is entirely biased to fit an agenda.  Activist Post has previously written about another fact checker “NewsGuard” which was found to be connected to intelligence and think tank organizations.  As Kurt Nimmo (formerly of Infowars) recently stated, the rise of an increasing number of “fact checkers” is part of a larger operation to destroy alternative media:  While doing research for a Newsbud video, I came across the Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) website. This is one of a growing number of “fact checking” websites designed to discredit news websites not following official narratives closely enough. Here’s what the site has to say about Newsbud and my participation: Newsbud (NB) is a right wing, conspiracy and anti-government site founded by, among others, Kurt Nimmo, the former lead editor and writer for Infowars. What sets NB apart from other sites of this type is that the stories are, for the most part, well written and contain numerous sources. The bias of the writing is also more subtle than sites such as Infowars, but just as prevalent. Both as an overtone to all the stories as well as the sometimes questionable sources and / or the conclusions drawn from the source material. Additionally, many of their sources are other NB stories, or work the author and editors have done elsewhere. MBFC imparts misinformation in the first sentence. If it had done appropriate research, its ideologically driven checkers would have discovered Newsbud was established by Sibel Edmonds. I was invited to participate after the website was established and I am not a founder, as MBFC claims. This error—more accurately described as shoddy and careless research—reveals the liberal bias of the site and its proprietor, Dave Van Zandt.


activistpost--2019-09-29--Censorship and Online Threats Against the Press Spell Trouble for the Future of Pakistani Journalism

Deaths, threats, layoffs, late salaries, censorship and bans on TV channels have become the norm for media professionals in Pakistan.  On June 16, 2019, Pakistani blogger and independent journalist Billal Khan, who ran a YouTube channel where he interviewed political figures and talked about religion and politics, was stabbed to death by unknown individuals. Reports speculate that his criticism of the Pakistan army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s leading intelligence agency, led to his killing.  In mid-September 2019, Zaffar Abbas, a journalist with the privately-owned Channel 7-News, was found dead in a dry well in Vehari, Pakistan. According to police sources, Abbas was returning home late at night from the Kot Malik area on September 7 when he went missing. On the family’s behest, a kidnapping case was registered against unidentified people, and the reason for the incident is yet to be determined.  A number of journalists have recently been reported dead and, in most cases, the perpetrators could not be identified. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), as many as 61 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 1992.  In an interview with CPJ, Najam Sethi, a seasoned journalist and former Caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab, said that journalists in Pakistan are going through the worst time in the history of the country. In August, the TV Channel 24 HD cancelled the Najam Sethi Show, a news and political commentary program, after Sethi reported about Prime Minister Imran Khan’s alleged marital issues:  Sethi also spoke about how journalists are being silenced: every time they raise their voice, criticize the government or do shows, they are labelled as traitors or have their credentials questioned.  Censorship has increased in Pakistan. Anything critical of the government, as well as various interviews with politicians, have been taken off-air on the orders of various government departments. Journalists have also started receiving emails from social media platforms warning them about their posts against the Pakistan government. Reporters without Borders wrote an open letter to Pakistan’s prime minister and voiced its concerns regarding the treatment of journalists in the country.  Sethi rightly points out the critical situation faced by journalists. The social media factor is one that can’t be ignored: it has become an arena where online bullying and threats against journalists have taken place, with female journalists taking the brunt of the attacks.  Recently, the ruling Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf party’s Twitter handle warned journalist Gharidah Farooqi against making too many anti-state comments:  For the past few years, columnist Cyril Almeida, a recipient of the International Press Institute’s (IPI) 71st World Press Freedom Hero Award, has come under fire from the state for publishing an exclusive story in the Dawn newspaper regarding a top-level meeting of civil-military leaders in 2016. In 2018, Almeida was slapped with a treason charge for an interview he did with the former prime minister, Nawaj Sharif.  In January 2019, Almeida was suspended from writing for the newspaper:  By September, Almeida announced that he would resume writing and that his latest column would be equally hard-hitting:


activistpost--2019-11-19--Are Journalists Creating Drama So They Can Report It?  “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” on the “

Are Journalists Creating Drama So They Can Report It?  “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” on the “Unfreedom of the Press”

Broadcast news programming has changed a lot over the past 15-20 years. News magazine programs like “Dateline” covered more than tragic and twisted crimes. They also didn’t use marketing slogans like “Don’t Watch Alone.”  Drama sells and, unfortunately, there seems to be no shortage of it being reported by all media sources. But when is it news and when is it deliberate public manipulation?  From “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” – Unfreedom of the Press:  Sharyl: You wrote “the American free press has degenerated into a standardless profession, not through government oppression or suppression, but through self-censorship, group think, bias, omission and propaganda.” Mark Levin: There’s a new doctrine that’s being pushed in journalism school, has been for about 30 years, which is to push what’s called public journalism or community journalism, which is social activism. And so now you have a lot of reporters, Jim Acosta is a perfect example, who create the drama, then report on their own drama that becomes news for five days. President calls that “fake news.” He’s right. There was a professor Boston who used to head the Library of Congress, but he was a historian at the University of Chicago. Wrote a whole book on it, pseudo events. Our news is filled with phony events and filled with propaganda.  Yikes. No wonder I feel like I’m watching Wag The Dog when I try to catch up on current events.  Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.  Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


bipartisanreport--2019-04-02--Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Ruins Trumps Morning

Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press Ruins Trump’s Morning

Donald Trump’s one-month-old attorney (AG) hack William Barr decreed his boss free of all charges related to the Mueller report. Barr also gave him a long lead, so that Trump could firmly set in the country’s mind that he was a cleared man. The AG broke all traditions with his declaration and even slow-walked his redacting pen all over the report. Then, the press said “Enough!”  Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a lawsuit in the D.C. federal court to release all grand jury material “cited, quoted, or referenced” in the Mueller report originally submitted to Barr.  The Reporters Committee also filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to see the entire unredacted Mueller report. Barr cited the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), saying that he could not release the full report due to the grand jury material in it.  Should the federal court find for the Reporters Committee lawsuit, Barr could release any parts of the Mueller report that he gave to the public (Congress).  ‘Given the historical significance and overwhelming public interest in the Mueller report, the Reporters Committee is urging the Court to exercise its authority to allow those portions of the report that consist of grand jury material to be released to the public. The calls for transparency are broad and bipartisan. The president himself has said the report should be made public. We agree. The public is entitled to see as much of the Mueller report, unredacted, as possible.’  Theodore Boutrous Jr. from Gibson Dunn attorneys represents the Reporters Committee, Townsend, and its executive director Bruce Brown. Boutrous said “The American people deserve to see and scrutinize the full contents:”  ‘The exceptions to the federal grand jury secrecy rules, multiple precedents, the First Amendment and the public interest all support releasing the Mueller report in full given the extraordinary circumstances of this matter and the need to ensure public confidence in the results of this investigation. The American people deserve to see and scrutinize the full contents of the report so they can evaluate for themselves the threats to our electoral system from Russian interference and make their own judgments about whether the president and his campaign coordinated with Russia or obstructed justice.’


bipartisanreport--2019-07-27--Rogue WH Whistleblowers Leak Wild Trump Info To The Press

Rogue W.H. Whistleblowers Leak Wild Trump Info To The Press

The president has an on-again off-again love affair with Fox News, in which he regularly lashes out at the Network any time they report actual news. Trump tantrums against Fox News on Twitter with increasing voracity, but the outlet continues to do what it’s always done to remain considered a top news network.  Trump was furious after Fox aired footage of people attending the FIFA Women’s World Cup. After America won the game, video of a crowd of people chanting, “fuck Trump,” was shown on Trump’s favorite show.  Trump Tweeted the following after viewing the segment:  Now, The Associated Press has revealed that they have information from staffers close to the president. This news is sure to send Trump into a Twitter tantrum befitting a king-sized toddler like The Donald.  “the president’s frustration with the network has grown in recent months.” “He has angrily told confidants he is confused about why Fox News sometimes “goes negative” in its coverage of his administration when it features an unflattering portrait of his White House, the advisers said.”  “Trump was particularly annoyed at Fox’s coverage when he saw his ties to billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein being played up on the other networks.” “Epstein was charged Monday with sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. His powerful friends over the years have included Trump, former President Bill Clinton and Britain’s Prince Andrew.” “Trump has gone on to complain that he feels that MSNBC and CNN rarely criticize Democrats and instead deliver pointed and, in his estimation, unfair attacks on the administration. To counter that, Trump has said, he feels it is important for Fox News to remain “loyal” to the White House and Republicans as a balance to the other networks’ alleged bias, according to the advisers.”  Frank Sesno, director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University says he believes the president has a serious case of delusion:  “I think he takes ‘Fox & Friends’ literally, that they’re supposed to be friends. Fox has real journalists who ask real questions, like Chris Wallace. If he thinks the ‘no spin zone’ is going to be the no criticism zone, he’s right most of the time, but not all of the time.”  Fox Executive Ken LaCorte says he’s almost certain that the network’s hosts don’t really care what the president says about them on Twitter.


cbsnews--2019-05-03--Swalwell proposes protections for the press

By now, it's hard to imagine that anyone who follows national news is unaware of the antagonistic relationship between the White House and press. President Trump's animosity toward the press, which he regularly refers to as "the enemy of the people," has been one of the hallmarks of his presidency. The Committee to Protect Journalists noted that from June 2015, when he was a presidential candidate, through mid-January 2019, Mr. Trump posted 1,339 tweets about the media "that were critical, insinuating, condemning, or threatening."  Now, White House press briefings, which took place nearly daily under former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama, have become so rare that their occasional occurrences have themselves become news events.  One of the Democratic presidential candidates, Eric Swalwell, a California congressman, wants to see a return to better relations with the press and is even making this a part of his campaign. On Friday, he released a set of reforms aimed at reestablishing civility and transparency between the press and White House.  He's pegging the initiative to the United Nations' World Press Freedom Day, and it's as much a criticism of Mr. Trump's handling of the media as it is a reaction to threats against journalists, which may be drawing inspiration from the president's attacks on the press. When a California man with more than 20 firearms in his house called The Boston Globe last year and threatened to kill its journalists, authorities said, he invoked the phrase "enemy of the people."  "The age of labeling journalists as 'enemies of the people' will end with Donald Trump's departure, and will be remembered as an anti-democratic travesty," Swalwell said in a statement.  If elected president, Swalwell promises to hold regular briefings, ensure the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office is fully compliant and urge Congress to pass a bill he introduced in March to make certain attacks on the press federal crimes. He also said he would encourage the passing of a law to protect journalists from being jailed for protecting their sources.  Swalwell is polling at around 1 percent and is considered a long-shot for the Democratic nomination. Though Mr. Trump's vitriol toward the press is notable, he's certainly not alone among politicians of either party in distrusting the media. Swalwell's proposed reforms stand as an unusual statement of support for the press.  "As president, I'll make sure that journalists have the access, protections, and resources they need to report on my administration," Swalwell said.  Although Swalwell framed the Trump White House's infrequent briefings as a lack of transparency, the administration has offered different explanations.  "We get information out in a number of different ways," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told CBS News' Mark Knoller last summer, citing social media.  She has a point. The president, much more than Mr. Obama, uses Twitter to communicate his thoughts on a regular basis. There may not be regular press briefings, but as CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett has noted, President Trump engages with reporters more frequently than either former Presidents Obama or Bush did. He regularly answers questions, sometimes at length, as he's departing the White House, and often talks with reporters during photo ops.  Sanders also argues that some reporters use the briefing room to show off before TV cameras, rather than to seek information. Mr. Trump has repeatedly justified his name-calling and attacks on the press by claiming outlets are unfair in their coverage of him.  Swalwell, however, says that doesn't matter.  "I know it's a cornerstone of America, and my presidency will protect and respect it regardless of how I'm covered."


cnn--2019-04-17--Analysis Why the press may overestimate Pete Buttigiegs support

Analysis: Why the press may overestimate Pete Buttigieg's support

(CNN) News junkies are more than familiar with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. After all, the articles on him (such as this one) from the national media seem to keep at a brisk pace. He's now a clear number 2 in cable news mentions . But why?  Part of it has to do with Buttigieg's differentiating biography and rise in the polls. Indeed, well-informed voters like him , and his Google searches picked up before the media caught up.  I would caution, though, that Buttigieg's core support may position him to seem more popular to national media than he actually is.  The problem for reporters is that even the best one's opinions about the horserace are shaped by the environment surrounding them. This is especially the case early in primaries, because polling is far less predictive than it is in general elections. The people who surround national media reporters are right in Buttigieg's wheelhouse.  Buttigieg does best among wealthier Democrats. Take a look at recent polling from California ( Quinnipiac University ), Iowa ( Monmouth University ) and nationally ( Quinnipiac ). In all three cases, Buttigieg's support more than doubles as one goes from voters making less than $50,000 to greater than $100,000. The jump is rather dramatic in the Iowa poll, which had Buttigieg at 7% among those earning less than $50,000 and at 15% with those earning more than $100,000.  The national media tends to live in the wealthiest areas. The New York City and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas are both in the top 3% for per capita incomes among metro or micropolitan areas.  Buttigieg also seems to be doing his best among white Democrats. His support among white Democrats in the Quinnipiac poll of California and nationally stood at 8% and 6% respectively. Among the nonwhite crosstab listed in those places (Hispanics in California and African-Americans nationally), it was at 2% and 0% respectively. Other polls, as NBC News' Steve Kornacki's pointed out , have generally shown the same thing.  The media can have a blind spot when a Democratic candidate has a "diversity" problem. The reason is simple: the media is considerably whiter than America, according to the Pew Research Center . Newsrooms are certainly far whiter than a Democratic primary electorate  Finally, Buttigieg is doing best among the very liberal block of Democrats. The aforementioned polls all show he does best among those who describe themselves as very liberal (or liberal in the case of the Iowa survey). The same thing was true of a Saint Anselm College poll of potential New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. In Iowa, for example, Buttigieg gets 13% from liberals and only 5% from non-liberals.  Guess who lives near a lot of liberals? The press in DC and New York do. Washington has more self-described liberals than any state, according to Gallup. New York City Democrats are more liberal than Democratic Primary voters nationally by a fairly wide margin.  In some ways, the media is dealing with the opposite problem that they did in the 2016 Republican primary. The national media were then dealing with a candidate, Donald Trump, who appealed to people who were very different than the people working in the media and who they lived among. Specifically, Trump's support came from those without college degrees.  What exacerbated this problem was that the 2016 Republican primary didn't break down along traditional lines, which guides reporters' thinking.  Usually, Republican candidates are either being adored by religious conservatives or by more moderate Republicans. (This was largely the case in 2000 with George W. Bush and John McCain, 2008 with Mike Huckabee and McCain and 2012 with Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.) Instead, then-candidate Donald Trump got support from religious conservatives and moderate Republicans, but did so primarily among those without a college degree.  Now, none of what I've written here is meant to dismiss Buttigieg's chances. He's clearly on the upswing, as I wrote weeks ago . It's just that it's important to keep in mind that Buttigieg is in the same camp in polling as candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. He's still polling in the high single digits for the most part. Former Vice President Joe Biden at around 30% and Sen. Bernie Sanders at around 20% are a world away for the moment.


cnn--2019-04-17--Why the press may overestimate Pete Buttigiegs support

Why the press may overestimate Pete Buttigieg's support


cnsnews--2019-05-31--David Limbaugh Mark Levins Unfreedom of the Press

David Limbaugh: Mark Levin's 'Unfreedom of the Press'

With his latest blockbuster, "Unfreedom of the Press," Mark Levin presents a unique indictment of the liberal media today — something I doubted could be done, given the plethora of material already written on this subject.  It is sweepingly comprehensive, covering the history of the American press from before the nation's founding through modern times, yet accessibly succinct — 226 pages, excluding the acknowledgments and notes.  It is tough on the mainstream media but is anything but a ranting screed. A passionate patriot, Levin says this book's purpose "is to jump-start a long-overdue and hopefully productive dialogue among the American citizenry on how best to deal with the complicated and complex issue of the media's collapsing role as a bulwark of liberty, the civil society, and republicanism ..."  With his formidable background in constitutional law and history, Levin provides a fascinating tour of the American free press, from its indispensable role in the establishment of this republic, to its evolution through various phases that culminate in an ideologically possessed institution that is firmly aligned with one political party and is mostly hostile to America's founding principles.  The media's alliance with a political party (the Democratic Party) is not the first time we've seen this phenomenon in our history. Levin notes that from the 1780s to the 1860s (the party-press era), most newspapers aligned themselves with a politician, a campaign or a political party. But there were at least two critically important differences.  During the party-press era, "newspapers lined up fairly evenly behind one party or the other or one candidate or the other," so balanced competition alone served as a safeguard against manipulation of the citizenry by a monolithic media. Also, and perhaps more important, newspapers "transparently proclaimed their partisanship."  Today's liberal media are wholly in the tank for the Democratic Party, but they steadfastly deny it, which facilitates their ability to deceive and indoctrinate the public. They are not on the party's payroll or subsidized by it, as some of yesterday's newspapers and journalists were, but today there is no denying "the revolving door of journalists and/or their family members serving primarily in Democratic administrations, Democratic congressional offices, and Democratic campaigns — and vice versa."  Levin traces the notion of objectivity in reporting to the Progressive Era in the early 1920s when the "scientific approach to journalism" spread through newsrooms. Journalists were urged to adopt objectivity by developing a consistent method of testing information so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their reporting.  Whether there was ever an era when journalists pursued objective truth, by the 1950s, the media began to abandon that goal in favor of "interpretive reporting" through their progressive lenses. They don't even try to separate fact from opinion anymore; rather, they infuse every aspect of the profession with their liberal biases, including the selection, gathering and reporting of the news. There is no ideological or intellectual diversity in their newsrooms. They're all in disgraceful lockstep.  The media are so ensconced in the progressive worldview that it's sometimes difficult to tell whether they are intentionally deluding the public or deluding themselves — as they are convinced that their biased reporting meets their warped standard of objectivity. If you believe that only one political viewpoint is worthy of airing (because all other viewpoints are objectively sinister and dangerous), then you might, in a twisted way, think you are being objective by reporting only one side.  Besides, today's self-righteous liberal media elites have graduated from such trifling concerns as pursuing objective standards, while pretending to adhere to them. They have fully embraced the philosophy of progressive intellectual John Dewey, that the Progressive Movement must not squander "the most important tool of mass communication for advancing its ideological program — a radical break from America's heritage, culture, and founding, particularly the principle of individual freedom and market capitalism." In other words, progressives must commandeer the media and enlist their key players and soldiers to harness the incomparable power their positions afford them, engage in full-throated activism and fundamentally transform America.  Today's media would make Dewey proud. The purpose of a free press "is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, and advocate and reinforce America's founding principles — that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and to a well-functioning civil society and republic," writes Levin. But today's newsrooms "do not promote free speech and press freedom, despite their self-serving and self-righteous claims. Indeed, they serve as societal filters attempting to enforce uniformity of thought and social and political activism centered on the progressive ideology and agenda."  Instead of pursuing these lofty goals, the media are doing the exact opposite: functioning as a propaganda tool for the Democratic Party and its ideology, thereby destroying their reason for existence and "threatening the existence of a free republic."  While the media and their Democratic Party colleagues breathlessly warn that President Trump is a threat to the free press, they are just projecting. Trump is simply defending himself and issuing a clarion call to Americans, warning us that the partisan media are the real threat — both to the institution of a free press and to the republic.  Levin isn't calling for government action against the press, but he is calling on us to inform ourselves of the threat they pose to our liberties and exhorting us to "demand a media worthy of our great republic."  Unlike the liberal media elite, I proudly admit my bias in favor of my friend Mark Levin. But trust me: You'll learn tons and be greatly enriched by this book.  David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is "Jesus Is Risen: Paul and the Early Church." Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.davidlimbaugh.com.


cnsnews--2019-06-21--NBCs Meet The Press a Safe Space for 2020 Dems

NBC’s ‘Meet The Press’: a Safe Space for 2020 Dems

On Sunday, NBC’s Meet The Press will air an interview with President Donald Trump, conducted by the network’s political director, Chuck Todd. While Todd’s interviews with 2020 Democratic contenders have consisted largely of challenges from the left interspersed with the odd softball, Trump is unlikely to receive the same friendly treatment.


crooksandliars--2019-06-28--Putin And His Protege Giggle Over Fake News And The Press

Putin And His Protegé Giggle Over Fake News And The Press

In between tweeting his highly intellectual and ultra-nuanced thoughts about the Democratic Debates,  Donald managed to find time to talk to reporters while sitting next to Vladimir Putin.  In an effort to freak us out even more than he did in Helsinki, Donald tried to joke with Putin about the press, using his usual "Fake News" refrain and admiring Putin's way with journalists, saying, "You don't have the problem in Russia. We have it. You don't have it." Putin looked around and laughed, then said that, no, actually he did have the same problem with journalists in Russia.  What he didn't say was that both he and Donald have the same definition of "Fake News" – stories in the press that expose corruption and authoritarianism, and truth about the conditions under which its country's citizens live. What he didn't say was what they DO to journalists in Russia who try to tell the truth. In the clip above, Jim Sciutto and Kaitlan Collins make it clear what Putin, the Terror of Journalists wouldn't:  SCIUTTO: That man right there, President Putin leads a government that imprisons journalists, it kills journalists, it has literally thrown journalists out of windows. Just a couple of weeks ago it imprisoned an investigative journalist on fake charges. You cover this White House. It's not the first time he's attacked the press. How different is it when he sort of claims a kinship with the Russian president who treats the press like prisoners and worse? COLLINS: That's the thing. The president and his allies say when he says something is fake news, that's just his way of pushing back on a story he finds inaccurate or unfair to him. But when he's in the room with someone like Vladimir Putin where in Russia they literally kill journalists, they imprison them, they treat them terribly, you see how that message transcends across the world with strong-men leaders.  Putin. Kills. Journalists. Then laughs at the G-20 about how he has a problem with journalists in his country.  What Donald didn't say — at least in this room full of reporters — was that he wishes he could treat journalists the way Putin does. Or even moreso, the way Mohammed Bin Salman does.


globalresearch--2019-02-13--Freedom of the Press in Japan PM Staff Restrict Reporter Accuse Her of Spreading Misinformatio

Freedom of the Press in Japan: PM Staff ‘Restrict’ Reporter, Accuse Her of  ‘Spreading Misinformation’ About Environmental Impact of New US Military Base

A decision by Japanese government officials to “restrict” questions from an unnamed reporter during press conferences has provoked protests by other journalists.  The controversy has re-raised longstanding questions about the environmental impact of a controversial new base for US Marines being constructed in the southwestern prefecture of Okinawa.  At the start of 2019, officials from the Cabinet Office (the government ministry that coordinates the operations of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo) directed the press club covering the Cabinet Office to “restrict” a certain reporter from asking questions during daily press conferences covering the Japanese prime minister. The Cabinet Office also accused the reporter of “spreading misinformation” about the environmental impact of infill.  The unnamed reporter in question is most likely Mochizuki Isoko, a journalist with the Tokyo Shimbun daily newspaper, who is known for asking difficult questions.  In Japan, news outlets typically get access to politicians and government officials through press clubs, which regulate the activities of members, and can even exclude reporters or news outlets. In turn, sources, such as government departments, can deny or limit press clubs with access. But it’s unusual to ban or restrict the activities of journalists from media outlets like Tokyo Shimbun, a prominent daily known for its watchdog approach to government activities.  Reporter questioned environmental effects of construction for US Marine base  Mochizuki apparently angered the Cabinet Office during a news conference on December 26, when she asked about the risks of environmental contamination at a controversial construction site in Okinawa.  In order to build a long-planned base for US Marines permanently stationed in Okinawa, sand and rock infill is being used to build an artificial island in a bay off of Henoko, a township about 65 km north of Naha, Okinawa.  The construction project is destroying and literally paving over existing tropical coral habitat in the bay. It has been reported that the construction project is using inexpensive red soil infill, instead of the gravel that was budgeted in the project and paid for by the government, in an effort to cut corners. There are also suspicions that construction contractors including Ryuku Cement are pocketing the difference.  The use of red soil as infill for marine construction projects is specifically prohibited by Okinawan law, even though the Henoko project has the direct support of the central government in Tokyo. The iron-rich red soil contaminates the surrounding seawater and is deadly to native corals. Local activists such as the Osprey Fuan Club say the infill also will likely contaminate nearby surviving coral colonies.  The preservation of coral habitat displaced or destroyed by the Henoko project has been a contentious and potentially embarrassing issue for the government for the past few months, with Prime Minister Abe even claiming corals would somehow be moved away from the infill site to be transplanted in a new location.  Reporter accused of asking questions that would ‘spread misinformation’  When Mochizuki asked a series of pointed questions about the possible harms of the project at a December 26 press conference, it struck a nerve with media relations staff at the Cabinet Office.  Shortly thereafter, in their letter to the press club, the Cabinet Office strongly denied that red soil was being used as infill, and then also asserted that if it was used, its presence did not contravene Okinawan prefectural laws.  The Cabinet Office did not name Mochizuki, but instead stated that a “certain reporter” (特定の記者), had asked “inappropriate questions” (“正確でない質問に起因するやりとり”) that would “spread misinformation” to both members of the press club and to the general public (“内外の幅広い層の視聴者に誤った事実認識を拡散”). The Office said this could “impair” the significance of information presented during press interactions with the Cabinet Office itself (“記者会見の意義が損なわれる”).  The Cabinet Office then demanded that this unnamed reporter be “restricted” by the press club from asking questions at press events, for supposedly spreading misinformation about infill used in the Henoko project.  The reporter is widely believed to be Mochizuki Isoko, given that she had raised the controversial topic of red soil infill at the December 26 presser.  The letter from the Cabinet Office to the press club came to light more than a month later, on February 1, when it was published by Sentaku, a weekly news magazine. The Sentaku story swiftly generated a firestorm of debate.  An opposition lawmaker commented that “it’s totally obvious to anyone that it’s red soil” that is being used as infill at the Henoko site. After reading about the news in Sentaku, the Federation of Japanese Newspaper Unions (commonly known as the 新聞労連, Shimbun Roren) also publicly pushed back against the Cabinet Office, generating even more discussion.  On February 5, the Federation lodged an official complaint with the Cabinet Office.  For the rest of the week, trending hashtags on Twitter included “Tokyo Shimbun reporter restricted from asking questions” (#京新聞記者の質問制限), “towards a country where we can freely ask questions” (#質問できる国へ) and “we have the right to know” (#知る権利).  When questioned about its letter to the press club, the Cabinet Office denied that it was trying to shut down Mochizuki or any other reporter:  At a February 7 news conference, a Cabinet Office spokesperson also denied that the unnamed reporter was Mochizuki, after Mochizuki herself — undeterred by previous requests — asked the spokesperson about the intention behind the Cabinet Office’s original letter. She described the letter as “a form of psychological pressure on me and my company.”  As a reporter, Mochizuki has long endured adversarial treatment from government officials that could be described as deliberate bullying.  A Harbour Online article from early December notes that Mochizuki typically only receives 2-3 second replies from government officials during press conferences, less than the 22-second replies and explanations her colleagues at Tokyo Shimbun receive, and far less than the 81-second replies reporters at Asahi Shimbun receive on average.  “In regards to Mochizuki Isako from Tokyo Shimbun, here’s an article published in December 2018. In terms of how (the Chief Cabinet Secretary and the Communications Director) behave, here’s a look at how much time is spent answering her questions.  #towards a country where we can freely ask questions”  Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.  Featured image: Government infill project at Henoko Bay in Okinawa. Questions about the use of environmentally harmful red soil in the project led to demands that a journalist be shut out of press conferences. Image widely shared on social media.


globalresearch--2019-04-18--Freedom of the Press in Britain Imprisoning Julian Assange Arrest of Journalists in Northern Irel

Freedom of the Press in Britain: Imprisoning Julian Assange, Arrest  of Journalists in Northern Ireland

Britain is one of the worst countries in Western Europe for freedom of the press according to a global study by advocacy group Reporters Without Borders (RWF). Britain is ranked 33rd out of 180 countries.  RWF pointed to a number of worrying developments in Britain including national security laws, mass surveillance of the population and data protection.  The report mentions the case of two journalists from Northern Ireland who were arrested 31 August 2018 on the charge of allegedly stealing confidential documents from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI) that related to the massacre of 6 men in County Down in 1994 widely known as the ‘Loughinisland massacre.’  The case of journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey has obvious parallels with that of Julian Assange locked up in Belmarsh maximum security prison. In both cases powerful states seek to silence truth seekers who have exposed either war crimes or state collusion in murder.  Journalists Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey made a documentary about the massacre of 6 Catholics watching Ireland play Italy in the World Cup on 18 June 1994. Two terrorists from the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) entered The Heights Bar and sprayed 60 bullets into the crowd killing six. The massacre led to an upsurge in sectarian murders across Northern Ireland.  Over the next two decades a police cover up of the massacre became very apparent. Over 20 people had been arrested and none charged, police evidence and key documents had been destroyed. The first Police Ombudsman’s report, which denied there was any collusion between police and the UVF killers, was quashed by Belfast High Court in 2012. It ordered a new Police Ombudsman carry out a second inquiry into the massacre.  In June 2016 the second Police Ombudsman’s report was published. The Ombudsman, Michael Maguire made it very clear that there had been massive failings in the police investigation into the massacre:  His report noted the links between the UVF terrorists and the Royal Ulster Constabulary that led to the killers being tipped off by a police officer that they were about to be arrested.  Maguire details the open collusion between anti-terrorist officers in Special Branch and terrorists in the UVF:  The families of those massacred have repeatedly made the charge that there was collusion between the RUC/Special Branch and the terrorists in the UVF that enabled the killers to get off scot-free.  In the section of his report dealing with collusion the Police Ombudsman made the damning assessment:  Following the devastating conclusions of the second Police Ombudsman’s report into the massacre no one has been arrested for the killings. Yet, the British authorities have arrested two journalists for making a documentary No Stone Unturned about the massacre.  In 2016 Barry McCaffrey commented on the purpose of the film he was making with fellow journalist Trevor Birney:  No Stone Unturned was released in November 2017 and made a number of allegations  such as Special Branch had prior knowledge of the attack, that the weapons used in the massacre were later used in other killings, and most damning of all it named the three suspected killers. One of whom was a former British soldier while another was a police informer.  In this situation you might expect the police to act upon fresh evidence that names the killers who massacred six people. Of course, we are dealing with British justice here and instead the British state has gone after the journalists who had the temerity to unmask the public identities of the killers whom the police protected and colluded with over many years.  Last August over 100 police officers arrested Trevor Birney and Barry McCaffrey and seized their computers and piles of documents. The charge of theft does not stand up as the ‘stolen’ document from the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland was leaked to McCaffrey in a brown envelope left on his doorstep.  Since their arrest under caution Birney and McCaffrey have applied for a judicial review of the legality of their arrest and have also taken their case to the European Commissioner For Human Rights.  Rebecca Vincent UK Bureau Director of Reporters without Borders has condemned the arrest of Birney and McCaffrey on the spurious charge of stealing confidential documents  from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland:  Alex Gibney, the director of No Stone Unturned who worked with Birney and McCaffrey to produce the film has, has observed that the journalists’ arrest, “was an act of intimidation in trying to both silence us and also to silence journalists in the future.’’  Gibney has stated that the language in the request for the arrest warrant is highly revealing of how the British state sees whistle-blowers and journalists seeking to expose government crimes:  Let us hope that Birney and McCaffrey are successful in obtaining a judicial review of the arrest warrant, that the charges against them are dropped and that their confiscated items are returned to them.  The arrest and imprisonment of Julian Assange merely continues a tradition of repressive activity by the British government against journalists who seek to expose state crimes. We should all redouble our efforts to obtain his release from prison and pressure the UK government into opposing the American extradition warrant.  The cases of Birney, McCaffrey and Assange all reveal how powerful forces in the British establishment want to silence truth seekers who challenge its power and that of its U.S. ally. It also wants to send a chilling message to anyone else considering the pursuit of truth that may expose government crimes.  In his novel Nineteen Eighty Four George Orwell warned us that dictatorial governments wanted to instil fear in people  to such a degree that they accepted without thinking a  world where fear, repression and state sponsored murder were the norm. The attempts by the British and American governments to repress truth tellers is summed by Orwell’s adage, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’’


msnbc--2019-04-01--Sign-Up for the new Meet the Press First Read

# Sign-Up for the new Meet the Press: First Read  00:40  Sign up for the new Meet the Press: First Read newsletter by texting MTP to 66866April 1, 2019  Read More


abcnews--2019-01-15--After threats of subpoena acting attorney general to testify on Hill

After threats of subpoena, acting attorney general to testify on Hill

Acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 8, committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, said in a letter released Tuesday.  Democrats had threatened to subpoena Whitaker to compel his appearance, after accusing him of working to avoid public testimony until the confirmation of William Barr, President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general.  In a letter to Whitaker on Tuesday, Nadler wrote that he expected the acting attorney general to “appear on February 8 whether or not the current lapse in appropriations has been resolved, and whether or not the Senate has confirmed a new Attorney General.”  The Justice Department confirmed that Whitaker agreed to the date.  Democrats have expressed concerns about Whitaker’s public comments about the Mueller investigation, and whether he has influenced the special counsel’s probe at President Trump’s direction.  Whitaker decided not to recuse himself from overseeing the Mueller probe late last year, despite at least one senior department ethics official telling colleagues he would recommend Whitaker do so.  Meanwhile, Barr appeared on Capitol Hill Tuesday for his first day of confirmation hearings. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee took the opportunity to question Barr extensively about the Mueller investigation, among other topics of interest.


abcnews--2019-01-15--Barr promises he wont interfere with Mueller as confirmation hearing begins

Barr promises he won't interfere with Mueller as confirmation hearing begins

As William Barr, President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, begins his confirmation hearing Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he's sure to face tough questions from Democrats over his views on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and a memo that Barr wrote in June 2018 opposing an obstruction of justice case against the president.  Analyzing the president's firing of then-FBI director James Comey in May 2017, Barr argued in the memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that any obstruction of justice inquiry into Trump based on the firing would be "fatally misconceived."  Barr knows the Justice Department from his time as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush. And while Democrats acknowledge his previous experience, many insist the current situation is unprecedented, and have been in lockstep demanding assurances from Barr that the Mueller report be made public and that he not interfere or limit the special counsel.  "I'm worried about it," Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "Clearly, he's a good lawyer. There's no question. But when it comes to this delicate political situation -- the power of the presidency, whether this investigation is warranted -- Bill Barr had better give us some ironclad assurances in terms of his independence and his willingness to step back and let Mueller finish his job."  Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has called on Trump to rescind Barr's nomination based on the memo.  "I wrote the memo as a former Attorney General who has often weighed in on legal issues of public importance, and I distributed it broadly so that other lawyers would have the benefit of my views," Barr said in his opening statement.  "As I explained in a recent letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, my memo was narrow in scope, explaining my thinking on a specific obstruction-of-justice theory under a single statute that I thought, based on media reports, the Special Counsel might be considering. The memo did not address -- or in any way question -- the Special Counsel's core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election," Barr continued. "Nor did it address other potential obstruction-of-justice theories or argue, as some have erroneously suggested, that a President can never obstruct justice. I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance, and based solely on public information."  Barr also sought to reassure Democrats he thinks Mueller should be allowed to finish his work, unhappy over Trump's appointment of Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker whom they suspected was named to block Mueller's investigation.  "I believe it is in the best interest of everyone -- the President, Congress, and, most importantly, the American people -- that this matter be resolved by allowing the Special Counsel to complete his work. The country needs a credible resolution of these issues. If confirmed, I will not permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation," Barr's said.  "Second, I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the Special Counsel's work. For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision."  "President Trump has sought no assurances, promises, or commitments from me of any kind, either express or implied, and I have not given him any, other than that I would run the Department with professionalism and integrity," Barr said. "As Attorney General, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be."  Barr said Mueller would never go on a "witch hunt" -- what the president has repeatedly called the special counsel's investigation.  However, some decisions that could impact the release of Mueller's findings, such as whether the White House will assert any type of executive privilege, would not rest with Barr.  Mueller and Barr worked together in the early 1990s when Barr was Attorney General and Mueller was the head of the DOJ's Criminal Division.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Judiciary Committee's new chairman, said Mueller and Barr are "best friends" and have known each other for more than 20 years, adding that their wives have been in a Bible study group together and that Mueller has attended the weddings of two of Barr's daughters.  At Graham's request, former Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and long-serving member of the Judiciary Committee, will introduce Barr Tuesday as he did for Barr's previous confirmation hearings.  "I have known Bob Mueller personally and professionally for 30 years. We worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the Department of Justice under President Bush. We've been friends since. I have the utmost respect for Bob and his distinguished record of public service. When he was named special counsel, I said that his selection was 'good news' and that, knowing him, I had confidence he would handle the matter properly. I still have that confidence today," Barr said.  Barr also said his priorities at the Justice Department are fighting violent crime, prosecuting hate crimes, enforcing and improving immigration laws and protecting the right to vote.  He noted that he was partially retired, but took the job out of love for the Department of Justice and reverence for the law.


abcnews--2019-01-15--The Note Barr nomination provides early 2020 battleground

The Note: Barr nomination provides early 2020 battleground

The TAKE with Rick Klein  Whether or not the public ever sees Robert Mueller’s report, the special counsel and a whole lot more go on trial Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Mueller won’t directly have his day in Congress, of course -- at least not yet. But confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee William Barr will hinge on Barr’s answers about the special counsel and other legal questions vital to the Trump presidency, in ways that could define the contours of the investigation’s results and even the 2020 election.  Three potential Democratic presidential candidates will be among the Democrats asking questions, going in with memories of how Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation fight put their respective styles and substance on display.  Running the hearing will be new Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., now one of the president’s highest-profile defenders and explainers on matters of law and justice.  And while he won’t be anywhere near the hearing room, look for Joe Biden’s voice to make frequent appearances as well, courtesy of Republicans. The former vice president praised Barr during his 1991 confirmation hearings for his first stint as attorney general.  Intriguingly, and not withstanding previous suggestions that Mueller has overstepped his bounds, Barr’s opening statement calls for a “credible resolution” of the Mueller probe and to provide “as much transparency as I can consistent with the law.” That’s not the same as a guarantee.  From his handling of Mueller all the way through his deliberations on a “national emergency,” President Donald Trump has stretched the law and accepted practices to new limits. The man chosen as his next chief law-enforcement officer will need answers to novel questions.  In case we needed one, this week will serve as yet another reminder of the political risks the president takes when he insults women, in particular.  Over the weekend, Trump continued to lob racial slurs at Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren. No one can argue that he wears gloves with some lawmakers or treats the ladies differently.  Still, what a difference between his remarks and the events on Capitol Hill, in Washington and around the country this week. The third annual Women’s March is set to take place Saturday, with dozens of events and forums scheduled in the lead up.  Tuesday, for example, the president of Planned Parenthood will be joining Congressional leaders to announce women’s health priorities in the new Congress.  Only two and half months ago, women showed their power in the voting booths as they largely backed other female candidates. As the president picks his battles, he might consider the army of Democratic women readying themselves for war.  Following this week's inauguration of Illinois' J.B. Pritzker and Kansas' Laura Kelly, Democratic governors now represent over 175 million Americans, 54 percent of the U.S. population.  But what will that newfound power in certain parts of the country, especially in the Midwest, translate to under the presidency of Trump?  As chief executives of their own, governors of the opposite political party from the president have a unique power to become figureheads of resistance, but face intense scrutiny from their constituents if they feel their everyday needs are being neglected.  While the dynamic between the Democratic-controlled House and the Trump White House will dominate much of the political conversation in the next two years, how governors, including California's Gavin Newsom, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer and Nevada's Steve Sisolak, implement their policy agendas and grapple with their new roles will be an equally important trend to monitor.  ABC News' "Start Here" Podcast. Tuesday morning’s episode features ABC News Senior Congressional correspondent Mary Bruce, who says lawmakers on Capitol Hill are “not even talking about talking” when it comes to shutdown negotiations. Then, we hear from an Iowa farmer who says the stalemate is complicating what are normally basic decisions about his crops. And, ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel explains why lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are not happy with U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. http://apple.co/2HPocUL  FiveThirtyEight’s "Politics Podcast." Former San Antonio mayor and U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro announced his candidacy for president on Saturday. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team debates what his seemingly long-shot path to the Democratic nomination could look like. They also lay out a rubric for evaluating candidate strengths and weaknesses and discuss the political situation that has kept the government partially shut down for a record amount of time. Listen here.  WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY  The Note is a daily ABC News feature that highlights the day's top stories in politics. Please check back tomorrow for the latest.


abcnews--2019-01-15--William Barr insists I will not be bullied as confirmation hearing begins

William Barr insists 'I will not be bullied' as confirmation hearing begins

As the Senate confirmation hearing got underway Tuesday for William Barr, President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin asked Barr if he's prepared to be at odds with the president, for a "Mattis moment," a reference to former Secretary of Defense James Mattis' recent decision to resign over his disagreements with Trump.  Barr, who's 68, said while he might be intimidated a few years ago, he wouldn't be this late in his career.  "I have a very good life, I love it -- but I also want to help in this circumstance and I am not going to do anything I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing something that I think is wrong, by anybody" including Congress or the president, Barr said.  Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, >, Barr is facing tough questions from Democrats over his views on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and a memo that Barr wrote in June 2018 opposing an obstruction of justice case against the president.  Analyzing the president's firing of then-FBI director James Comey in May 2017, Barr argued in the memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that any obstruction of justice inquiry into Trump based on the firing would be "fatally misconceived."  Barr knows the Justice Department from his time as attorney general under President George H. W. Bush. And while Democrats acknowledge his previous experience, many insist the current situation is unprecedented, and have been in lockstep demanding assurances from Barr that the Mueller report be made public and that he not interfere or limit the special counsel.  Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has gone so far as to call on Trump to rescind Barr's nomination based on the memo.  "I wrote the memo as a former Attorney General who has often weighed in on legal issues of public importance, and I distributed it broadly so that other lawyers would have the benefit of my views," Barr said in his opening statement.  "As I explained in a recent letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, my memo was narrow in scope, explaining my thinking on a specific obstruction-of-justice theory under a single statute that I thought, based on media reports, the Special Counsel might be considering. The memo did not address -- or in any way question -- the Special Counsel's core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election," Barr continued. "Nor did it address other potential obstruction-of-justice theories or argue, as some have erroneously suggested, that a President can never obstruct justice. I wrote it myself, on my own initiative, without assistance, and based solely on public information."  Barr also sought to reassure Democrats he thinks Mueller should be allowed to finish his work, unhappy over Trump's appointment of Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker whom they suspected was named to block Mueller's investigation.  "I believe it is in the best interest of everyone -- the President, Congress, and, most importantly, the American people -- that this matter be resolved by allowing the Special Counsel to complete his work. The country needs a credible resolution of these issues. If confirmed, I will not permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation," Barr's said.  "Second, I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the Special Counsel's work. For that reason, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law. I can assure you that, where judgments are to be made by me, I will make those judgments based solely on the law and will let no personal, political, or other improper interests influence my decision."  "President Trump has sought no assurances, promises, or commitments from me of any kind, either express or implied, and I have not given him any, other than that I would run the Department with professionalism and integrity," Barr said. "As Attorney General, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people. That is how it should be. That is how it must be. And, if you confirm me, that is how it will be."  Barr said Mueller would never go on a "witch hunt" -- what the president has repeatedly called the special counsel's investigation.  However, some decisions that could impact the release of Mueller's findings, such as whether the White House will assert any type of executive privilege, would not rest with Barr.  Mueller and Barr worked together in the early 1990s when Barr was Attorney General and Mueller was the head of the DOJ's Criminal Division.  Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Judiciary Committee's new chairman, said Mueller and Barr are "best friends" and have known each other for more than 20 years, adding that their wives have been in a Bible study group together and that Mueller has attended the weddings of two of Barr's daughters.  At Graham's request, former Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and long-serving member of the Judiciary Committee, introduced Barr Tuesday as he did for Barr's previous confirmation hearings.  Barr, meanwhile, outlined his friendship with Mueller.  "I have known Bob Mueller personally and professionally for 30 years. We worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the Department of Justice under President Bush. We've been friends since. I have the utmost respect for Bob and his distinguished record of public service. When he was named special counsel, I said that his selection was 'good news' and that, knowing him, I had confidence he would handle the matter properly. I still have that confidence today," Barr said.  Barr also said his priorities at the Justice Department are fighting violent crime, prosecuting hate crimes, enforcing and improving immigration laws and protecting the right to vote.  He noted that he was partially retired, but took the job out of love for the Department of Justice and reverence for the law.


abcnews--2019-01-18--Congress to probe report that Trump directed lawyer to lie

The Democratic chairmen of two House committees pledged Friday to investigate a report that President Donald Trump directed his personal attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations over a Moscow real estate project during the 2016 election.  The report by BuzzFeed News comes as House Democrats have promised a thorough look into Trump's ties to Russia, and as special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and contacts with the Trump campaign.  A White House spokesman did not specifically deny the report, but Trump, in a tweet, accused Cohen, who has cooperated with Mueller, of lying.  BuzzFeed, citing two unnamed law enforcement officials, said Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress and that Cohen regularly briefed Trump and his family on the Trump Tower project in Moscow — even as Trump said he had no business dealings with Russia. BuzzFeed said Cohen told Mueller that Trump personally instructed him to lie about the timing of the project in order to obscure Trump's involvement.  BuzzFeed said Mueller's investigators learned about Trump's directive "through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents." The report says that Cohen then acknowledged Trump's instructions when he was interviewed by the Mueller team.  House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said "we will do what's necessary to find out" if the report was true. He said the allegation that Trump directed Cohen to lie in his 2017 testimony to Congress "in an effort to curtail the investigation and cover up his business dealings with Russia is among the most serious to date."  Calling the allegations a "counterintelligence concern of the greatest magnitude," Schiff said his committee had already been working to secure witness testimony and documents related to the Moscow Trump Tower deal.  The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, said directing a subordinate to lie to Congress is a federal crime. "The @HouseJudiciary Committee's job is to get to the bottom of it, and we will do that work," Nadler tweeted.  On Twitter Friday morning, Trump charged that Cohen is "Lying to reduce his jail time!" even though Cohen has already been sentenced.  Cohen pleaded guilty in November to lying to Congress to cover up that he was negotiating the Trump Tower project in Moscow on Trump's behalf during the heat of his presidential campaign. The charge was brought by Mueller and was the result of Cohen's cooperation with that probe.  He was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes that included arranging the payment of hush money to conceal his boss' alleged sexual affairs, telling a judge that he agreed time and again to cover up Trump's "dirty deeds" out of "blind loyalty."  White House spokesman Hogan Gidley told Fox News Channel that taking the BuzzFeed story seriously was "absolutely ludicrous," but he repeatedly refused to deny the central allegation that Trump directed Cohen to lie.  The Associated Press has not independently confirmed the BuzzFeed report.  An adviser to Cohen, Lanny Davis, declined to comment on the substance of the article, saying that he and Cohen wouldn't answer questions out of respect for Mueller. Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts with the Trump campaign.  Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, scoffed at the report, saying in a statement, "If you believe Cohen I can get you a good all cash deal on the Brooklyn Bridge."  Cohen is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Reform Committee Feb. 7, where he will likely be questioned about the report. It's unclear how extensively Russia will be discussed at the hearing, though, as House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., has said there will be "parameters" so the committee doesn't interfere with Mueller.  Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has discouraged any talk of impeachment in the early days of her new majority, some senior Democrats said that if the BuzzFeed report is confirmed, Trump's actions could rise to that level.  "If the @BuzzFeed story is true, President Trump must resign or be impeached," tweeted Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, a member of the House intelligence panel.  California Rep. Ted Lieu, a member of the Judiciary committee, tweeted that it's time for that panel "to start holding hearings to establish a record of whether @POTUS committed high crimes."  Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline, also a member of the Judiciary committee, tweeted that if Trump directed Cohen to lie, "that is obstruction of justice. Period. Full stop."  A Senate Democrat, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, tweeted that "we need to know this ASAP" if Mueller does have multiple sources confirming that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress.  "Mueller shouldn't end his inquiry, but it's about time for him to show Congress his cards before it's too late for us to act," Murphy tweeted.  William Barr, Trump's nominee for attorney general, said at his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday that a president or anyone else who directs a witness to lie is illegally obstructing an investigation. That statement attracted attention given Barr's expansive views of presidential powers and his belief that presidents can't be scrutinized by prosecutors for acts the Constitution allows them to take.  Associated Press writers Eric Tucker, Jill Colvin and Zeke Miller in Washington and Jonathan Lemire and Jim Mustian in New York contributed to this report.


abcnews--2019-01-18--Senator wants DHS chief investigated for perjury on border kids testimony

Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley on Friday asked the FBI to open a perjury investigation into Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen following the leak of an internal draft 2017 document that detailed the administration's legal options for separating families as a way to curb illegal immigration at the border.  The memo challenges the assertion by Nielsen last June on and in media briefings saying "we do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period."  The Dec. 16, 2017, document, provided by Merkley's office, which said it received it from a whistleblower, appears to be an internal memo on legal options to address families who were arriving at the border. Among the options listed: the "prosecution of family units" and "separate family units."  "Because of the large number of violators, not all parents could be criminally prosecuted," the memo noted. "However, the increase in prosecutions would be reported by the media and it would have a substantial deterrent effect.”  What would happen to their children? The memo said they would become “unaccompanied minors,” or UACs. “This will require close coordination with (Health and Human Services), to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to detain the UACs," the document stated.  Merkley notes that Nielsen made similar comments in congressional testimony, at one point telling the House Judiciary Committee: "I'm not a liar. We've never had a policy of family separation."  "Compelling new evidence has emerged revealing that high-level Department of Homeland Security officials were secretly and actively developing a new policy and legal framework for separating families as far back as December 2017," Merkley, from Oregon, wrote in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray.  On Thursday, a spokeswoman for DHS said the document was intended to examine the administration's options. The spokeswoman did not immediately respond to Merkley's request for a perjury inquiry.  “The Trump administration has made clear that all legal options are on the table to enforce the rule of law, rein in mass unchecked illegal immigration, and defend our borders," said spokeswoman Katie Waldman in an emailed statement.  Waldman said the administration saw an uptick of border arrests, which it blamed on a lack of a border wall and a court settlement that prohibits detention of children for longer than 20 days. Officials have said previously they believe that court settlement, known as the Flores Agreement, encouraged people to travel with minors.  "In part we were predicting -- and trying to prevent -- the exact humanitarian and security crisis we are confronted by now," Waldman said. "It would be malpractice to not seriously examine every single avenue to gain operational control of the border and ensure that those who are entering our country have a legal right to be here."  Shortly after the December 2017 memo was drafted, in April 2018, the Trump administration announced a "zero-tolerance" policy at the border that resulted in the separation of some 2,700 kids from their families in a matter of weeks.  In court filings, the administration has estimated a total of 2,737 children were separated from their families under "zero tolerance." But a report released Thursday by internal government investigators found that there were likely "thousands" more kids separated from families in 2017, before that policy took effect. The Health and Human Services inspector general said that the number of kids separated from their families under the current administration is "unknown."  While enforcement deterrents like the ones described in the memo have been effective in stopping adult men from entering further into the U.S. for economic reasons, experts at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute say those methods don't address the current humanitarian crisis.  "There is no evidence that such deterrence tactics work against the humanitarian flows today," MPI analyst Sarah Pierce told ABC News. "So not only is it immoral, but it is misguided and foolish."