08 June 21
I am not sure how RSN originally landed in my mailbox. But I'm glad it did. Of all the online news services I've encountered, I find yours to be the best source of thoughtful commentary. An island of saneness in this current chaos. Thank you.
Kitty, RSN Reader-Supporter
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
08 June 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bess Levin | It's Not a Great Time to Be Matt Gaetz (Next Week's Not Looking Too Good Either)
Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
Levin writes: "The Congressman is reportedly under investigation for obstruction of justice, on top of the alleged sex crimes."
hen we last checked in with the legal comings and goings of Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican was under investigation by the Justice Department for allegedly paying women for sex and, separately, sleeping with a minor and transporting her across state lines. Did things improve for the lawmaker in the proceeding few weeks? Not exactly! Instead, he’s now reportedly under additional DOJ investigation for obstructing justice, which the decomposing corpse of Richard Nixon can tell you means you’re screwed six ways ’til Sunday and should probably get on a helicopter headed for California (or Florida, as it were), circa now.
Politico reports that federal prosecutors are probing a call Gaetz had with a witness in his sex-crimes investigation, one of “a handful of women who entered Gaetz’s orbit via his one-time ‘wingman‘,” i.e. former tax collector Joel Greenberg, who pleaded guilty last month to an array of charges, including the sex trafficking of a minor. According to reporter Marc Caputo, an ex-girlfriend of Gaetz was speaking to a witness in his sex-crimes investigation and then, at some point during the conversation, patched the lawmaker into the call. If that sounds pretty stupid and amateur hour and something you’d think a lawyer and congressman currently under investigation would know not to do, you’re right—it was!
Per Politico:
While it’s unknown exactly what was said, the discussion on that call is central to whether prosecutors can charge Gaetz with obstructing justice, which makes it illegal to suggest that a witness in a criminal case lie or give misleading testimony. The witness later spoke with prosecutors, the sources said…. The obstruction probe is the latest development in the ongoing federal investigation into Gaetz, a top ally of former President Donald Trump who has come under increasing scrutiny due to his relationship with Greenberg—now a cooperating witness. The obstruction inquiry signals how wide a net federal prosecutors are casting to possibly ensnare the congressman.
Brian Tannebaum, a veteran federal defense attorney briefed by Politico on the investigation, said that obstruction of justice is “widely used by prosecutors in various forms” and can even ensnare witnesses who lie on the stand at trial. He said that, if authorities recorded the call involving Gaetz, prosecutors will listen for signs that he’s trying to get the woman to “get her story straight” by shading the truth. “If there’s any indication he was trying to influence her testimony, that can be obstruction,” Tannebaum said. “If it’s determined that what he said obstructed the investigation—‘did what he tell you have any influence on your testimony before the grand jury?’—it can be real problem.”
Neither the ex-girlfriend nor the witness could be reached for Politico’s request for comment. The former girlfriend is reportedly in the midst of seeking an immunity deal in exchange for cooperation, which would obviously be further bad news for Gaetz. She has apparently told friends that she believes the alleged trafficking victim may have recorded her during a separate phone call in which she may have provided incriminating evidence re: the Florida congressman.
Gaetz dated his ex-girlfriend in 2017 and 2018, but they had an open relationship that involved other women, including the one involved in the three-way call under examination from prosecutors, according to two sources familiar with the relationship. Those two women joined Gaetz and others—including Greenberg’s sex-trafficking victim after she turned 18—on a jaunt to the Bahamas in late 2018. Prosecutors are also examining that trip to see if Gaetz or others violated a federal law, the Mann Act, which prohibits transporting people across state lines to engage in prostitution.
Gaetz has consistently denied paying for sex or prostitutes but has acknowledged engaging in so-called “sugar daddy” relationships with the women he met through Greenberg, who in turn found many of them on the SeekingArrangement website for men looking for relationships with younger women. But while SeekingArrangement relationships might not meet the legal definition of prostitution for a Mann Act case, experts say that the federal sex-trafficking of a minor statute has a broader definition of financial transactions. If a suspect had sex with someone under the age of 18, and if something of value changes hands, then a suspect can be charged.
In April, shortly before he pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, the Daily Beast reported that Greenberg had written a “confession” letter, in the hopes of obtaining a pardon, in which he admitted facilitating Gaetz’s interactions with a variety of women and paying them on the congressman’s behalf. Gaetz has denied any and all allegations of wrongdoing, including obstructing justice. A spokesperson for the congressman told Politico in a statement, “Congressman Gaetz pursues justice, he doesn’t obstruct it. The anonymous allegations have thus far amounted to lies, wrapped in leaks, rooted in an extortion plot by a former DOJ official. After two months, there is still not a single on-record accusation of misconduct, and now the ‘story’ is changing yet again.”
Meanwhile, as the investigation continues, Gaetz has kept busy spreading election-fraud lies and, on at least one occasion, encouraging supporters to shoot Silicon Valley executives for allegedly suppressing conservative voices. Which law enforcement should probably look into as well!
The investigation led by the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., has spanned more than two years, and its focus has shifted over time. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
A Special Grand Jury Is Secretly Hearing From Witnesses in the Manhattan DA's Trump Investigation.
Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider
Shamsian writes: "In a courtroom in downtown Manhattan, the district attorney's office is marshaling paperwork and secretly whisking witnesses in front of a 'special' grand jury for what may be one of the most consequential criminal cases in the history of the United States."
n a courtroom in downtown Manhattan, the district attorney's office is marshaling paperwork and secretly whisking witnesses in front of a "special" grand jury for what may be one of the most consequential criminal cases in the history of the United States.
The grand jury is "special" in two ways. It'll be convened for six months, rather than one month, which is standard. It also could be asked to do something no one has ever done before: indict a former president.
The Manhattan District Attorney's investigation into Donald Trump's and the Trump Organization's finances appears to have reached an advanced stage. Prosecutors are expected to announce whether they're bringing any criminal charges before the end of the year, and the special grand jury - a group of 23 ordinary citizens - will be the ones to make the final call.
Here's how the process works.
What does a special grand jury do?
The precise rules for grand juries and criminal charges vary by state. Under New York law, which governs the Manhattan District Attorney's office, a felony charge - a criminal charge that would result in a year or more in prison - may go to trial only if a grand jury decides to file an indictment.
A grand jury in New York consists of 23 people. Sixteen jurors must be present in order to make charging decisions, and 12 must vote in favor of bringing an indictment. They must meet in secret and are not permitted to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury. Grand juries can also issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify.
Most grand juries meet for one month and hear multiple cases. According to The Washington Post, the Manhattan DA has empaneled a "special" grand jury that will last up to six months in order to hear evidence from the Trump investigation and decide whether to bring an indictment.
Special grand juries are typically empaneled to review evidence for more sophisticated cases like Trump's, which spanned two years and involves possibly millions of pages of documents. Court documents suggest that the office of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. has been investigating whether the Trump Organization, its executives, or Donald Trump himself broke tax laws by keeping two sets of books. One set would have shown assets of little value, in order to pay little in taxes; another would have shown significant profits in order to receive favorable loan and insurance rates. Legal experts expect Vance to make a case for tax, bank, and insurance fraud charges.
A judge may extend the special grand jury beyond the allotted six months, though Vance is widely expected to announce a charging decision before he retires at the end of December. The special grand jury, like regular grand juries, may also hear more than one case depending on how Vance's office decides to schedule it.
Grand juries are meant to function as a check on government power. Prosecutors need to convince a majority of jurors that there's probable cause to charge someone with a crime; only then can a case go to trial.
"The grand jury was designed to say, 'Hey, wait a minute, government, before you just start taking anybody you feel like to trial and convicting them and tossing them into jail or cutting their heads off, we're going to make you present evidence first and satisfy a group of people to show that we have a case,'" said Randy Zelin, an attorney at Wilk Auslander LLP and former prosecutor.
But in reality, defense lawyers like Zelin say, grand juries almost always agree with prosecutors.
In a trial, a judge oversees the process, defense lawyers can put up a defense or call their own witnesses, and prosecutors must overcome the challenge of getting a jury to reach a unanimous verdict.
But prosecutors determine which witnesses to bring and what evidence to show a grand jury - and the verdict doesn't need to be unanimous.
What evidence will jurors review?
Earlier this year, Vance's office won what's likely the biggest prize in their investigation. After two Supreme Court decisions, the district attorney's office was finally able to obtain the Trump Organization's tax documents in February.
Those documents include Trump's tax returns, which he has fought vociferously to keep from the public and which he has repeatedly lied about. Legal experts say the documents also likely include email communications between Trump Organization officials, insurance brokers, third-party accountants, and banks about what would go into those tax returns. If the communications show that Trump Organization officials sought to distort the true value of the company's properties, that could amount to tax and wire fraud, according to the legal experts.
Prosecutors have been examining that documentation for months. Now, they will present those documents as exhibits before the grand jury.
Aside from the subpoenaed tax documents, prosecutors may present jurors with financial documents provided by cooperating witnesses.
Jennifer Weisselberg, the former daughter-in-law of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, obtained seven boxes of documents as part of an acrimonious divorce from Barry Weisselberg, Allen's son. She gave those documents to prosecutors in the fall, and in interviews with Insider said they may include evidence that Allen Weisselberg distorted employee compensation in a way that may break tax laws.
Barry Weisselberg is also a key Trump Organization employee, as the manager of the cash-only Wollman rink in Central Park. Prosecutors may also be examining documentation about the rink's operations for potential tax fraud, according to people familiar with the investigation.
The financial documents investigators gathered may be complex and difficult for a grand jury to comprehend. That poses a challenge for Vance's office. Under New York state law, prosecutors can't present "hearsay evidence," or prosecutors' personal summaries of the evidence, to grand juries. Instead, prosecutors must provide the underlying documentation directly to the jurors.
Prosecutors can also get third parties to present evidence, including charts and summaries, for them. Vance's office is working with FTI Consulting, a forensic accounting firm, to analyze Trump's documents, and those accountants may present their analysis to a grand jury.
"There could be summary charts or analyses that are put together by the person who has done that analysis to help the grand jury understand the documents," said Rebecca Ricigliano, a former first assistant attorney general for the state of New Jersey and longtime federal prosecutor in Manhattan. "You see that all the time in regular trials where there's complicated financials or complicated issues concerning voluminous documents."
What witnesses will jurors hear from?
The person or entities under investigation don't have any say in who's called as a witness before a grand jury. It's up to prosecutors to decide who testifies.
By default, anyone who gets called as a witness in front of a grand jury in New York gets "transactional immunity," meaning they get total immunity from prosecution for any possible crimes related to their testimony. Transactional immunity protects people from being subpoenaed and forced to incriminate themselves.
It also means prosecutors need to secure cooperating witnesses before going to a grand jury. The names of some of those witnesses in the DA's investigation are already public.
Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive and personal lawyer for the ex-president, told Insider he's spoken to prosecutors more than a dozen times. Jennifer Weisselberg has helped prosecutors understand the company's inner workings, which she's described as corrupt. Both will likely serve as grand jury witnesses, and both declined Insider's request to discuss their possible role, saying they don't want to jeopardize the legal process.
On Friday, ABC News reported that Vance's office brought Jeff McConney, a senior vice president and controller for the Trump Organization, to testify in front of the special grand jury.
Prosecutors also may have secured less boldfaced names, like tax preparers at Mazers, the firm used by the Trump Organization, or officials at the insurance firm Aon.
It's unclear whether prosecutors have secured cooperation from Allen Weisselberg, who is widely viewed as a potential key witness for the case. He's worked for the Trumps for more than four decades, and knows the company's as well as the family's finances inside and out. Prosecutors reportedly want him to testify about those finances.
But prosecutors wouldn't want to just call Weisselberg as a grand jury witness, which would give him immunity from prosecution for any financial crimes he may have committed in his role as CFO.
Ricigliano noted that people shouldn't assume Weisselberg will make or break the DA's case.
"It's hard to judge whether he's really a make-or-break figure, or if they have been able to compile the evidence they need from multiple other sources," Ricigliano, now an attorney at Crowell & Moring, told Insider. "You can build a case like building a house. You can either get a crane to drop down a prefab house, or you can build it brick by brick."
Does Trump himself play any role?
If Trump himself is a subject of the DA's probe, he wouldn't be called as a grand jury witness. If prosecutors want to charge him, giving him transactional immunity would defeat the purpose of their investigation.
Still, if a lawyer knows their client is a subject of a probe, they can serve a "grand jury notice" to the district attorney's office, Zelin told Insider.
If that notice is served, prosecutors may be forced to inform the special grand jury that a particular witness named by the defense attorney is willing to testify. The jurors may then decide to subpoena the witness, giving that person transactional immunity against the prosecutors' wishes.
"It's sometimes a sophisticated and savvy move on a defense attorney's part," Zelin said.
To head off that scenario, prosecutors will try to make a deal with potential witnesses - called a cooperation or plea agreement - where they'd testify in front of a grand jury and agree to waive transactional immunity.
"Prosecutors are very strategic in thinking through their presentation of evidence to ensure that they are not immunizing a witness who they shouldn't be immunizing," Ricigliano said.
What charging decisions can the special grand jury make?
It's not clear whether Vance will seek to charge Trump, Trump Organization executives, the company - or not bring charges at all.
Former New York Supreme Court chief judge Sol Wachtler said a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich" if a prosecutor told them to because of the amount of control they have over the process. Zelin said because of that dynamic, grand juries can offer prosecutors political cover.
If prosecutors don't want to pursue a politically inconvenient case, they can blame the grand jury for not bringing an indictment.
But grand juries can also offer protection: Trump has already attempted to tarnish Vance's investigation by describing it as politically motivated. If a grand jury brings an indictment against Trump, Vance could persuasively say that fellow citizens, not just his office, believe the former president may have committed a crime.
Any charging decisions in this case will be controversial. Democrats sore over Trump's apparent ability to wriggle out of every scandal will be further rattled if he isn't personally charged. Trump supporters may be scandalized if he's held responsible for financial wrongdoing that may have been engineered by other executives like Weisselberg.
Daniel R. Alonso, a former top Vance deputy, previously told Insider there's a good chance the DA may ask the grand jury to bring charges against only the Trump Organization.
Charging the Trump Organization alone would be a smart strategic move that would further puncture Trump's image as a successful businessman, possibly cut into his family's reputation, and provoke less backlash from the 74 million people who voted for him, Zelin said.
"An argument could be made that it's more devastating," Zelin said. "If you kill the Trump Organization, basically you kill the Trump family's means and a rather extravagant high-profile and lavish lifestyle."
Ricigliano told Insider that prosecutors don't typically think about political considerations when they bring cases in front of a grand jury.
She emphasized that prosecutors in Vance's office - as well as prosecutors with New York Attorney General Letitia James' parallel investigation - gathered massive amounts of information over the course of their two-year probe, and the public only is aware of a small fraction of it.
Those prosecutors will ultimately bring the best case they have based on the evidence, she said.
"I don't think that prosecutors view the grand juries as potential scapegoats or ways to alleviate pressure," Ricigliano said. "It's part of the system that's been part of the country since the dawn of the revolution."
Trump supporters stand on the U.S. Capitol Police armored vehicle as others take over the steps of the Capitol. (photo: Bill Clark/Congressional Quarterly/ZUMA)
Capitol Police Had Intelligence About Invasion Weeks Before Riot, Senate Probe Finds
Karoun Demirjian, The Washington Post
Demirjian writes: "The U.S. Capitol Police had specific intelligence that supporters of President Donald Trump planned to mount an armed invasion of the Capitol at least two weeks before the Jan. 6 riot."
he U.S. Capitol Police had specific intelligence that supporters of President Donald Trump planned to mount an armed invasion of the Capitol at least two weeks before the Jan. 6 riot, according to new findings in a bipartisan Senate investigation, but a series of omissions and miscommunications kept that information from reaching front-line officers targeted by the violence.
A joint report, from the Senate Rules and Administration and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees, outlines the most detailed public timeline to date of the communications and intelligence failures that led the Capitol Police and partner agencies to prepare for the “Stop the Steal” protest as though it were a routine Trump rally, instead of the organized assault that was planned in the open online.
Released Tuesday, the report shows how an intelligence arm of the Capitol Police disseminated security assessments labeling the threat of violence “remote” to “improbable,” even as authorities collected evidence showing that pro-Trump activists intended to bring weapons to the demonstration and “storm the Capitol.”
“There were significant, widespread and unacceptable breakdowns in the intelligence gathering. . . . The failure to adequately assess the threat of violence on that day contributed significantly to the breach of the Capitol,” Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), chairman of the homeland security panel, told reporters. “The attack was, quite frankly, planned in plain sight.”
The bipartisan report is the latest to examine the security failures that contributed to the mayhem as Congress tallied electoral college results certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. Its release comes just days after the Senate rejected legislation to create an independent investigative commission that passed the House with strong bipartisan support, and as lawmakers continue to wrestle with how to pay for security improvements to the Capitol campus.
The report’s recommendations, which call for better planning, training and intelligence gathering, largely mirror those of other investigators who have examined the topic, and its contents steer clear of offering any assessment or conclusion about Trump’s responsibility for the riot.
Still, the report provides a vivid picture of how poor communication and unheeded warnings left officers underequipped to face violent threats about which they had not been made aware, leaving the Capitol vulnerable to an attack that otherwise might have been preventable.
According to the report, Capitol Police intelligence officers knew as early as Dec. 21 that protesters planned to “bring guns” and other weapons to the Jan. 6 demonstration and turn them on any law enforcement officers who blocked their entry into the Capitol. They knew that would-be rioters were sharing maps of the Capitol campus online and discussing the building’s best entry points — and how to seal them off to trap lawmakers inside. But that information was shared only with command officers.
A separate security assessment dated Dec. 23 made no mention of those findings. Neither did a follow-up Dec. 30.
The only hints about what the Capitol Police’s Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division knew appeared at the end of a 15-page report released on Jan. 3, which stated that “there is the possibility that the protesters may be inclined to become violent,” and that their desperation “may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike.” But even that warning was fleeting: In the days that followed, in the Capitol Police’s daily intelligence assessments, such notes about violence were nowhere to be found.
In a statement Tuesday responding to the committees’ findings, the Capitol Police acknowledged an imperative to improve how it collects and shares intelligence internally and with its partners, saying “significant changes” have been implemented since the riot. But the agency insisted that, “At no point prior to the 6th did it receive actionable intelligence about a large-scale attack.”
“Before January 6, the Capitol Police leadership knew Congress and the Capitol grounds were to be the focus of a large demonstration attracting various groups, including some encouraging violence,” the statement says. “Based on this information, the Department enhanced its security posture and tried to get support from the National Guard. What the intelligence didn’t reveal, as Acting Chief [Yogananda] Pittman has noted, was the large-scale demonstration would become a large-scale attack on the Capitol Building as there was no specific, credible intelligence about such an attack. The USCP consumes intelligence from every federal agency. At no point prior to the 6th did it receive actionable intelligence about a large-scale attack.
“ … The known intelligence simply didn’t support that conclusion.”
The Senate committees’ report found fault with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI for failing to provide specific warnings about the threats posed to the Capitol. According to the report’s findings, the FBI alerted the Capitol Police of potential “war” only the night before Trump’s rally, attaching the warning to a casually worded email that was shared with other law enforcement agencies — and the warning was picked up by a Capitol Police intelligence unit separate from the one that had been preparing the threat assessments.
The joint Senate investigation recommended improving the Capitol Police’s intelligence-gathering capabilities by, among other steps, housing all such specialists in one centralized unit.
But the report suggests that even with better intelligence, other governance and organizational deficiencies within the Capitol Police may have doomed its ability to respond to the riot. According to the findings, “fewer than ten” uniformed officers had actually been trained in how to use the “full suite of less-than-lethal munitions” that Capitol Police rely on for mob control, and much of the equipment in the force’s possession was either defective or inaccessible during the attack.
Senate investigators also found that leaders failed to follow arguably murky procedures for calling in reinforcements. The Capitol Police chief never filed a formal request to call in the National Guard, they determined, despite repeatedly asking his superiors to procure such backup — and the members of the Capitol Police Board still disagree about whether approving such a request needed to be a unanimous decision.
Giving the Capitol Police chief the power to call up the National Guard in emergencies is among the report’s 20 bipartisan recommendations for improving the Capitol’s security posture in the future — and the subject of forthcoming legislation from Rules and Administration Committee leaders, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The recommendations also include pointed suggestions for federal agencies, such as exhorting the Defense Department and the D.C. National Guard to devise a standing plan for protecting the Capitol and mounting a faster response to terrorist threats.
The report faults slow mobilization and poor interdepartmental communication — not any sort of stand-down order from the White House, as some Trump critics had speculated — for the fact that it took the National Guard more than three hours to respond to pleas for help from the Capitol during the attack. According to its findings, it was Army staff — not Trump — expressing early reservations about a military intervention, while the Army secretary claimed he was never informed that the D.C. National Guard had a quick reaction force “ready to go” to the Capitol, just awaiting his approval.
The most tangible impact of the report, which was based on public testimony, closed-door interviews from senior military personnel and additional communication with other federal officials, may come in the next several weeks, as lawmakers tackle what changes they can effect on campus.
Last month, the House narrowly passed a $1.9 billion supplemental appropriations package to pay for security improvements to the Capitol and settle accounts with the various agencies that responded to the riot. The intensely partisan reception for the measure all but guarantees that it will be narrowed as it moves through the Senate, where such legislation must procure 60 votes to avoid a procedural filibuster.
The senators who co-authored the report told reporters that they hope it provides a guide for what must be done — and that it can get the necessary bipartisan support to pass.
“It should be informing the supplemental appropriation,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), the top Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
A group tied to the 'Boogaloo' movement carries firearms. (photo: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images)
California Militia Plotted 'War' Against Police
Associated Press
Excerpt: "An Air Force sergeant accused of killing two law enforcement officers in California last year was part of a rightwing militia known as the Grizzly Scouts that held firearms trainings, scouted protests, and laid out terms of 'war' against police, a newspaper reported Monday."
The Santa Cruz Sentinel cited court documents that show the suspected gunman, Steven Carrillo, was not a lone actor but a member of an anti-government group that was preparing for more deadly attacks on law enforcement.
The court filings reveal the most extensive details yet on the investigation into the May 29, 2020 fatal shooting of Federal Protective Service Officer Dave Patrick Underwood in Oakland and the June 6, 2020 killing of Santa Cruz Sheriff Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller in an ambush in the community of Ben Lomond. Carrillo has pleaded not guilty to both killings.
Most members of the Grizzly Scouts are still at large, federal prosecutors said. The group identifies with a loosely-affiliated, nationwide militia movement that uses the name “Boogaloo” and favors Hawaiian shirts and violent rhetoric, but the Scouts’ activities appear to be more carefully plotted, the newspaper reported.
The court filings were submitted in the case against four other alleged Grizzly Scouts members, including the group’s leader, who are accused of destroying evidence relevant to the Underwood and Gutzwiller murder investigations.
They were written as part of a failed attempt to keep all four defendants in jail pending trial. A federal magistrate ultimately decided three of them were not a danger to the community and did not pose flight risks.
In April, a federal grand jury indicted Jessie Alexander Rush, 29, of Turlock; Robert Jesus Blancas, 33, of Castro Valley; Simon Sage Ybarra, 23, of Los Gatos; and Kenny Matthew Miksch, 21, of San Lorenzo, on charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Blancas, the only defendant who remains in jail, also faces a child enticement charge related to alleged sexual conversations with a teen girl that were discovered during the investigation.
The Associated Press was unable Monday to locate lawyers who could speak on their behalf.
The filings not only confirm Carrillo as one of the militia’s roughly 25 members, but detail the group’s alleged activities in mid-2020: trainings near Rush’s home in Turlock, the creation of a “Quick Reaction Force” or QRF, and plans to send a member to scout out a protest in Sacramento.
The filings allege that, in a document entitled “Operations Order,” the militia described law enforcement officers as “enemy forces” and spoke of the possibility of taking some prisoner, writing that, “POWs will be searched for intel and gear, interrogated, stripped naked, blindfolded, driven away and released into the wilderness blindfolded with hands bound.”
Rush previously served in the U.S. military, making him the second known member of the militia, along with Carrillo, with military experience.
The group also allegedly discussed ways to stir up violence between Antifa groups and police. Blancas allegedly wrote that he was “totally down” to disguise himself as an Antifa member and spark a violent conflict.
“It’s the tactically sound option,” Blancas told other militia members, according to prosecutors.
A joint session of the House and Senate. (photo: Jim Lo Scalzo/AP)
Paid Leave Is Incredibly Popular - Even With Republicans
Gregory Svirnovskiy, Vox
Svirnovskiy writes: "Federal paid leave is overwhelmingly popular - so popular, according to a new poll, that people are willing to pay to keep it."
Democrats, Republicans, and independents overwhelmingly support federal paid leave policies.
ederal paid leave is overwhelmingly popular — so popular, according to a new poll, that people are willing to pay to keep it.
That poll, commissioned by Paid Leave for All Action, an advocacy group that promotes paid leave policies, surveyed 1,070 likely voters from seven battleground states (Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). It found that 84 percent of likely voters, including 74 percent of Republicans, support paid leave programs; 69 percent of those polled, including 55 percent of surveyed Republicans, would support a federal leave standard even if they’d have to pay more in taxes to sustain it.
The survey, which was taken from May 14 to 20, had results that are markedly similar to other recent polls on the issue.
For example, a YouGov poll from early April found 82 percent of Americans believe employees should be able to take paid maternity leave, and that 68 percent thought paid maternity and paternity leave ought to be offered.
The United States is the only wealthy nation in the world without a federal paid leave standard, and access to the benefit is rare. Currently, about 21 percent of US workers have access to paid family leave, and less than half (about 40 percent) have emergency medical leave.
The survey comes at a confluence of two critical moments for paid leave advocates and for working families: as the coronavirus pandemic has shed a light on the lack of paid family and medical leave, and as President Joe Biden’s American Families Plan proposes up to 12 weeks of paid leave for qualifying workers.
“The pandemic completely changed the game,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, director of the advocacy group Paid Leave for All. “What had been a hole in our infrastructure, what had been a crisis in the making for years and generations, suddenly now it is out on this really magnified scale. People realize how critical this is to our resilience, to our economic growth, to weathering crises, whether global pandemics or cancer diagnoses.”
Early studies have suggested tragic costs to current paid leave policies. An April report by Human Impact Partners found that the presence of an “adequate paid sick time policy” at Walmart could have prevented at least 7,618 Covid-19 cases and 133 Covid-19 deaths during the pandemic. Guaranteeing paid leave at the federal level would ideally allow for better outcomes in the future, while allowing families to care for Covid-19 long-haulers and other sick loved ones without worrying about losing their jobs in the short term.
Paid leave could be a factor in 2022 congressional races
The seven battleground states tabbed in the survey could in all likelihood decide which party controls the Senate, and perhaps the House of Representatives, in the 2022 midterm elections.
As Vox’s Li Zhou explained, “Historically, the implementation of paid leave programs has faced Republican opposition due to concerns about the additional taxes needed to pay for them and the potential burden they could pose to businesses.” Republican opposition to paid leave remains among elected officials, but the survey’s results suggest likely voters feel differently.
And that could provide Democrats with an opportunity — particularly when it comes to swaying independent voters.
To win a majority of the seven battleground seats up for grabs in 2022, Democrats and Republicans alike will need to appeal to the 20 percent of undecided voters across the states. The poll found that undecided likely voters in the states surveyed lean slightly toward the Republican Party but become willing to support a generic Democrat candidate who supports paid leave by 46 percentage points.
The poll found that voters would currently like to reelect Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Raphael Warnock (GA), and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) by about 5 points each. But their leads rise by an average of 17 points when linking their work with paid leave efforts.
Voters’ support for Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (FL), Richard Burr (NC), Pat Toomey (PA), and Ron Johnson (WI), by contrast, goes down an average of 5 points when each senator’s opposition to federal paid leave is highlighted.
Obviously, paid leave won’t be the only issue on voters’ minds in 2022; economic considerations, cultural issues, public safety, and various other concerns will factor into their votes as well. But as Huckelbridge points out, paid leave is clearly a salient issue — and it’s one voters are primed to respond to coming out of the pandemic.
“For whatever party you are,” Huckelbridge said, “if you want to keep your seat, if you want to boost your popularity, paid leave is a no-brainer.”
Israeli police detain a demonstrator in East Jerusalem during protests over Israel's threatened eviction of dozens of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. (photo: Mahmoud Illean/AP)
Sheikh Jarrah Residents Face Legal Defeat; Israel Arrests Thousands of Palestinians to Quell Dissent
Democracy Now!
Excerpt: "On Saturday, Israeli police arrested Al Jazeera reporter Givara Budeiri as she covered a protest in Sheikh Jarrah. During the arrest, officers broke her hand and destroyed the equipment of her camera operator."
srael is cracking down on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and inside Israel amid the ongoing ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. Israeli police have arrested nearly 2,000 Palestinians over the past month in an attempt to quell protests and uprisings against the occupation, according to the newspaper Haaretz. “Israel is criminalizing our right to say we’re Palestinian, our right to say we want to live in our homes in dignity, our right to be free,” says Mariam Barghouti, a Palestinian writer and researcher.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman.
While the ceasefire continues to hold between Israel and Gaza, Israel is cracking down on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, occupied East Jerusalem and inside Israel. The newspaper Haaretz reports Israeli police have arrested nearly 2,000 Palestinians over the past month in an attempt to quell protests and uprisings against the occupation.
On Saturday, Israeli police arrested Al Jazeera reporter Givara Budeiri as she covered a protest in Sheikh Jarrah. During the arrest, officers broke her hand and destroyed the equipment of her camera operator. She was also reportedly beaten while being taken to an Israeli police interrogation center.
On Sunday, police in East Jerusalem detained both Muna and Mohammed El-Kurd. The 23-year-old twins have been helping to lead efforts to fight the eviction of Palestinians living in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem where their families live. Jewish settlers already live in part of their home. Mohammed spoke out after he and his sister were released Sunday night.
MOHAMMED EL-KURD: What happened today was a clear tactic of intimidation. The Israeli occupation clearly doesn’t want anybody to be speaking about the abuses it’s doing against the Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan. But we are not afraid. We are unintimidated. We are going to continue to speak out against all of these injustices. And we’re going to continue to protect our homes.
AMY GOODMAN: Just as we went to air on Democracy Now!, residents of Sheikh Jarrah were dealt a legal setback, making it more likely the Palestinians will be evicted.
We go now to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where we’re joined by Mariam Barghouti, Palestinian writer and researcher.
Mariam, welcome back to Democracy Now! Explain what the Israeli attorney general just ruled.
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: Hi. Thank you for having me again, Amy.
So, right now the attorney general of Israel basically said that they will not be involved with the case of Sheikh Jarrah and the decision is left to the Israeli Supreme Court. The excuse is that the case of the families is “too weak” to actually solicit successful resolution for the families, the Palestinian families of Sheikh Jarrah. But at the same time, this is an entire legal system that is built on ensuring the erasure of Palestinians, so of course the case is going to be too weak. And I think it would have been false to also assume that the attorney general of Israel would help in bringing out any other result for Palestinians.
AMY GOODMAN: So, right now what does this mean for people like, well, the Palestinian twins, Muna and Mohammed? They were arrested yesterday, first Muna, and then Mohammed turned himself in. What were they interrogated about? They have been released since.
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: They have been released since then. And in terms of the interrogation, well, the charges that they are — that are being put in front for the twins, who are 23 years old, is participating in activities which impact the security of the state of Israel and in participating in riot acts with a nationalistic motive. And let’s emphasize on this, this nationalistic motive is basically any Palestinian saying, “We’re Palestinian,” especially for those who hold Israeli citizenship or a Jerusalem ID.
Israel’s interrogation tactics are for intimidation. They are for coercion. And often they have Palestinians sign false confessions in Hebrew, knowing very well that the person in front of them, the Palestinian, doesn’t speak Hebrew. So, it’s not just Mohammed and Muna El-Kurd. This is the same tactic that’s being used against all Palestinians. Two others were also arrested with them, Iyad Abu Sneineh and Zuhair Rajaby, who are from Silwan. And it shows you how Israel is targeting all Palestinian neighborhoods that are confronting their forced expulsion.
AMY GOODMAN: Some people might be very surprised to hear all of this. They might be saying, “Wait a second. I thought there was a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, that the violence is over.” That’s how it’s described in the mainstream media. So, if you can describe what continues to happen since? You have Mohammed reporting on Saturday that Jewish settlers were throwing stones at his house, that the Israeli police were standing by. If you can talk about the settler-police relationship and also what happened to the Al Jazeera reporter?
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: Right. So, in terms of Givara Budeiri, she was violently attacked by Israeli police in Jerusalem as she was trying to cover the developments happening in Sheikh Jarrah, knowing very well that Israel is trying to give a blackout on Palestinians.
And in terms of the ceasefire, this is a ceasefire where Israel agrees not to bomb Gaza, but the besiegement of Gaza continues. The healing and rebuilding and recovery process is inapplicable right now, until the siege is lifted and removed.
In terms of attacking Palestinians in the West Bank, in Jerusalem, in other Palestinian cities, such as Haifa and Safad and Akka, it continues. And the Israeli police basically provides protection for settlers but also joins them in the violence. Three weeks ago, you had Israeli police dressed in civilian clothing so they can join the settler mobs chasing Palestinians, screaming “Death to Arabs!” So, it’s continued.
And Givara Budeiri, the Al Jazeera correspondent, who was violently attacked and taken into interrogation despite being press — let’s remember Israel bombed Al Jazeera offices, Associated Press offices in Gaza on live television. And just yesterday, they threw a stun grenade on another correspondent with Al Jazeera, Najwan Samri, which injured her in the leg.
And these violations are just systemic. And we often assume that just because you’re in the police, just because you’re an Israeli lawyer, you’re not participating in the ethnic cleansing. But they are colluding together.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Givara herself, the Al Jazeera journalist Givara Budeiri, describing her arrest and the breaking of her hand on Al Jazeera.
GIVARA BUDEIRI: They broke my hand. I spent all the night in the hospital. My back hurt me a lot. And here, my hand, from the cuffs, also they hurt so much, because the soldiers in the car were tightening it all the time. I have a headache. And my leg — I can’t walk very well.
AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can also talk about, overall, the cracking down on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank, in occupied East Jerusalem, inside Israel, thousands of arrests in the last month?
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: That’s true, there have been thousands of arrests. Just this morning, 17 Palestinians were taken into arrest overnight in raids on their homes, where families were beaten, children were terrorized. I know a couple of incidents with friends who are speaking how their children are just completely horrified of the violence of Israeli forces.
And this is all coming as part of Israel trying to “settle the score,” as the police said, for everyone that spoke up against their ethnic cleansing. Israel is criminalizing our right to say we’re Palestinian, our right to say we want to live in our homes in dignity, our right to be free. And it is doing it by using legal violence. It is doing it by using economic violence. A lot of the detainment of Palestinians is also so they can fine them or let them pay bail. So, they’re trying to sustain these horrifying measures by letting Palestinians or forcing Palestinians to kind of cover the expenses of it.
AMY GOODMAN: So, as we speak — and we just have a minute and a half to go — I wanted to ask you about the forming of this new government, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming, without evidence, sounding exactly like Trump, that the election was rigged, Trump saying it right about the same time in his first speech that he gave in North Carolina. Netanyahu was saying that the election was marred by the biggest election fraud in the history of any democracy, his remarks drawing comparisons, of course, to Trump. But I wanted to ask you about the new government, the deal that would see far-right politician Naftali Bennett serve as prime minister for two years, followed by the opposition leader Yair Lapid for two years after that. Bennett previously led the Israeli settler movement in the occupied West Bank, calling for annexation of Palestinian lands, opposes a Palestinian state, has compared Palestinian citizens of Israel to a fifth column.
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: Right. Well, I think the new — quote-unquote, “new” government isn’t really new. It is just a lot more blunt in its racist measures. It’s a lot more blunt in its colonial measures. Let’s not forget that Netanyahu used to constantly say that they are the ones that dictate the rules, and Palestinians will remain Palestinian subjects.
I think we will see a lot more violence right now. It will be in the form of detainment, mass detainment. It will be in the form of criminalizing the Palestinian voices. It will be in the form of the continued impunity of settlers and police that shoot down Palestinians and aren’t held accountable.
And also, in terms of the settler movement, let’s not forget that many of these settler organizations — and they are terrorist organizations — are based out of the U.S. So we need to also look at the role of that in terms of continuing the cycle of violence we’re experiencing here.
AMY GOODMAN: And also, if you could talk about, for the first time, the United Arab List joining this coalition that would rule?
MARIAM BARGHOUTI: Right. So, at this point, what we need to look at is the demands of Palestinians for justice and freedom. Anyone that doesn’t represent that, we need to look at as aiding and abetting Israeli apartheid and persecution of Palestinians. So, sometimes we might get misguided in the labels, but, in the end, let’s look at the reality on the ground, on the actions on the ground, and holding accountability for Palestinians against the criminals that are perpetuating this.
AMY GOODMAN: Mariam Barghouti, I want to thank you so much for joining us from Ramallah, Palestinian writer and researcher. I’m Amy Goodman. Stay safe.
A protest against the Line 3 pipeline near Palisade, Minnesota, in January. (photo: Kerem Yucel/AFP/Getty Images)
Sexual Violence Along Pipeline Route Follows Indigenous Women's Warnings
Hilary Beaumont, Guardian UK
Beaumont writes: "Before Minnesota approved the pipeline, violence prevention advocates warned state officials of the proven link between employees working in extractive industries and increased sexual violence."
The $2,9bn Line 3 pipeline has brought thousands of workers to Minnesota – and one crisis center has received more than 40 reports of harassment and abuse
n 15 May, a woman met a pipeline worker at a bar in Minnesota and agreed to go to his house, but when they arrived, there were four other people there and she felt uncomfortable.
“She wanted to leave, she tried to leave,” said Amy Johnson, executive director of the Violence Intervention Project (VIP) in Thief River Falls, who spoke to the woman on the phone. “It was very scary with those other men there. She said he had her in the bedroom and she couldn’t leave.” The woman finally got out of the house.
The Canadian company Enbridge is building the Line 3 oil pipeline through Minnesota, a $2.9bn project that replaces a corroded, leaking pipeline and increases its capacity from 390,000 to 760,000 barrels a day. The project has brought an influx of thousands of workers who are staying in hotels, campgrounds and rental housing along the pipeline route, often in small towns like Thief River Falls, and on or near Native reservations.
Before Minnesota approved the pipeline, violence prevention advocates warned state officials of the proven link between employees working in extractive industries and increased sexual violence. Now their warnings have come true: two Line 3 contract workers were charged in a sex-trafficking sting, and crisis centers told the Guardian they are responding to reports of harassment and assault by Line 3 workers. Johnson said VIP, a crisis center for survivors of violence, has received more than 40 reports about Line 3 workers harassing and assaulting women and girls who live in north-western Minnesota.
An Enbridge spokesperson, Michael Barnes, said it has “zero tolerance for illegal behavior by anyone associated with our company or its projects”, and said anyone caught or arrested would be fired. Barnes said the two workers facing trafficking charges were fired by the contractor. He also said before construction began, the company worked to raise awareness of human trafficking by partnering with contractors, tribes, local officials and Truckers Against Trafficking, which combats human trafficking.
After a lull in construction due to muddy spring conditions, workers are now returning to Minnesota. Enbridge’s CEO, Al Monaco, said Line 3 was on schedule to be completed by the end of the year, but Indigenous groups and environmentalists are attempting to stop the project through peaceful protest, divestment campaigns and court action.
Advocates warned of violence
In 2018, the state’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) held hearings to decide whether to approve Line 3 permits. Sheila Lamb, an Ojibwe-Cherokee city councillor for Cloquet and member of the state’s Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Task Force, testified that extractive industries were linked to human trafficking and disproportionate violence against Indigenous women.
“There is no way that Enbridge or the unions can monitor these workers 24/7 and hold their hands,” she said.
Before the PUC approved the pipeline, it acknowledged in its environmental impact statement that “the addition of a temporary, cash-rich workforce increases the likelihood that sex trafficking or sexual abuse will occur. Additionally, rural areas often do not have the resources necessary to detect and prevent these activities.” The PUC approved permits on the condition that the company create a public safety escrow fund so crisis centers could apply for funding to respond to anticipated violence.
Thousands of workers arrived in Minnesota in late November 2020. Gabrielle Congrave, north-west regional navigator for Support Within Reach, which helps survivors of sexual assault, said women in the small town of Gonvick, Clearwater county, told her that a surge of pipeline workers had arrived in town, and the workers were sexually harassing and following them in vehicles. Congrave said they were “creating an aura of intimidation toward women.”
Clearbrook-Gonvick police and the Clearwater county sheriff, Darin Halverson, said police had not received any reports of harassment or stalking this year.
Johnson said VIP had heard reports ranging in severity from pipeline workers “grabbing buttocks and breasts”, harassing women who work at hotel bars, and following women, to more violent incidents. VIP serves five north-western Minnesota counties. Red Lake and Kittson county sheriffs said they had not had any reports of violence related to Line 3; the other counties did not reply to requests for comment.
In February, VIP applied for reimbursement of funds from the Enbridge account after responding to three assaults by Line 3 workers, according to records Johnson shared with the Guardian. In one case, Johnson said a pipeline worker had assaulted his partner who had traveled with him to Minnesota from another state. In the other two incidents, Line 3 workers sexually assaulted women at hotels, Johnson said.
The reimbursement was for the cost of transportation and hotel rooms for the women to get them to safety. However, the reimbursement request also says: “We are having challenges finding safe hotel rooms for clients because almost all of our hotels are filled to capacity with pipeliners.”
Johnson said VIP had responded to several other domestic assault and sexual assault incidents by pipeline workers. She shared a safe hotel receipt for one such domestic assault that occurred on 14 April. In another case, she said the center helped a woman who ended up in hospital after she was sexually assaulted at a hotel party attended by Line 3 workers.
VIP records also state that young daughters of VIP staff had received “sexually explicit drop texts” when they were at a gas station close to the Enbridge campground in Thief River Falls. Johnson said the girls were minors, and the texts asked if they liked older men, and invited them to party at a camper van.
In February, police set up a sting operation targeting buyers engaging in sex trafficking. They charged seven people after suspects responded to ads and spoke to an undercover officer posing as a 16-year-old girl, according to the Duluth News Tribune. Two of those charged were Line 3 workers from Missouri and Texas employed by the Enbridge subcontractor Precision Pipeline.
Susan Barney, an Ojibwe woman from Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, works for Precision Pipeline. She said the workforce was mostly male. She said most of her co-workers treated her “like family”, but one co-worker from Florida repeatedly made “vulgar, inappropriate remarks” to her.
Jason Goward, who is also from Fond Du Lac and used to work with Barney, confirmed her story. “She said, ‘he’s really creepy, but if I stand next to you, he doesn’t do it as much,’” Goward said.
Barney reported the harassment to her managers and they told her he was previously reported “for making rude remarks toward women”. She said management dealt with the issue swiftly and the harassment ended.
Other genders also report experiencing violence. A man, who did not want to be named, said he was assaulted by a Line 3 worker in a Bemidji bar in February. He said they were both intoxicated and engaged in a heated conversation that escalated when the pipeline worker hit him. “He beat me, he attacked me,” he said. “He kept hitting me over and over again, even though I wasn’t doing anything to hit him back.” He said his head and ribs hurt for weeks and he felt emotionally distressed.
“I’ve worked in that industry before, I’m not trying to demonize anyone for working and providing for their family, but unsolicited violence is not good,” he said.
Preparing for more reports
Minnesota organizations 180 Degrees, the Link, Support Within Reach and VIP all received funding from the Enbridge account to prepare for violence and trafficking related to Line 3, according to records obtained by the Guardian.
Some expressed discomfort about requesting reimbursement. “It feels a lot like they’re pre-paying for trafficking our citizens,” said Lauren Rimestad, communications director at the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Johnson felt torn about requesting reimbursement, but said VIP ultimately decided, “It would be like leaving money on the table.”
Enbridge spokesperson Barnes said exploitation and human trafficking have a long history in Minnesota communities. Several anti-trafficking organizations echoed that statement, but said the influx of workers adds to the problem.
“There’s certainly connections between how we treat the land and how we treat the women,” said Nicole Matthews, executive director of the Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition.
She said the dynamic connects to the epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women; more than 5,700 Native women have disappeared in the US and thousands more have been murdered or vanished in Canada. Matthews said the crisis is exacerbated by the fact that tribes do not have jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native offenders on tribal land.
The Link and 180 Degrees said they had not responded to trafficking associated with Line 3, but they expect to receive calls in the future. “We are getting prepared for that,” said Beth Holger, chief of the Link. Richard Coffey, program director of 180 Degrees, explained that buyers of sex trafficking are most often affluent white men who are away from home, and traffickers target those buyers, whether it’s the Super Bowl or pipeline work.
Johnson is concerned that students are out of school and working hospitality jobs, including at hotels frequented by pipeline workers. “We will constantly be on that squeaky hamster wheel of hearing about it after the fact,” she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.