4:58 PM 10/29/2017 - Cyber Warfare - Google News: 2 Navy SEALs Under Suspicion in Strangling of Green Beret in Mali - New York Times
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
1. US Security from mikenova (80 sites) | ||
|---|---|---|
| United States Defense and Military Forces: 2 Navy SEALs Under Suspicion in Strangling of Green Beret in Mali | ||
Staff Sgt. Logan J. Melgar, 34, a veteran of two deployments to Afghanistan, was found dead on June 4, and his superiors almost immediately suspected foul play.  United States Defense and Military Forces | ||
| Cyber Warfare - Google News: 2 Navy SEALs Under Suspicion in Strangling of Green Beret in Mali - New York Times | ||
 Cyber Warfare - Google News | ||
| fbi - Google News: New FBI chief says he's already losing sleep over Chicago violence - Chicago Sun-Times | ||
 fbi - Google News | ||
| FBI News Review: 3:02 PM 10/29/2017 Russian Propaganda on Social Media: Our pain for their gain: the American activists manipulated by Russian trolls The Guardian | The History of Russian Involvement in Americas Race Wars The Atlantic | Exclusive: Russian Propaganda Traced Back to Staten Island, New York Daily Beast | ||
Sun, 29 Oct 2017 18:19:45 +0100 29.10.2017 18:19 Trump Investigations Report | Latest Posts Trump Investigations Report from mikenova (18 sites) Palmer Report: Donald Trump yells DO SOMETHING! in desperate cry for help as Robert Mueller moves in We’ve all been awaiting Donald Trump’s inevitable response to the news that Special Counsel Robert Mueller … Continue reading"3:02 PM 10/29/2017 – Russian Propaganda on Social Media: ‘Our pain for their gain’: the American activists manipulated by Russian trolls – The Guardian | The History of Russian Involvement in America’s Race Wars – The Atlantic | Exclusive: Russian Propaganda Traced Back to Staten Island, New York – Daily Beast" Download audio: https://av.voanews.com/clips/VEN/2017/10/28/20171028-120000-VEN119-program_hq.mp3 Download audio: https://av.voanews.com/clips/VEN/2017/10/28/20171028-130000-VEN119-program_hq.mp3  FBI News Review | ||
| Stars and Stripes: How trickery led to the fall of a famed Portsmouth shipyard and a longer Civil War | ||
The USS Merrimack was once considered the most important ship at Gosport what is today known as Norfolk Naval Shipyard. In April 1861, the month that included the bombardment of Fort Sumter, setting the Civil War in motion, shipyard commander Charles McCauley had been ordered to get the Merrimack out of the port to prevent its capture.        Stars and Stripes | ||
| Stars and Stripes: Case of suspected American ISIS fighter captured in Syria vexes US | ||
Justice Department officials don't believe they have enough evidence to bring charges against an American citizen and suspected member of the Islamic State who was captured in Syria last month, but the U.S. faces immediate legal challenges if he is not released and is detained without trial.    Stars and Stripes | ||
| RSS for National Security: Trump again calls Russia probe 'witch hunt' as possible 1st indictment looms | ||
null  RSS for National Security | ||
| www.washingtontimes.com stories: Security: Marine sergeant's trial over recruit's death due this week | ||
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. (AP) - A Marine Corps drill instructor is scheduled to face court-martial over charges he abused two Muslim recruits, one of whom leaped to his death last year after a reported altercation.
The trial of Gunnery Sgt. Joseph Felix could begin as early as Tuesday at Camp ...
 www.washingtontimes.com stories: Security | ||
| Washington Free Beacon: Twitter Suspends Roger Stone After He Unleashes on CNNs Don Lemon | ||
Roger Stone, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump, pushed back against Twitter on Saturday after the social media site suspended his account for slamming CNN primetime host Don Lemon.
Stone, a self-proclaimed political provocateur, unleashed on Lemon for his reporting on the Uranium One investigation, attacking the CNN host's credibility and reporting style. Stone's tweets became personal when he said that Lemon is "dumber than dog shit" and accused him of "lying constantly."
CNN political commentator Keith Boykin took a screenshot of Stone's tweets, which are no longer accessible until his account is reinstated, and tweeted from his account Saturday morning.
"I wonder if these angry, racist Roger Stone tweets violate the @Twitter terms of service agreement," Boykin wrote.
Stone responded to his suspension from Twitter by threatening to file a lawsuit against the social media site for infringing on his First Amendment rights, Politico reported.
"This is a strange way to do business and part and parcel of the systematic effort by the tech left to censor and silence conservative voices," Stone said Sunday in an email to Politico.
Stone said that he decided to bring a lawsuit against Twitter after communicating with "prominent telecommunication attorneys."
Stone also told Politico that he, his family, and even his dog have received death threats on Twitter.
"I have been inundated on Twitter with death threats, threats to kill my wife, my family, my children, and even my dogs yet Twitter seems unconcerned with these bloggers," Stone wrote.
While Stone's main verified account is still suspended, he now appears to be using the Twitter account of his documentary, Get Me Roger Stone, to push back against critics.
"I get vicious death threats EVERY DAY on twitter, and they do nothing. Do NOT get in my face when I call a cunt a cunt [sic]," Stone tweeted.
He also tweeted a screenshot of several tweets from former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann that are laced with profanity aimed at Trump.
Stone could face a permanent suspension from Twitter based on the the social media platform's guidelines.
The post Twitter Suspends Roger Stone After He Unleashes on CNN’s Don Lemon appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
 Washington Free Beacon | ||
| National Security: Case of suspected American ISIS fighter captured in Syria vexes U.S. | ||
The suspect, now held in Iraq, has refused to talk and demanded a lawyer.     National Security | ||
| fbi - Google News: JFK Files: The Unexpected Details Revealed from the FBI Investigation - Vanity Fair | ||
fbi - Google News | ||
| us national security - Google News: Case of suspected American ISIS fighter captured in Syria vexes US - Washington Post | ||
 us national security - Google News | ||
| Stars and Stripes: The sacrifice at home: Military spouses bear economic burden in service to their country | ||
After her husband was medically retired from the Marine Corps in 2015, Patricia Ochan set aside her career as a lawyer with a cybersecurity degree to become a full-time caregiver to her husband while raising their young child.    Stars and Stripes | ||
| RSS for National Security: Report: Los Alamos lab comes up short on emergency drills | ||
A federal nuclear safety panel says Los Alamos National Laboratory has come up short during drills intended to show how the New Mexico lab would respond to potential emergencies such as radioactive leaks or earthquakes RSS for National Security | ||
| www.washingtontimes.com stories: Security: Somali police, intelligence chiefs fired after deadly attack | ||
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Security forces ended an overnight siege by militants Sunday at a hotel in Somalia's capital after a bombing and shootout that killed 23 people, and the government fired its police and intelligence chiefs amid the continuing extremist attacks.
The Cabinet action followed a recommendation by Security ...
www.washingtontimes.com stories: Security | ||
| Stars and Stripes: Convicted murderer attends the Bergdahl trial, says 'I got my firing squad standing by' | ||
An apparent security lapse enabled a convicted murderer to access Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's sentencing hearing last week, where the individual made threatening remarks about the former Taliban prisoner, who has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.    Stars and Stripes | ||
| Saved Stories - 1. US Security: Mueller Has Authority to Name President Trump as an Unindicted Coconspirator | ||
Imagine if Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds sufficient evidence to charge President Donald Trump, but his hands are tied because he or the Department of Justice concludes that they cannot indict a sitting President? Could Mueller instead identify President Trump by name as an unindicted coconspirator when bringing charges against other individuals? The stakes are enormously high. Such action would have some of the same reverberations across the country as a criminal indictment of the President.
A facile answer would rely simply on the fact that the Special Prosecutor in Watergate did just that. The Watergate grand jury named President Richard M. Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator when it issued indictments of others.
Since Watergate, however, the Department of Justice has developed guidance for criminal prosecutions that places a presumption against naming individuals as unindicted coconspirators. TheU.S. Attorneys Office Manual states:
In the absence of some significant justification, federal prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted coconspirators in conspiracy indictments. The practice of naming individuals as unindicted coconspirators in an indictment charging a criminal conspiracy has been severely criticized in United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975).
The rationale behind this rule is that it is generally unfair for the government to tag people with the marker of criminality without an opportunity to defend themselves in court.
That said, the prohibition expressed in the US Attorneys Manual is not categorical. The Manual says it applies in the absence of some significant justification and that federal prosecutors generally should not identify unindicted conspirators in the indictment. And later the Manual says Ordinarily, there is no need to name a person as an unindicted coconspirator in an indictment.
These are no ordinary times, and the question here is whether the case of Donald Trump could provide a significant justification for naming him in the indictment, just as the Watergate grand jury did in the case of Nixon.
The norm about not naming unindicted coconspirators is sufficiently strong that one has to fully acknowledge the rationale and attendant difficulties. With that in mind, the case of the President is an occasion that could be narrowly cabined and where naming may be most appropriate.
At bottom, this is an area controlled not by categorical rules. Instead, it involves different risks and factors that must be weighed at different stages of the criminal process. Before trial, for example, the Attorneys Manual recognizes that the prosecution may identify unindicted coconspirators in a bill of particulars if requested by the defense. In that event, the Manual says prosecutors should generally (read: not always) try to file such documents under seal, and should not appeal any court order directing them to file publicly. At trial, a specificexception to hearsay allows prosecutors to identify and enter statements by named unindicted coconspirators. At these junctures before and during trial, the interests of defendants to know the details of the governments case against them and the interest of the government to prove its case can outweigh an unindicted coconspirators reputational interests in keeping her identity secret. The balance of equities also includes the press and publics interest in knowledge about the case. Federal courts, for example, have held that the public interest in disclosureoutweighs the privacy interests of the coconspirators in such instances. At least until 2013, the Justice Departments Antitrust Division named unindicted coconspirators in plea agreements and justified those actions as necessary to inform the public. The question then boils down to whether the balance of factors supports Muellers having this option at his disposal in this case. It does. Lets see why.
I. Deciding when its appropriate to exercise the option
If there were ever a need to make an exception to the presumption against identifying an unindicted coconspirator, Muellers investigation could be it. Simply put, a case in which two conditions exista person is immune from prosecution but theres a strong public interest in knowing about their actionscan provide ample justification.
Inability to indict Recall that the U.S. Attorneys Office Manual refers to the federal court decision United States v. Briggs (5th Cir. 1975) for having severely criticized the governments identifying unindicted coconspirators in that case. The Fifth Circuit judges, however, rested their opinion, in significant part, on the idea that the government had the option of simply indicting such individualsand the failure to do so thus appeared unfair. The Briggs court said, the indictment may make such additional persons defendants if there is probable cause to believe that they participated in the alleged conspiracy. We have been tendered no reason why in this case, if there was probable cause, the appellants were not included among those made defendants. The Briggs holding was based on the fact that the government did not have a good replywhy couldnt the government just indict the conconspirators too?
Take the option of indictment awayif the person is immunewhat do you have left? Following Briggs, a federal court allowed the government to name a coconspirator on the theory that the government could not actually indict the person. He was dead. Thats a bit of an extreme case, but like a hypothetical in a law school classroom it helps illustrate the point. And, indeed, the federal judge in that case explained that the situation stood for a broader principle where the person named as an unindicted coconspirator simply cannot be indicted and tried. More to the point, the court explained other specific cases in which there would be good reason to name the person in an indictment including when an unindicted coconspirator enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Strong public interest Another factor that distinguishes the Briggs ruling and the potential case of President Trump involves the governments interest in naming him. In Briggs, the court found nosubstantial government justification, a veritable empty set to weigh against the unindicted individuals interests. The Fifth Circuit court said:
The Department of Justice suggests nothing that rises to the dignity of a substantial interest. The Department does state in conclusory terms that the interest of justice may on occasion require that (unindicted conspirators) be named in the indictment. These interests of justice are not identified.
In a later case, the Fifth Circuit would later say that, in addressing the merits in Briggs, this Court made absolutely clear that that no legitimate function was served by naming and accusing an individual of a crime without indicting that individual as a defendant.
In Muellers case of naming the President there are substantial, easily articulable functions and intereststhe general one of the publics right to know is at its maximum here and Congress is waiting to know what Mueller thinks about Trumps involvement. Indeed, it would be mighty difficult to square Muellers assignment with the idea that he cannot say whether the President committed a crime. The provisions for the Special Counsel, for example, give Mueller jurisdiction to investigate obstruction of justice and the public understanding is that he is, indeed, charged to investigate that matter and the matter of potential criminal wrongdoing in the Trump campaign no matter how high up it leads. In short, Muellers responsibility, best understood, includes determining whether Trump is guilty. And even the Presidents own lawyers effectively acknowledged this fact, for example, in their efforts to clear the President by trying to set up an interview with Mueller. Having entrusted the Special Counsel with this solemn responsibility, it would make sense why Mueller should not have to wait for a defendant to request a bill of particulars or some opportunity like entering hearsay evidence if and when it finally comes to trial. At the very least it is safe to say that Mueller can clearly present a public interest that rises to the dignity of a substantial interest, far above what the court ask for in Briggs.
Finally, what about the general concern of naming someone in an indictment without their having a proper forum to respond? This is a valid and important issue, which lies at the heart of the general presumption against this sort of action. However, the President has a powerful platform unlike any other to respond to reputational concerns and defend his name. Whats more, a lack of forum cant be a decisive factor since individuals can be unmasked at trial (for example, under the hearsay exception) where they still
The bill of particulars is, however, the statement of the prosecutor and does not carry the imprimatur of credibility that official grand jury action does. When a witness testifies at trial he does so as a private individual and makes no formal adjudication regarding criminality.
But we should not elevate form over substance. Any such differences should be acknowledged in the balance of factors. One could cogently argue that the publics interest in knowing that a federal grand jury has amassed evidence of criminal conduct by the President outweighs any reputational risk that the President might suffer from the disclosure of his role.
More broadly, we should not lose sight of how the balance of equities will shift in different cases. Recall that even a sitting President may be named in a bill of particulars before trial and as a coconspirator or as part of other criminal activity at trial. In other words, the marginal benefit to the prosecution, to the defense, or the publics right to know in such cases can override a sitting Presidents interest in not being publicly namedeven including cases in which there is already overwhelming evidence to find the defendant guilty and the defendant can likely tell the identity of the unnamed person. The point is that our legal system allows tradeoffs at each of these stages, and it is far easier to accept naming a sitting President in an indictment when theres an enormous public interest in knowing.
Objections and some additional complications In addition to the factors we have worked through above, the Presidents lawyers could argue that it is wrong to say he is completely immune from indictment. The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel accepted in a 2000 opinion that the President at least loses immunity from indictment once he leaves office. So it may be said that one of the conditions that gives rise to the special reason for naming Trump herethat he cant be indictedis weaker. He is not fully immune. He just cant be indicted now. At least thats how this argument would go.
But how much of a salve is it that prosecutors might have an option to indict Trumponly after his presidency is over? If a president could be prosecuted only after leaving office (including the prospect of two four-year terms), that could significantly erode the prospect of an effective trial. In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that a civil lawsuit against a sitting President could proceed while he was in office. The Court recognized the significant impairment that can result from delaying a civil case against a president until after his term of office. Justice Stevens wrote for the Court: Such a lengthy and categorical stay takes no account whatever of the respondents interest in bringing the case to trial. delaying trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party. These concerns are amplified in criminal trials where the burden is on a prosecutor to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That said, perhaps Muellers hands are tied in that regard. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion in 2000 also counsels against an indictment of a sitting President that is then held in abeyance. So why wouldnt the reasons for that conclusion dictate the same outcome (temporary immunity) for the question of naming a President as an unindicted coconspirator? The Office of Legal Counsel opinion neither addresses nor excludes the option of naming a sitting president in a bill of particulars or at trial. And the scenarios for doing so far exceed cases of coconspirators or hearsay rules. For example, imagine a bribery case against a sitting President that would implicate her when prosecuting the person making the bribe. The OLC opinion does not foreclose implicating the sitting President in that criminality.
Whats more (and its a lot more) is Muellers solemn responsibility described earlier. It cant be that Mueller has the authority and publicly understood duty to investigate Trump for potential crimes, but not the power to say whether Trump was involved in any offences. Its also worth looking back at the Watergate special prosecutors team,
If we conclude that indictment of the President is constitutionally barred or is inappropriate, then we and the Grand Jury can and must fulfill our responsibilities to the public and to the law by recommending a Grand Jury presentment setting out in detail the most important evidence and the Grand Jurys conclusions that the President has violated certain criminal statutes and would have been indicted were he not President. There appears to be no question of the propriety or legality of such a course.
[For more on that topic, please read my piece with Alex Whiting, An Untold Option for Mueller: Grand Jury Presentment as an Alternative to Indicting Trump.]
Finally, recall the federal courts explanation that diplomatic immunity is one of the instances where prosecutors would have reason to name the person as an unindicted coconspirator in an indictment. Like the OLC opinion on the President, diplomatic immunity can be temporary too. The Justice Department saw fit to name a foreign diplomat as an unindicted coconspirator in a grand jury indictment within three years after Briggs.
(Before leaving this space, I should acknowledge my own doubts whether the OLC got it right that a President cannot be indicted while in office. I recently published a piece with the title, When Five Supreme Court Justices Said a President Can Be Indicted, and check out the first question in my Q&A with Cass Sunstein on his new book on impeachment.)
* * *
Having mined through the arguments on different sides of this issue, it seems clear that Mueller would have an open path to name President Trump in an indictmentfor example as an unindicted coconspiratorif theres sufficient evidence of the Presidents involvement in criminal activity within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel. The Watergate special prosecutors legal team appeared to think there was not just an availability but a profound responsibility to name President Nixon as an unindicted coconspirator if thats where the evidence led them, and that may rightfully be Muellers lodestar.
[Final note: for a perspective that differs from mine, read Professor James Jacobs Just Security article, Naming the President as an Unindicted Co-conspirator?]
Read on Just Security » Saved Stories - 1. US Security | ||
| Washington Free Beacon: De Blasio Calls Donor a Liar After He Accused Mayors Office of Corruption | ||
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D.) on Saturday called Jona Rechnitz, a former campaign contributor who said he bought access to City Hall through donations, a "liar."
De Blasio said he can not recall any details of any association with Rechnitz and refused to provide an account of their past meetings, phone calls and contacts, the New York Times reported.
Rechnitzs incriminating testimony this past week came at an inconvenient time for the mayor: less than two weeks before the Nov. 7 elections where he is seeking second term reelection. Up until this point, de Blasio has had a commanding lead in the polls and has been favored for reelection.
Although the witness began his testimony in a government case against former head of the correction officers union Norman Seabrook, much of his testimony ended up revealing details of his relationship with de Blasio.
Rechnitz pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud, and as part of plea deal, has since been cooperating with federal prosecutors. That includes cooperating in related corruption investigations involving the New York City Police Department and Mayor's Office.
Rechnitz told prosecutors he and the then-mayoral hopeful were friends and spoke on the phone at least once a week during de Blasios campaign for mayor in 2013. He also admitted to donating money directly to de Blasios campaign, and donating additional funds to a nonprofit started by de Blasio that aimed to get Democrats elected to State Senates.
In exchange for money donated, Rechnitz said he gained access to the mayor and was able to ask for favors. The major disagreed with Rechnitz's account
"You heard a lot of tales the last few days," de Blasio said on Saturday at a news conference in response to Rechnitzs testimony. "Jona Rechnitz has had his turn. Now its my turn to tell you the truth. Jona Rechnitz is a liar and a felon. Its as simple as that."
De Blasio said he met with Rechnitz after he won the Democratic primary in 2013, and the businessman began donating to the candidate's campaign. The mayor was vague, however, about the details of the meeting and claimed not to remember important interactions that came forward in Rechnitzs testimony.
"I remember a handful of times being in person with him and I remember a handful of times on the phone," the mayor said. "I really cant give you an exact number, but nothing like once a week."
De Blasio said Rechnitz is "a horrible human being" and was "not someone that I ever knew well or was close to."
"He is exaggerating in many, many ways," de Blasio said.
Rechnitz testified that he had a close relationship with a fundraiser for de Blasios campaign, Ross Offinger, and that Offinger arranged for de Blasio to visit Rechnitzs office in the early stages of their relationship. It was there that Rechnitz was given de Blasios personal email address and cellphone number.
"I dont remember the details but I can remember the broad strokes," de Blasio said. "At some point, I think it was Ross, said, Heres someone who says they want to help us, and then it proceeded from there. But I dont remember the details."
De Blasio denied giving any special treatment to donors.
"The fact that a convicted felon is now trying to besmirch me; no ones going to fall for that," de Blasio said on Saturday.
De Blasio nonetheless refused to provide a full account of his contacts with Rechnitz.
"You always want everything and Im not going to give it to you," he said.
The post De Blasio Calls Donor a ‘Liar’ After He Accused Mayor’s Office of Corruption appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.
Washington Free Beacon | ||
| Saved Stories - 1. US Security: Melissa Hathaway on The Future of Cybersecurity | ||
Melissa Hathaway was a senior cybersecurity adviser to President George W. Bush and led President Barack Obama's cyberspace policy review. She always has something intersting to say. For a slow Sunday as await the start of a busy week, here is a conversation she had a the United Nations University in Japan a few weeks ago:
Saved Stories - 1. US Security | ||
| National Security: A convicted murderer attended the Bergdahl trial and said 'I got my firing squad standing by' | ||
The decorated Green Beret was imprisoned for killing his wife.    National Security | ||
| International Security - Google News: Somalia fires security officials after bomb attack - The Guardian | ||
 International Security - Google News |
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment