OPENSECRETS NEWS
With legal troubles mounting and spending slowing, NRA promises to boost Trump

By Ian Karbal and Anna Massoglia

August 7, 2020 11:41 am

President Donald Trump sits with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre (Michael Reynolds – Pool/Getty Images)

The National Rifle Association plans to pour millions of dollars into President Donald Trump’s 2020 re-election effort despite escalating legal turmoil and plummeting cash flow leaving its election spending lagging behind recent cycles.

The NRA was having a bad year even before New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit on Thursday with the aim of dissolving the group entirely.

Within hours of the New York Attorney General’s announcement, however, the NRA announced plans of its own to “spend tens of millions of dollars” on 2020 elections in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon. Jason Ouimet, who runs the NRA’s lobbying arm and political action committee, said the NRA plans to “spend heavily in battleground states to help reelect President Donald Trump” with a focus on Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

While the NRA’s ambitious 2020 electoral strategy projects tens of millions of dollars in political spending, the gun rights group’s spending at this point in the 2020 election cycle hardly comes close to that amount.

The leading gun rights advocacy group has yet to even crack $1 million in outside spending reported to the Federal Election Commission since the start of the 2020 election cycle, shelling out roughly $900,000 through the first week of August. The NRA reported spending nearly twice that amount with more than $1.6 million on 2018 elections by this point last cycle and over nine times that amount at this point in the 2016 election cycle with more than $8.2 million.

Altogether, the NRA reported more than $54 million in record-breaking political spending supporting Republican candidates in the 2016 election cycle with most of that supporting Trump over Hillary Clinton.

As in 2016, most of the NRA’s 2020 political spending reported to the FEC has gone to support Trump by boosting his re-election efforts with activities including canvassing and peer-to-peer text campaigns, but at a fraction of the scale. The rest of the NRA’s 2020 federal political spending is mostly flowing to support Republicans in hotly-contested U.S. Senate races.

The NRA’s lagging spending has allowed gun control groups to outpace gun rights groups on political spending in the 2020 elections so far, spending $2.2 million compared to $1.4 million from their pro-gun counterparts. Last cycle was the first in at least a decade that saw gun control groups outspend gun rights groups, due mostly to a massive decrease in NRA spending from previous years.

The NRA has also spent less money lobbying than it has in the first half of any year in more than a decade, even as the organization fought to have gun stores and gun ranges included on lists of essential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The NRA spent more than $2.2 million buying digital ads through its main Facebook page during the 2020 election as well with roughly $750,000 more going to Google ads. The ads are a mix of fundraising solicitations, issue ads, retail and political messaging boosting candidates at multiple levels of government. Other official NRA-branded pages have also spent hundreds of thousands more on digital ads, according to OpenSecrets’ online ad spending data.

The New York Attorney General’s lawsuit alleges NRA executives “looted or wasted” the lobbying group’s assets to the tune of $63 million between 2015 and 2018, part of a larger pattern spanning NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre’s three-decade tenure. Allegations describe a pattern of “excessive” personal spending on behalf of a handful of executives, often without disclosure and seemingly unchecked by the group’s board. The lawsuit’s introduction marked the end of one of several similar investigations that had cost the group $100 million in legal fees by January.

Within hours of the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit announcement, Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine announced that his office is suing the NRA Foundation for misuse of charitable funds. That office alleges that the NRA Foundation illegally diverted funds to the NRA’s lobbying arm in order to cover LaPierre’s spending. The NRA stands accused of “inappropriate spending,” “self-dealing” and other questionable transactions.

While the New York Attorney General’s office pursues dissolution of the NRA, suggesting a diversion of their remaining funds to other charities with similar missions, their D.C. counterpart is seeking enforcement actions of its own. The D.C. Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks to modify NRA Foundation policies to ensure the foundation has “proper independence” from the NRA, force NRA officials who might otherwise be unjustly enriched to transfer money improperly diverted to the NRA to the intended parties, and to mandate nonprofit governance training for NRA officials.

NRA Foundation payments to the NRA’s main lobbying arm listed as reimbursements increased to more than $17.4 million in its most recently filed tax return, according to an earlier OpenSecrets investigation, the largest amount in at least a decade and nearly three times the $6 million reported in reimbursements the prior year.

The organization responded to the New York Attorney General’s lawsuit with a tweet stating “This was a baseless, premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend.”

The NRA has already filed a countersuit against the New York Attorney General alleging the lawsuit is politically motivated and claiming that an NRA director was warned of the office’s intent to investigate the gun rights group as early as 2017. The investigation was not made public until 2019.

The cases against the NRA follow a series of scandals that had called the NRA’s continued efficacy into question. A 2019 leadership struggle between LaPierre and former NRA president Oliver North spurred a series of leaks bringing to light the questionable use of funds. Reports of LaPierre’s use of tax-exempt money to fund his lavish lifestyle grew throughout 2019, many of which were central to the New York Attorney General’s office complaint. What emerged Thursday was a much fuller picture of how NRA money was allegedly used on private jet trips, five-star hotels, flashy Christmas gifts, golf club memberships and lucrative consulting fees for little work done, often to the benefit of LaPierre and his family.

The NRA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The New York Attorney General’s office used the 2019 dissolution of the Trump Foundation as one of two recent examples of similar action to dissolve a nonprofit. The Trump Foundation, which Donald Trump was listed as president of during his entire first year in the White House, agreed to pay $2 million after admitting to misusing funds from the tax-exempt charitable organization to further Trump’s personal and political interests in the 2016 presidential election.

NRA Executives Accused of Misusing $64 Million of Organization’s Money

KEYA VAKIL
AUGUST 6, 2020

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at Conservative Political Action Conference. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

New York AG moves to dissolve the organization, citing Trump Foundation case as precedent.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the National Rifle Association, seeking to dissolve the anti-gun safety lobbying group over a years-long pattern of fraud, financial crimes, and corruption.

The lawsuit alleges that top NRA executives, including chief executive Wayne LaPierre, engaged in 18 criminal offenses, including fraudulently using charitable funds for their own personal gain and providing millions of dollars in contracts to friends, family members, ex-employees, and ex-board members.

“It’s clear that the NRA has been failing to carry out its stated mission for many, many years and instead has operated as a breeding ground for greed, abuse, and brazen illegality,” James said in a press conference on Thursday. “No one is above the law, not even the NRA, one of the most powerful organizations in this country.”

The investigation is just the latest example of groups allied with President Donald Trump running afoul of the law. The New York Attorney General’s office specifically named their investigation into President Trump’s charitable foundation as precedent to dissolve the NRA. That case forced his organization to shut down in 2018 amid allegations that Trump used the foundation for his own personal and political gain, including to help his 2016 presidential campaign by funding giveaways at Iowa rallies.

James mentioned that case in explaining why she was filing a suit to dissolve the NRA. “The corruption was so broad and because they have basically destroyed all the assets of the NRA,” she said. “We needed to dissolve this organization just as we did the Trump foundation.”

And on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the president’s longtime lender, Deutsche Bank, turned over Trump’s financial records after the Manhattan District Attorney’s office issued a subpoena last year as part of their investigation into Trump’s business practices. The request signaled that their investigation into Trump has expanded into potential business and insurance fraud.

James said the NRA investigation, which began in February 2019, found the group’s financial misconduct led to a loss of more than $64 million over a three-year period for the non-profit organization. The lawsuit asks the court to order that LaPierre and other executives make “full restitution” for the funds they misused, pay financial penalties, and be barred from ever again serving on a charitable board in the state of New York.

BREAKING: @NewYorkStateAG has filed a lawsuit to dissolve the @NRA, claiming its leaders exploited the company for personal gain. pic.twitter.com/Oza5bDakF1— COURIER (@CourierNewsroom) August 6, 2020

The lawsuit could have enormous political consequences, given the NRA’s history of political influence and financial support of right-wing candidates. The organization spent more than $50 million boosting now-President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans during the 2016 election, according to an audit obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

James has jurisdiction over the NRA because it is chartered as a nonprofit in New York, and her lawsuit sets up what is sure to be a contentious legal dispute that could take years to be decided. In a statement released shortly after James’ press conference, the NRA blasted the lawsuit as a “baseless, premeditated attack” and vowed to fight the lawsuit.

According to James, LaPierre was the ringleader of the scheme, engaging in rampant misuse of funds. “Mr. LaPierre exploited the organization for his and his family’s financial benefits and the benefit for a close circle of NRA staff, board members, and vendors,” she said.

LaPierre, who has led the NRA for 39 years, is accused of spending more than $500,000 in the NRA’s funds to pay for at least eight family trips to the Bahamas over a three-year period. LaPierre also billed a vendor for “multiple luxury hunting safaris in Africa” and spent more than $3.6 million on travel agent services in just the past two years, according to the lawsuit.

The filing also names NRA general counsel John Frazier, former chief financial officer Woody Phillips, and former chief of staff Joshua Powell, for allegedly misusing “millions upon millions of dollars from the NRA for personal use, including for lavish trips for themselves and their families, private jets, expensive meals, and other private travel.”

The lawsuit represents a potentially fatal blow for the powerful gun rights group, which has more than 5 million members, but has already experienced financial struggles and inner turmoil in recent years. A secret recording of an NRA board meeting obtained by NPR in April showed LaPierre saying that the NRA’s previous legal troubles—which include congressional inquiries, state investigations, internal whistleblower complaint, and a contentious dispute with its former public relations firm—had cost the organization $100 million.

“The cost that we bore was probably about a hundred-million-dollar hit in lost revenue and real cost to this association in 2018 and 2019,” LaPierre said, according to a tape recorded by someone in the room. “I mean, that’s huge.”

The group has also been involved in a dispute with its long-time public relations firm, Ackerman McQueen, which James’ suit claims was intimately involved in the NRA’s fraud. The filing claims that the groups secretly agreed that LaPierre and his allies would pass through lavish personal expenses and other questionable spending to the Oklahoma-based firm, which would then bill the NRA for those costs, calling them “out-of-pocket expenses,” indicating they were related to the company’s work for the gun rights group.

The goal of the scheme, James alleges, was to prevent the Board of the NRA or other members from knowing that the organization was paying for LaPierre’s personal spending. In 2017 and 2018 alone, Ackerman McQueen billed the NRA $70 million, with a large chunk of these expenses coming from LaPierre’s personal trips and expenses. The relationship between the companies has splintered over the past two years, with the NRA suing Ackerman McQueen over hiding details of its billing records.

Collectively, these issues have pushed the NRA out of the limelight in 2020 and tarnished the group’s reputation among some.

President Trump, however, defended the group on Thursday, calling the lawsuit a “terrible thing” and urging the NRA to move to Texas to avoid investigation.

Trump laments the lawsuit by NY AG Letitia James to dissolve the NRA as a "terrible thing." Trump urges the NRA to move to Texas or another state to avoid the legal scrutiny from law enforcement.

The NRA spent millions in 2016 to promote Trump's presidential campaign. pic.twitter.com/X2Iyj1aSre— The American Independent (@AmerIndependent) August 6, 2020

Trump, of course, is no stranger to lawsuits.

Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance’s investigation initially appeared to be focused on Trump’s 2016 hush money payments made to women who claim they had affairs with him. But The Times’ report indicated that the investigation might be broader. In a court filing this week, prosecutors with the DA’s office cited “public reports of possibly extensive and protracted criminal conduct at the Trump Organization” and indicated they were also investigating possible crimes involving bank and insurance fraud.

That investigation remains ongoing, and like the NRA case, could take years to play out.


NY Sues to Dissolve the NRA, Accusing Top Execs of Fraud

August 6, 2020 ADAM KLASFELD

National Rifle Association members listen to speakers during the a 2013 meeting at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston. (Johnny Hanson/Houston Chronicle via AP, File)

MANHATTAN (CN) — Employing the same move that helped shutter the Trump Foundation, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit Thursday to dissolve the National Rifle Association.

“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James said in a statement this morning. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.”

Spanning a novel-length 163 pages, the lawsuit accuses four NRA executives of looting the nonprofit that has operated in New York since 1871.

“The central figure behind this scheme was none other than Wayne LaPierre,” James told reporters at a press conference this morning, referring the NRA’s chief executive. “Mr. LaPierre exploited the organization for his and his family’s financial benefit.”

Itemizing private jet trips to the tropics and African safaris — all allegedly on the donors’ dime — James said LaPierre used the NRA as his “personal piggy bank.”

“In the last five years, LaPierre and his family have visited the Bahamas by private air charter on at least eight occasions, at a cost of more than $500,000 to the NRA,” the complaint states. “On many of those trips, LaPierre and his family were gifted the use of a 107-foot yacht owned by an NRA vendor.

“LaPierre received hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from another NRA vendor in the form of complimentary safaris in Africa and other world-wide locations for himself and his spouse,” it continues.

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre speaks at the 2020 Conservative Political Action Conference at the National Harbor, in Oxon Hill, Md., on Feb. 29. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

James even notes how the TV hunting show “Under Wild Skies” documented several of these free trips before its producers sued the NRA last September.

“LaPierre and his wife regularly appeared in episodes of Under Wild Skies, traveling to and participating in big game hunts in the United States, Botswana, Tanzania, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Argentina, and Uruguay,” New York’s complaint states. “The expenses associated with these trips — including professional hunter costs, camps, chartered in-continent travel, food and beverages, hunting licenses, trophy fees, and taxidermy — were incurred by UWS.”

In the New York case, the NRA and LaPierre are joined as defendants by the NRA’s former treasurer and chief financial officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, chief of staff and the executive vice president of operations Joshua Powell, and general counsel Joshua Frazer.

The complaint says Phillips tripled his salary in less than three years, despite allegations of abusive and illegal conduct, and Frazier failed during his brief 18-month tenure to enforce whistleblower protections and conflict-of-interest policies.

“Efforts to question or challenge LaPierre’s leadership were quashed or ignored,” the complaint states. “LaPierre retaliated against the NRA president after personally lobbying him to take on the position. LaPierre withdrew his critical support after the president began to independently assess the governance of the NRA upon learning of complaints by whistleblowers, senior staff and donors.”

This appears to be a reference to Oliver North, whom the NRA accused last year of planning a “failed coup attempt” with their longtime public relations firm Ackerman McQueen, an entity labeled by the attorney general as a pass-through for hiding improper expenditure and self-dealing.

“Payment of these expenses also violated IRS rules governing reporting of income for each of the recipients on their W-2 forms, exposing the NRA to penalties for false filings and for under-withholding of taxes due,” the new complaint alleges.

Describing her investigation as ongoing, James did not reveal whether she referred criminal charges for the alleged federal tax violations.

Beset by internal turmoil, in-fighting and a Mueller-era prosecution shining a light on Russian government infiltration of their organization, the NRA saw its record of alleged financial mismanagement documented by multiple lawsuits at the same time James announced her investigation publicly.

James referred to the group as a “terrorist organization” during her run for attorney general, but her lawsuit describes the gun group’s donors as the victims of these practices.

“The effect has been to divert millions of dollars away from the charitable mission, imposing substantial reductions in its expenditures for core program services, including gun safety, education, training, member services and public affairs,” her complaint states.

NRA President Carolyn Meadows quickly denounced the lawsuit as an election-year stunt.

“This was a baseless, premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend,” Meadows said in a statement. “You could have set your watch by it: The investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle. It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda.”

Wasting little time on a counterattack, the NRA sued James in Albany this afternoon, claiming the new lawsuit against it in Manhattan violates the First Amendment rights of its more than 5 million members.

“This has been a power grab by a political opportunist — a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta,” Meadows said. “Our members won’t be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.”

James is hardly alone in alleging a culture of fraud in the gun group as former NRA insiders and associates rush forward with supporting allegations.

In a separate Thursday suit, Karl Racine, the attorney general in Washington, D.C., seeks to have the NRA’s diverted assets governed by a constructive trust.

“Charitable organizations function as public trusts — and district law requires them to use their funds to benefit the public, not to support political campaigns, lobbying, or private interests,” Racine said in a statement. “With this lawsuit, we aim to recover donated funds that the NRA Foundation wasted. District nonprofits should be on notice that the Office of the Attorney General will file suit if we find evidence of illegal behavior.”

Founded in New York, the NRA has much less to lose from the lawsuit filed in the nation’s capital, and Racine has not faced the same kind of personal attack as James, who brushed aside claims of political motivations.

“We follow the facts and the law,” James said at her press conference. “We come to conclusions of law.”

She filed the case in Manhattan Supreme Court, where a similar lawsuit filed by her predecessor led to a $2 million settlement with a now-defunct Trump Foundation.

UTAH 

George Floyd: US protesters charged as 'gang' face life sentence

THE STATE THAT EXECUTED JOE HILL

BBC•August 7, 2020


Protesters in Utah who splashed paint on a prosecutor's office could be given life sentences after they were accused of acting as a "gang".

Salt Lake City District Attorney Sim Gill, whose office was targeted by Black Lives Matter marchers issued the charges.

Critics, including the city's mayor, have called the felony charges excessive.

The paint splashing occurred during a 9 July protest against racism.

According to Utah's criminal code, the "gang enhancements" felonies Mr Gill filed are applied to "offences committed in concert with two or more person or in relation to a criminal street gang".

In effect, prosecutors are "calling participants in a protest gang members," a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union told AP.

Mr Gill, a Democrat who says he declined to charge other Black Lives Matters protesters for curfew violations, downplayed the potential serious life sentence such charges carry. He did not think "anyone is going to be going to prison on this," he said. Plea deals are said to be often used in cases such as these to avoid a full sentence.

"There's some people who want to engage in protest, but they want to be absolved of any behaviour," Mr Gill said.

"This is not about protest. This is about people who are engaging in criminal conduct."

However, Mayor Erin Mendenhall condemned the gang upgrade, saying the "potential punishment facing some protesters is excessive".

"While I believe there should be consequences for breaking the law, the potential to spend life in prison for buying paint is too severe," she said in a video on her Twitter account.
You may also be interested in:

Seven suspects are face first-degree felonies for allegedly buying or transporting the paint, splashing it on the government property or breaking windows, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Lawyers for the accused told the newspaper the charges were retaliatory and a conflict of interest, because the protest took place at Mr Gill's office and protesters have repeatedly called him out by name.

Mr Gill agreed that it was "not the ideal solution" to have his office file the charges, since they are the alleged victim, but he said short-staffing due to the coronavirus pandemic required it. He said the case will ultimately be handled by another district attorney's office.

Madalena McNeil, 28, one of the protesters who is facing a life sentence, said: "I was really shocked because I just don't think any of the allegations against me warrant life in prison". She was charged for buying paint and pushing an officer.

She told CBS that she feels confident that she will not receive such a long sentence, but "it would be silly to look at the potential of life in prison and not be scared".

‘I’m Not Scared’: She Faces Life in Prison After Allegedly Buying Red Protest Paint

BEYOND THE PALE

“I realized that in the eyes of the state, I had become an enemy for exercising what is supposed to be a protected right.”

Updated Aug. 07, 2020

Handout
Madalena McNeil is accused of buying red paint before a protest. Under aggressive new criminal charges, it could mean she spends the rest of her life in prison.

McNeil, 28, was among four people charged Tuesday for their alleged actions at a July Salt Lake City, Utah, protest over a district attorney’s decision that the fatal police shooting of a young man was justified. Protesters allegedly splashed red paint on the DA’s office, broke windows, and hung signs calling for justice for the slain man.

But instead of merely charging the protesters with vandalism or even rioting, that same DA used a charging enhancement to claim they operated as a gang. Under the new charges, the demonstrators face up to life in prison. It’s the latest in a pattern of harsh measures that ratchet up potential penalties by treating protesters like a criminal conspiracy.

“I'm not scared because I think that I did anything wrong, because I know that I didn't,” McNeil told The Daily Beast. “But it would be very foolish of me to look at the potential for life in prison and not be scared. When I heard about that [the charges] I realized that in the eyes of the state, I had become an enemy for exercising what is supposed to be a protected right.”

Feds Never Mention ‘Antifa’ in Protest Violence Prosecutions

MASK OFF

William Bredderman,
Spencer Ackerman


McNeil and a crowd that she estimated to contain 40 to 50 people gathered outside the DA’s office on July 9 to protest the lack of charges against a pair of officers who shot and killed 22-year-old Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal. Palacios-Carbajal was accused of making threats with a gun in May. He fled when officers arrived on the scene, and officers gave chase. He stumbled to the ground three times, the third time appearing to point his gun at officers, who shot him 34 times.

DA Sim Gill found that the officers were justified in the shooting, but the case has ignited local controversy, with Palacios-Carbajal’s family announcing plans to sue the city.

McNeil and fellow protesters were met with police in riot gear when they arrived at the DA’s office, she said. Footage she filmed from the event shows the police line charging protesters with their riot shields. McNeil, who shared pictures she said were bruises from the incident, accused Salt Lake City Police of brutality in the incident. Salt Lake City Police declined to comment.

A criminal complaint accuses McNeil of positioning herself to shove one of the shield-toting officers, and of buying the red paint that protesters allegedly splashed outside the DA’s office. She and six other protesters face criminal mischief and rioting charges, which usually cap at a second-degree felony, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. (McNeil declined to comment on the details of the case.)

But Gill, the DA who was the focus of protesters’ ire in the first place, enhanced the charges using a provision intended for gangs. Under the new enhancements, which apply to “offenses committed in concert with two or more persons or in relation to a criminal street gang," the protesters can face up to life in prison, if convicted.

Utah legal experts said it’s an uncommon—perhaps even unprecedented—move in the state.

“From what I’ve seen, as far as charges coming down the line during protests over the last couple of years, this is something that’s pretty unique and unusual for Utah,” Jason Groth, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, told The Daily Beast.

Groth said Gill was not using the gang enhancement as originally intended when the state passed it in 1990. 

The stated purpose of that enhancement was to get the heart and core of gangs off the streets, so social workers can work with the rest of the involved youth,” he said. "And so no matter what you think about that original purpose, it is far afield from the alleged facts in this case.”

Groth and McNeil also questioned the potential conflict of interest of Gill issuing sentencing enhancements against protesters who were demonstrating against him.

Gill, who did not return The Daily Beast’s request for comment on Friday, told the Associated Press that the apparent double-dipping was due to staffing shortages, but that other prosecutors would handle the case going forward. Even so, his fingerprints have already altered the case, argued Groth.

“I think what’s problematic, especially when the case is being handed off to another prosecutor's office, is that before that even gets to that prosecutor's desk, [the sentencing enhancements] are already framing the case,” Groth said. “And so that discretion to charge differently, or to not use an enhancement out the gate has been taken away.”

The case is one of several recent incidents in which law enforcement has taken maximum action against protesters.

In 2017, prosecutors cracked down on anti-Trump activists who demonstrated and allegedly caused property damage during the president’s inauguration. Although individual allegations against the more-than 120 defendants were often flimsy, the state accused the group of a broad “conspiracy to riot,” charging that, based on activities like dressing in black and marching together, that they were collectively responsible for property damage. The charges carried a maximum 60 years in prison. (Except in a few cases in which defendants took early plea deals, defendants were either found not guilty or had their charges dismissed after it was revealed the prosecution’s case was built largely on doctored footage from the right-wing video group Project Veritas.)

More recently, conservative legislators have proposed labeling rioting (already a tenuous label, one critics say can be misapplied to protected speech and assembly) as terrorism. After racial justice protests broke out nationally this spring, a Michigan lawmaker introduced a bill that would classify rioters as domestic terrorists, calling the existing 10-year riot sentence “a slap on the wrist.”

During protests in Portland, Oregon, in recent weeks, federal officials sought to characterize vandalism incidents as extremist violence, with acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf issuing a long list of “anarchist extremist” incidents, most of which amounted to graffiti. A recent Homeland Security report, leaked to The Nation, revealed the department was considering tying the U.S. anti-fascist movement (which is not an organized group) to the Kurdish YPG fighting force. That move theoretically could enable feds to classify U.S. protesters as foreign-linked and enable otherwise-illegal surveillance against them.

The result is a deterrent on potential protests.

“Something to keep in mind is that when the district attorney associates protesters with gang members and uses that as an excuse to achieve the harshest-possible sentence (in this case, the harshest-possible sentence is a life sentence),” Groth said, “it's a disturbing use of prosecutorial discretion and truly has a chilling effect on free speech and protest activities.”

In Salt Lake City, Gill’s enhancements have already drawn outcry from elected officials, including the city’s mayor, who called them an overreach.

“I feel the potential punishment facing some protestors is excessive,” Mayor Erin Mendenhall tweeted Wednesday. "While I believe there should be consequences for breaking the law, the potential to spend life in prison for buying paint is too severe.”

Even Gill told the AP, “I don’t think anyone is going to be going to prison on this.”

If that’s the case, McNeil contends, why add the enhancements at all?

McNeil, who is white, also said she and fellow protesters further objected to gang enhancements due to their more common use against men of color. The prospect of life in prison is enough to make some defendants consider plea deals, even if not guilty, she said, and accepting a reduced sentence can still mean prison time, loss of jobs and housing, and financial blows. She and fellow defendants posted $50,000 bail to get out of jail (as much as the damage allegedly caused to the DA’s office), and McNeil was asked to resign from her job after her arrest, she claimed.

“There’s all of these biases and these connotations about being a thug and being a gang and getting together to commit crimes. To me, the message is, ‘Don’t think you can be near each other. If you are near someone who does something at a protest, then you could be in trouble, too,’” McNeil said.

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

state of Utah

19, 1915, the state of Utah executed Joe Hill, labor organizer, songwriter, and member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Joe Hill became famous around the world after a Utah court convicted him of murder.

Nov. 19, 1915: Labor Organizer Joe Hill Executed - Zinn ...

https://www.zinnedproject.org › news › tdih › joe-hill-executed

UN set for showdown over US Iran arms embargo push
Peter HUTCHISON,
AFP•August 7, 2020

UN set for showdown over US Iran arms embargo push
US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft and President Donald Trump at the White House in December 2019


The UN Security Council is set next week to roundly reject a US resolution to extend an Iranian arms embargo, diplomats say, setting up a lengthy showdown with repercussions for the Iran nuclear deal.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Wednesday that the United States would put forward its long-awaited resolution despite ardent opposition from Russia and China.

But UN diplomats say opposition to the resolution's current form is so widespread that Washington is unlikely even to secure the nine votes required to force Moscow and Beijing to wield their vetoes.

"The resolution takes a maximalist position on Iran," one diplomat told AFP.


Another said the draft "goes beyond the current provisions" of the ban on conventional weapons sales to Iran that ends on October 18.

The embargo is due to expire under the terms of a resolution that blessed the Iran nuclear deal, signed in July 2015 and officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Under the deal, negotiated by then US President Barack Obama, Iran committed to curtailing its nuclear activities for sanctions relief and other benefits.

President Donald Trump pulled America out of the accord in May 2018 and slapped unilateral sanctions on Iran under a campaign of "maximum pressure."

Iran has since taken small but escalating steps away from compliance with the nuclear accord as it presses for sanctions relief.

European allies of the United States -- who along with Russia and China, signed the deal with Iran -- have voiced support for extending the conventional arms embargo but their priority is to preserve the JCPOA.

The US text, seen by AFP, effectively calls for an indefinite extension of the embargo on Iran and uses hawkish rhetoric.

Diplomats fear the resolution threatens the nuclear agreement. Iran says it has the right to self-defense and that a continuation of the ban would mean an end to the nuclear deal.

"The focus should remain on preserving the JCPOA," a third diplomat told AFP.

"It is the only way to provide assurances about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. No credible alternative to this instrument has ever been proposed since the US withdrawal," they added.

Experts say the gulf between the US and its allies threatens a summer of discontent at the Security Council as the October 18 deadline approaches.


- Torpedo nuclear deal? -


"This is a car crash that everyone knows is going to happen," New York-based UN expert Richard Gowan told AFP, describing the US draft as a "poison pill of a text."

UN-watchers suggest that EU countries on the Council could be brought on-board by a short-term extension of the embargo if it helps preserve the nuclear deal.

Or members may propose their own draft resolution, but finding consensus is likely to be difficult with China and Russia intending to veto.

The United States has threatened to try to force a return of UN sanctions if it is not extended by using a controversial technique called "snapback."

Pompeo has offered the contested argument that the United States remains a "participant" in the nuclear accord as it was listed in the 2015 resolution -- and therefore can force a return to sanctions if it sees Iran as being in violation of its terms.

He points to Iranian support to Yemen's Huthi rebels, who are under assault from US ally Saudi Arabia, as an example of an arms violation and has expressed alarm at indications that China is already preparing arms sales to Iran upon the embargo's expiry.

European allies have been skeptical on whether Washington can force sanctions and warn that the attempt may delegitimize the Security Council.

Kelly Craft, the US Ambassador to the UN, told journalists Thursday that Washington's first objective was an extension but it is prepared to use "all tools available."

A push for snapback "seems very likely," according to Gowan, of the International Crisis Group think-tank.

"At worst that could torpedo the nuclear deal once and for all, which may be what Pompeo wants.

"This could be a mess in terms of Council politics parallel to that over Iraq in 2003," he said.

pdh/jh

US ambassador says Iran is world No. 1 sponsor of terrorism
EDITH M. LEDERER,
Associated Press•August 6, 2020

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations called Iran “the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism” on Thursday and warned Russia and China that they will become “co-sponsors” if they block a resolution to extend the U.N. arms embargo on Iran.

Ambassador Kelly Craft said the United States hopes Russia and China “will not be co-sponsors of the number one state that sponsors terrorism” and “will see the importance of peace in the Middle East.”

But she said the partnership between Russia and China, not only on backing Iran, is very clear: “They’re just going to be promoting chaos, conflict and mayhem outside their borders, so we have to just corner them.”

Craft and Brian Hook, the top U.S. envoy for Iran, briefed a group of reporters following Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement Wednesday that the United States will call for a Security Council vote next week on a U.S.-drafted resolution to extend indefinitely the arms embargo that is due to expire Oct. 18. Hook announced hours later he is stepping down from the post.


The foreign ministers of Russia and China in separate letters to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the Security Council last month were sharply critical of the U.S. effort, and gave every indication they would veto the resolution if it gets the minimum nine “yes” votes in the 15-member council, which appears unlikely.

If the vote fails, Pompeo suggested the U.S. would invoke the “snapback” mechanism that would restore all U.N. sanctions on Iran. Snapback was envisioned in the 2015 nuclear deal in the event Iran was proven to be in violation of the accord, under which it received billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the Trump administration of unleashing a politically motivated campaign against Iran and called for “universal condemnation” of the U.S. attempt to impose a permanent arms embargo on the Islamic Republic.

He said President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers and now has no legal right to try to use the U.N. resolution endorsing the deal to indefinitely continue the embargo.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the arms embargo should be lifted Oct. 18. He also referred to the “snapback” provision, saying that since the U.S. is no longer a party to the nuclear deal it “has no right to demand the Security Council to activate the rapid reinstatement of sanctions mechanism.”

The vote on the U.S.-drafted resolution, which could come as early as Monday, and its expected defeat will set the stage for a potential crisis at the Security Council amid rising tensions in the Middle East and the U.S. determination to maintain the U.N. arms embargo.

The five remaining parties to the 2015 nuclear deal — Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — are determined to maintain it, and are very concerned that extending the arms embargo would lead to Iran’s exit from the agreement and its speeded-up pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Hook, the U.S. envoy, said Iran has not been cooperating with the U.N. nuclear agency for a year and “there isn’t some acceptable level of non-compliance that we will accept out of fear that they’ll do something worse.”

“That is by definition nuclear blackmail,” he said. “We just don’t follow that playbook.”

Hook said Iran has been able to move a lot of weapons “in the dark" to proxies in the Middle East despite the arms embargo so “imagine what they will be able to accomplish in broad daylight.”

CIA analysts reportedly told the White House there's 'no evidence' the Chinese government has accessed TikTok data
Katie Canales Business Insider•August 7, 2020

CIA analysts told the White House that though it is possible for the Chinese government to access TikTok user data, there is "no evidence" that it has done so, per a New York Times report.

However, President Trump still moved forward with an executive order Thursday night prohibiting US companies from doing business with not only TikTok's parent company ByteDance but also WeChat, a popular app for Chinese citizens.

The executive order goes into effect on Sept. 20 and is the latest development in a web of US-led efforts to distance Chinese tech firms over national security concerns.

A recent report from the CIA indicates that the Chinese government has not accessed American user data from the video-sharing app TikTok.

According to The New York Times, CIA analysts told the White House that though it is possible for Chinese officials to obtain data from users of the app — which is owned by the Beijing-based ByteDance — there is "no evidence" that the Eastern nation has done so.

However, President Trump still moved forward with an executive order late Thursday barring US companies from "any transactions" with TikTok's parent company, ByteDance. The order argues TikTok "continues to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States" and will go into effect on Sept. 20.

The CIA assessment is the latest development in a long series of efforts made by American officials to distance Chinese tech firms from US users over national security concerns. Lawmakers are uneasy about the Chinese government possibly accessing American user data through apps such as TikTok.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has unveiled a US plan to crack down on Chinese apps and services. Dubbed the "Clean Network," the program would block "untrusted" Chinese apps from app stores. However, experts have found that TikTok collects data similarly to how US firms, such as Facebook, do so.

Relations between the US and China have grown increasingly strained as a result, a tension that is exacerbated in part by the coronavirus pandemic, for which President Trump blames China.

CNN’s Poppy Harlow Confronts Larry Kudlow With All the Times He’s Been Wrong About the Coronavirus 

Matt Wilstein, The Daily Beast•August 7, 2020


White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to predictions. And CNN anchor Poppy Harlow was more than ready with the receipts when he came on her show to talk about the coronavirus fallout Friday morning.

Harlow began her interview by asking Kudlow if he and President Donald Trump are “worried” about the slowdown in the recovery.

“I don’t know that there’s a slowdown. These job numbers will go up and down,” Kudlow replied. When Harlow noted that only 1.8 million jobs were added in July compared to 4.8 million in June, he said, “That is true, and it's going to be uneven as it always is.”

Kudlow continued to push the administration’s argument that a $600 weekly federal unemployment benefit has been a “disincentive” for Americans to go back to work. And when Harlow asked for evidence, he pointed to a University of Chicago study that supposedly supports that claim.

“But, Larry, the University of Chicago survey, it doesn’t conclude what you’re arguing,” Harlow said. “I know you don’t want to incentivize people to go to work when it’s a dangerous situation for them to go because the virus is not under control,” she added, noting that she talked to the author of that study who said “it’s a mistake to draw the conclusion as you have been and the White House has been that right now it’s a disincentive to go back to work.”

All Kudlow could say in response was, “We can argue one academic versus another, I think history shows this is probably not sustainable in the long term.”

Asked to explain why he's been wrong about the coronavirus at every turn -- he said the virus was "contained" in February, for instance -- Kudlow takes umbrage with Poppy Harlow for "nitpicking" pic.twitter.com/bNvNP8Qj4r
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 7, 2020

But the most contentious moment of the interview came later when Harlow confronted Kudlow for his rhetoric over the past several months about the pandemic itself.

“I’m wondering why you have consistently downplayed the severity of the pandemic,” she said. “Back on February 25th you said ‘it’s pretty close to airtight.’ February 28th, ‘It’s not going to sink the American economy,’ March 6th, ‘Let’s not overreact, America should stay at work.’ And just on June 12th, ‘There is no emergency, there is no second wave,’ but since June 12th, 45,978 Americans have died from COVID.”

Kudlow attempted to defend his consistent downplaying of the virus’ severity but after a few moments he just resorted to attacking his interviewer.

“I kind of resent your little nitpicking here because I don’t know what that has to do with today’s job numbers,” he said.

“I’m not nitpicking, Larry,” Harlow replied. “I think people listen to you and the president when you say things about the pandemic.”

Ultimately, he may have been chastened enough to acknowledge his own fallibility when it comes to predicting the future. “I think, again, the health guidelines that we have put out are in fact working, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed, maybe prayerfully, that we’ve seen the worst of this extension so we’ll see what happens.”

“We all are, Larry,” Harlow said.


Larry Kudlow Again Discredits Jobless Workers, Gets Slammed For Misreading Study

Mary Papenfuss,
HuffPost•August 7, 2020








White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Friday again trotted out the Trump administration story that American workers would like nothing better than to sit at home collecting unemployment benefits. He even cited an academic study to back him up — except he completely “misinterpreted” the research, according to the lead author of the study.

Kudlow repeated on CNN the administration’s attack on continuing the $600 a week extra unemployment benefit for American workers that expired last month. He argued that the money is a disincentive to work, refusing to recognize that the number of available jobs for the newly unemployed has dramatically shrunk amid the COVID-19 crisis, which prompted the stimulus measure in the first place.

“What evidence do you have?” CNN host Poppy Harlan asked Kudlow.

“What evidence?” asked an exasperated Kudlow, who cited a University of Chicago study.


“But, Larry, the University of Chicago survey, it doesn’t conclude what you’re arguing,” Harlow said, adding that she’d talked to the study’s lead author, Peter Ganong, who told her it was a “mistake to draw the conclusion as you have been and the White House has been that right now it’s a disincentive to go back to work.”

Ganong has estimated that without some enhanced unemployment benefits, aggregate spending could fall 4.3% — a steeper economic decline than during the Great Recession.

“Well, look, whoever that chap is, he or she .... we can argue one academic versus another,” Kudlow responded. Harlow reminded him: “You brought up the University of Chicago” study.

She added: “You’ve read the study, right?” Kudlow insisted that he’s “seen the work.” He then named an economist from the University of Chicago who had nothing to do with the study.



HARLOW: What evidence do you have that unemployment benefits are a disincentive for people to go back to work?

KUDLOW: This University of Chicago study

H: I talked to the author of the study last night. It doesn't say that

KUDLOW: Well, we can argue one academic versus another pic.twitter.com/NkgabFntXS

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 7, 2020

Study researcher Ganong responded to the interview on Twitter, noting that Kudlow never cited another study — nor challenged the study’s findings.



Note: Larry did not actually cite another academic either as (a) saying that our study was wrong or (b) saying that we had misinterpreted our own study.

— Peter Ganong (@p_ganong) August 7, 2020

In fact, none of the recent five studies of the enhanced unemployment benefits support the administration’s claims. Evidence shows the extra money has kept many families out of poverty during the COVID-19 crisis and created a stimulus to the economy as people spend the much-needed funds.

The University of Chicago study in May found that in some cases workers were collecting more in enhanced unemployment benefits than they had been earning. But payments likely won’t create a disincentive to work “until the public health threat diminishes and businesses again look to hire,” the study noted.

When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin earlier this month claimed the study found that enhance benefits discouraged work, Ganong instantly tweeted: “That is not what we find.”

A Yale study released early this month concluded that there is “no evidence” that enhanced unemployment benefits have decreased employment. People who were collecting enhanced benefits actually resumed working at a similar and even quicker rate than others who were not eligible for the extra aid once work was available, according to the study, “Employment Effects of Unemployment Insurance Generosity During the Pandemic.”

Ganong praised Harlow on Friday for taking the time to learn the facts of the study and to explain to Kudlow how he had “misinterpreted” the findings.



👏👏👏 for @PoppyHarlowCNN

Many journalists would have turned our UI replacement rates work into a he-said, she-said story.

She took the time to reach out, understand how our study was misinterpreted, and explain that to Larry Kudlow. https://t.co/oFdWZMhih1

— Peter Ganong (@p_ganong) August 7, 2020

Harlow also reminded Kudlow that American workers take pride in their work.

She then called Kudlow out for all the times he has been wrong about the economy and the pandemic, including in February when he declared COVID-19 containment was “pretty close to airtight.”

Kudlow responded: “I kind of resent your little nitpicking here.”

Asked to explain why he's been wrong about the coronavirus at every turn -- he said the virus was "contained" in February, for instance -- Kudlow takes umbrage with Poppy Harlow for "nitpicking" pic.twitter.com/bNvNP8Qj4r

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 7, 2020

Global Warming Puts New Zealand Glaciers Past the Tipping Point
August 7, 2020 NATHAN SOLIS

The “Southern Alps” of New Zealand in winter. (Photo by Lasse Holst Hansen)

(CN) — Glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere, located in New Zealand, are past a tipping point in terms of ice loss due to climate change.

The Southern Alps, or Kā Tiritiri o te Moana as they’re known by the indigenous Maori, have lost more ice since the pre-industrial era than what remains today according to a study published Friday by a group of researchers at the University of Leeds in collaboration with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA).

The retreat of ice from the glaciers has denuded the landmass, leaving behind a changed landscape.

Not even the snowy caps of the Southern Alps are immune to climate change.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth experienced its second warmest November on record last year. Record temperatures were recorded in North America, South America, Europe, the southern half of Africa, northern and southern Asia, Australia and New Zealand, according to the report.

The study authors measured volume changes for 400 mountain glaciers across the Southern Alps for three timeframes. The first is the longest snapshot from roughly 400 years ago to 1978, followed by 1978 to 2009 and 2009 to 2019, according to the study published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Results show that ice loss has doubled since the glaciers peaked during the last Little Ice Age. Compared to recent decades the glaciers lost up to 77% of their total volume according to the study authors.

About 17% of the volume was lost between 1978 and 2019 alone according to the study authors and last year, just 12% of ice mass was left behind in the former, low altitude section of the Little Ice Age glacier region.

Study author Dr. Jonathan Carrivick from the Leeds School of Geography says the study illustrates a trend in New Zealand’s ice loss.

“The acceleration in the rate of ice mass loss may only get worse as not only climate but also other local effects become more pronounced, such as more debris accumulating on glaciers surfaces and lakes at the bottom of glaciers swell, exacerbating melt,” said Carrivick in a statement.

He says the ice loss may have likely passed the “peak water” or tipping point of glacier melt supply.

Rob Roy glacier in the Matukituki valley in December 2018; this glacier on steep hill slopes is now disconnected from a (out of sight) valley floor part. (Jonathan Carrivick, University of Leeds)

The New Zealand Southern Alps run about 310 miles along much of the length of the south island. A survey conducted in the 1970s showed approximately 3,000 glaciers larger than 2 ½ acres. A small portion of glaciers in the region saw some growth during the 25-year period starting in 1983 according to a previous NIWA study, but that was short-lived and the rapid rate of melt has since been the prevailing trend according to the recent study.

In an email, Carrivick said, “The takeaway message is we are in unprecedented times, the glaciers and thus the alpine landscape and rivers, have never been changing so fast as now when compared to the last millennium.”