Website
Page: 11
Ecuador’s President Lenin Moreno explains in a tweeted video why his country revoked WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s asylum, in Quito, Ecuador April 11, 2019 in this still image taken from video. @lenin/via REUTERS
April 12, 2019
By Alexandra Valencia and Mark Hosenball
QUITO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Ecuador’s decision to abruptly end Julian Assange’s seven-year asylum in its London embassy on Thursday followed a long deterioration in relations, driven in part by suspicions he was secretly fuelling corruption allegations against President Lenin Moreno.
British police on Thursday arrested the WikiLeaks founder, who sought asylum in the Andean nation’s diplomatic mission during the government of former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa – who saw Assange as a hero for leaking secret U.S. documents.
By contrast, Moreno took a dim view of Assange when he took office in 2017, ordering the Australian hacker to cut back his online political commentary, stop riding his skateboard in the halls of the embassy and clean up after his pet cat.
Moreno’s government accused WikiLeaks of being behind an anonymous website that said Moreno’s brother had created offshore companies that his family used to fund a luxurious lifestyle in Europe while Moreno was a delegate to a U.N. agency.
Moreno denies wrongdoing.
The leaked materials, dubbed the “INA Papers,” contained private photographs of Moreno and his family. After the release of the materials, Moreno said that Assange had no right to “hack private accounts and phones,” without directly accusing him.
WikiLeaks tweeted about the reports but, in messages and statements to Reuters, strongly denied that Assange was responsible for the leaks or had anything to do with their initial publication.
EMBASSY BEHAVIOR
Ecuadorean government figures on Thursday publicly described what they called Assange’s unacceptable and ungrateful behavior in the embassy. The government said it had spent $6.2 million on his upkeep and security between 2012 and 2018.
Foreign Minister Jose Valencia said Assange had been using a mobile phone that was not registered with the embassy and had warned the ambassador in January that he had installed panic buttons that he would activate if he considered his life at risk.
“It’s strange that Mr. Assange has insisted on being the victim,” Valencia told Ecuador’s National Assembly.
The interior minister, Maria Paula Romo, told reporters on Thursday that Assange had been “allowed to do things like put feces on the walls of the embassy and other behaviors of that nature.”
Valencia told the congress that embassy cleaning staff described “improper hygienic conduct” throughout Assange’s stay, adding that a lawyer representing Assange had attributed the issue to “stomach problems.”
Lawyers for Assange did not respond to requests for comment. Vaughan Smith, a friend and founder of London’s press Frontline Club who visited Assange late last week, told Reuters he believed the feces allegation was false.
“Julian has been under stress but seemed in a balanced frame of mind every time I have seen him. It doesn’t seem in character,” Smith said.
STAFFING CHANGE
Friends of Assange who visited him inside the embassy over the last several months say that since Moreno became president, almost the entire embassy staff was replaced.
The foreign ministry named a new ambassador after Moreno took office and fired one official, Fidel Narvaez, seen as close to Assange.
While embassy staffers were friendly to Assange during Correa’s presidency, Moreno’s new diplomats were polite to visitors but hostile to Assange, his friends said.
In early February, according to Ecuadorean government memos released by Assange’s supporters, Ecuador complained to Assange that he had deliberately pointed a studio lamp at a security camera the embassy had installed in a room where Assange was receiving visitors.
Later that month, the ambassador sent Assange a memo complaining that he had “shown once again an unacceptable behavior” by playing a radio loudly while meeting visitors. “This action disturbed the work being carried out by the embassy,” the ambassador said.
Assange had taken refuge in the embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over a sexual assault investigation that was later dropped.
U.S. officials announced after his arrest on Thursday that he had been charged with conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, paving the way for his extradition.
Correa, in an interview with Reuters in Brussels, said Moreno had given Assange “to his executioners.”
Asked whether he had worked with Wikileaks to leak the INA documents, he did not directly respond. He said the documents showed the “rottenness” within Moreno’s family.
“I apologize on behalf of the Ecuadorean people. A government like that – such a treacherous, treacherous president – does not represent us,” Correa said.
Valencia declined to comment on criticisms of Moreno.
Correa is embroiled in a legal battle with prosecutors pursuing a case involving the kidnapping in 2012 of an opposition lawmaker. An court in Ecuador last year ordered him to be imprisoned pending a trial and issued an international arrest warrant. Correa denies the charge.
(Reporting by Alexandria Valencia in Quito and Mark Hosenball in Washington, Additional reporting by Bart Biesemans in Brussels and Carlos Vargas and Helen Murphy in Bogota; Writing by Angus Berwick and Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Daniel Flynn and Rosalba O’Brien)
Source: OANN
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has portrayed himself as a champion of a free press, but the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to charge him with conspiring to hack government computers limits his ability to mount a vigorous free speech defense, some legal experts said.
The charge unsealed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Thursday said that in 2010 Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, crack a password to a U.S. government network.
At the time, Manning had already given WikiLeaks classified information about U.S. war activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Guantanamo Bay detainees, prosecutors said. The scheme would have allowed Manning to log in to the network anonymously and avoid detection, the indictment said.
Robert Chesney, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas, said that the case did not implicate free speech rights because it turned on the idea that Assange tried to hack a password.
“The charge is extremely narrow and that’s by design,” said Chesney.
U.S. prosecutors could still add charges against Assange, legal experts said.
The indictment, which was made secretly last year and released on Thursday, does not charge Assange for publishing classified material. WikiLeaks released the classified war information on its website in 2010 and 2011.
There is no mention in the indictment of WikiLeaks’ publication of emails damaging to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were stolen by Russia in a bid to boost Republican Donald Trump’s candidacy.
British police carried Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy in London on Thursday after his seven-year asylum there was revoked. The U.S. Department of Justice said Assange, 47, was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain.
Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange, suggested in a statement that the indictment could chill press freedom, saying journalists should be “deeply troubled” by the “unprecedented” charges.
“While the indictment against Julian Assange disclosed today charges a conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against Mr. Assange boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source,” Pollack said.
Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavor protected by freedom of the press laws. In 2017, a U.K. tribunal recognized WikiLeaks as a “media organization.”
The Justice Department debated for years whether prosecuting Assange and WikiLeaks would encroach on First Amendment protections, according to former officials.
The department under President Barack Obama made a conscious decision not to bring charges against Assange on the grounds that WikiLeaks’ activities were too similar to what conventional journalists do, the former officials said.
The charge against Assange of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion minimized concerns that freedom of the press would be undermined and made it more difficult for him to argue that his free speech rights were at stake, some legal experts said.
“A lot of the broader legal and policy implications have been alleviated by how narrowly tailored this indictment is,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington who represents whistleblowers and journalists.
Free speech advocates had worried that Assange would be prosecuted for publishing classified information he obtained from Manning in violation of the Espionage Act.
It is not unusual for journalists to publish classified material they obtain from sources and such a prosecution against Assange would have raised concerns that reporters could face similar charges, according to Steve Vladeck, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas.
Assange is likely to argue that the conspiracy charge was a pretext and the government really is prosecuting him for the publication of classified documents, lawyers not involved in the case said.
David Miller, a former federal prosecutor in New York and Virginia, said Assange’s defense would likely face “an uphill battle” assuming the government’s proof of communications and contacts with Manning is strong.
Prosecutors will emphasize that cracking a password is far outside the realm of what respectable journalists do, Chesney at the University of Texas said.
“All of this turns on the idea that Assange tries to hack a password,” Chesney said. “That’s not journalism, that’s theft.”
Manning was convicted by court martial in 2013 of espionage and other offenses for furnishing more than 700,000 documents, videos, diplomatic cables and battlefield accounts to WikiLeaks. Obama, in his last days in office, commuted the final 28 years of Manning’s 35-year sentence.
Source: NewsMax America
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is seen as he leaves a police station in London, Britain April 11, 2019. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls
April 11, 2019
By Jan Wolfe and Nathan Layne
(Reuters) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has portrayed himself as a champion of a free press, but the U.S. Department of Justice’s decision to charge him with conspiring to hack government computers limits his ability to mount a vigorous free speech defense, some legal experts said.
The charge unsealed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Thursday said that in 2010 Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst then known as Bradley Manning, crack a password to a U.S. government network.
At the time, Manning had already given WikiLeaks classified information about U.S. war activities in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Guantanamo Bay detainees, prosecutors said. The scheme would have allowed Manning to log in to the network anonymously and avoid detection, the indictment said.
Robert Chesney, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas, said that the case did not implicate free speech rights because it turned on the idea that Assange tried to hack a password.
“The charge is extremely narrow and that’s by design,” said Chesney.
U.S. prosecutors could still add charges against Assange, legal experts said.
The indictment, which was made secretly last year and released on Thursday, does not charge Assange for publishing classified material. WikiLeaks released the classified war information on its website in 2010 and 2011.
There is no mention in the indictment of WikiLeaks’ publication of emails damaging to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were stolen by Russia in a bid to boost Republican Donald Trump’s candidacy.
British police carried Assange out of Ecuador’s embassy in London on Thursday after his seven-year asylum there was revoked. The U.S. Department of Justice said Assange, 47, was arrested under an extradition treaty between the United States and Britain.
Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Assange, suggested in a statement that the indictment could chill press freedom, saying journalists should be “deeply troubled” by the “unprecedented” charges.
“While the indictment against Julian Assange disclosed today charges a conspiracy to commit computer crimes, the factual allegations against Mr. Assange boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source,” Pollack said.
Assange has long said WikiLeaks is a journalistic endeavor protected by freedom of the press laws. In 2017, a U.K. tribunal recognized WikiLeaks as a “media organization.”
The Justice Department debated for years whether prosecuting Assange and WikiLeaks would encroach on First Amendment protections, according to former officials.
The department under President Barack Obama made a conscious decision not to bring charges against Assange on the grounds that WikiLeaks’ activities were too similar to what conventional journalists do, the former officials said.
The charge against Assange of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion minimized concerns that freedom of the press would be undermined and made it more difficult for him to argue that his free speech rights were at stake, some legal experts said.
“A lot of the broader legal and policy implications have been alleviated by how narrowly tailored this indictment is,” said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer in Washington who represents whistleblowers and journalists.
Free speech advocates had worried that Assange would be prosecuted for publishing classified information he obtained from Manning in violation of the Espionage Act.
It is not unusual for journalists to publish classified material they obtain from sources and such a prosecution against Assange would have raised concerns that reporters could face similar charges, according to Steve Vladeck, a professor of national security law at the University of Texas.
Assange is likely to argue that the conspiracy charge was a pretext and the government really is prosecuting him for the publication of classified documents, lawyers not involved in the case said.
David Miller, a former federal prosecutor in New York and Virginia, said Assange’s defense would likely face “an uphill battle” assuming the government’s proof of communications and contacts with Manning is strong.
Prosecutors will emphasize that cracking a password is far outside the realm of what respectable journalists do, Chesney at the University of Texas said.
“All of this turns on the idea that Assange tries to hack a password,” Chesney said. “That’s not journalism, that’s theft.”
Manning was convicted by court martial in 2013 of espionage and other offenses for furnishing more than 700,000 documents, videos, diplomatic cables and battlefield accounts to WikiLeaks. Obama, in his last days in office, commuted the final 28 years of Manning’s 35-year sentence.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Nathan Layne; additional reporting by Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool)
Source: OANN
Recently released numbers from the U.S. Department of Commerce show that new home sales were up 4.9% this past February, in the midst of a thriving real estate market — and it’s a good time for new property owners. That’s because today’s recent construction is more likely to be fully equipped with smart home technology and that can bring real savings. From smart thermostats to leak detection technology, home ownership is more sustainable and affordable than ever before.
Built-in smart home technology is not only a money saver, but it’s also a purchase incentive. According to research, 81% of homeowners would be more inclined to buy a house with these devices already installed. This is a sign of growing acceptance among American homeowners as such devices become more familiar, as well as being associated with the increase in millennials purchasing their first homes.
Affordable Upgrades
It’s important to be clear: not all smart technology saves homeowners money. Home security, for example, may occasionally earn homeowners insurance credits, but in most cases, it’s a cumulative cost with few financial advantages, while voice-controlled speakers may actually lead to reckless spending. Smart LED lighting and thermostats, on the other hand, are affordable options with sizeable savings potential and wide appeal.
Just how much savings do these basic upgrades promise? According to the property management experts at Green Residential, who manage a variety of homes and apartments across the Houston, Texas area, a basic smart thermostat saves homeowners between $131 and $145 per year. LED lights, on the other hand, save owners more as the number in use grows. Each will save owners $13 a year on average, but the average homeowner has at least five lights that can be converted to LED, and likely many more.
Sensing Serious Risks
While LED lights and smart thermostats are affordable options, even for those seeking to upgrade older homes, new construction offers more advanced and complicated options not ordinarily available. Just recently, Semtech announced new radio frequency technology that monitors changes in humidity and temperature to identify invisible water leaks.
In the past, such leaks could cause serious structural damage before they became visible to the naked eye, as well as fostering mold growth. By identifying leaks before they progress, however, this new technology can save homeowners the cost of major repairs and renovations.
Additional Savings
Smart home technology provides savings through cumulative changes, much as any sustainability efforts do, but having that technology pre-installed is where homeowners achieve the biggest savings.
According to HomeAdvisor, it costs an average of $189 to install a new smart home appliance, which means it will take over a year to recoup the costs of the average device. Depending on how disruptive that installation process is, this can be a deterrent to homeowners.
When smart home devices are preinstalled in new construction, the homes typically don’t cost more — the new technology simply displaces old technology – but the savings begin to accrue immediately. Homeowners are saved the disruption, but also the added cost of purchasing and installing these tools.
Time Is Money
Finally, while smart home devices provide clear financial savings, they’re also tools of convenience and, as the saying goes, time is money. By automating an array of tasks, smart appliances save homeowners time, with an average estimate of thirty minutes a day. While that’s not much on any individual day, over the course of a week, that’s three and a half hours of time that can be committed to other activities, along with added peace of mind, and increased sustainability.
In the next few years, the majority of homes on the market, whether new construction or older, renovated homes, will be expected to contain at least basic smart home devices — it will be the only way to compete. That’s good news for buyers, tech companies, and the environment, a rare advance in which benefits accrue to all participants.
Larry Alton is a professional blogger, writer, and researcher. A graduate of Iowa State University, he’s now a full-time freelance writer and business consultant.Currently, Larry writes for Entrepreneur.com, Inc.com, and Forbes.com, among others. In addition to journalism, technical writing and in-depth research, he’s also active in his community and spends weekends volunteering with a local non-profit literacy organization and rock climbing. Follow him on Twitter (@LarryAlton3), at LinkedIn.com/in/larryalton, and on his website, LarryAlton.com. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
Source: NewsMax America
The French president has reportedly been a vocal opponent of a long Brexit extension for the UK, whose divorce from the EU was delayed until 31 October, although it was supposed to crash out the bloc by 12 April.
Some reports have suggested that he was “isolated” on the matter despite sympathy from Austria, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
All EU member states will be able to hold summits and make decisions without the UK despite its extended membership. A “Future of Europe” meeting in Sibiu, is scheduled for 9 May after the initially planned Brexit deadline. However, the UK is still allowed to take part in the upcoming European elections on 22 May, which was supposed be after the divorce.
According to the website Euractiv, blocking London from EU decision making can be viewed as a victory for France’s President Emmanuel Macron who went against a long Brexit extension that “was not logical” and would weaken the bloc’s institutions “with a member who is there, but wants to leave,” in his viewpoint.
Alex Jones breaks down the globalists’ plan to destroy borders worldwide before bringing in their New World Order under complete totalitarian rule.
While some reports suggested that Macron was “isolated” on the matter, gaining support only from Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, he refuted these speculations. He concluded that he saw his role as “bringing clarity” to a process the EU has never experienced before. He also branded the idea of the UK holding European elections “baroque,” noting, however, that EU member states will not prohibit the UK from holding EU elections. Commenting on the outcome of the meeting, Macron concluded “We delivered the best possible compromise.”
However, the website EU Observer reports, citing its source, that EU diplomats were annoyed by the French president, his resistance to a long extension was inspired by “internal political reasons.”
“This summit is not about the UK, but about French internal politics”, an unnamed diplomat said, as cited by the outlet.
During the Special European Council in Brussels, heads of 27 EU member states, excluding the United Kingdom, reached a consensus on Brexit delay, requested by UK Prime Minister Theresa May agreeing upon an extension to the Brexit deadline until 31 October, giving London an additional six months to figure out the best possible way to break the withdrawal impasse. According to the EU Observer, three or four member states preferred a short period, while 17 countries were for a long extension.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May told a news conference on Thursday that Britain could leave the European Union before the 30th of June, adding that she has been reaching out to find a way to reach an agreement on Brexit in the UK Parliament.
Mike Adams breaks down how hospital ventilation systems across American and the world are pumping out a deadly superbug.
Source: InfoWars
FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators take part in a protest rally marking the first anniversary of the murder of investigative reporter Jan Kuciak and his fiancee Martina Kusnirova in Bratislava, Slovakia, February 21, 2019. REUTERS/David W. Cerny/File Photo
April 11, 2019
BRATISLAVA (Reuters) – A man charged with Slovak journalist Jan Kuciak’s murder has confessed to shooting him, Slovak public television RTVS and the aktualne.sk news website reported on Thursday, quoting police sources.
The killing last year of Kuciak, a reporter covering corruption, and his fiancee, Martina Kusnirova, sparked massive protests that led to the resignation of the prime minister, Robert Fico.
(Reporting by Tatiana Jancarikova; Editing by Kevin Liffey)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO: Democratic 2020 U.S. presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks to supporters in Memphis, Tennessee, U.S. March 17, 2019. REUTERS/Karen Pulfer Focht/File Photo
April 11, 2019
By Ginger Gibson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren is proposing a new 7 percent tax on corporate profits that exceed $100 million, her presidential campaign said on Thursday.
Warren’s proposal would apply the new tax not to the totals companies already report to the IRS, but instead to the profits reported to shareholders – which are frequently much larger given the loopholes, deductions and other accounting differences allowed by the tax code.
Companies would not pay the new tax, which would be in addition to existing corporate taxes that companies already pay, on their first $100 million in profits.
But for each dollar over that threshold, the companies would be subject to a 7 percent tax, Warren outlined in a post on the website Medium and seen by Reuters.
Her campaign estimates about 1,200 companies would be subject to the new tax. It would bring the government an additional $1.05 trillion in new tax revenues over 10 years, according to estimates from economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman at the University of California-Berkeley.
Warren hopes to challenge Republican President Donald Trump, who has focused on tax cuts for corporations, which he says have allowed the economy to flourish and lowered the unemployment rate.
Warren is competing in a crowded field of more than 15 Democrats vying for their party’s nomination and has sought to distinguish herself by offering the most numerous and expansive policy proposals.
Warren’s new tax, which she dubs the “Real Corporate Profits Tax,” would account for profits U.S. companies make globally and would also be imposed on foreign companies doing substantial work in the United States.
“This new tax applies to the profits very large American companies report to their investors — with no loopholes or exemptions,” Warren wrote in her proposal.
Warren specifically targets Amazon.com and Occidental Petroleum as two companies she says are not paying enough in corporate taxes and would be forced to pay more under her proposal.
Republicans are likely to criticize her proposal by arguing that it will drive companies currently incorporated in the United States to leave or change domicile to avoid the tax – a practice known as inversion.
Warren’s campaign argues that rules on inversions put in place by the Treasury in 2016 have halted the practice and that she would continue strict enforcement if elected.
(Reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump heads back to the Oval Office after declaring a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border during remarks about border security in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., February 15, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo
April 11, 2019
By Jan Wolfe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Attorney General William Barr has pledged to release next week Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russia’s role in the 2016 U.S. election and contacts between Moscow and President Donald Trump’s campaign, albeit with color-coded redactions.
While congressional Democrats have demanded the release of the full report with nothing blacked out, as well as the underlying evidence Mueller collected, Barr has said he will redact four categories of sensitive information.
Barr told a congressional committee on Tuesday these redactions will be color-coded and accompanied by notes explaining the grounds for withholding information. It is unclear how much will be blacked out.
According to a March 24 letter Barr sent to lawmakers, Mueller’s nearly 400-page report presents evidence on both sides of the question of whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice, and while it “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Barr said in his letter that Mueller did not establish that the Trump campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia. Barr also said that he as attorney general concluded that Mueller’s evidence was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed criminal obstruction of justice.
Here is an explanation of the four categories of information that Barr has said will be redacted.
GRAND JURY MATERIAL
In the U.S. criminal justice system, prosecutors generally must get authorization from a group of citizens known as a grand jury before bringing criminal charges or issuing subpoenas. Grand juries meet in secret to ensure that people being investigated are not tipped off, while also protecting the privacy of potential criminal defendants who ultimately are not charged.
Over the course of Mueller’s investigation, which led to charges against 34 people and three Russian companies, his team used grand jury proceedings to issue more than 2,800 subpoenas and executed nearly 500 search warrants. A provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure called Rule 6(e) requires government lawyers to maintain the confidentiality of “matters” before grand juries, with some exceptions.
This rule is unlikely to lead to many redactions in the part of the Mueller report dealing with whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice with actions aimed at impeding the inquiry. For that investigation, Mueller’s team gathered evidence through voluntary FBI interviews with witnesses, which do not implicate grand jury secrecy rules.
Mueller did use a grand jury to question associates of Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump who came under scrutiny due to his interactions with the Wikileaks website that published emails the special counsel has said were hacked by Russia to harm Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. In January, Mueller indicted Stone on charges including obstruction of an official proceeding, witness tampering and making false statements. Stone has pleaded not guilty.
Another key figure who testified before Mueller’s grand jury was George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman involved in an effort to set up a back channel between the incoming Trump administration and the Kremlin while Barack Obama was still president, according to a Washington Post report.
INFORMATION THAT COULD AFFECT ONGOING CASES
Barr has said he will redact information that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions.
“You’ll recall that the special counsel did spin off a number of cases that are still being pursued,” Barr told lawmakers. “And we want to make sure that none of the information in the report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecute the cases, or the fairness to the defendants.”
Mueller’s team has enlisted attorneys from other parts of the Justice Department, court records show, to jointly prosecute certain ongoing cases. These include: charges against Stone; witness-tampering charges against Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian associate of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort; charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking Democratic emails; and a Russian “troll farm” accused of flooding social media sites with propaganda to promote Trump and disparage Clinton.
Separately, referrals by Mueller gave rise to inquiries by federal prosecutors in Washington, Virginia and New York. The New York referral related to Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who pleaded guilty to a variety of charges and is due to report to prison for a three-year sentence in May. U.S. prosecutors in Virginia are investigating secret Turkish lobbying involving Michael Flynn, Trump’s fired former national security adviser. In Washington, lobbyist Samuel Patten pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent for pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and helping a pro-Russian Ukrainian businessman illegally purchase tickets to Trump’s inauguration.
Stone’s trial is set to begin in November and Manafort has been hit with state charges in New York, so information about those two men could be redacted.
‘PERIPHERAL THIRD PARTIES’
Barr has said he will redact “information that would unduly infringe on the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties.” This is another way of articulating a long-standing Justice Department policy of not releasing disparaging information about a person unless the individual is indicted. The policy is grounded in the belief that people who are indicted can defend themselves in court, but people who are investigated without being charged do not have this opportunity.
This policy has been dispensed with before, including in June 2016 when then-FBI Director James Comey publicly pronounced that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in handling classified information even though she was never charged.
Some legal experts have said this policy should not apply to Mueller’s report because it was primarily a counterintelligence operation, rather than a traditional criminal investigation. By focusing on the privacy rights of “peripheral” third parties, Barr may be signaling he will make an exception to the policy in order to allow information to remain unredacted concerning people who, while not charged with crimes, are central to the probe, potentially including Trump.
INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING SOURCES AND METHODS
In investigating Russian election interference, Mueller’s team may have relied on information from top-secret intelligence sources. Justice Department officials last year turned down a request by Republican lawmakers for certain information about Mueller’s investigation, saying doing so could put lives at risk and expose the identity of a U.S. citizen who provided intelligence to the FBI. While redacting such material, Barr might opt to divulge it to certain lawmakers behind closed doors.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO: A Chevron gas station sign is seen in Del Mar, California, in this April 25, 2013 file photo. REUTERS/Mike Blake/FileS/File Photo
April 11, 2019
By Ross Kerber and Jennifer Hiller
BOSTON/HOUSTON (Reuters) – Chevron Corp will put a focus on human rights in Myanmar under an agreement with an investor group that had urged it to pay more attention to violence in the Asian nation where the U.S. oil company has operations.
Chevron will undertake steps including social investment reviews in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, donate to humanitarian organizations for Rohingya refugees, and help develop practices for companies operating amid risks of crimes against humanity, according to a letter signed by a company executive.
Azzad Asset Management, an activist investor that submitted a shareholder resolution calling on Chevron to report on its business with governments complicit in genocide or crimes against humanity, agreed to withdraw the proposal, according to a copy of the agreement viewed by Reuters.
“Chevron appreciates Azzad’s constructive engagement and commends them for recognizing our actions related to human rights,” Mary Francis, Chevron’s governance officer who signed the letter, said in an emailed statement. Francis declined to be interviewed.
A similar resolution was opposed by the company at previous shareholder meetings and last year won support from just 7% of votes cast according to a securities filing.
Joshua Brockwell, investment communications director at Virginia-based Azzad, which describes itself as “a faith-based socially responsible investment firm offering halal investment portfolios,” said the agreement “demonstrates positive steps forward after years of dialogue.”
Rakhine State came to global attention in 2017 when the Myanmar army drove about 730,000 ethnic Rohingya Muslims across the border and into neighboring Bangladesh, following attacks by Rohingya insurgents on police posts. U.S. and United Nations officials have decried the crackdown as a form of genocide.
More recently, the military has been battling another armed rebel group, the Arakan Army, which draws recruits mostly from the ethnic Rakhine population, who are mainly Buddhists, and is fighting for greater autonomy for the western state.
Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo have spent more than 15 months in detention since they were arrested in December 2017 while investigating a massacre of Rohingya Muslim civilians involving Myanmar soldiers.
Chevron, the second-largest U.S.-based oil producer, does business in Myanmar through a subsidiary, Unocal Myanmar Offshore Co, according to Chevron’s website. Its projects there include a minority interest in natural gas production and in a pipeline company.
(Reporting by Ross Kerber in Boston and Jennifer Hiller in Houston; Editing by Leslie Adler)
Source: OANN
Rappler CEO and Executive Editor Maria Ressa steps out with her lawyer Eric Recalde after being arraigned at the Court of Tax Appeals in Quezon City, Philippines, April 3, 2019. REUTERS/Eloisa Lopez
April 11, 2019
MANILA (Reuters) – A news website bitterly opposed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on Thursday petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a ban on coverage of his events, calling it an unconstitutional assault on the freedom of press.
Rappler, a media startup known for its tough investigative reporting of one of Asia’s most volatile leaders, is the subject of numerous legal challenges backed by government lawyers that cover tax evasion, libel, and ownership violations.
It has long complained that a ban backed by no known written order was widely enforced by presidential staff to block its reporters from important public events, setting a bad precedent for a country long seen as Southeast Asia’s standard-bearer of media freedom.
“This case is not just about Rappler,” the startup said in a statement. “It is about every journalist’s mandate to cover without prior restraint or threat of punishment the office of the president and scrutinize the tremendous power it holds.”
Rappler’s award-winning head and co-founder, Maria Ressa, has been charged in 11 legal cases, all of which she says are part of a coordinated campaign of legal harassment and online trolling intended to deter journalists from scrutiny of the popular 74-year-old Duterte.
The government says Rappler is being pursued for breaking the law, and not for its brand of reporting.
Duterte, a maverick former mayor known as “the punisher” for his zero-tolerance approach to crime, drugs and graft, denies trying to stifle Rappler but has no qualms about accusing it of fabricating stories and being a tool of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Rappler dismissed that. In its 75-page filing to the Supreme Court, it quoted some of Duterte’s expletive-laden tirades against it and challenged the legality of an order that, like many of the president’s most controversial policies, was only a verbal instruction.
“The prohibition is based on a personal determination by the executive branch that Rappler or its journalists are ‘liars’ or peddlers of ‘fake news’, a determination which has no basis in law,” it said.
Asked about the petition, Duterte’s spokesman, Salvador Panelo, said, “It’s a free country. We do not interfere with the judiciary.”
(Reporting by Martin Petty and Karen Lema; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)
Source: OANN
MAGA One Radio