It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Freeze funding to Halifax police in light of Walmart arrest, urges activist El Jones
Halifax Regional Police Chief Dan Kinsella talks about Santina Rao’s case at Halifax city hall on Monday, Jan. 20, 2020. - Andrew Rankin
HALIFAX, N.S. —
Black activist El Jones is urging Halifax Regional Police's oversight committee to freeze funding to an increasingly 'militarized' police force until it can prove it is no longer racially profiling African Nova Scotians.
Jones made her plea to Halifax Regional Municipality’s police commission on Monday, five days after a 23-year-old black mother, Santina Rao, ended up with serious injuries in a violent exchange with police officers at a Walmart outlet in the city.
The force is seeking roughly a $1 million increase to its budget. Jones said Chief Dan Kinsella hasn’t provided concrete evidence that police have ended street checks, more than a month
Activist El Jones: "What happened to Santina (Rao) was in fact a street check.” - MSVU
and a half after the province banned the discriminating practice and the chief offered a public apology for the force’s historical mistreatment of the black community.
In backing up her claim, Jones referenced Rao’s case and another December incident involving a black man who was Tasered by police on Quinpool Road.
“Freeze the police budget if it’s going to engage in these kinds of actions before we see any kind of accountability,” said Jones. “This indicates that the police have not changed their practices despite this so-called ban; what happened to Santina was in fact a street check.”
Jones also recommended that the black community receive double the amount of funding HRP receives. That money should go toward social programs and community prevention programs, she said. The activist also presented data showing that the escalating HRP operational budget follows a national trend of overfunded police forces across the country at the expense of social programs.
The mandate of the board is to provide oversight of the police and make recommendations to the regional council. Jones called on black members of the board to hold the force accountable.
Kinsella attended Monday’s meeting and defended the forces' funding requests that he said address important policing needs.
Police response
"My message has been clear. We need to work on public trust. It takes a lifetime to build and a moment to lose."
- Dan Kinsella, chief, Halifax Regional Police
Dan Kinsella, chief, Halifax Regional Police. - Ryan Taplin
“I presented a budget that I believe is commensurate with an opportunity within the organization to fill some gaps that exist,” said Kinsella. “I have brought this to the board of commissioners and it will be brought to council to see their input and approval.”
It was also the first time the chief publicly commented on the Rao case. His force has come under a firestorm of criticism from the black community, arguing that the woman was racially profiled by the officers who responded to a call that Rao was in the process of shoplifting from the Mumford Road Walmart.
Kinsella said it was premature to comment on the conduct of the officers involved in Rao’s arrest. But he said, “De-escalation is first and foremost in all police officers' deployment method.
'The last thing we want to happen is what happened last week and we have to see what were the precipitating factors.'
Rao was charged with resisting arrest, disturbing the peace and assaulting a police officer and her case is due in provincial court Feb. 19. Jones is among several supporters of Rao campaigning for those charges to be dropped. The chief said only the Crown has the authority to drop the charges.
Kinsella said that none of the officers have been suspended and that an internal investigation into the incident is underway. Kinsella called the incident unfortunate. He said he understood why the public is concerned.
“What we need to do is look at these matters in their totality,' said Kinsella. “Can we do better? Sure and we are committed to doing that. But we do need to respect the process, get all of the information and then make the appropriate change. My message has been clear. We need to work on public trust. It takes a lifetime to build and a moment to lose.'
Commission chairwoman Natalie Borden wouldn’t comment on Rao’s case because it’s under investigation.
Kinsella told the board that street checks have stopped, a comment that sparked laughter from some in the audience. Afterward, Kinsella admitted he is getting complaints that the practice is still happening.
“When I hear that I approach the individual to try to get more information to tell me when, where and how.”
Kinsella said he reported the Walmart incident to the province’s police watchdog, SIRT, on Thursday. The agency has yet to decide whether the case fits the criteria for a full investigation. Its interim director Pat Curran said a decision on whether to investigate will likely be made on Tuesday.
SIRT to investigate woman’s controversial arrest at Halifax Walmart
The Chronicle Herald
Published: 4 hours ago
Police arrest Santina Rao at the Mumford Road Walmart on Jan. 15, 2020. - Screengrab from customer's video
HALIFAX, N.S. —
Nova Scotia's Serious Incident Response Team said late Tuesday afternoon that it will investigate the arrest of a 23-old woman by Halifax police officers in a Walmart store last Wednesday.
Santina Rao alleges that police told her they believed she was shoplifting, which she denied.
She said when she protested angrily and loudly an officer said they could arrest her for disturbing the peace.
When an officer grabbed her arm to detain her, she said she tried to push him away and scratched his face before other officers stepped in and put her on the floor to subdue her.
She said she suffered a black eye and swollen wrist in the incident.
Police said in a news release last week that officers responded to a theft in progress complaint at the Mumford Road Walmart and approached a woman who was believed to have concealed items.
The release said the suspect became verbally abusive and was behaving aggressively, resisting arrest and assaulting one of the officers when they tried to place her under arrest for causing a disturbance.
The officer was taken to hospital for treatment and later released.
Halifax police referred the incident to SIRT, an independent agency that investigates incidents involving police that result in injuries.
“After some initial investigation, it has been determined, based on medical records, the matter meets SiRT’s mandate,” SiRT interim director Pat Curran said in a release.
He said investigators want anyone who may have witnessed the incident to please contact them with any information they may have.
Curran said he wouldn't be commenting further until the investigation is done.
In a new campaign ad aimed at Iowa caucus-goers Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., says she is the candidate President Donald Trump fears most.
The ad features video clips of commentators from CNN and MSNBC saying Trump is afraid of Warren becoming the Democratic presidential nominee and taking him on in November.
MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell delivers the ad's title line: "He fears Elizebeth Warren most."
"He's done everything he can for the wealthy and well-connected," Warren says in the ad. "I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message, because I'm going to beat him and be a president who works for you."
The Iowa caucuses are Feb. 3, and Warren currently is running second to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., according to a Des Moines Register/CNN poll.
The two far-left leaning candidates have sparred recently, including over a private conversation the two had in December 2018 in which Warren claims Sanders told her a woman could not win the presidency in 2020. Sanders has denied making the statement.
The two sparred over it Jan. 14 at the final debate before the caucuses, with Warren telling Sanders afterward he called her a liar on national television. He responded she had done the same to him.
Both are among current senators running for president having to spend time in Washington as jurors for Trump's impeachment trial. Other candidates, including former Vice President Joe Biden, are hoping for a boost by their absence on the campaign trail.
The news emerging from high-level talks this week is that France has postponed its new “digital services tax” (DST) – aimed partly at U.S. tech giants like Apple, Google and Amazon – in the face of threatened U.S. tariffs on French wine, cheese and make-up.
European nations are unhappy that the U.S. only lightly taxes the European profits of U.S. multinationals, while at the same time current rules bar them from stepping in to fill the gap. France’s unilateral imposition of a DST – along with threats to follow suit from the U.K., Italy, Austria and Turkey – are symptoms of growing frustration with U.S. foot-dragging in multilateral negotiations at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Indeed, shortly after France’s apparent retreat, the U.K. struck a defiant tone with the U.S. on its own version of the DST, planned for April. ADVERTISEMENT
It is not obvious why the French and their European partners are so upset with the current system. But what is most puzzling is why U.S. taxpayers are not at least as furieux.
International economic law is permeated with the pretense that trade issues – like tariffs on imports and subsidies on exports – are separate from income tax issues, like how foreign-derived profits are taxed by home countries. These are different bodies of domestic law, on different shelves in the law library, with different treaties and different cadres of experts.
But events surrounding France’s DST help us see through the legalistic partitioning. The DST is clearly a response to gaps in U.S. income taxation. Yet it is structured – as tariffs generally are – as a tax on sales not profits. Meanwhile, Washington talks about the DST as a trade issue. And its retaliatory threats against the DST are tariffs plain and simple.
This newly explicit linkage between tax and trade frees us up to call the U.S. income taxation of U.S. MNEs foreign profits what it is: An export subsidy.
The U.S. taxes the foreign profits of U.S. multi-national enterprises (MNEs) at roughly half the rate as on domestic profits. Nowadays this happens primarily through a combination of two provisions from the 2017 tax law, known by their acronyms, GILTI and FDII. Roughly speaking, GILTI taxes the profits that U.S. MNEs earn through foreign subsidiaries at 10.5 percent rather than the full 21 percent corporate rate. FDII gives a similar benefit for export profits earned directly from the U.S. ADVERTISEMENT
There is some debate about whether GILTI and FDII amount to an export subsidy under arcane international trade law. But there should be no debate that they are export subsidies as a practical matter. An export subsidy arises when the government pays an exporter for exporting. It makes no difference whether that payment happens to be settled by reducing what the exporter otherwise owes.
That leads to the observation that an export subsidy is an odd duck as a matter of policy. The exporter can be expected to pass some of the subsidy on to foreign purchasers. And so the U.S. government, which is to say the U.S. taxpayer, is essentially kicking in some cash to help the French consumer buy iPhones.
Why would France complain about this? Why would the U.S. choose to do it in the first place?
The most probable reason for French dismay is that they see themselves falling prey to the old competitor ploy from the 1990s. Lower price below cost, drive competitors out of business, gain market power, tap into scale economies, raise prices and make it up on the backend. The French will claim that this is really what is going on, and they will blame U.S. tax policy for slowing organic growth of the French high-tech industry.
What then is in it for the U.S. taxpayer? Are U.S. taxpayers, who are enabling the price reduction on the front end, ever going to make it up on the back end? Not in their capacity as U.S. taxpayers if U.S. international tax law remains anything like it is. Perhaps some will, to some extent, in their capacity as shareholders of U.S. companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon, and thus owners of those companies’ back end profits.
But that possibility takes us to the other strange thing about subsidizing U.S. MNEs’ exports. To say that a company is a U.S. company is really just to say that its articles of incorporation are filed in the U.S. It is not to say that its shareholders are necessarily U.S. citizens. In fact, it is nearly impossible to gain a clear picture of who on any given day actually owns these so called U.S. companies, let alone who might own them ten days later.
This means that, to some very uncertain extent, the backend benefit of the U.S. export subsidy might not be going to U.S. citizens at all, let alone in any sensibly apportioned manner. It also means that there is little stopping the French from parrying U.S. export subsidization with stock purchases of U.S. companies. They can even use what they are saving on iPhones.
In the end, with a little extra thought it is possible to understand why the Europeans might still be upset about being on the receiving end of a U.S. subsidy. What’s not so understandable is why their protests are not being drowned out by complaints from the U.S. taxpayers on the giving end.
Chris William Sanchirico is the Samuel A. Blank Professor of Law, Business, and Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the Wharton School.
South Korea's first publicly known transgender soldier on Wednesday asked to be allowed to remain serving after the military said it would discharge her for undergoing gender reassignment surgery during active-duty.
The person in question is staff sergeant Byun Hui-su, who said in a press conference that she would like the military to reconsider their decision and let her serve as a female soldier.
“Regardless of my sexual identity, I’d like to show everyone that I can become one of the great soldiers who protect this country,” Byun said. “Please give me that chance.”
The incident marks the first time an active-duty member in the nation has been referred to a military panel to decide whether to terminate their service due to a sex reassignment operation.
South Korea forbids transgender people from joining the military, but there are no specific laws about sexual reassignment surgery that occurs during the time spent in service.
Byun said she had sex reassignment surgery in Thailand in November after experiencing depression over her sexual identity for a long time. She said at the beginning of 2019 she had the top score in an official evaluation of tank driving skills within her battalion staff sergeants.
The army said in a statement that it concluded the soldier's operation could be considered a reason for discharge, according to AP.
Lim Tae-hoon, a Korean rights activist, said he will fight for Byun and others to transform the military to become more accepting.
Lim is the leader of the Seoul-based Center for Military Human Rights and referenced the army's decision as a "savage" one.
“I can’t resist feeling wretched at the military’s vulgar mindset as they determined that the lack of a male genital is a physical disability,” Lim said.
The National Human Rights Commission said on Tuesday that applying the Byun to the military panel is an act of discrimination over sexual identity and affects the soldier’s human rights.
MARXISM THE HILL STYLE
Economist Richard D. Wolff is predicting that there will be a recession this year — or by at least 2021.
Wolff, who espouses a Marxian economics ideology that that is critical of capitalism, argues that the economy is long overdue for a downturn from a historical perspective and predicted that the longer the crash takes to hit, the worse it will be.
“Wherever capitalism has settled in the 300 years that this system has dominated the world, in every country, in every region here’s the pattern: Every four to seven years, there’s an economic downturn,” Wolff, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, told Hill.TV in an interview that aired on Monday.
“Based on that — and if you remember that the last big downturn that we had was in 2008 — well then we are overdue,” he added.
Wolff warned that the potential recession could be a “recipe for very serious economic problems,” pointing to the rise of the current debt load.
“What you’re seeing is this terrible combination of the accumulated debt … coupled with the delayed downturn and that is a volatile mixture,” he told Hill.TV.
The Treasury Department has estimated that the U.S. budget deficit will surpass $1 trillion in fiscal 2020. The only other time the country has posted a budget exceeding this number was in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
Overall, deficits have skyrocketed under the Trump administration. This is largely attributed to the president’s signature 2017 tax-cut law as well as a number of bipartisan agreements to increase spending on defense and domestic programs.
Wolff’s warnings nevertheless come as the chances of a recession look increasingly more slim. Though recession fears peaked last August when trade tensions reached a new high, the economy added 145,000 jobs in December as expected, and the unemployment rate has continued to hover near a 50-year low of around 3.5 percent.
The president last Wednesday called a truce on his trade war with China and signed an initial agreement with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He to end the ongoing tic-for-tac tariff battle.
A day later, the Senate approved Trump’s replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The NAFTA rewrite, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, was approved Thursday in the upper chamber by a resounding margin.
Trump, who has made the economy the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, celebrated the two deals as proof that he has kept his promises to supporters.
The D.C. attorney general is suing President Trump's inaugural committee, alleging that it improperly used nonprofit funds at Trump-owned properties.
Attorney General Karl Racine, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit Wednesday morning, saying that his office is seeking to recover $1 million dollars that was allegedly overpaid to businesses like the Trump International Hotel.
“District law requires nonprofits to use their funds for their stated public purpose, not to benefit private individuals or companies,” Racine said in a statement. “In this case, we are seeking to recover the nonprofit funds that were improperly funneled directly to the Trump family business.”
This developing report will be updated.
GO GO Gabbard suing Clinton for defamation over 'Russian asset' comments
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is suing Hillary Clinton for defamation over the former secretary of State's remarks on a podcast characterizing the Democratic presidential candidate as a Russian asset.
Gabbard filed the defamation lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Gabbard’s lawyers allege that Clinton’s comments have “smeared” Gabbard’s “political and personal reputation.”
“Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to protecting the safety of all Americans,” Gabbard’s lawyer Brian Dunne said in a statement.
“Rep. Gabbard’s presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton’s malicious and demonstrably false remarks.”
Gabbard’s campaign referred all questions on the lawsuit to Dunne.
A spokesperson for Clinton was not immediately available for comment.
In a podcast released in October, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as a favorite of the Russians.
Clinton did not name the candidate, but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.
"They're also going to do third-party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said.
"She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate," Clinton said.
Stein was the Green Party candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Stein said the idea she is a Russian asset is an "unhinged conspiracy theory" in an October op-ed for The Guardian.
The lawsuit claims that Clinton is a “cutthroat politician” and “sought retribution” for Gabbard endorsing Clinton’s 2016 Democratic primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Gabbard is now facing Sanders in the crowded 2020 Democratic primary.
“Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s presidential campaign,” it says.
Gabbard’s lawyers claim Clinton’s “peddling of this theory” has harmed Gabbard, voters and “American democracy.”
“Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country’s political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election,” the lawsuit says.
Gabbard is a long-shot candidate for the party nomination.
She’s become a target for criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for her policy views, drawing scrutiny over American military involvement in Syria and over her reluctance to criticize Syrian President Bashar Assad even in the face of suspected war crimes. She met with Assad during a trip to Syria in 2017. Gabbard knocks Clinton's jab at Sanders: 'This isn't high school'
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) on Tuesday criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for saying "no one likes" Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), with Gabbard seeking to defend her fellow Democratic presidential hopeful.
"It's time to grow up. This isn't high school," Gabbard said in an interview with WMUR News 9. "We're talking about real challenges that our country needs to address and the need for real leadership to focus on them, not on what's going on in Washington and the schoolyard cliques or whatever else it may be."
Gabbard, who like Sanders is seeking her party's 2020 presidential nomination, is polling near the bottom of the Democratic pack. She previously served as a surrogate for Sanders's 2016 campaign when he challenged Clinton for the party's nomination.
Sanders and Gabbard have maintained a cordial relationship during the presidential primary, with the Hawaii Democrat on Tuesday using the #ILikeBernie hashtag that trended on Twitter to defend Sanders in the wake of Clinton's criticism.
Clinton criticized Sanders in a new documentary premiere at the Sundance Film Festival this week.
"Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician," Clinton said of Sanders.
When asked about Clinton's criticism and why she seems set on rehashing their battle in the 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders said, "That's a good question. You should ask her."
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday did not seem fazed by the latest round of criticism directed at him by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In a new documentary set to premiere at the Sundance Film Festival this week, Clinton suggested the Vermont senator is virtually friendless in Washington.
"He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him," Clinton said in the four-part documentary, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it."
Clinton would also not commit to supporting Sanders if he's the ultimate Democratic nominee for president. "I'm not going to go there yet," she said. "We're still in a very vigorous primary season."
This is not the first time Clinton has been critical of Sanders, who was her top challenger for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. After Clinton became the nominee, Sanders campaigned for the former secretary of state across the US.
But supporters of Clinton continue to blame Sanders and his supporters, in part, for her ultimate defeat in the general election against Donald Trump. They feel Sanders should've dropped out of the race earlier, and that his refusal to do so contributed to divisions in the Democratic party that boosted Trump's campaign.
Clinton touched on these sentiments in an interview with Howard Stern last month. Stern asked Clinton if she was "upset" over how long it took Sanders to endorse her in 2016.
"No, disappointed," Clinton said at the time. "And I hope he doesn't do it again to whoever gets the nomination."
"Once is enough. We have to join forces," Clinton added. "He hurt me. There's no doubt about it, he hurt me."
When asked by Bennett on Tuesday why he thinks Clinton is still discussing 2016, Sanders said, "That's a good question. You should ask her."
In an earlier statement on Clinton's remarks, Sanders signaled his current priority is Trump's Senate impeachment trial.
"My focus today is on a monumental moment in American history: the impeachment trial of Donald Trump," Sanders said. "Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history."
Recent polling from Morning Consult on the approval rating of senators within their states ranked Sanders as the most popular senator in the US.
Sanders has consistently placed in second in national polls for the 2020 Democratic primary, trailing former Vice President Joe Biden. But he's been dominating the field in terms of fundraising, and surging in polls in early voting states in recent weeks.
TRUMP CALLS IRAN BOMBARDMENT CONCUSSIONS HEADACHES SAYS THEY ARE NOT REAL INJURIES Trump downplays seriousness of injuries in Iran attack after US soldiers treated for concussions
"I don’t consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I’ve seen," he continued. "I’ve seen what Iran has done with their roadside bombs to our troops… I’ve seen people that were horribly, horribly injured in that area, in that war.
"No, I do not consider that to be bad injuries, no," he added, referring to the soldiers who were taken for treatment last week.
The president declared earlier this month that there were no casualties after Iran fired missiles at the bases housing U.S. forces on Jan. 8. But the Pentagon last week revealed 11 U.S. troops were evacuated from Iraq and taken to hospitals in Germany and Kuwait for treatment for concussions suffered during attack on Al Asad Air Base.
The Associated Press reported Tuesday night that additional U.S. troops were flown to Germany for closer evaluation for similar injuries, though the exact number was not known.
The Iranian missile attack came as a direct response to a U.S. drone strike that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. The two countries appeared to step back from the brink of military conflict in the wake of the attacks, though tensions remain.
The Trump administration has faced intense pressure from lawmakers in both parties about its justification for the strike that killed Soleimani. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo initially said the general posed an "imminent threat" to American lives, and Trump later said he was targeted four U.S. embassies. But officials have struggled to justify both explanations.
The House passed a resolution earlier this month to rein in Trump's war powers with regards to Iran, and a similar Senate resolution appears to have the votes needed to pass. MORE U.S. troops leave Iraq for medical treatment after Iranian missile attack, Pentagon says
More U.S. service members have been transported out of Iraq for medical treatment and evaluations following Iran’s missile attack on military facilities there, the Pentagon said Tuesday, nearly two weeks after President Trump and defense officials initially said no one was hurt.
The Pentagon said Friday that 11 service members were transported out of Iraq for treatment and assessments. U.S. military officials declined to say on Tuesday how many more are receiving care but said “additional” troops had been sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.
The officials left open the possibility that the number could increase in coming days.
“The health and safety of all service members is the greatest concern for all Department leadership and we greatly appreciate the care that these members have received and continue to receive at the hands of our medical professionals," U.S. Central Command said in a statement. “As medical treatment and evaluations in theater continue, additional service members have been identified as having potential injuries.”
The statement continued: "These service members -- out of an abundance of caution -- have been transported to Landstuhl, Germany for further evaluations and necessary treatment on an outpatient basis. Given the nature of injuries already noted, it is possible additional injuries may be identified in the future.”
The statement did not address the condition of the first 11 service members transported out of Iraq, and U.S. defense officials said Tuesday evening that they did not have more information about them to share.
The barrage left deep craters and charred wreckage in several locations on the Iraqi base. U.S. officials initially said no service members were killed or wounded, and signaled that the United States was not looking for additional armed conflict with Iran.
“No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties. All of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases,” Trump said soon after the attack.
But concussion-like symptoms -- which sometimes do not manifest themselves immediately -- have prompted an increasing amount of medical attention.
On Jan. 13, military officials at Al Asad told The Washington Post that “dozens” of service members were suffering from concussion-like symptoms. Jonathan Hoffman, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said Friday that the first three left on a regularly scheduled flight to Camp Arifjan in Kuwait on Jan. 10.
Eight more American service members left on another regularly scheduled flight to Landstuhl on Jan. 15. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper was notified of the 11 patients that day, and defense officials disclosed the treatment that day, Hoffman said. Defense One first reported the evacuations that night.
Hoffman said Friday that Trump’s remarks to the nation the morning after the attack were “accurate," and reflected "truthful information that he received.” Initial reporting from U.S. commanders in Iraq to the Pentagon said no Americans had suffered loss of life, limb or eyesight, following Defense Department reporting requirements, he said.
---30---
WHAT THEY CALL CONCUSSION OR SERIOUS BRAIN TRAUMA WAS ONCE KNOWN AS SHELL SHOCK AND LAST CENTURY DURING THE BIG ONE WWI IT WAS AN EXECUTABLE OFFENSE ON THE BATTLEFRONT FOR COWARDICE
