Mike Pompeo Denied Audience With Pope 

Nick Visser
Senior Reporter, HuffPost
HuffPostOctober 1, 2020

The Vatican denied U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s request for an audience with Pope Francis this week, saying the pope would not see Pompeo in the midst of the American presidential campaign.

“Yes, he asked,” Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin told The Associated Press as Pompeo is in Europe for a weeklong visit. “But the pope had already said clearly that political figures are not received in election periods. That is the reason.”

Pompeo will still meet with Parolin and other top Vatican officials during the visit, but the pope’s rebuff was seen by some as the latest example of a political rift between the United States and the Vatican. During a religious freedom conference this week, Pompeo issued a strong denouncement of a deal the Catholic Church signed two years ago with China related to the appointment of bishops, which it is considering extending.

President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against China, as has Pompeo, in the leadup to the U.S. election in November. The secretary of state has also taken unusual efforts to use his political authority to promote religious freedom.

“Nowhere is religious freedom under assault more than in China,” Pompeo said at the event Wednesday. He later added that Beijing’s Community Party was working “day and night to snuff out the lamp of freedom, especially religious freedom, on a horrifying scale.”

Pompeo rejected claims that he was using his visit to the Vatican to drum up support for Trump ahead of the election, telling The New York Times the assertion was “just crazy.”

“We’ve been working on human rights in China the entire time I’ve been part of this administration,” he told the newspaper.

Reuters notes that Parolin and Foreign Minister Archbishop Paul Gallagher said they were “surprised” at Pompeo’s public statements, saying he had violated “one of the rules of diplomacy.”

“Normally when you’re preparing these visits between high-level officials, you negotiate the agenda for what you are going to talk about privately, confidentially,” Gallagher told the publication.

Pompeo wrote an article about the issue earlier this month, chastising the Vatican for signing the deal and saying Catholics were under assault in China. The AP notes the statements irked the Catholic Church and that the Vatican saw the effort as an attempt to win political points back in the U.S.

“Two years ago, the Holy See reached an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party, hoping to help China’s Catholics,” Pompeo wrote on Twitter. “Yet the CCP’s abuse of the faithful has only gotten worse. The Vatican endangers its moral authority, should it renew the deal.”

The Vatican has defended the deal with China. Parolin told Reuters that while it’s not perfect, it “is a matter that has nothing to do with American politics.”

“This is a matter between churches and should not be used for this type of ends,” Parolin said.

Exxon's role in Guyana deepens as the government approves a massive $9 billion oil-drilling project

Benji Jones Business Insider•October 1, 2020

Ships carrying supplies for an offshore oil platform in Guyana operated by Exxon
Luc Cohen/Reuters

The small South American country of Guyana is home to immense offshore oil reserves that Exxon is planning to extract.

The company already has two drilling projects, and on Wednesday the government approved a third, further cementing the oil giant's role in the country's economic future.

Exxon, the largest oil company in the West, strengthened its grip on Guyana's oil riches on Wednesday as it received government approval for a third oil-drilling project, set to produce crude by 2024.

The small South American country is a critical piece of the oil giant's future as it looks to extract oil cheaply. On Thursday, the price of crude was down about 38% relative to the start of the year, following a historic price collapse this past spring wrought by the coronavirus pandemic.

The new development, known as Payara, is Exxon's third offshore drilling project in Guyana, a country set to transform into an oil powerhouse over the coming decades. The company estimates that the Stabroek block — where it operates through a partnership with Hess Corp and China's CNOOC — is home to more than 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Headquartered in Irving, Texas, Exxon plans to invest $9 billion into Payara. One Exxon oil-drilling project in Guyana, known as Liza Phase 1, is currently producing oil, and another (Liza Phase 2) is on track to pump crude by early 2022, the company said.


Reuters

Exxon's controversial role in Guyana

Since Exxon first discovered oil in Guyana, back in 2015, the company's presence has faced controversy and political turmoil.

In February, the global advocacy group Global Witness published a detailed report that alleged Exxon is taking advantage of the small country by striking an inequitable profit-sharing deal under suspect circumstances.

Then this summer, after a months-long vote recount, a new government stepped in that had criticized the Exxon deal as too generous, according to Reuters. Guyana's new president, Irfaan Ali, promised that there'd be a comprehensive review of Exxon's latest project — Payara.

On Wednesday, the government approved the project, an Exxon representative confirmed.

"ExxonMobil is committed to building on the capabilities from our Liza Phase 1 and 2 offshore oil developments as we sanction the Payara field and responsibly develop Guyana's natural resources," Liam Mallon, president of Exxon upstream oil and gas, said in a statement Wednesday. "We continue to prioritize high-potential prospects in close proximity to discoveries and maximize value for our partners, which includes the people of Guyana."

The approval comes after Exxon reported steep financial losses and deployed various tactics to cut costs in response to the oil-price downturn.

As Business Insider previously reported, Exxon is weighing job cuts in high-cost regions. On Wednesday, the company said it was growing its Guyanese workforce with the Payara investment.

Unredacted FBI Document Reveals Long-Standing Effort by White Supremacists to Infiltrate Law Enforcement

A recently unredacted FBI report revealed a long standing effort to infiltrate law enforcement by white supremacists.

Joe Jurado Yesterday 7:00PM

According to the Intercept, the report was released by Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, chair of the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, before a Tuesday hearing on the efforts of white supremacists to infiltrate local law enforcement agencies. An extensively redacted version of the document was publicly released in 2006 and is among a series of bureau documents that display a growing concern about white supremacists in law enforcement. The committee invited the FBI to attend the hearing but the agency declined.

“Having personnel within law enforcement agencies has historically been and will continue to be a desired asset for white supremacist groups seeking to anticipate law enforcement interest in and actions against them,” a previously redacted section read.

From the Intercept:

Another previously redacted section warned of “factors that might generate sympathies among existing law enforcement personnel and cause them to volunteer their support to white supremacist causes,” which could include hostility toward developments in U.S. domestic and foreign policies “that conflict with white supremacist ideologies,” the report warns.

Some redactions do not seem to be justified, for instance, the FBI’s conclusion that “white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement can result in other abuses of authority and passive tolerance of racism within communities served” — an apparent recognition of the potential harm to the public posed by white supremacist individuals embedded in police departments.

Other redactions relate to incidents of compromised intelligence. The unredacted document notes that “a white supremacist leader is known to have acquired a sensitive FBI Intelligence Bulletin on the white supremacist movement that had been posted on Law Enforcement Online and had inadvertently become publicly accessible through a law enforcement Web site. In addition to identifying the FBI personnel who prepared the bulletin, the document identified the FBI’s targeting interests within the white supremacist movement.”

The redacted material also broke down “strategic infiltration and recruitment campaigns” carried out by white supremacists. The document notes that the National Alliance (NA), a white nationalist group founded by William Pierce, was key to much of the information regarding white supremacists attempting to infiltrate law enforcement.

“White supremacist infiltration of the federal government, including the FBI, plays a prominent role in Pierce’s novels, The Turner Diaries (1978) and Hunter (1989), both widely read works that are sometimes interpreted as practical guidance within white supremacist circles,” the document reads.

The document notes that several retired and active members of law enforcement were known to be members of the NA, with some actually holding leadership positions. Their success at infiltrating law enforcement led to concerns that it would lead other white supremacist groups to try similar tactics.

Another previously redacted section goes into examples that the FBI found of “white supremacist sympathizers,” in law enforcement.

From the Intercept:

In one, the memo mentions that “in July 2006, a former police officer with possible ties to the KKK was charged with civil rights violations involving alleged death threats made against black schoolchildren and a black city council member.”

In another, the report mentions the case of Shayne Allyn Ziska, a state correctional officer at the California Institution for Men in Chino, California, who was sentenced to 17 1/2 years in federal prison. “Ziska was convicted on federal racketeering charges for helping the Nazi Low Riders white supremacist prison gang distribute drugs and assault other inmates, and reportedly providing white supremacist indoctrination to an inmate,” the report notes. “Ziska advised he considered himself a government infiltrator consistent with National Socialism’s strategy for revolution.”

There isn’t an exact explanation on why some of the material was redacted. While notes in the document express concerns about certain investigative techniques being revealed, certain redacted sections were about events that were already public knowledge. Calls for the FBI to increase transparency in its efforts to fight white supremacy have long been rebuffed by the organization.

“The public deserves to see the truth reflected in this finally unredacted report. The FBI saw long ago the multiple potential dangers associated with violent white supremacy and its efforts to infiltrate local law enforcement with ideas, attitudes, and personnel,” Raskin wrote in a statement to the Intercept.

“The FBI’s continuing refusal to acknowledge and combat this threat, just like its refusal to appear today, constitutes a serious dereliction of duty,” Raskin added. “These newly revealed passages underscore the seriousness of the threat posed by white supremacists to law enforcement personnel and the public at large.”

The thing I find most concerning is that this report was written 14 years ago. So they’ve known this could be a serious problem but it’s unclear what, if any, actions the FBI took to combat white supremacists in law enforcement. Within the document itself, there is a lot of talk about how bad this could potentially be, but there are no actionable steps outlined on how to stop it in its tracks.

Former FBI Agent Mike German published a report last month outlining the dangers of explicit racism in law enforcement and the failures of law enforcement agencies to actively prevent those with white nationalist beliefs from infiltrating their ranks.

Over the last 20 years, multiple law enforcement personnel with potential connections to white supremacist groups have been exposed. In recent years, there have been multiple examples of state reps, lawmakers, and countless law enforcement officials making racist and nativist social media posts, “which demonstrates that overt bias is far too common,” German writes.

“Efforts to address systemic and implicit biases in law enforcement are unlikely to be effective in reducing the racial disparities in the criminal justice system as long as explicit racism in law enforcement continues to endure,” German wrote. “There is ample evidence to demonstrate that it does.”

Joe Jurado Jr Staff Writer @TheRoot. Watcher of wrestling, player of video games. Mr. Steal Your Disney+ Password.

Trump Officials Told to Make Sympathetic Comments About Accused Killer Kyle Rittenhouse

Stephen A. Crockett Jr.
Today 1:00PM
•
Filed to:THUG

In this Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2020 file photo, Kyle Rittenhouse carries a weapon as he walks along Sheridan Road in Kenosha, Wis., during a night of unrest following the weekend police shooting of Jacob Blake.Photo: Adam Rogan/The Journal Times (AP)

A 17-year-old boy arrived at a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisc., armed with an AR-15-style rifle. Those who support Trump will tell you that the armed, pale-faced teen was there to keep the peace and nothing helps keep the peace like an assault weapon. During the protest, the armed thug opened fire, allegedly killing two protesters, and since the shooting, the Trump administration and Fox News pundits have bent over backward to call the killings anything other than what they are.

And here is why: Kyle Rittenhouse is a Trump supporter.

He apparently posted his support for the president on Twitter. Oh, and he helped wipe graffiti from a building. I wish I was joking about the graffiti part but Fox News won’t stop pointing out that Rittenhouse was recorded on video cleaning graffiti from a building some time before allegedly killing two people.

And now leaked documents show the levels with which the Trump administration was willing to go to support their own. According to NBC News, federal law enforcement officials were told that when speaking about Rittenhouse, they needed to make comments that are sympathetic to the shooter.

Internal Department of Homeland Security talking points obtained by NBC News found that Homeland Security officials were told to claim that Rittenhouse “took his rifle to the scene of the rioting to help defend small business owners.”

“Another set of talking points distributed to Homeland Security officials said the media were incorrectly labeling the group Patriot Prayer as racists after clashes erupted between the group and protesters in Portland, Oregon,” NBC News notes.

It remains unclear whether the directives originated at the White House or within Homeland Security’s own press office, but my money’s on the fat orange man who sits at the Resolute desk.

To earn Trump’s gaze, you only need to do one thing: support his dumb-ass moves wholeheartedly and that’s what Rittenhouse had done. He reportedly supported Trump and the police on his social media before leaving his Antioch, Ill., home on Aug. 25 armed with an AR-15-style rifle, authorities said. Rittenhouse, after attempting to flag cops down to say he was the man they were looking for only for police to ignore him because...white boy, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder and is currently fighting extradition to Wisconsin. His attorneys claim that he was acting in self-defense.

Three former Homeland Security officials told NBC News that “it was unusual for law enforcement officials to be instructed to weigh in on a case involving a particular group or individual before investigations had concluded.”

“It is as unprecedented as it is wrong,” Peter Boogaard, who was a spokesperson for Homeland Security during the Obama administration, told NBC News.

From NBC News:

The Rittenhouse talking points also say, “Kyle was seen being chased and attacked by rioters before allegedly shooting three of them, killing two.”

“Subsequent video has emerged reportedly showing that there were ‘multiple gunmen’ involved, which would lend more credence to the self-defense claims.”

The document instructs officials, if they are asked about Rittenhouse, to say they are not going to comment on an ongoing investigation and to say that “what I will say is that Rittenhouse, just like everyone else in America, is innocent until proven guilty and deserves a fair trial based on all the facts, not just the ones that support a certain narrative. This is why we try the accused in the court of law, not the star chamber of public opinion.”

Officials were instructed to bring conversations back to the need to preserve law and order: “This is also why we need to stop the violence in our cities. Chaotic and violent situations lead to chaotic, violent and tragic outcomes. Everyone needs law and order.”

Trump has already come out asking if Rittenhouse is doing OK in jail and whether he needs an extra blanket or reading materials claiming that Rittenhouse was “trying to get away from them,” referring to the young men he shot and killed. Allegedly.

I would say that this is bizarre for a president and the Department of Homeland Security to be so invested in a shooting, but nothing we’ve seen so far in 2020 has remotely made any sense, and did I mention that the boy was white and that he’s a Trump supporter?

Stephen A. Crockett Jr.
Senior Editor @ The Root, boxes outside my weight class, when they go low, you go lower.

Judge Finds That Trump’s Federal Law Enforcement Commission Is Fugazi Since It Only Includes Police

Stephen A. Crockett Jr.,
The Root•October 1, 2020

Only the president and America’s most crooked top cop could’ve thought that it was legal to launch a law enforcement commission that only included police and wasn’t open to the public.


Well, all that’s going to have to change as Senior U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates in Washington, D.C., found that President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr “violated federal law by failing to have a diverse membership and failing to provide public access to its meetings,” the Washington Post reports.

According to the Post, the judge ordered the commission to stop work, Thursday, although the commission had already sent a draft of the report and recommendations on improving American policing to Barr for release next month. Apparently, Trump and Evil Fred Flintstone believe that the police are the only ones who can help fix the police.

The stop work order was a response to a lawsuit from the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund (LDF), “which sought an injunction against the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice for violating laws on how federal advisory committees must work,” the Post reports.

“Especially in 2020,” Bates wrote, “when racial justice and civil rights issues involving law enforcement have erupted across the nation, one may legitimately question whether it is sound policy to have a group with little diversity of experience examine, behind closed doors, the sensitive issues facing law enforcement and the criminal justice system in America today,” the Post reports.

From the Post:

The 18-member commission was composed entirely of state and federal law enforcement officials, with no one from the civil rights, criminal defense, social work, religious or academic fields. Members were sworn in on Jan. 22, and then heard months of testimony by teleconference from experts in a variety of police, prosecutorial and social fields. The commission also formed 15 working groups, with more than 100 members, to draft sections of the report focusing on topics such as “Reduction of Crime,” “Respect for Law Enforcement,” “Data and Reporting” and “Homeland Security.”

The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that a committee’s membership be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed,” so that its recommendations “will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority.” The working groups were also largely tied to policing, with only five of the 112 members not from law enforcement. After the suit was filed, the speakers who testified before the commission were more diverse in professional backgrounds.

Police groups lobbied Congress for years to form a commission that would take a comprehensive look at improving American policing, as a similar panel did in the 1960s, to devise new ways to fight crime and use technology to improve policing. When various bills stalled in Congress, Trump signed an executive order last October creating the group, with the president acknowledging the assistance of the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police in launching the project.

The law also requires that advisory committee meetings be open to the public, with notice posted in the Federal Register, along with a charter for the committee. The commission did not post a charter or meeting notices in the register, but did send out news releases announcing the virtual meetings as well as posting transcripts and recordings of the meetings. Reporters and others could dial in and listen to the teleconferences. A meeting which Barr held in June with the commission, on the same day Trump signed an executive order on police reform, was not announced and the Justice Department declined to release a transcript or recording.

Trump’s order called for the commission to submit its report and recommendations to the attorney general, who was then required to send his final report to the president by Oct. 28. The Justice Department planned to release it at the International Association of Chiefs of Police convention in late October, according to an email in the court file. Now, the report and the commission’s months of work are in limbo.

And it should be, but Natasha Merle, one of the LDF lawyers who argued the case, told the Post that she doesn’t think it is too late to have opposing viewpoints added to the report.

“We would say a seat at the table is allowing substantive comments, hearings and a new report, Merle said. “For there to be any real relief, to really get at the crux of the issue, you would have to incorporate these members’ viewpoints and put them into the report.”

The Post notes that the LDF sued Barr and the commission in April to stop them from compiling or submitting their report. The LDF argued in itsr lawsuit that the commission’s “recommendations will give more power and protection to law enforcement, reinvigorate tough-on-crime measures, and cut down on the rights of citizens.”

And what would give Merle that impression? Was it because the Justice Department had already sent out a detailed outline, before the lawsuit was filed to all of its members titled: “Respect for Law Enforcement and the Rule of Law”?

The outline recommends that the Justice Department “should work to correct the myth of excessive use of force by law enforcement officers” and “should play a leading role in correcting the narrative regarding the number of individuals incarcerated in the United States,” the Post reports.

The commission “had no intention of engaging in a thoughtful and open analysis” of the American justice system, “but was intent on providing cover for a predetermined agenda that ignores the lessons of the past,” John J. Choi, the Ramsey County, Minn., prosecutor where St. Paul is located, said after resigning from the commission last month.

Federal judge halts work of Trump's national law enforcement commission after NAACP complaint

Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY•October 1, 2020

A federal judge Thursday halted the work of a national law enforcement advisory commission authorized by President Donald Trump as part of a legal challenge to the group's composition and claims that it lacked representation from police reform and civil rights groups.

The order issued by U.S. District Judge John Bates comes weeks before the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice was due to deliver to Attorney General William Barr its findings on challenges facing local police.

While the The commission was directed to produce a "fresh evaluation of the salient issues affecting American law enforcement and the communities they protect," civil rights advocates claimed that it has served to support "unfounded yet repeated public assertions" by the president and the attorney general that there is lack of respect for police.

"That purpose is evident in the composition of the commission, which is stacked with members that are exclusively from a law enforcement background," the NAACP Defense & Educational Fund Inc. claimed in its initial complaint. "Not a single member of the commission is a defense attorney, criminologist or other relevant academic, public-health practitioner, mental health or addiction-recovery treatment provider, offender reentry coordinator, social worker, or formerly incarcerated individual."

Attorney General William Barr stands by President Trump as he speaks to Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth and Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis Sept. 1, 2020 in Kenosha, Wis.

Bates, in a 45-page opinion, concluded that the government had not met its obligation to "ensure transparency and fairly balanced (committee) membership ... during this time of great turmoil over racial injustice and allegations of police misconduct."

"The attorney general stressed the need to hear from a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives such as “community organizations, civic leadership, civil rights and victim’s rights organizations, criminal defense attorneys, academia, social service organizations, and other entities that regularly interact with American law enforcement," Bates wrote. "Despite these stated goals, however, the commission’s membership consists entirely of current and former law enforcement officials."

The judge also took issue with the commission's proceedings, describing them as "far from transparent."

"Especially in 2020, when racial justice and civil rights issues involving law enforcement have erupted across the nation, one may legitimately question whether it is sound policy to have a group with little diversity of experience examine, behind closed doors, the sensitive issues facing law enforcement and the criminal justice system in America today," Bates wrote.

Protesters hold signs outside the Minneapolis 1st Police precinct during a demonstration against police brutality and racism on August 24, 2020 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. - It was the second day of demonstrations in Kenosha after video circulated Sunday showing the shooting of Jacob Blake -- multiple times, in the back, as he tried to get in his car, with his three children watching. (Photo by Kerem Yucel / AFP) (Photo by KEREM YUCEL/AFP via Getty Images)More

Siding with the NAACP, the judge said the commission's operations are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires a "fairly balanced" array of viewpoints to be aired in publicly-noticed, open meetings.

The government has argued that the law does not apply to the commission, but on Thursday the court rejected that position.

Until the provisions of the FACA are satisfied, the court ordered that all "commission proceedings be halted and no work product released..."

The Justice Department had no immediate comment Thursday.

The NAACP lauded the ruling as an "important step in the right direction."

"The country has been demanding accountability for police misconduct and violence, and clamoring for a re-imagined notion of public safety for many months following the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless other Black people," said Sherrilyn Ifill, the group's president and director-counsel. "Any federal committee designed to make recommendations about law enforcement must include representation from people and communities impacted by police violence, civil rights organizations, the criminal defense bar, and other stakeholders.”

Exclusive: Trump policing panel was warned about secretive process before court ruling

Sarah N. Lynch, Reuters•October 1, 2020

President Donald Trump Delivers Remarks At Ny Police Event In Bedminster, New Jersey

By Sarah N. Lynch

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Before a U.S. federal judge on Thursday halted the work of a Trump administration law enforcement commission - saying it had violated public meetings laws - the panel had been warned about shutting out public input by several of its own participants, internal records reviewed by Reuters show.

The commission had planned to deliver a slate of proposals recommending sweeping new powers for police shortly before the November presidential election, the documents show. It also called for bolstering due-process protections for officers accused of wrongdoing, according to draft proposals reviewed by Reuters.

But the secretive process to produce the planned report drew criticism from some law enforcement representatives helping draft the document, internal emails among the participants show. The order to halt the commission's work, from U.S. District Judge John Bates, came in response to a lawsuit filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (NAACP LDF) alleging the commission failed to give notice of public hearings and allowed law enforcement groups to have undue influence.

The panel's 18 commissioners include federal, state and local law enforcement representatives, but no civil rights advocates, defense attorneys or big-city police officials.

Among the participants who warned the panel about its closed process was Fayetteville, North Carolina Police Chief Gina Hawkins, a commission member. In an May 11 email reviewed by Reuters, she told commission chairman Phil Keith that drafting recommendations without hearing from all sides created the appearance of a predetermined conclusion.

Then on Aug. 13, she complained the draft contained too many quotes from Trump and Barr, rather than experts who provided input to the commission, saying the work "should never be political."

Hawkins declined to comment. Keith did not respond to a request for comment.

Two local prosecutors assigned to smaller working groups that support the commission - John Choi of Ramsey County, Minnesota, and Mark Dupree of Wyandotte County, Kansas - wrote to the panel on May 29 expressing concern its recommendations would not sufficiently address "racial disparities in policing" and would "erode local prosecutorial discretion."

Choi has since asked for his name to be removed from the final report. He told Reuters the commission declined to give him access to recommendations being crafted by other working groups. Dupree did not respond to a request for comment.

The White House declined to comment on the panel's work or the court ruling, referring questions to the Justice Department.

Prior to Judge Bates' ruling on Thursday, Justice Department spokeswoman Kristina Mastropasqua declined to comment on the commission's work or the draft proposals reviewed by Reuters. Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec declined to comment on the ruling after it was issued.

In unveiling the panel last year, Trump foreshadowed that it would produce a report that would be applauded by law enforcement. He told a conference of the International Association of Police Chiefs (IACP) in that the administration would begin immediately implementing the commission's best recommendations once it issued them.

"They'll have them soon," he said, "because most of them already know many of the answers before they begin; you understand that."

LACK OF ALTERNATIVE INPUT

Concerns about systemic racism in policing were not addressed in any of the draft sections of the document seen by Reuters.

The lack of diverse viewpoints prompted the NAACP LDF to sue the commission, Barr and top commission members, accusing them of violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) by not providing notice of public hearings and stacking it with only law enforcement officials.

The government denied the civil rights group access to "a representative voice on the Commission," Bates wrote in his ruling on Thursday. The court ordered the panel to halt work and provide timely notice of meetings, and ordered Barr to appoint a federal official to ensure that the commission has a "fairly balanced membership." Bates barred the commission from publishing a report until it had complied with federal open meetings and transparency laws.

Amid complaints about a lack of diverse input, the commission actively sought the opinions of law enforcement insiders, commission records reviewed by Reuters show.

Tim Richardson, the lobbyist for the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest organization of sworn law enforcement, is not publicly named as a member of any group working on the draft. But an April 10 email reveals he was introduced as a member of a group developing the "Respect for Law Enforcement" chapter to others working on the chapter. His comments are cited in the footnote of an August draft to support a recommendation urging Congress to craft "a uniform minimal level of procedural due process" for police.

Richardson did not respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department said in court papers Richardson was not a member of the working group but was retained as an expert.

PROPOSING NEW POLICE POWERS

Draft proposals from the commission, obtained by Reuters through public records requests, offer a window into how Trump's Justice Department views the role of the law enforcement amid a national upheaval over police killings of Black men and women.

The commission started its work before the May killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which sparked nationwide protests against racism and police brutality. Attorney General William Barr in January said the commission would recommend best practices at a time when "criminal threats and social conditions have changed the responsibilities and roles of police officers."

The proposals included allowing officers accused of wrongdoing to view body camera footage before speaking to internal investigators; increasing funding for controversial facial recognition technologies; giving police access to encrypted cell phones; and increasing penalties for illegal immigration.

The draft recommendations also take aim at "progressive prosecutors" who advocate for eliminating cash bail and not charging low-level drug offenses.

Other recommendations urged Congress to bolster due process protections for police officers accused of wrongdoing and call on the Justice Department to regularly affirm support for "qualified immunity," a Supreme Court precedent that protects officers accused of injuring or killing suspects in civil lawsuits.

Many of the proposals calling for legislative action likely would not win support from a House of Representatives controlled by Democrats.

SECOND-GUESSING PROSECUTORS

An August chapter draft made multiple recommendations reflecting the administration's concerns that some locally elected prosecutors are going too easy on low-level offenders, such as those accused of marijuana possession. Among the proposed reforms including calling on states to establish oversight committees to review charging decisions.

"When a prosecutor unilaterally decides to not prosecute an entire category of crimes ... that prosecutor is usurping legislative authority," it says.

A draft chapter on technology calls for increased funding for facial recognition technologies, though a government-funded study last year found had higher rates of error in identifying African-American and Asian faces.

The draft also recommends a legislative fix to address recent concerns by the FBI, after it struggled to access the encrypted iPhone of a Royal Saudi Air Force trainee who killed three American sailors in a December attack at a U.S. naval base.

"Companies are building electronic devices and platforms that apply 'warrant-proof' encryption," a June draft chapter reads. "Those companies are blinding the nation to preventable attacks."


(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone and Brian Thevenot)

Protester Handcuffed After Flipping the Bird at Portland Police
Storyful•September 28, 2020

Protester Handcuffed After Flipping the Bird at Portland Police
0:44

The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office said 30 arrests were made by combined law enforcement agencies in Portland during various protests on September 26.

One protester was seen taken down and cuffed by several police officers, when he gave an offensive gesture. Orlando Edwards, who posted this video, wrote, “Portland protestor is arrested for apparently giving an expletive message to the police?”

Edwards said he recorded this incident near the Justice Center in Portland. Streets near the center were blocked when crowds gathered on Saturday evening, police said, and several arrests were made. Credit: Orlando Edwards via Storyful

Ex Homeland Security official describes how Trump suppressed efforts to fight white supremacist terrorism

September 30, 2020  By Matthew Chapman RAW STORY


On CNN Wednesday, former Trump administration national security staffer Miles Taylor outlined how the president’s soft spot for white supremacy — put on full display at the previous night’s presidential debate — carried over into federal policy.

“You previously told me President Trump didn’t prioritize white supremacist violence or domestic threats in general,” said anchor Wolf Blitzer. “How did that become clear in your meetings with him and your work deep inside the Trump administration?”

“I’ll tell you this,” said Taylor. “From the beginning of the Trump administration, we had a sense that the numbers were going in the wrong direction. By the numbers, I mean, the number of terrorist plots we were tracking in the United States. When we first came in, ISIS was the big threat. That was obvious to everyone. There was a surging threat from violent extremist groups here domestically, primarily focused on white supremacy. And that was a big concern for us. The FBI and our own DHS analyst came to us and said this is worrying.”

“We went to the White House and said the numbers are heading in the wrong direction,” said Taylor. “The response we got was the president put his head in the sand. The president and his senior advisers did not want to pay attention to the threat. They didn’t want to talk about the threat. They told us to not use certain terms having to do with the threat, such as ‘right-wing extremism’ and at the end of the day they refused to actually include this in any meaningful way in the national counterterrorism strategy. The message from the white house to us could not have been clearer. It was, do not focus on this, do not prioritize this.”

“I’m glad to say the secretaries that I served … didn’t listen to that. They did prioritize the threat,” added Taylor. “But it’s important that the White House care because the White House can muster a whole of government response against a threat like this. The White House never did, and as a result, we have named cities that remind us how bad the threat actually got. Charlottesville. El Paso. We could go on down the list. Those events happened in part because our government wasn’t as focused as it should have been on the threat.”

The array of far-right groups "standing by" after Trump's call

Kyle Daly AXIOS

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

President Trump's refusal to condemn white nationalists during Tuesday night's debate drew a lot of attention — including from the Proud Boys, the far-right group he asked to "stand back and stand by."

Why it matters: The Proud Boys remain relatively small — a Portland rally this past weekend billed as the group's largest-ever gathering drew just a few hundred people. But Trump's failure to condemn extremist groups has been welcomed as an endorsement by a wide constellation of people on the fringes.

Driving the news: After Tuesday's debate, the Proud Boys — described by the Anti-Defamation League as "misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration" — turned Trump's words into a logo and a T-shirt.

The big picture: The Proud Boys are part of a growing set of relatively new, often heavily armed far-right groups with ideologies and memberships that often overlap. The groups have pledged to violently oppose the left and do much of their organizing online.

• The Proud Boys are among the most overtly gang-like of the major groups, sporting uniforms (black Fred Perry polo shirts with gold piping, which the designer recently stopped producing due to the association) and tattoos, and maintaining initiation rites, including requiring members to get into a physical fight for the cause of promoting the supremacy of western culture.

Other groups include:

• Three percenters, named for the myth that only 3% of colonists were willing to take up arms in the Revolutionary War. The militia group has threatened force against Democratic politicians.
• Oath keepers, who seek to serve as private back-up for police forces around the country. Many members are themselves former police or military.
• Boogaloo bois, identifiable by the Hawaiian shirts they typically wear in concert with body armor and, often, Make America Great Again hats. Like the Proud Boys, they bring the winking irony common to online extremism into the physical world. Even the name "boogaloo bois" is a joke — but their call for a second civil war, drawn along ideological lines, appears very real.
• Atomwaffen, the most nihilist of all the major groups, which openly calls for mass murder of lefists, ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTQ individuals and others. It's been linked to killings and terrorist threats in the U.S. and abroad.

That's on top of:

• Local groups like Patriot Prayer, which organizes rallies and disrupts left-wing protests, chiefly in the Pacific Northwest;
• Longstanding hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan; and
• Groups like American Renaissance that seek to put the gloss of academic legitimacy to far-right, racist views.

One key feature common to many of the newer crop of far-right groups: a slipperiness that helps them avoid being pinned down on their extremist beliefs.

• Proud Boys, for instance, will often point to non-white members as proof they're not racist, despite their explicitly racist views.
• Their evasiveness also lets them disclaim members who run afoul of the law. That's just what the Proud Boys did Wednesday, per conservative provocateur Andy Ngo, after a prominent Portland Proud Boys member was arrested on assault and weapons charges.

The bottom line: Any one of these groups on its own represents a small sliver of the far-right fringe. But together they constitute a potential paramilitary force that has an increasingly explicit endorsement from the president and that's hungry for violent clashes with their political opponents.

Donald Trump’s Proud Boys aren’t just standing by


Published on October 1, 2020 By Jordan Green, Special to Raw Story

Photo: Proud Boys in Fayetteville, NC (credit Jordan Green)

Donald Trump’s incendiary endorsement of the Proud Boys during the first presidential debate has predictably electrified the far-right street-fighting group, while elevating concerns about the potential for his supporters to disrupt the election as the president seeks to undermine trust in the legitimacy of the process.

Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace and Democratic opponent Joe Biden during the debate on Tuesday night to condemn “white supremacist and militia groups,” Trump uttered the seven words that almost instantly became a far-right meme — “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by” — before angrily marshaling his supporters to target left-wing protesters. “I’ll tell you what,” Trump said. “Somebody’s gotta do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem; this is a left-wing problem.”

Reaction from members of the all-male far-right “fraternity” was nothing short of euphoric.

On Parler — where many members have migrated since Facebook and other major social-media companies de-platformed the Proud Boys over the summer — prominent member Joe Biggs enthused, “President Trump told the Proud Boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with antifa. Well, sir, we’re ready!” Enrique Tarrio, the national chairman, responded, “Standing by, sir.” By 8:22 a.m. on Wednesday morning, the Proud Boys were marketing tee-shirts with the words “Standing By” incorporated into their logo.

Since its inception in 2016, the Proud Boys have built a long track record of violence while sidestepping much of the stigma attached to their alt-right peers by repackaging white supremacy as “Western chauvinism.” While deflecting accusations of racism through a membership, including its chairman, that includes a fair number of men of color, Proud Boys typically deploy inflammatory anti-feminist, homophobic and transphobic rhetoric to provoke left-wing opponents. In North Carolina, Proud Boys have also been involved in clashes with antiracists over the fate of Confederate monuments, and built relationships with overtly white supremacist outfits like the League of the South.

The string of violent incidents associated with the Proud Boys includes an assault by Donovan Flippo and Tusitala “Tiny” Toese in Portland, Ore. in July 2018, and assaults against antifascists outside the Metropolitan Republican Club New York City in October 2018 that resulted in convictions for 10 members, among many other incidents. Most recently, on Wednesday, Proud Boy Alan Swinney was charged with assault and menacing for shooting paintballs and pointing a firearm at left-wing opponents during an Aug. 15 protest in Portland.

“They announce and hold a rally in a city that is historically pretty progressive, some place like Portland, in the hopes of getting counter-protesters to come out and inciting violence,” said Cassie Miller, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “They use that violence to their advantage — to argue that the left is inherently violent and to argue that any violence on their side is self-defensive and it is justified. And they use this to create this narrative that repression and retaliation against the people that they consider to be their enemies is justified. They have a long list of political adversaries, but at the top are leftists and antifascist counter-protesters.”

Proud Boys have openly expressed support for political violence with members wearing tee-shirts declaring “Pinochet did nothing wrong,” referring to the Chilean dictator whose regime carried out extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention and assassination attempts against tens of thousands of victims during and after a 1973 coup. Recently, members have started donning a new shirt that valorizes a more recent and homegrown hero of the far right. It says, “Kyle Rittenhouse did nothing wrong,” referencing the 17-year-old from Illinois who fatally shot two antiracist protesters in Kenosha, Wis. During a rally organized by the Proud Boys in Portland last weekend, members chanted, “Free Kyle,” after Tarrio invoked his name from the stage.

As the debate wrapped up on Tuesday night, Kathleen Belew, a historian at the University of Chicago who has researched the history of the far right, warned about President Trump’s “stand back and stand by” remark on Tuesday night: “People who work in monitoring and de-radicalization and otherwise studying white power groups are sounding red alerts and sending emergency signals about increasing violence from now through the election, and after, regardless of winner. This is a movement that has sought not only poll intimidation — although it has done that — but also major casualties. There is no reason to think that strategy will change.” Citing the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as the “largest deliberate mass casualty on American soil between Pearl Harbor and 9/11,” Belew wrote, “We are decades, if not generations, into this problem. A green light like ‘stand back and stand by’ is catastrophic.”

Trump’s words of encouragement towards the Proud Boys came during a debate in which he repeated unfounded charges of widespread mail-in ballot fraud and declined to commit that he will respect the results of the election if it does not go in his favor. The Proud Boys and other far-right groups, along with mainstream Republicans, have signaled that they are paying close attention to Trump’s messaging.

Less than three hours before the start of the debate, the Philadelphia Proud Boys chapter shared a Trump tweet accusing local election officials in that city of “corruption” for restricting access to an election office on its Telegram channel. The Telegram message included the jesting exclamation, “There goes our plans!”

Trump repeated the baseless charge near the conclusion of the debate, saying, “In Philadelphia, they went in to watch. They’re called poll watchers. A very safe, very nice thing. They were thrown out. They weren’t allowed to watch. You know why? Because bad things happen in Philadelphia, bad things.

The Philadelphia Inquirer characterized the president’s statement as a “false claim,” reporting that a woman who declined to provide her name told the newspaper she was “hired by the Trump campaign to oversee the election.” The woman reportedly attempted to enter a satellite election office in West Philadelphia where absentee ballots were being received on Tuesday, but was barred from doing so because of coronavirus regulations that limit the number of people indoors. Pennsylvania law allows campaigns to appoint poll watchers inside polling places and, in some situations, to raise legal objections, but a city official told the Inquirer that no poll watchers have yet been certified for the Trump campaign.

During a Sept. 8 campaign stop in North Carolina — a crucial battleground state — Trump urged supporters to monitor polling places.

“Got to be careful with those ballots,” he said. “I don’t know, you have a Democratic governor. You have all those Democrats watching that…. Watch it. Be poll watchers when you go there. Watch all the thieving and stealing they do.”

During the debate on Tuesday, Trump repeated his call for volunteers to show up at the polls, predicting, “This is going to be fraud like you’ve never seen.” He said, “I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully….”

Trump supporters reportedly crowded the entrance of an early-voting location in Fairfax County, in Virginia, on Sept. 19.

“The primary thing for voter intimidation, in my view, was driving around the parking lot… with motorcycles, big vehicles and flags, honking their horns and yelling, Fairfax County Democratic Party Chair Bryan Graham told a local NBC affiliate.

“There is a real possibility that we could get far-right groups going out to polling places, to ballot boxes, and engaging in voter suppression or intimidation,” said Cassie Miller, with the Southern Poverty Law Center. “We have already seen them signal that they plan to monitor the polls or be active on Election Day. It’s clearly something that has been used to mobilize them. I think it’s part of a larger mobilization on the far right and the Proud Boys in particular.”

No far-right group has made more inroads with the GOP than the Proud Boys. The group’s members have found a welcoming audience and willing partners among GOP activists and officials across the country over the past two years.

Most notoriously, it was founder Gavin McGinnis’ speaking engagement at the Metropolitan Republican Club that occasioned clashes with antifascist adversaries. During that speech, McGinnis reenacted the 1960 assassination of the head of the Japanese Socialist Party by Otoya Yamaguchi, an ultranationalist who plunged a sword into his victim during a live television broadcast. In another example of overlap between the street-fighting group and the GOP, Hussein Hill, who has been active with the Proud Boys in North Carolina, canvassed for Republican state legislative candidates during the 2018 election and posed for a photo with the state Republican Party’s executive director. And last month, Proud Boys from Philadelphia to South Carolina converged in Fayetteville, NC to attend an anti-pedophilia march that was promoted by the Cumberland County Republican Party. Two Republican candidates for North Carolina General Assembly spoke at the rally, and the Proud Boys upstaged the group photo by shouting their ironic catchphrase “Uhuru!” during a group photo in place of the designated slogan “Save our children.”

Members of Oregon Women for Trump joined the Proud Boys for their rally in Portland last weekend.

“We love Oregon, and we want Oregon to stay American,” an Oregon Women member named Carol said during the rally. “And we support the Proud Boys…. We need more men like the Proud Boys


“This is our time to stand up, stand out, stand against not only Marxism, but to anarchy and Black supremacy,” she continued. “This is a war, folks, that we have got to fight back. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough from all these punks, evildoers, including our [Democratic] governor and our mayor and all their ilk.”

Representatives of both groups pledged that their members will be at ballot-drop boxes during the election.

“We will be — the Proud Boys from the Portland chapter, for Oregonians — we will try to do the best we can to secure some of those most strategic ballot places that are going to be dropped off,” said Flip Todd, the chapter vice president.

While pledging to monitor ballot-drop sites, Oregon Women for Trump also solicited funds to support the Proud Boys.

“It will come back for your safety because we love to stand on the frontlines,” Todd said, as supporters handed cash up to the stage. “We love to be your wall. We love to see people geared up. We like this kind of thing. It’s great. We appreciate it. And, like I said, every single dime goes towards pepper spray, things that we need, whether it’s body armor, helmets, first-aid equipment, tourniquets, things like that.

“Even the paintballs,” he continued. “You know the little CS […]? They’re $2.75 apiece to fucking have pepper spray, okay? Anyway, that’s what stuff like that goes for — so you guys are safe, in a worst-case scenario.”

Cassie Miller with the Southern Poverty Law Center noted that the Proud Boys view themselves as an extension of law enforcement in holding a line between order and chaos.

“That’s something that is getting people out on the ground, especially after the election,” she said. “The possibility that we won’t know what the results are is very real, and during that really crucial, really sensitive time, I think we need to be aware of what is happening among the far right…. It’s a combustible situation.

“With the Proud Boys, I think their ultimate goal is to normalize political violence,” she continued. “This has been at the core of their project since they started. When they go out and they try to instigate violence on the ground, what they want to do is blame it on the other side and build up this narrative that the left is inherently violent, that it’s unhinged, and that repressive measures need to be taken. And President Trump has clearly signaled to them that he is in some form of agreement.”

This far-right militant group has recruited thousands of police, soldiers, and veterans – and they’re coming for you

Published September 30, 2020 By Sarah Toce

Oath Keepers security at Woodland Mall (Facebook)

The Atlantic investigation has unearthed a chilling far-right militant group comprised of thousands of veterans, soldiers and police. What this group intends to do on Election Day still remains to be seen, but there is a growing concern for the safety of American voters as we head toward arguably the most contentious election cycle in our country’s history.

At the start of the subject’s examination, journalist Mike Giglio read a collection of diary entries by Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes wherein he traced back to the launch of the ultra-conservative group in early 2009. Giglio would subsequently report on his findings between 2009-2015, just prior to the start of President Donald J. Trump’s campaign.

“I used them as a starting point for conversations with dozens of current and former members,” Giglio wrote. “The dominant mood was foreboding. I found people far along in deliberations about the prospect of civil conflict, bracing for it and afflicted by the sense that they were being pushed toward it by forces outside their control. Many said they didn’t want to fight but feared they’d have no choice.”

Giglio uncovered that a civil war was brewing and it went much deeper than the Oath Keepers.

“Membership in the group was often fleeting—some people had signed up on a whim and forgotten about it,” Giglio wrote. “The Oath Keepers did not have 25,000 soldiers at the ready. But the files showed that Rhodes had tapped into a deep current of anxiety, one that could cause a surprisingly large contingent of people with real police and military experience to consider armed political violence. He was like a fisherman who sinks a beacon into the sea at night, drawing his catch toward the light.”

At the heart of the conflict were guns.

“When I asked Rhodes and other people on the militant right to name concerns beyond gun rights, they mentioned how history is taught in schools, or how the Green New Deal would threaten land use, agriculture, single-family homes,” Giglio wrote. “They stressed that America is a republic, not a democracy. Liberals, Rhodes told me, want to see ‘a narrow majority trampling on our rights. The only way to do that is to disarm us first.'”

Giglio recalled that Rhodes “relentlessly demonized Black Lives Matter activists as ‘Marxists’—a foreign enemy” and said that although the Oath Keepers had participated alongside the Proud Boys during events, they were not “fucking white nationalists.”

Rhodes told Giglio to investigate militant groups “on the left such as the John Brown Gun Club, and seemed obsessed with antifa, which he said the Oath Keepers had faced down while providing security at right-wing rallies.”

“The most famous Oath Keeper after Rhodes is John Karriman, a pastor and former police trainer from Missouri who participated in the Ferguson operation,” Giglio wrote. “Rhodes would disappear for long stretches and stall on initiatives—such as a national program to offer community training in firearm safety, first aid, and disaster relief—that would have been a boon to recruiting. Wealthy donors offered money, Karriman said, but when they asked to see the group’s books, Rhodes declined.”

“One Marine veteran told me that when he signed up in 2013, he’d recently retired after seven years as a military contractor, during which he’d trained indigenous forces in Afghanistan,” Giglio said. “Senior Oath Keepers asked him to provide members with paramilitary training. He warned Rhodes that training the wrong people could lead to trouble; they might even turn on him. But he agreed after Rhodes said he could do the vetting himself.”

In 2017, the Oath Keepers faced allegations of embezzlement by the group’s IT administrator. Rhodes was accused with the cover-up and Karriman was pushed out following attempts to reform the group. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) obtained leaked membership files around this time.


The Oath Keepers are not an isolated group. Other vigilante operatives are thriving in Nashville, North Carolina and Virginia. At a recruitment meeting, Rhodes said told his attendees: “Don’t call yourselves Oath Keepers or Three Percenters. Call yourselves the militia of Rutherford County.”

Rhodes persisted, “Us old vets and younger ones are going to end up having to kill these young kids. And they’re going to die believing they were fighting Nazis.”

But it’s not even just the older vets. There are young members of far-right militias right around the corner from where you live, many 20 and 30 years old, according to Giglio’s report. In fact, 29-year-old former marine Joe Klemm, the leader of a new militia called the Ridge Runners, is a perfect example.

“I’ve seen this coming since I was in the military,” Klemm said while speaking to a crowd in Tennessee. “For far too long, we’ve given a little bit here and there in the interest of peace. But I will tell you that peace is not that sweet. Life is not that dear. I’d rather die than not live free. It’s going to change in November.”

Klemm continued, “I follow the Constitution. We demand that the rest of you do the same. We demand that our police officers do the same. We’re going to make these people fear us again. We should have been shooting a long time ago instead of standing off to the side.”

His call to action was an eerie reminder of the current temperature of these secret so-called militias in the time of Trump.

“Are you willing to lose your lives?” Klemm asked. “Are you willing to lose the lives of your loved ones—maybe see one of your loved ones ripped apart right next to you?”