August 10, 2016
News and Views
TRUMP VS CLINTON
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-2nd-amendment-people-could-000000517.html
Donald Trump suggests ‘2nd Amendment people’ could stop President Hillary Clinton
Dylan Stableford
August 9, 2016
Video -- Trump speech
Video – Giuliani speech
Donald Trump faced a swift backlash on Tuesday after he suggested that gun enthusiasts would be able to stop Hillary Clinton from taking away their Second Amendment rights.
“Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the Second Amendment,” the Republican nominee said at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., on Tuesday afternoon. “And if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do.”
Trump added: “But the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know.”
Gwen Rocco, a member of the Clinton campaign’s rapid response team, quickly condemned Trump’s comments.
“This is simple,” Clinton campaign spokesman Robby Mook said in a statement. “What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”
The Trump campaign dismissed the controversy.
“It’s called the power of unification,” Jason Miller, Trump senior communications adviser, said in a statement. “Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
Rudy Giuliani says Clinton 'spin' behind violence allegations against Donald Trump
At a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Trump supporter and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani blames Clinton "spin" for allegations of violence against Donald Trump for his earlier comments about Hillary Clinton and "Second Amendment people."
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, introducing Trump at a later event in Fayetteville, N.C., said “to buy that you’d have to be corrupt,” brushing aside any particular insinuation that Trump was saying violence against Clinton or Supreme Court justices would be acceptable.
“It proves that most of the press is in the tank for Hillary Clinton,” Giuliani said.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden didn’t buy that explanation.
“You’re not only responsible for what you say; you’re responsible for what others hear,” Hayden said on CNN, adding that if someone other than Trump had said the same thing at the rally, “they’d be in a police wagon being questioned by Secret Service.”
Last month, Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire state representative and Trump surrogate, told a radio host that Clinton “should be put in the firing line and shot for treason.”
In response, the U.S. Secret Service said it was aware of Baldasaro’s comments and would ” conduct the appropriate investigation.”
For it’s part, the bureau seemed to acknowledged Trump’s Tuesday comments.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaign-defends-2nd-amendment-comment-n626601?cid=eml_nnn_20160809
Trump 'Second Amendment' Quip Seen as Veiled Threat Against Clinton
by ANDREW RAFFERTY
POLITICS AUG 9 2016, 6:20 PM ET
Video -- Trump Slammed Over Second Amendment Comments About Clinton 3:01
Video -- Trump Slammed Over Second Amendment Comments About Clinton 3:01
Play -- Did Trump Issue Threat Against Clinton With This 'Second Amendment' Jab? 0:43
Donald Trump's comments Tuesday suggesting that "2nd Amendment people" could stop Hillary Clinton from making judicial nominations sparked outrage from opponents — but the campaign defended the remarks by arguing that Trump was referring to the group's considerable political power.
"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump said during a rally in North Carolina on Tuesday.
"By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know."
Follow
NBC Nightly News ✔ @NBCNightlyNews
Trump: If Clinton picks judges, "nothing you can do, folks -- although the 2nd Amendment people, maybe there is."
3:23 PM - 9 Aug 2016
The Clinton campaign and other Trump opponents rejected Trump campaign's explanation and blamed the GOP nominee for suggesting violence as a possible means of preventing Clinton from appointing judges if she is elected president.
"This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement.
And Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT, responded on Twitter: "Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis."
Follow
Chris Murphy ✔ @ChrisMurphyCT
Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis.
4:14 PM - 9 Aug 2016
6,456 6,456 Retweets 7,382 7,382 likes
And Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., took to social media to say:
Follow
Elizabeth Warren ✔ @elizabethforma
.@realDonaldTrump makes death threats because he's a pathetic coward who can’t handle the fact that he’s losing to a girl.
5:51 PM - 9 Aug 2016
28,701 28,701 Retweets 46,686 46,686 likes
She added, "Your reckless comments sound like a two-bit dictator."
One of the strongest voices condemning Trump was that of Gabby Giffords, who as a congresswoman from Arizona was shot in the head during a public event in January 2011.
"Donald Trump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence," Giffords said in a joint statement with her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly. "What political leaders say matters to their followers."
But Trump's campaign denied that he was suggesting violence, instead saying the real estate mogul was referencing the power gun rights advocates have at the voting booth.
"It's called the power of unification — 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power," Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement. "And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump."
And Trump running mate, Mike Pence, told reporters Tuesday afternoon that Trump "is clearly saying is that people who cherish that right, who believe that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens makes our communities more safe, not less safe, should be involved in the political process and let their voice be heard."
Asked whether Trump was suggesting violence, Pence said, "of course not, no. Donald Trump is urging people around this country to act in a manner consistent with their convictions in the course of this election, and people who cherish the Second Amendment have a very clear choice in this election."
NRA ✔ @NRA
.@RealDonaldTrump is right. If @HillaryClinton gets to pick her anti-#2A #SCOTUS judges, there’s nothing we can do. #NeverHillary
4:31 PM - 9 Aug 2016
Clinton obviously has Secret Service protection, and Cathy Milhoan, director of communication for the agency said they were "aware of the comments" but had no further statement.
It's not the first time suggestions of violence have become part of the campaign. Last month, the Secret Service said it was investigating New Hampshire State Sen. Al Baldasaro, who serves as an adviser for Trump's campaign on veteran's issues, after he called for Clinton to be executed for "treason" related to her use of a private email server.
A Trump spokesperson said the candidate did not agree with those statements. Still, Baldasaro received a shout-out from the candidate at a campaign event last weekend.
Sopan Deb ✔ @SopanDeb
Trump shouts out Al Baldasero, who once called for HRC to be shot & pushed Khizr Khan being an agent for the Muslim Brotherhood.
9:06 PM - 6 Aug 2016
AN ILL FATED PROGRESSIVE
https://mg.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=d2eijjmr5l3m1#1597168439
Alan Grayson
Email 8/9/16
Dear Lucy,
One by one, the Party Establishment has defeated progressive Senate candidates this year, elevating ConservaDems over them.
In Ohio, the Establishment helped Ted Strickland defeat P.G. Sittenfeld. The NRA gives Strickland an “A” rating.
In Illinois, the Establishment helped Tammy Duckworth defeat the President of the Chicago Urban League, Andrea Zopp.
In Maryland, the Establishment helped Chris Van Hollen defeat Rep. Donna Edwards. If she had been elected, Edwards would have been only the second African-American woman to serve in the U.S. Senate.
In Pennsylvania, the Establishment spent $3 million in the primary to push Katie McGinty across the finish line, against John Fetterman and Joe Sestak.
In Nevada, the Establishment helped Catherine Cortez Masto defeat a Black Lives Matter activist.
And here in Florida, the Party Establishment already has sunk a million dollars into a TV ad campaign to try to prevent me from winning the nomination.
What are we going to do about it?? It’s time to fight back. Please contribute $23 to show that the nomination doesn’t belong to the party bosses, it belongs to us …[I DIDN’T.]
Weirdly, it’s the GOP that seems to have adopted the salutary principle of “may the best candidate win.” But on our side, the Party Politburo employs every trick in the book to dictate the outcome of our primaries. And they are using their power to purge the party of progressive champions.
We can’t let that happen. We can’t allow the Democratic Party to become the Un-Democratic Party.
This is our last chance. Ruthless party bosses have tripped up, sandbagged or decapitated virtually every other progressive Senate candidate in the entire country. If you want to see a progressive champion elected to the U.S. Senate, it’s now or never.
With just three weeks to go before our Democratic Primary, I need your help. I need you to show up, stand up and step up. If progressive principles matter to you, then PLEASE donate to our campaign today
Just remember, the Democratic Party belongs to us, not them.
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/alan-grayson-wife-florida-226090
over two decades
The Democratic congressman and Florida Senate candidate strongly denies the accusations.
By John Bresnahan, Marc Caputo and Jake Sherman
07/26/16 05:29 AM EDT
Photograph -- Documents obtained by POLITICO detail Rep. Alan Grayson's ex-wife repeatedly going to police alleging domestic abuse. Rep. Grayson denies ever hitting her. | AP Photo
Photograph -- GettyImages-94470627.jpg, Liberal groups withdraw endorsements from Grayson following abuse claims, By POLITICO STAFF
Video -- Alan Grayson's fiery exchange with POLITICO reporter, Video by Michael Schwab, 07/26/16 01:20 PM EDT
Related: Rep. Alan Grayson is pictured. | AP, Grayson avoids full Ethics Committee probe but case goes on, By JOHN BRESNAHAN
See related videos and documents below.
Rep. Alan Grayson's ex-wife repeatedly went to police with accusations of domestic abuse over a two-decade period, according to documents she has provided to POLITICO, revelations that come as the Florida congressman enters the final weeks of his Democratic primary campaign for Senate.
Lolita Grayson called police on her husband at least two times in Virginia and two more times in Florida, sought medical attention on at least two occasions and said that, in one instance, he had threatened to kill her, according to a police report.
The congressman, who asserted Lolita Grayson battered him in 2014, vehemently denies he engaged in any abuse during their 25-year marriage, which ended last year in a bitter annulment that she is now appealing.
The first reported incident described by the documents was in 1994; the final one was in 2014. Lolita Grayson also called Orange County sheriff’s deputies in 2005 to lodge another abuse complaint, but prosecutors filed no charges in that incident or any of the others. Only the 2014 incident has been previously reported.
“I want the people to know my story so they know what kind of man Alan Grayson really is,” Lolita Grayson, 56, said in an email to POLITICO, her first public comments on the issue. She provided police and medical records related to 1994 and 1999 incidents in Fairfax County in Virginia, and sheriff’s reports concerning 2005 and 2014 incidents in Orange County, Florida.
“I requested the medical records and police records so people could read what doctors and police officers wrote,” she stated. “I read many of these records for the first time. These are very painful memories and horrible experiences.”
Through his lawyer, Mark NeJame, Grayson denied ever striking or abusing Lolita Grayson.
"Lolita is a disturbed woman. She has made one false allegation after another. Her own daughter refutes her," said NeJame, referring to a statement from the couple’s oldest child.
“Moreover,” NeJame said of Lolita Grayson’s accusations, “there never has been a witness or any proof whatsoever of her claims. The claims have been so ridiculous that not one time has there even been enough probable cause to bring a charge or an arrest against Alan Grayson."
As for Lolita Grayson’s allegations against him, Grayson has told police and others that his ex-wife fabricated false stories about him, in part to damage his political career, according to a police report and interviews conducted by POLITICO. For instance, one of her 2014 domestic abuse claims against the Florida Democrat was dropped after a video taken by one of his staffers indicated he had not shoved Lolita Grayson, despite her claim to the contrary.
Grayson, a Harvard-educated lawyer who made a fortune from a telecommunications business he launched in the early 1990s, was not in public office during three of the four incidents. The liberal Democrat was first elected to Congress in 2008.
The 58-year-old Grayson, a three-term House Democrat, is locked in a tight Senate race against Rep. Patrick Murphy heading into the Aug. 30 primary.
The Graysons’ marriage was annulled last year after a judge found that she had not divorced her previous husband when she married Grayson in 1990. Alan Grayson has remarried, and his current wife is running for his congressional seat.
During their divorce proceedings, the congressman called Lolita Grayson a “gold digger” and “bigamist.” He also claims she struck him numerous times, set one of their cars on fire in 1993 and used a knife to slash the upholstery of another car in a separate incident, according to a criminal report and other documents.
Lolita Grayson was born in the Philippines in 1960, and she married Robert Carson in 1980. She claims to have divorced Carson in Guam soon after, though Alan Grayson's lawyers say no records of the divorce could be found. Florida records filed in court by the lawmaker's attorneys show the Carsons divorced in 1994, after she married Grayson. He later testified that he thought his ex-wife was single at the time of their marriage, a claim Lolita Grayson disputes in at least one court filing.
Four years after they were married in 1990, Lolita Grayson made the first of her domestic abuse calls to police.
In a July 1994 report by a Fairfax County police officer, Lolita Grayson claimed Alan Grayson hit her “daily.” Another officer wrote, "The dispute stems from his family not wanting her to marry him." The officer reported that Lolita Grayson had a "swollen left check, a cut on her right arm/wrist, and swollen feet."
Lolita Grayson released medical records to POLITICO to support her contention of abuse. The documents state that she did have cuts from the alleged incident. It further states an X-ray showed no serious injury or broken bones.
In December 1999, Fairfax County police reported that Lolita Grayson told officers responding to a domestic violence call at the Graysons' home in Vienna, Virginia, that her husband had hit her with a book on the back of the head, causing her to temporarily lose her memory. There was no sign of injury, according to the police report. "Lolita stated she wanted to make this report because she felt ashamed and decided to file a report after talking with family," the police document states. "Lolita states she didn't wish to prosecute and only wanted to have a report on file."
Police officers offered to remove her from the house but she declined.
Six years later, after the couple had moved to the Orlando, Florida, area, Lolita Grayson made her first call to Orange County sheriff’s deputies. In November 2005, she claimed Alan Grayson made a death threat during an argument over a babysitter. Alan Grayson allegedly pushed her against the wall during the dispute, and she told him "not to hit her and called him an 'asshole,'” according to the police report.
She started to walk away and Grayson then allegedly struck her on the back of the head and told her, "I'm gonna kill you bitch." Lolita Grayson had suffered a stroke the previous month, she said, and worried she might have another. She took their children to a friend's house and didn't return until that night, according to the sheriff's report. The couple argued again, but there was no allegation of more physical abuse. A sheriff's deputy stated in the report seeing a "small bruise that was in plain view on the left side of her chest, which she claims was caused when her husband pushed her, along with another small bruise on the back of her left hand."
The local prosecutor’s office contacted Lolita Grayson about pressing domestic battery charges, but there is no indication she cooperated. Police referred the matter to prosecutors, who declined to move forward, documents show.
Lolita Grayson’s statements to authorities at the time were inconsistent with her earlier account of how often she was allegedly battered. She told investigators that Grayson “has hit her in the past four or five times.” In 1994, Lolita Grayson said beatings were a “daily occurrence.”
160511_alan_grayson_1160_ap.jpg
Harry Reid to Rep. Alan Grayson: 'I want you to lose'
By BURGESS EVERETT and SEUNG MIN KIM
The only widely known case involving the Graysons occurred on March 1, 2014, roughly three months after Lolita Grayson had filed for divorce. Alan Grayson had moved out of the home and when he returned to see their five children, the couple had a heated argument, records indicate.
According to the police report, Lolita Grayson alleged the congressman “shoved” her near the entrance to the house, and she “went backwards into the door. Lolita defended herself by grabbing Alan in the jaw area and delivered a ‘knee spike’ in his abdomen area, causing him to kneel down,” the document stated. Alan Grayson then returned to his car. The following day, Lolita Grayson went to the hospital.
The police report stated that Lolita Grayson, who told police she was trained in tae kwon do, suffered “visible bruising on the upper left side of her back, near the left shoulder.” Photographs taken at the time of the incident show a large red bruise on her upper arm.
However, their oldest daughter, Skye Grayson, and Grayson’s congressional staffer, Juan Lopez, contradicted Lolita Grayson’s account.
Lopez had followed Grayson to the family home in a separate car that day and shot video that showed Lolita Grayson allegedly striking her estranged husband, not the other way around. Grayson alerted the media to the video and said it vindicated him.
Grayson said he never touched his estranged wife, calling her “crazy” and “abusive.” The congressman said he brought along Lopez to document the visit because he feared she would “hit herself with a frying pan and blame me.”
“Please, Juan, record by all means. I am not forcing you to, but please,” Grayson told Lopez, according to an incident report. Lopez said that, after they arrived, Lolita Grayson began shouting at her estranged husband, “All you are doing is sleeping around with black and white women. ... You are never going to see the kids again! Get out of here.”
Lolita Grayson acknowledged she questioned Grayson’s fidelity, according to the report. She said Grayson was verbally abusive, telling her at one point: “Go to hell and die! I'll make sure you will get nothing, you will be in the gutter.”
Lolita Grayson called 911, but no arrests were made. Both Graysons had alleged the other had committed a crime, though no charges were ever filed.
An assistant state attorney who decided not to prosecute Lolita Grayson for battery had doubts about the video and whether the congressman was actually the victim.
“Incident on video appears staged contrived by alleged VT [victim],” referring to Alan Grayson, read a document approved by Assistant State Attorney Rebekah Shanai Taylor. It also called Alan Grayson’s claim that he was battered “not credible.” POLITICO obtained the document through a public records request.
Besides raising the issue of whether his estranged wife was a bigamist, Grayson sought a psychiatric evaluation for Lolita Grayson. He also tried to force her to sign an “apology,” repudiating all her allegations against him, according to a court filing in the divorce proceeding.
The couple's oldest daughter issued a statement to POLITICO, saying her father had done nothing wrong throughout the marriage. Skye Grayson, 21, said she and her siblings did not want to be “pawns in a game of power” with an unnamed “political opponent.”
“My mother has always struggled with emotional issues,” said Skye Grayson, who noted that several of the older children chose to live with their dad. “She physically lashed out at me, my siblings and our father, and then blamed us for it, victimizing us. This resulted in a considerably troubled childhood home.”
Skye Grayson herself was accused at one point of domestic abuse by her mother. In November 2013, Lolita Grayson told the Orange County Sheriff's Office that her daughter slapped the phone out of her hand as she dialed 911 after an argument erupted over Skye Grayson smoking in her car. No arrests were made.
The congressman hasn’t always insisted on such a high legal standard when it comes to citing domestic abuse in political campaigns. During a political campaign in 2012, Grayson’s congressional campaign combed through his opponent Todd Long's divorce file and accused him — falsely, according to that candidate’s ex-wife — of being a domestic abuser. Grayson called attention to a statement from the Republican’s ex-wife in which she called him “abusive and manipulative.”
"Wow, the Republicans sure know how to pick them, don't they?" Grayson said in a campaign email at the time that highlighted the divorce testimony by Long’s ex-wife. She told the Orlando Sentinel in a written statement from his campaign “there were no incidences of domestic violence.”
Grayson responded, the paper reported, by criticizing the press for not doing more to highlight the issue of domestic violence.
“I'm disgusted that no major media in this town will let people know things that our polling shows they regard as highly relevant,” he said.
The following are documents obtained by POLITICO for this story:
1994 incident
1999 incident
2005 incident
Additional 2005 documents
2014 incident
Lolita Grayson accuses daughter
Unsigned apology
Grayson claims no record of Lolita Grayson’s divorce from ex-husband
Final judgment of marriage annulment
Assistant state attorney calls Grayson’s domestic-battery claim “not credible”
1994 Radiology Form
1994 Hospital Encounter Form
1994 Billing Form
DOCUMENTS ONLINE FROM THE LIST ABOVE:
View an incident report against Grayson form March 2, 2014: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-23a0-d27c-abdf-f7adf7ca0000. Alan went to their house unannounced in order “to see their children.” He was told that they were not home and they argued angrily. His wife stood in the doorway to prevent him from entering, and he shoved her against the door, causing bruising to her upper back as the argument “escalated.” The report quotes his wife as admitting she “delivered a knee spike in his abdominal area, causing him to kneel down. Alan regained his balance and walked away towards his vehicle.” They have been married for 24 years and have 5 children. Alan did not have any prior battery convictions.”
The medical report from the first incident claimed against Grayson is at the following website: http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-23a6-df11-a37f-f3af08740000, and consists of a physician’s report on her complaint, “hit on left side of the face, successive blows.” Physician states: the paranasal sinuses are clear bilaterally and the orbital rims are intact. No fracture or dislocations are identified.”
In an 1999 report, http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-23a3-df11-a37f-f3ab3d5f0001, Lolita accuses him of “hitting her on the back of the head with a large rock,” and that their two children ages 4 and 1 were present during this attack.
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-23a2-d27c-abdf-f7af78060001, In this report Lolita again accused him of hitting her in the back of the head, causing a possible “stroke.” That time he used his hand rather than an object. In all three cases there was violent verbal abuse on both their parts.
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-239f-da6e-a7f6-e3bfa26b0001, 3/1/2014. Alan had a friend accompany him to the house and confronted Lolita, as friend makes a video of the interaction. He claims she pushed him, causing no injury; but the court declared the claim “not credible,” and the video “not conclusive.”
Grayson is a very cogent speaker and a strong Progressive, as far as his political views go, and is one who, like Bill Clinton, “has the common touch.” He wants the kinds of laws that I think we desperately need in the US, at a time when we are regressing rapidly politically into a new Jim Crow era. Unfortunately, though he has no convictions on battery charges, there are enough reports of a violent sort (“he said, she said”) plus the troubling shouting match with the Politico reporter just a month or so ago, all of which make him look as though he resembles Donald Trump too much in his “temperament.”
It is also true that he is a really large man. I did go to his speech last month in Jacksonville, FL. His manner of speaking is strong and assertive, he is about 6’4”, and weighs between two and three hundred pounds easily. Lolita is a very feisty woman, however, and the animus between them is clearly mutual. I must say, though, that if he were to really hit a woman I would expect more damage than a bruise, and that it is clear from the incident reports, that no broken bones or other serious injury is noted. He claims that she assaulted him at least once, but again with no injury.
Whether or not he is a dangerous man, this background on him is unsavory and makes him an unappealing candidate for a responsible office. Too bad. I think Lolita may indeed be making an exaggerated set of claims, and I hate to see a good Progressive go by the wayside. I won’t vote for him, but I won’t vote for the DNC’s sponsored candidate either. The DNC is treating other Progressives as they did Sanders, and unfortunately they don't all have the sheer force behind them that Sanders does/did. I will vote for Clinton in November to help defeat Trump, if he doesn’t defeat himself first, but I plan to migrate further over to the left in party affiliation immediately after the election.
See the following fiery comments at this website on his relative value to the country as a candidate. http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2016/7/26/14813/6596. The comments are always more interesting than the story. I agree with “Bob in Portland” in his summary of the situation below.
“Re: Casual Observation (none / 0)
Will Grayson beat me up? Or will he be a pawn of Wall Street, where cutting into what's left of the bottom 80%'s will cause a lot of wife-beating, Friday night shooting and general misery for the majority of Americans?
But if we really want to smear candidates, I'm ready to play too:
[Grayson accused Murphy of flip-flopping on the passenger rail project when it snubbed a bid from builder Thomas P. Murphy Jr., owner of Coastal Construction Group.
[Murphy "switched his vote on All Aboard Florida and tried to destroy the program -- the only Democrat in the entire country who voted to destroy the All Aboard Florida program -- because his father tried to get in a bid to build it and was unsuccessful," Grayson said May 15. "So he went from being in favor of the program to being against the program. That's certainly using your congressional influence. He tried to kill the entire program -- the only Democrat to do so -- because his father didn't get a contract out of it."]
And that took me a half-second of googling. We can go into the Murphy family indictments if you wish.
But it raises a point. Would you vote for LBJ because of Civil Rights or vote for Goldwater because he wasn't the womanizer that LBJ was alleged to have been?
Is alleged personal misconduct a bigger factor than what the man stands for?
Did Grayson not give you the time of day? And is this your fallback status to oppose progressives who have been smeared and choosing neoliberal Wall Street whores?
Well, there were a few pretty rotten people I've voted for in my lifetime because of their opposition being worse.
But since it is okay to smear a candidate by using an ex-wife's accusations (which may or may not be true) is it okay to attack a politician if he or she, eh, is Jewish, or got an abortion?
By the way, DownWithTyranny! runs another story about Murphy and his neoliberal kinda almost (but he wasn't indicted) criminal behavior.
I know you feel the need to whack Grayson every couple of weeks but you never seem to get around to telling us all the great things that Murphy has done. Oversight?
It reminds me of a block party we had a few weeks ago. We even had a state representative eating and drinking with us. Everyone was talking about how awful Trump is. Not one person said a thing about Clinton. If you want Murphy to win can't you at least scrounge up something good he did?
by Bob In Portland on Tue Jul 26th, 2016 at 03:17:36 PM EST”
Email August 9, 2016
NAACP
To
Lucy Warner
Tell the House Judiciary Committee: the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 deserves a hearing NOW.
Congress may be on recess, but we aren't, Lucy.
Yesterday, Cornell William Brooks and protesters from the Roanoke Youth Council held a sit-in at the district office of Virginia congressman Bob Goodlatte — the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Arrests were made, but the call continues to uphold the right to vote.
NAACP President Cornell William Brooks being arrested yesterday
Our reason? If we don't see real action soon, this election will be the first in over 50 years to be held without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act.
We have a solution: the Voting Rights Advancement Act. This bill would restore the VRA, and put an end to the stream of voter suppression measures that threaten the ability of young people, people of color, and the elderly to make their voices heard on election day.
The Voting Rights Advancement Act deserves a hearing, and Rep. Goodlatte has the power to make that hearing happen.
Send a tweet to the House Judiciary Committee, urging them to finally schedule a hearing for this democracy-saving law. Too many people have fought and given their lives for the right to vote for us to give up on it now.
Thank you for taking action today,
NAACP
http://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/VRAA-Fact-Sheet-2015.pdf
FACT SHEET
Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015
Legislative History
The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 (VRAA) seeks to remedy the portions of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 that were declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby
County v. Holder, as well as expand voting rights to a number of disadvantaged groups. The Voting
Rights Reconstruction Act was introduced on June 24, 2015 by Senator Patrick Leahy in the senate and
currently has 24 cosponsors in the senate. In its current form, the bill will help ensure that states and
political subdivisions with recent histories of voting rights violations will be subject to preclearance
under section 5 of the VRAA before they can introduce changes to their election practices. Additionally,
the bill attempts to increase transparency in the electoral process.
What are the Critical Issues?
Limiting Discriminatory Voting Laws
a. The VRAA includes a number of provisions aimed at reducing the ability of state and local
government to restrict the voting rights of racial and language minority groups.
b. Section 4 sets forth a new nationwide coverage formula which determines whether a state must
go through preclearance under Section 5. This system of preclearance applies to a limited set of
voting changes such as changes to methods of elections, redistricting, and documentation or
qualifications to vote. Under this relationship, states with 15 or more voting violations over the
past 25 years, or 10 if one of the violations was statewide, would be required to submit their
election changes for federal approval. This newly implemented formula would initially cover 13
states—Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New
York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—and coverage would last for 10
years.
c. The VRAA also gives the Attorney General the authority to certify and request federal
observers tasked with protecting voters’ 14th and 15th amendment rights nationwide.
Expanding Access
a. The VRAA also expands access to a number of commonly ignored voter demographics.
b. Section 2 of the bill establishes a set of protections for Native American and Alaska Natives
voters by ensuring access to accessible polling location, absentee voting where polling is
remote, and more accessible voter registration agencies.
c. The bill also mandates that ballots be translated into Native languages where the VRA already
requires bilingual voting materials. This will ensure that language minority groups have greater
access to the electoral process.
Promoting Transparency
a. Under Section 6 of The Voting Rights Advancement Act, States and political subdivisions
will need to provide notice and disclosure for changes implemented in voting standards or
procedures enacted 180 days before a federal election, information concerning precincts and
polling locations, and demographic and electoral data for voting districts involving federal,
state and local elections.
Lawyers’ Committee’s Position
The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law praises today’s introduction of the Voting Rights Advancement Act in the Senate and the House. Senators Leahy, Brown, Durbin, Coons, and others have given Congress an important new opportunity to take a meaningful stand against voting discrimination by reaffirming its commitment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), which lost key provisions because of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The VRA made it possible for racial minority voters across the country to participate equally in the electoral process. Because of the VRA, literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory mechanisms were invalidated. In recent years, the VRA has worked to block voting practices, such as redistricting plans, registration requirements, polling place changes, and voter ID laws that were found to be racially discriminatory. Yet since the Supreme Court invalidated the key enforcement provision of the VRA in 2013, voting discrimination has become harder to stop. In states, counties, and cities across the country, legislators have pushed through laws designed to make it harder for minorities to vote. In the lead-up to the 2014
election, a resurgence of laws to increase barriers to voting, and dilute minority voting strength, have put the right to vote in more danger than at any time in the past 50 years. This bill therefore serves as a necessary solution to the problems caused by Shelby County v. Holder, making it a crucial piece of legislation for American democracy.
What can you do to help?
Contact your Representatives and Senators to tell them that they should support the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015. Voice your opinion that there needs to be drastic changes in the program, but that it is a program full of potential. The message should indicate that Congress must take action now to prevent racial voter discrimination and protect the right of all Americans to cast a ballot.
SOMBER NEWS
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/emails-show-links-between-state-department-and-clinton-foundation/
Emails show links between State Department and Clinton Foundation
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
August 10, 2016, 10:53 AM
Play VIDEO -- Hillary Clinton faces new email controversy
Play VIDEO -- Bill Clinton dismisses controversy over family foundation
Despite denials that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation had any significant ties to each other while Hillary Clinton served as the nation's chief diplomat, a new batch of emails sheds new light on the seemingly close relationship between the two entities.
The latest email release, obtained by the group Judicial Watch from a State Department Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, included several exchanges between a top foundation worker and State officials working under Clinton.
In one back-and-forth from April 2009, Doug Band, who worked for the Clinton Foundation (including its Clinton Global Initiative) as well as serving as a personal aide to Bill Clinton, appeared to push then-State Department aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mill for "a favor" on behalf of a foundation associate.
Band said in his email that it was "important to take care of [redacted]," and Abedin responded "We have all had him on our radar" and that "Personnel has been sending him options."
Band, in another email to Abedin and Mills in April of that year, asked for the State Department's "substance person" in Lebanon to contact Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire philanthropist who was one of the Clinton Foundation's top donors.
"As you know, he's key guy there and to us and is loved in lebanon," Band wrote. He added it was "Very imp."
Abedin responded that the "substance person" was "jeff feltman" -- a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. "I'm sure he knows him," she said. "Ill [sic] talk to jeff."
Band insisted to Abedin: "Better if you call" Chagoury and "now preferable."
"This is very important," he wrote. "He's awake I'm sure."
In a separate 10-page email batch uncovered by Judicial Watch, State Department spokesman Brock Johnson flagged in 2012 a "significant" FOIA request to Mills from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
CREW had asked for "the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton." Mills had responded "thanks" in her email back to Brock.
Mills testified earlier this year in a deposition with Judicial Watch that she didn't have a "specific recollection of" the 2012 FOIA request.
During an interview with the New York Times, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the emails were proof positive that "the State Department and the Clinton Foundation worked hand in hand in terms of policy and donor effort."
"There was no daylight between the two under Mrs. Clinton, and this was contrary to her promises," he added.
Clinton -- whose private email controversy continues to plague her presidential campaign even after the Justice Department decided it would not press criminal charges over her use of a home-brewed server -- had sworn before becoming secretary of state that her dealings with the Clinton Foundation would be cut off if she worked for the president's cabinet.
"If confirmed as Secretary of State, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation, unless I first obtain a written waiver or qualify for a regulatory exemption," Clinton wrote in a 2009 letter to the State Department's legal adviser and designated agency ethics official.
On Tuesday evening, Trump's campaign slammed the emails as "yet more evidence that Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment, character, stability and temperament to be within 1,000 miles of public power."
"She views public office as nothing more than a means to personal enrichment - and every dollar she takes comes at the expense of the public welfare," Trump's national policy director, Stephen Miller, said in a statement.
The Clinton campaign, however, has pushed back against those implications, saying that the emails never involved Clinton herself or the Foundation's work, according to a New York Times report.
Band, they said, had been operating as an aide to former President Bill Clinton and not as a Foundation official.
Oh, well. I do hope this is cleared up in a way that does not help the Drumpf and hurt the Hill. I’ll clip others on this subject as I find them.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hollywood-feeling-heat-its-gun-culture-n626206?cid=eml_nnn_20160809
AUG 9 2016, 3:05 PM ET
Is Hollywood Feeling the Heat for Its Gun Culture?
by ADAM HOWARD
Related: Photo published for Action Star Matt Damon Wants Australian-Style Gun Ban in U.S.
Action Star Matt Damon Wants Australian-Style Gun Ban in U.S.
Matt Damon says he wishes the U.S. would implement a gun ban similar to the one Australia implemented in the 1990s. breitbart.com
Photo-- published for Suicide Squad does have one really great scene, That's just what happens when you put Will Smith and Viola Davis in a room, polygon.com
A rash of recent mass shootings and violent clashes between police and people of color may have helped to create a climate of squeamishness around gun culture in an unlikely place -- Hollywood.
For years, critics mostly on the right have laid at least part of blame for acts of gun violence on the images and plot lines emanating from the film, music and television industries. While their defenders have always cited the difference between art and reality, as well as persuasive arguments that fictional content doesn't drive people to kill.
And yet, Fox has decided to at least downplay the presence of firearms in the promotional material for two of their upcoming action-oriented shows: a TV version of the hit "Lethal Weapon" film series, starring Damon Wayans, and a reboot of their infamously violent thriller series "24."
"What we focus mostly on is that our shows not be gratuitously violent, that violence fits within the world of the storytelling and that overwhelmingly what we're doing feels like entertainment and not gratuitous or something that feels like a documentary," Fox chairman Dana Walden told Entertainment Weekly in a recent interview.
"You have to hit a balance. They're trying to create stories that are relevant in this day and age and feel heightened and have life and death stakes and take place in a cop world or in the world of terrorism, it's hard to imagine that without any violence, so it's just trying to find the right balance," she added.
View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Range365 @Range365
The Guns of Suicide Squad: http://range365.co/mqm3Ci #SuicideSquad #DC
8:20 PM - 28 Jul 2016
Retweets 1 1 like
A Fox spokesperson told NBC New that while guns will not appear in the key art for "Lethal Weapon," they may appear in other materials.
"While we salute Fox's decision to not glamorize gun violence in the 'Lethal Weapon' campaign, it's important to note that guns on movie posters aren't why the U.S. has a gun murder rate 25 times higher than other developed nations -- all of which watch the same movies we do," Jason Rzepka, director of cultural engagement for Everytown for Gun Safety, told NBC News in a statement. "The core problem is easy access to firearms and millions of Americans are coming together to fix that problem."
"As a parent, yeah I am always concerned about violence on TV and video games," added Josh Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to End Gun Violence, in an interview with NBC News. "But as someone who believes in evidence, there's none that supports the idea that violence on TV causes violence in real life. That's why we don't focus on this."
Fox's decision comes on the heels of a backlash against advertisements for the new blockbuster Jason Bourne movie. Actress Lena Dunham was one of many voices that decried ads featuring star Matt Damon aiming a gun with a steely expression, and her public shaming put the progressive actor in an awkward position.
"I totally get it. I mean especially given what's going on recently, and I get not wanting to see a picture of a gun right now, and I don't blame [Lena] at all," Damon told E! News in July." I mean for the marketing purposes of 'Jason Bourne' -- I mean he is a guy who runs around with a gun, so it's not gratuitous marketing, but certainly in light of recent events I understand that impulse to want to tear the gun out of the picture."
Hollywood has long walked an uncomfortable line on the issue of gun control. While it is presumed that most members of the industry lean left politically, so much of their product features heavy gun play -- and always has. One of cinema's first truly iconic images was of Justus D. Barnes looking direct to camera and shooting at the screen in the landmark 1903 film "The Great Train Robbery."
The classic western and gangster dramas that were rife with rifles and "Tommy" guns have given way to the modern comic book genre that is often headlined by gun-toting anti-heroes like Deadpool. So when progressive Hollywood stars and activists try to wade into the gun control debate, it often falls on deaf ears -- or even worse, they're called hypocrites.
Just ask A-list actor Liam Neeson. The 64-year-old has enjoyed a career resurrection over the last decade in mostly violent action films where bullets fly with abandon, so when he declared there are "too many f****** guns" in the U.S. during an interview in Dubai last January, he opened himself up to attacks from pro-gun critics.
Director Quentin Tarantino faced calls for a boycott when he dared to speak out publicly against police brutality and shootings at a RiseUpOctober rally in New York City last fall. It's unclear whether his outspoken stance hurt his most recent film "The Hateful Eight" financially, but his own penchant for making gory films drew more scrutiny following his statements.
As did Damon, when he unfavorably compared U.S. gun policy to Australia's last month. "You guys did it here in one fell swoop, and I wish that could happen in my country, but it's such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly. We just can't," he said while promoting the new Bourne film in Sydney.
"Matt Damon — Who Made His Fortune Toting Guns In Films — Wants Australian-Style Gun Control," read a terse headline from the conservative Daily Caller, following his statement.
Follow
John Heller
John Heller @hpjohn1
Hypocrite Matt Damon/ Jason Bourne is against guns when he isn't making millions waving them around on screen. http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/07/05/matt-damon-wants-australian-style-gun-ban-in-u-s/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social …
11:13 AM - 5 Jul 2016
"Not only do we have a policy debate going on in this country, we have a cultural debate," said Horwitz. "If celebrities stand up on the right side of the debate, that's a good thing."
Still, it's hard to imagine Hollywood abandoning guns wholesale, especially since they are such a huge part of escapist storytelling. But there is some precedent for the industry policing itself. The widely derided MPAA ratings system has been in place for nearly 50 years for better or worse, although it has been notorious for censoring sexually explicit material over violence.
In the late 1990s, there was a big push from state lawmakers and anti-tobacco activists to end the romanticization of smoking in Hollywood productions (this coincided with a presidential call to mitigate violence in movies, too). But despite years of effort from groups like Smoke Free Films and researchers from Harvard University to get films that feature tobacco use to be R-rated, the presence of cigars and cigarettes in movies has decreased, but not dramatically, even in children's films. And in recent years it has far outpaced actual real-life tobacco use.
On guns, Hollywood is in a similar holding pattern, with a widely reported 2013 study from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania determining that gun play was actually on the rise in the movies, particular in youth-skewing PG-13 fare. The study also determined that violence overall in Hollywood films had doubled since 1950.
The findings later inspired New York Post columnist Sara Stewart to pen a column calling for Hollywood to ban guns for a year. "Imagine it: a year without any firearms in film. How much would they really be missed? Think back to your favorite recent movies," she wrote last June. "How many of their most memorable scenes were gunfights? Guns are where a movie goes when it can't think of anything better to do. They are lazy and dull. They reliably make a movie less fun and more earsplitting."
Still, Stewart shouldn't hold her breath. The number one movie in America, "Suicide Squad" -- which broke the all-time August box office opening record last weekend despite tepid reviews -- is chock-full of shoot-'em-ups. And, it too is rated PG-13.
Follow
Polygon ✔ @Polygon
And that scene has a lot of guns http://www.polygon.com/2016/8/5/12387924/suicide-squad-best-scene?utm_campaign=polygon&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …
5:15 PM - 5 Aug 2016
Calling Hollywood actors hypocrites for speaking out against our gun culture in the US as a whole -- a much larger source of the problem than Hollywood and TV -- is tremendously unfair. The actor doesn’t control the situation; though some actors do try to interfere with the production more than others, it doesn’t make them more popular with the producers, and it simply isn’t their call.
I think the problem is basically this. We bring our kids up to be lacking in empathy for life forms and then force feed them violence of all kinds. When our little boy hurts his pet or his younger sister we do not properly and strongly reprimand him. “Boys will be boys.” That, too often, happens in their homes also when the father hits family members. They are being mentally and emotionally weakened rather than strengthened in their upbringing, so they have no resistance to the lure of pointless violence. I also believe that giving children guns, especially boys, is potentially emotionally damaging.
Engaging in violence makes them feel powerful and important. Psychologists have downplayed the role of fiction, video games, etc. on spree killings, but to me it is clearly not a mentally healthy person who will do that kind of thing, even with the fictional input. The only question I must ask, though, is whether one of those kids who spend all their waking hours playing graphically violent video games aren’t potentially being influenced by it. A teenager is still growing mentally, and may well absorb all kinds of bad influences.
I think it’s his emotional and intellectual capacity that will prevent negative events from happening. Just watching gun violence won’t create that type of behavior, but feeling demeaned and full of rage will. Whenever a spree killing hits the news, within weeks another killer will do it also, so he can get HIS name into the papers. Often it is a person who has been bullied who does it, and according to a recent article on the subject the gender of the killer is almost always male. Of course there are a few homicidal females. All of those people, however, are first and foremost psychologically very unhealthy. Our society is under stress and individuals snap under the strain. I’m with those who say that it is far too easy for the young and the mentally disturbed to buy a weapon. Let’s work on those gun access and public health laws.
DEMOCRACYNOW.ORG ON PROGRESSIVES
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/8/julian_assange_leaked_dnc_emails_shows
INDEPENDENT GLOBAL NEWS
Julian Assange: Leaked DNC Emails Show Democrats Waged "Propaganda" Campaign Against Sanders
AUGUST 08, 2016
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spoke via video stream at the Green Party convention in Houston, Texas, over the weekend. Assange has been confined to the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for more than four years, fearing that if he were to attempt to leave, he would be arrested by British police and ultimately extradited to the U.S., where it is believed there is a sealed indictment against him over WikiLeaks’ release of documents. Assange was speaking with former Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb. He began by speaking about WikiLeaks’ release of 20,000 internal DNC emails.
JULIAN ASSANGE: We published 20,000 [inaudible] emails from the DNC, from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, from the communications director, Luis Miranda, from the chief financial officer and so on, and also communications [inaudible] and to the Hillary Clinton campaign and a number of other groups. What they show is not only was there a sort of internal view or discussions about how to undermine Bernie Sanders and support Hillary Clinton—not surprising, given that Debbie Wasserman Schultz used to work for Hillary Clinton’s campaign—but rather, there were formal instructions made to DNC staff to execute a campaign of black propaganda against Bernie Sanders. For example, Luis Miranda, the communications chief, instructed his staff to put out, in a, quote, "unattributable manner," allegations that Bernie Sanders’ supporters were engaged in acts of violence. Similarly, there was discussions to expose—or, rather, claim that Bernie Sanders was an atheist and that this would harm him in the South, to use his religious beliefs, or, rather, his lack of religious beliefs, against him.
Yeah, so, then there’s aspects to do with how financing was being bounced around between the DNC and the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Victory Fund. To my mind, I think the most ongoing interesting material, which has been picked up by—now, by a wide range of state-based investigative journalists in the U.S., is the influence-peddling structure of the DNC—who goes to what private conventions at particular people’s houses with Barack Obama or with the vice president, Joseph Biden, and the sort of—some of the things that they get into—get in exchange, for example, being put on federal government boards and commissions.
The third big revelation that comes out, which is—I didn’t mention it, because, as someone who’s having to deal with the media all the time, I understand how real this is, but the general public is—it is proof of something important, which is the direct connections between the Hillary Clinton faction in the DNC and the president of MSNBC. For example, Debbie Wasserman Schultz called up the president of NBC in order to haul Morning Joe into line, because they were speaking about the bias of the DNC. Talking points were constructed for Jake Tapper, for example, on CNN. Of course, we don’t know whether he was willing to use them. He has denied that. But at least from the DNC end, they constructed the questions that he was to ask them, even saying—watching coverage live and calling up the networks to say, you know, "Put a stop to that chain of communication right now."
DAVID COBB: Julian, Greens, like most Americans, are grateful for people and organizations that inform and expose illegal or illicit activity on the part of government. That is the very definition of a whistleblower, blowing the whistle on crime. And yet, the U.S. government, under President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all past presidents combined, and sought and obtained longer jail sentences than previous presidents. Why do you think that is true? And what lessons can be learned there?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I’m afraid it’s much worse than that. The Obama administration has gone after more whistleblowers using the Espionage Act not only than all previous presidents combined back to 1917, when the act was first passed in World War I to deal with World War I spies, but, in fact, now three times as many. So this is really an epidemic to abuse the national security law in order to stop whistleblowers and journalists and publishers. So the attempted prosecution, the pending prosecution of WikiLeaks in the United States, uses the Espionage Act, uses a computer terrorism act, etc. etc. But the same act, the 1917 Espionage Act, was used to go after and obtain subpoenas in relation to a Fox News reporter reporting on information allegedly obtained from the State Department, similarly going after Associated Press’s telephone call records.
So, it’s a—you know there’s a galloping epidemic of abuse of national security law under this Democratic administration, which Hillary Clinton was part of. She and Obama were involved in placing one of my alleged sources, Chelsea Manning, into prison for 35 years, only for communicating truthful information to the public. There’s no other allegation, no allegation about working with spies or anything like that, just communicating truthful information to the press and to the public. That situation is so bad. Chelsea Manning was tortured in prison—it’s a formal finding of the U.N., even a finding by the U.S. military justice system that illegal punishments occurred during imprisonment. And just a week and a half ago, unfortunately, she attempted suicide because of the difficulty in the conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
Chelsea Manning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[4] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted by court-martial in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after disclosing to WikiLeaks nearly three-quarters of a million classified or unclassified but sensitive military and diplomatic documents.[5] Manning was sentenced in August 2013 to 35 years imprisonment, with the possibility of parole in the eighth year, and to be dishonorably discharged from the Army.[2] Manning is a trans woman who, in a statement the day after sentencing, said she had felt female since childhood, wanted to be known as Chelsea,[6] and desired to begin hormone replacement therapy.[7] From early life and through much of her Army life, Manning was known as Bradley; she was diagnosed with gender identity disorder while in the Army.[8]
Assigned in 2009 to an Army unit in Iraq as an intelligence analyst, Manning had access to classified databases. In early 2010, she leaked classified information to WikiLeaks and confided this to Adrian Lamo, an online acquaintance. Lamo informed Army Counterintelligence, and Manning was arrested in May that same year. The material included videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 251,287 U.S. diplomatic cables;[9] and 482,832 Army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War Logs[10] and Afghan War Diary.[11] Much of the material was published by WikiLeaks or its media partners between April and November 2010.[12]
Manning was ultimately charged with 22 offenses, including aiding the enemy, which was the most serious charge and could have resulted in a death sentence.[13] She was held at the Marine Corps Brig, Quantico in Virginia, from July 2010 to April 2011 under Prevention of Injury status—which entailed de facto solitary confinement and other restrictions that caused domestic and international concern—before being transferred to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where she could interact with other detainees.[14] She pleaded guilty in February 2013 to 10 of the charges.[15] The trial on the remaining charges began on June 3, 2013, and on July 30 she was convicted of 17 of the original charges and amended versions of four others, but was acquitted of aiding the enemy.[1] She is serving a 35-year sentence at the maximum-security U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.[16]
No comments:
Post a Comment