WWF Says It Is “Troubled” By An Alleged Human Rights Violation At A Park With A History Of Violence

“Conservation should never come at the expense of human rights and well-being.”

Katie J.M. Baker BuzzFeed News Investigative Reporter

Tom Warren Investigations Correspondent

Posted on July 31, 2020,

Nurphoto / Getty Images



Sauraha, Chitwan National Park, Nepal, 2019.


After guards at a wildlife park funded by the World Wide Fund for Nature were accused of killing a 24-year-old Nepali man earlier this month, the leading conservation charity said it will "advocate for diligence" in the investigation.

The case bears striking resemblance to another alleged killing in Chitwan, highlighted in a 2019 BuzzFeed News investigation into the beloved megacharity’s funding of guards accused of human rights abuses. The series led WWF to overhaul its human rights policies, commission a sweeping internal review of its practices, and promise to take “swift and appropriate action” to address any “shortcomings uncovered by the review.”


ADVERTISEMENT



Raj Kumar Chepang died on July 22 after he was allegedly tortured by army personnel who help patrol the park, the Kathmandu Post reported.

The week before Kumar’s death, he and his friends were briefly detained by the army for collecting Ghongi, a type of snail considered a delicacy, the Post reported. His father told the newspaper that Kumar complained of “physical discomfort” after the army released him and later in the week went to the hospital, where he died. Police said they are waiting on the autopsy report which will confirm the cause of death.


Courtesy Chepang Family
Raj Kumar Chepang

A friend who said he was also detained told the newspaper the soldiers had beaten them, and also forced them to carry heavy wooden logs and do 100 push-ups. The Nepal army denied torturing or beating them.

WWF is "very troubled by these reports" and has “reached out to government authorities to understand the events that took place and urge that they are properly investigated,” a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. “We understand the Government of Nepal has commenced such an investigation.”

“In our ongoing dialogue with government officials, WWF has emphasized that conservation should never come at the expense of human rights and well-being,” the WWF spokesperson added. “WWF has been and intends to remain in close contact with the Government of Nepal and advocate for diligence as they investigate these events and take appropriate steps to bring any perpetrators to justice.”

Chitwan National Park did not respond to a request for comment.

Multiple human rights groups have launched their own investigations, which will also probe the park’s alleged involvement in the forceful eviction of an Indigenous settlement living near its borders. Chitwan officials set fire to two huts, one of the organizations said in a statement, and destroyed eight others using elephants, leaving villagers homeless in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.

“WWF must investigate this case seriously and ensure family justice,” said Praveen Kumar from THRD Alliance, one of the groups investigating Kumar’s death.

“The army only cares about animals,” said Birendra Mahato, the chair of the Tharu Cultural Museum and Research Center. “They are also supposed to support local people, but they are not serious about supporting marginalized communities.”

BuzzFeed News has previously detailed WWF’s decadeslong support for the armed guards that fight poaching at Chitwan National Park. During that time, Indigenous villagers have accused the guards of beatings, torture, sexual assaults, and killings. Park officials have confiscated their firewood and vegetables, they allege, and forced them into unpaid labor.

In 2006, several Chitwan anti-poaching guards were charged with murder after they arrested Shikharam Chaudhary without evidence and allegedly tortured him to death. Afterward, WWF’s staff on the ground in Nepal leaped into action — not to demand justice, but to lobby for the charges to disappear. When the Nepalese government dropped the case months later, the charity declared it a victory in the fight against poaching. WWF Nepal continued to fund the park and work closely with the rangers who were accused of his killing.

WWF Nepal later hired one of them to work for the charity. It handed a second, Kamal Jung Kunwar, a special anti-poaching award. By then Kunwar had written a tell-all memoir that described in detail how he used waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

Kunwar’s photo appeared in a January 2020 WWF Nepal blog post about the ongoing work the charity is doing to help fight poaching. WWF removed the post after BuzzFeed News reached out for comment.

WWF Nepal’s website says Chitwan National Park is funded in part by the United States Agency for International Development. USAID did not respond to a request for comment by press time. The charity doesn’t disclose how much money it spends on paramilitary anti-poaching forces and law enforcement.

American taxpayers have spent millions of dollars financing WWF-backed forces in areas where guards have been accused of rape and murder, according to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News. Some of the funds have gone to parks where WWF knew guards were accused of brutal abuses against local villagers — not the international poaching kingpins the charity says are its target.

The BuzzFeed News investigation found a pattern of abuses in national parks not just in Nepal but across Asia and Africa. Top executives at the World Wide Fund for Nature had personally reviewed detailed evidence that anti-poaching forces funded by the charity raped and tortured innocent people, but continued to support those forces.

The series spurred a bipartisan investigation and legislation that would prohibit the government from awarding money to international conservation groups that fund or support human rights violations. It also prompted reviews by the Government Accountability Office and the Interior Department, and separate government probes in the UK and Germany.

In April 2019, WWF appointed Navi Pillay, the former UN high commissioner for human rights, to chair its own inquiry into alleged abuses. The panel originally planned to publish its findings by the end of 2019 but did not do so. The panel did not respond to a request for comment.


MORE ON THIS
WWF Funds Guards Who Have Tortured And Killed People

Tom Warren · March 4, 2019

WWF Has Suspended Support For Rangers At A Major Nature Reserve After A Suspicious Death

Tom Warren · Dec. 11, 2019

Leaked Report: WWF-Backed Guards Raped Pregnant Women And Tortured Villagers At A Wildlife Park Funded By The US Government

Tom Warren · July 11, 2019

The EU Has Found “Shortcomings” In WWF’s Treatment Of Indigenous People At A Proposed Nature Reserve

Tom Warren · May 12, 2020

Katie Baker is an investigative reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in London.

Tom Warren is an investigations correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in London.

Trump Just Stacked A Fetal Cell Research Panel With Abortion Opponents

Seen as the “gold standard” in many areas of medical research, fetal cells are widely used in coronavirus vaccine research.

Dan VerganoBuzzFeed News Reporter Posted on July 31, 2020,

Wikimedia Commons / Via en.wikipedia.org
Human embryonic kidney cells


On Friday, a Trump administration panel erected to judge the ethics of federally funded research relying on fetal stem cells met more than a year after it was first announced. Just hours before the meeting, the panel was revealed to be stacked with abortion opponents hostile to such research.

Human fetal cells are widely used in medical research to develop vaccines — notably in at least a half dozen current candidate coronavirus vaccines — as well for studying diseases including AIDS. The National Institutes of Health Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board was initially announced in June of last year, putting a hold on grant applications for medical research involving human fetal cells. It followed the Trump administration’s moves to cancel related federal research contracts and audit human fetal cell research.


“The committee was carefully constructed to block funding,” bioethicist R. Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin Law School, who spoke during the one-hour open session of the meeting, told BuzzFeed News by email. The next five hours of the meeting will be closed to the public to review federal grants.

The ethics panel will review all NIH medical research grant applications already approved for possible funding that include use of fetal cells, reporting directly to Department of Health and Human Services head Alex Azar, and bypassing NIH chief Francis Collins. The first meeting was quietly announced earlier this month in the Federal Register, and its membership was not made public until 8 a.m. on Friday morning.

The panel will be headed by bioethicist Paige Comstock Cunningham, interim president of the evangelical Taylor University in Indiana, the home state of Vice President Mike Pence, widely seen as the leading abortion opponent in the Trump administration. Its 15 members include David Prentice of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, known for his opposition to human embryonic stem cell research during the Bush administration, and other opponents who have previously testified against fetal cell research to Congress.

NIH official Lawrence Tabak, who opened the meeting, noted that the committee’s role was not to review the science of the proposed research, which had already been approved for NIH grant funding, but to comment on its ethics for Azar. The board is not required to come to a consensus in its views.


The yearlong wait for the ethics board meeting had stalled research on HIV, Down syndrome, and diabetes, the Washington Post reported in January. The cells, grown from induced abortion tissues collected decades ago, serve as a “gold standard” in research, according to a Wednesday statement signed by more than 90 major medical universities and scientific organizations.

“Research using human fetal tissue has been essential for scientific and medical advances that have saved millions of lives, and it remains a crucial resource for biomedical research,” said the letter.

During the coronavirus pandemic, the use of fetal research tissue has emerged as a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s handling of the epidemic, noted Stanford University researcher Irving Weissman, who spoke during a public comments session. NIH blocking fetal cell research has already shut down academic research aimed at testing coronavirus vaccines and treatments in mice grafted with human fetal lung cells, he said. That notably could include intranasal inoculations that could block coronavirus infections in the mouth, nose, and throat.

"They are withholding therapies for the rest of us, including their own families," Weissman told BuzzFeed News.

In April, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and other abortion opponents told the Trump administration that it should “incentivize” the development of coronavirus vaccines made without human fetal cells, but did not oppose two “Operation Warp Speed” vaccines that did. Whether coronavirus vaccine research proposals would be reviewed by the ethics board on Friday was unknown, due to confidentiality rules.

Abortion opponents are split on the ethics of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, whose Phase 3 clinical trial launched on Monday is the first US vaccine to undergo wide testing in people. While the vaccine itself does not involve fetal cells, some of its development work may have involved them, John Di Camillo, an ethicist with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, told BuzzFeed News.


The balance of the ethics panel’s membership, whether research supporters or abortion opponents, will largely determine what opinions are delivered to Azar, added Di Camilo. By its charter, the board is required to contain a balance of viewpoints, but during the group’s introductions, numerous members of the panel identified themselves by affiliation with a religious institution or faith while describing their scientific or medical credentials.


MORE ON THIS
The Trump Administration Is Going To Review All Fetal Tissue Research

Dan Vergano · Sept. 25, 2018

The Last Decade Was Disastrous For Abortion Rights. Advocates Are Trying To Figure Out What’s Next.

Ema O'Connor · Dec. 17, 2019

Dan Vergano is a science reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

The Trump Administration Won A Legal Fight To Slash Federal Payments To Hospitals During The Coronavirus Pandemic

The DC Circuit ruled the administration could cut a Medicare reimbursement rate by nearly 30% for hospitals that serve patients with low incomes.
Zoe TillmanBuzzFeed News Reporter
Reporting From Washington, DC
Posted on July 31, 2020,


Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar (left) with President Donald Trump.


WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration didn't violate federal law when it scaled back a billion-dollar drug reimbursement program that benefitted public and not-for-profit hospitals serving patients with low incomes.

The legal fight predated the coronavirus pandemic, but the stakes of the case became higher this year as hospitals have lost tens of billions of dollars as nonessential services and elective surgeries were put on hold.

Starting in 2018, the Department of Health and Human Services slashed the reimbursement rate paid to certain hospitals for outpatient drugs prescribed to elderly and disabled patients covered by the Medicare program. Under what's known as the 340B program, these hospitals buy drugs at a discounted rate, and then file claims with the federal government for reimbursement.
Hospitals participating in the program collectively have earned billions of dollars annually through the program because of the difference between what they paid and the higher reimbursement rate paid out by the government.

The Trump administration argued hospitals shouldn't be earning a windfall from the discounted drug rates and approved a plan to cut the reimbursement rate by approximately 30%. The hospitals argued that Congress intended to give hospitals a way to put the money they saved by paying a discounted rate for drugs back into services for poor and underserved communities.

A federal district judge in Washington, DC, sided with the hospitals, writing in a December 2018 opinion that the rate cut's “magnitude and its wide applicability inexorably lead to the conclusion” that the agency “fundamentally altered” what Congress intended. The lower rate has been in effect notwithstanding the judge's decision, though — he declined to block it while the litigation was pending, writing that forcing the government to pay back hospitals in the meantime was "likely to be highly disruptive."

HHS estimated that the rate change would save the Medicare program $1.6 billion in 2018 alone, and that money would be distributed back to hospitals through increases in other Medicare-related reimbursements.

Hospitals that participated in the 340B program argued they would still lose money even if the agency redistributed the money. Some hospitals filed affidavits in court saying they would lose millions of dollars each year.

In a 2–1 decision written by Judge Sri Srinivasan, the DC Circuit on Friday reversed the district judge's decision, finding that the Trump administration's decision to reduce the rate "rests on a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute."

Congress gave HHS two options for how to set the rate, using either an average of what hospitals were actually paying for drugs, or what the drugs cost in the marketplace. HHS had been using the average drug cost information because it didn't have survey data on what hospitals were paying, and the hospitals argued the law didn't allow HHS to use that data to make such a substantial cut. The hospitals also argued that a 30% cut was too big to qualify as an "adjustment" under the law.

Srinivasan wrote that Congress hadn't "unambiguously" prohibited HHS from using average drug costs to come up with a reimbursement rate to match what hospitals were paying for the drugs, even if they didn't have the actual purchase data. The hospitals' position would make Congress's decision to give the department an alternative way to calculate the reimbursement rate "superfluous," the judge wrote.

Srinivasan was joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Judge Nina Pillard dissented, writing that she agreed with hospitals that the Medicare law could only adopt "large reductions" if it had the specific survey data of what hospitals were paying for the drugs. She also wrote that the record showed Congress anticipated hospitals would earn revenue through the program.

"The net effect of HHS’s 2018 and 2019 OPPS rules is to redistribute funds from financially strapped, public and nonprofit safety-net hospitals serving vulnerable populations — including patients without any insurance at all — to facilities and individuals who are relatively better off. If that is a result that Congress intended to authorize, it remains free to say so. But because the statute as it is written does not permit the challenged rate reductions, I respectfully dissent," Pillard wrote.

Representatives of HHS and the Justice Department, as well as the American Hospital Association, one of the hospital groups that led the challenge, did not immediately return a request for comment.


MORE ON THIS
The Trump Administration Wants To Cut Back A Billion-Dollar Healthcare Program. Hospitals Say Now Is A Really Bad Time.

Zoe Tillman · May 27, 2020

Hospitals Expect To Lose More Than $200 Billion Because Of The Coronavirus

Venessa Wong · May 6, 2020

Zoe Tillman is a senior legal reporter with BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

#SINOPHOBIA

Americans see China more negatively than ever amid coronavirus pandemic, Trump attacks, poll finds

IT'S KNOWN AROUND THE WORLD AS #TRUMPVIRUS

FAUCI CORRECTS REPUBLICAN LIES ABOUT CHINA SAYING WHY WOULD THEY HACK NIH OR CDC SINCE

WE PUBLISH OUR CORONAVIRUS FINDINGS FOR ALL TO SEE!Deirdre Shesgreen and Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY,
USA TODAY•July 30, 2020


WASHINGTON – A new poll shows nearly three-quarters of Americans view China negatively, a record high as new coronavirus cases spike across the U.S. and the Trump administration ramps up its attacks on Beijing.

The survey, published Thursday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, found a sharp uptick in the number of Americans who see China unfavorably. In 2018, just 47% of Americans held unfavorable views of China, but that figure has jumped 26% since then – to 73%, the highest level in the 15 years Pew has measured Americans' attitudes toward Beijing.

"Since March alone, negative views of China have increased 7 points, and there is a widespread sense that China mishandled the initial outbreak and subsequent spread of COVID-19," the Pew survey found.

By comparison, about 50% of Americans have a favorable view of the European Union, and that has held relatively steady over the years, said Kat Devlin, a Pew research associate.


With China, "we're really seeing a breakout" in U.S. attitudes, she said.

Devlin said China's standing among the U.S. public began to dip significantly in 2018 "when trade rhetoric and the trade war was kind of taking off between" the two countries and the downward spiral has continued with the coronavirus pandemic. But she could not say definitely that those two developments caused the decline.

The poll found 64% of Americans said China had done a bad job handling the pandemic, compared with 31% who said Beijing did a good job.

The novel coronavirus began in Wuhan, and Chinese officials sought to silence doctors there who raised the first alarms about the deadly outbreak. Seventy-eight percent of those surveyed said the Chinese government’s initial handling of the COVID-19 outbreak was to blame for the global spread of the pandemic.

In January and February, President Donald Trump repeatedly praised Xi Jinping's handling of the coronavirus, at one point tweeting that the U.S. "greatly appreciates (China's) efforts and transparency."



China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2020

But Trump and his advisers now say China is to blame for the pandemic, which critics say is an effort to distract from the president's failure to take the virus seriously and mount an aggressive federal response.

The poll comes as U.S. policy toward China has become an increasingly contentious issue in the 2020 presidential campaign, with Trump and his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, accusing each other of being soft on Beijing.

Republicans are more unfavorable toward China than Democrats, with 83% of GOP respondents saying they see China negatively, compared with 68% of Democrats. But both parties have come to view China in increasingly negative terms.

While the pandemic has exacerbated U.S.-China tensions, Washington and Beijing have also sparred over several other thorny issues, from trade to alleged spying. Earlier this week, American diplomats were forced to vacate the U.S. consulate in the southwestern Chinese city of Chengdu. China's government ordered the U.S. mission to shutter in retaliation for the Trump administration's decision to close China's consulate in Houston – alleging diplomats in that facility were engaged in spying and intellectual property theft.

A majority of Americans – 57% – view China as a competitor to the U.S., while 16% describe the country as a partner. But the Pew poll found 26% of Americans now see China as an enemy of the United States – almost double the percentage who said that in 2012 when Pew last asked the question.

President Donald Trump meets with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan.

Half of those surveyed said the U.S. should hold China responsible for the role it played in the coronavirus pandemic, while 38% said preserving strong economic ties with China should trump concerns about Beijing's handling of the virus.

The new poll also showed Americans support a more aggressive U.S. response to China's human rights abuses, another flashpoint in the geopolitical relationship. China recently imposed a sweeping crackdown on Hong Kong, aimed at squelching pro-democracy protesters. And Xi's government has also engaged in mass internment, forced sterilization and abortions and other horrific treatment of a predominantly Muslim population in China's Xinjiang region.

More than 70% of Americans surveyed by Pew said the U.S. should try to promote human rights in China even if it harms bilateral economic relations, while 23% said the U.S. should prioritize strong economic relations at the expense of confronting Beijing over its human rights abuses.

Pew conducted the telephone poll of 1,003 U.S. adults from June 16 to July 14.

More on US-China relations:

What the fight between Biden and Trump over China means for the 2020 election

'Dangerous dynamic': Coronavirus threatens new 'Cold War' between US and China


This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Poll: Americans' views of China sours amid coronavirus, Trump attacks

Hong Kong postpones elections over virus as China crackdown deepens

CORONAVIRUS AGENT OF THE STATE

Jerome TAYLOR, Yan ZHAO, AFP•July 31, 2020



Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam described the announcement as the 'most difficult decision' she has made since the pandemic began (AFP Photo/Anthony WALLACE)

Hong Kong's democracy supporters were dealt a huge blow Friday as authorities postponed local elections for a year because of the coronavirus, capping a devastating month of political disqualifications, arrests for social media posts and activists fleeing overseas.

Chinese state media reported late Friday that Hong Kong police have ordered the arrest of six pro-democracy activists living in exile on suspicion of violating a new national security law.

The city's democracy camp has come under sustained attack since Beijing imposed the sweeping security law last month -- a move China's leaders described as a "sword" hanging over the head of its critics.

The ensuing weeks have sent a chill through a city used to speaking its mind and supposedly guaranteed certain freedoms and autonomy in a "One Country, Two Systems" deal agreed ahead of its 1997 handover from Britain.

On Friday evening chief executive Carrie Lam, a pro-Beijing appointee, announced that September elections for the financial hub's legislature would be delayed for a year using emergency anti-virus powers.

She denied the move was a political decision to hobble the city's opposition.

"I am only paying attention to the current pandemic situation," she said.

Beijing welcomed the move as "necessary, reasonable and legal".

But the decision infuriated democracy supporters who had warned against any move to delay the polls, accusing authorities of using the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid a drubbing at the ballot box.

"This is a sleazy, contemptible political act to help thwart any victory on the part of the democrats in the original election," opposition lawmaker Claudia Mo told AFP, warning that public anger could explode.

The postponement came a day after a dozen prominent democracy activists were barred from standing for election because their political views were deemed unacceptable.

"Beyond any doubt (this) is the most scandalous election fraud era in Hong Kong history," Joshua Wong, one of the city's most recognisable democracy figures, told reporters Friday before the elections were postponed.

Wong was one of those disqualified, along with other young firebrand activists and some older, more moderate democracy campaigners.

The White House condemned the election delay and the disqualification of opposition candidates.

"This action undermines the democratic processes and freedoms that have underpinned Hong Kong's prosperity," President Donald Trump's press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, said.

Germany also said Friday it was suspending its extradition treaty with Hong Kong over the former British colony's decision to push back the local elections.

"The Hong Kong government's decision to disqualify a dozen opposition candidates for the election and to postpone the elections ... is a further encroachment on the rights of Hong Kong citizens," Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement.

"Given the current developments, we have decided to suspend the extradition treaty with Hong Kong."

- Banned political views -

Hong Kong is not a democracy -- its leader is chosen by pro-Beijing committees.

But half of its legislature's 70 seats are directly elected, offering the city's 7.5 million residents a rare chance to have their voices heard at the ballot box.

Planning to capitalise on last year's huge and often violent anti-Beijing protests, democracy activists had been hoping to win their first-ever majority in September.

But officials have begun scrubbing ballot lists of candidates.

Examples given by authorities of unacceptable political views have included criticising the new security law, campaigning to win a legislation-blocking majority and refusing to recognise China's sovereignty.

Earlier in the day a coalition of democracy parties warned any bid to delay the elections would herald "the complete collapse of our constitutional system".

Around half of Hong Kong's nearly 3,300 COVID-19 cases have been detected in the past month alone and authorities fear hospitals are on the verge of being overwhelmed.

According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, at least 68 elections worldwide have been postponed because of the virus, while 49 went ahead.

- New security law -

Hong Kong is going through its most politically turbulent period since its return to Chinese rule, and last year seven straight months of pro-democracy protests swept the city.

The pandemic and mass arrests have helped throttle the movement, but anger towards Beijing still seethes.

In response, China imposed its security law on June 30, bypassing the legislature and keeping the contents of the law secret until it was enacted.

Beijing said the law would restore stability and not impact political freedoms.

It targets four types of crime -- subversion, secession, terrorism and colluding with foreign forces -- with up to life in prison.

But the broadly worded law instantly outlawed certain political views such as promoting independence or greater autonomy for Hong Kong.

One provision bans "inciting hatred" towards the government.

Critics, including many Western nations, say it has demolished the "One Country, Two Systems" model.

Since it came into force, some political parties have disbanded while at least three prominent Beijing critics have fled overseas.

Libraries and schools have pulled books deemed to be in breach of the new law.

At least 15 arrests have been made so far.

Prominent campaigner Nathan Law, 27, who recently relocated to Britain after fleeing Hong Kong, was among "six trouble-makers" sought by the police, the Chinese state media report said. The force refused to comment.

On Wednesday four students were arrested under the new law for "inciting secession" through posts on social media.

Others have been arrested for shouting pro-independence and other protest slogans, or possessing objects emblazoned with them.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump distorts Biden's position on fracking

BIDEN IS A PENNSYLVANIA OIL STATE BOY;

PRO FRACKING
ELLEN KNICKMEYER and CALVIN WOODWARD,
Associated Press•July 31, 2020

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — President Donald Trump is routinely distorting Democratic rival Joe Biden's policy on fracking as he tries to transform it into a full-scale “disaster” for election battlegrounds.

Trump's latest iteration of his falsehood:

TRUMP: “Biden came out against fracking. Well, that means Texas is going to be one of the most unemployed states in our country. That means Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico are going to be a disaster. Ohio, Pennsylvania — disaster. No fracking.” — news conference Thursday.

THE FACTS: No, that’s not Biden’s position at all.

In a March 15 primary debate, Biden misstated his fracking policy and his campaign quickly corrected the record. Biden has been consistent on his middle-of-the-road position since then, going so far as to tell an anti-fracking activist at a December campaign event that he “ought to vote for somebody else” if he wanted an immediate fracking ban.

Trump continually ignores the correction.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, opened up a yearslong oil and gas boom in parts of the Southwest, Northeast and High Plains when the technique went into widespread use under the Obama administration, although the coronavirus pandemic and a global petroleum glut have now driven down prices and demand.

Biden floundered in the March primary debate when Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke of his own proposal, saying he was intending to wind down fracking entirely. “So am I,” Biden replied. “No more — no new — fracking.”

Biden’s campaign contacted reporters to say he misspoke, and the candidate and his campaign have been consistent in public statements of Biden’s position since.

Biden supports banning only new oil and gas permits, fracking included, on federal land. But most U.S. production is on private land — the U.S. Bureau of Land Management says production on federal land accounted for less than 10% of oil and gas in 2018. So Biden's limited restriction does not spell “disaster” for entire states.

The Democratic candidate does call for closer oversight of oil and gas production to minimize dangerous pollutants from it, including climate-damaging methane. And his plan to slow climate change calls for big-spending proposals to encourage cleaner forms of energy, so that U.S. power plants by 2035 are emitting no carbon pollution from fossil fuels.

But banning fracking on state-regulated private lands could take action by Congress, and Biden has expressed doubts whether lawmakers would vote for that. “Because you can’t ban fracking right now; you’ve got to transition away from it,” he told the anti-fracking activist at the December event.

Some of the states with the most fracking — such as Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio — are battleground states in the presidential election. Trump has seized on fracking as a position to hit Biden on. But Trump is not doing it honestly.

___

Woodward reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Matthew Brown contributed from Billings, Montana.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — A look at the veracity of claims by political figures.

___

Find AP Fact Checks at http://apnews.com/APFactCheck

Trump did not attend John Lewis' funeral. 

INSTEAD HE TWEETED AN ELECTORAL TROPE TO DISTRACT EVERYONE 
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/07/trump-cant-delay-elections.html

Here are 4 other major funerals he missed while president.Oma Seddiq,Business Insider•July 30, 2020

Former President Barack Obama addresses the service during the funeral for the late Rep. John Lewis.

Alyssa Pointer/Atlanta Journal-Constitution via AP, Pool


President Donald Trump did not attend the late Rep. John Lewis' funeral in Atlanta on Thursday.


Trump also did not attend memorial services held for the civil rights icon earlier this week in Washington, DC.


Former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton each delivered eulogies for Lewis at his funeral.


Other prominent funerals Trump has not attended include the late Rep. Elijah Cummings, Rep. John Dingell, Sen. John McCain and former First Lady Barbara Bush.

Former President Barack Obama appeared to take a jab at President Donald Trump at the funeral service of the late Rep. John Lewis in Atlanta on Thursday.

"Even as we sit here, there are those in power who are doing their darndest to discourage people from voting," Obama said during his eulogy, seemingly alluding to Trump's recent unsubstantiated claims that vote-by-mail leads to widespread fraud. "Even undermining the postal service in the run-up to an election, that's going to be dependent on mail-in ballots, so people don't get sick."

Though he did not mention Trump by name, Obama emphasized that his pointed remarks were not off-script: "I know this is a celebration of John's life. There are some who might say, 'We shouldn't dwell on such things.' But that's why I'm talking about it. John Lewis devoted his time on this earth fighting the very attacks on democracy."

He received a standing ovation from the crowd, which was filled with several notable officials including former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — who also delivered eulogies — but not Trump.

The president earlier this week also skipped Lewis' memorial service in Washington, DC.

It's not the first time Trump has missed a funeral, though he has attended a couple as president, including services for the late Rev. Billy Graham and former President George H.W. Bush.

Here are four prominent funerals Trump did not attend:

Rep. Elijah Cummings
A military honor guard lays the U.S. flag on the casket of Rep. Elijah Cummings during his funeral service on October 25, 2019 in Baltimore, Maryland.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings' funeral service took place last October in his hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, part of the district he represented since 1996. The former chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Reform Committee, who helped lead the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump that was taking place at the time, died at age 68.

In the months leading up to his death, Trump engaged in an escalating public feud with the congressman, calling him a "racist," launching attacks at Baltimore, and appearing to mock a reported burglary at his home.

Trump skipped the funeral. A copy of the president's schedule that day showed he had nothing on his agenda at the time.

Former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and former First Ladies Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton were all in attendance, among many other key lawmakers and high-ranked officials, including now Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows, who delivered a tearful speech in honor of his "dear friend."

Rep. John Dingell

Rep. Debbie Dingell bows her head with former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during funeral services for her husband, former Rep. John Dingell.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Getty Images

Rep. John Dingell, the longest-serving member in Congress ever at more than 59 years, died at age 92 last February. A funeral service in Washington, DC, was attended by former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as former Republican House Speaker John Boehner, among others. Former Vice President Joe Biden attended another funeral held in Michigan, Dingell's home state.

Trump was not at either funeral, but he ordered American flags to be flown at half-mast after Dingell's death to honor him. Months later, Trump suggested the Democratic congressman might be in hell aftter his wife, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), voted to support impeachment.

"Maybe he's looking up, I don't know," Trump said during a campaign rally in Michigan. "But let's assume he's looking down."

Rep. Debbie Dingell called his comment a gut punch.

Sen. John McCain

Cindy McCain arrives at a memorial service for her husband, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in Washington, Sept. 1, 2018.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

In perhaps the most controversial of Trump's missed funerals, the president did not attend the late Arizona Sen. John McCain's ceremony in September 2018 because he was not invited.

Cindy McCain, the senator's wife, explained that she wanted the service to remain "with dignity."

"Even though it was a very public funeral, we are still family. For all of us and for the sake of my own children, I didn't want any disruption. This was about John, not about anything else at all," she said at the time.

Trump's daughter Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, and other members of his administration attended the funeral.

The president had been in a longtime dispute with the late senator, hurling insults at the revered naval officer who died aged 81 after a battle with cancer. McCain, who was much admired by politicians from both sides of the aisle, had not shied away from speaking out against Trump, unlike many from within his party.

Trump continued to spew repeated attacks against McCain even after his death.

Former First Lady Barbara Bush

Former Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush arrive for the funeral for former first lady Barbara Bush on April 21, 2018.

David J. Phillip/AP Photo

Former First Lady Barbara Bush's funeral held in Houston, Texas, was attended by more than 1,000 people. Trump was not one of them.

She died in April 2018 at the age of 92 and was remembered as a beloved public figure of the World War II generation. Her husband, the late former President George H.W. Bush was at the service with his sons, former President George W. Bush and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Among the people gathered also included the Obamas and Clintons, as well as First Lady Melania Trump.

White House officials noted in advance that President Donald Trump would not attend "to avoid disruptions due to added security, and out of respect for the Bush family and friends attending the service."


Trump’s Sudden Photo-Op Just Happened To Be During Obama's John Lewis Eulogy
S.V. Date HuffPost July 30, 2020


WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump had his public schedule clear through mid-afternoon Thursday — right up until his predecessor Barack Obama was about to take the dais at civil rights leader John Lewis’ funeral 600 miles to the southwest — when suddenly, reporters and cameras were called into the Oval Office.

As Obama remembered the Georgia congressman who died last week, Trump spoke to the family of murder victim Vanessa Guillen, promising he would take action.

The White House denied there was any attempt to “counter-program” Obama’s widely anticipated remarks by creating a competing news event. “This meeting has been scheduled for weeks,” spokesman Judd Deere said. “That’s a disgusting question, by the way.”

One White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Guillen’s family asked for the press to be invited in. It’s believed that a colleague killed Guillen, a Fort Hood, Texas, soldier, and later committed suicide.

Trump’s move, in any event, adds to a long pattern for a man who rose to prominence in the Republican Party based on his willingness to push a racist conspiracy theory that the first Black president was not born in the United States and was therefore elected illegitimately.

From the day he took office, Trump has also shown irritation at comparisons to his predecessor. In a speech in front of a wall memorializing CIA officers killed in the line of duty, Trump lied that his inaugural crowd had been larger than Obama’s. He has repeatedly, and falsely, claimed that the economy under his watch had been stronger than Obama’s. He has accused Obama of “spying” on his campaign — without explaining why he willingly used documents stolen by Russian intelligence in the final month of his 2016 campaign, even though he had been told they were stolen by Russian intelligence.

Obama was among a long list of dignitaries at Lewis’ funeral, including former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The hero of the 1960s civil rights protests died July 17 of pancreatic cancer.

Trump not only skipped the funeral in Atlanta but chose not to travel the 2 miles to the Capitol to pay his respects during the two days that Lewis’ body was lying in state.

A bridge over an Arizona lake was engulfed in flames and partially collapsed after a train derailment

The Salt River Union Pacific Bridge was constructed in 1912 and is used by cargo trains

HOW'S THAT TRUMP INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN COMING 

Rhea Mahbubani INSIDER•July 29, 2020

A bridge collapsed and a derailed train caught fire over Tempe Town Lake in Arizona on Wednesday.

Daniel Coronado

The Salt River Union Pacific Bridge in Tempe, Arizona, caught fire early Wednesday and partially collapsed amid a train derailment, according to multiple reports.

A train car carrying lumber across the bridge was engulfed in flames and a tanker car that had a hazardous materials warning sign fell off the bridge and landed on the street below, per KTVK.

Information about the cause of the incident or any injuries wasn't immediately available.

Fire crews in Tempe, Arizona, battled a massive blaze on Wednesday morning after a train derailed and a bridge collapsed at Tempe Town Lake.

Local station KTVK reported that a train car transporting lumber across the Salt River Union Pacific Bridge caught fire around 6 a.m. while a tanker car with a hazardous materials warning sign had fallen off the bridge.

Footage from the scene showed mangled train cars, some of which were engulfed in flames while others had plummeted onto the street below. A towering plume of black smoke was also visible.

A Tempe Fire Department spokesperson told ABC-affiliate KNXV-TV that a Union Pacific train was involved. Around 90 firefighters and multiple agencies responded to the two-alarm fire, the news outlet reported.

Tempe police said on Twitter that streets in the area were closed and the lake was shut down. Local reports said that no one was injured, but one person was treated for smoke inhalation.

Information about the cause of the collapse wasn't immediately available.
—Daniel Coronado (@dnado) July 29, 2020

Camille Kimball was riding her bike beneath the bridge moments before it collapsed, she told KTVK. A loud noise alerted her that something had happened as did the fact that bystanders pulled out their phones and began taking pictures and videos.

"I turned around to look and got the fright of my life," she told the outlet. "Now there's fire pouring into the lake from the middle of the bridge ... It looks like a scene from hell, truly. A scene from hell ... The flames are intense and the sky is filled with black smoke."

The lake was also the scene of a Black Lives Matter protest on July 27, according to Reuters.

Read the original article on Insider

Lawsuit: Trump still blocks Twitter critics after court loss
LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press•July 31, 2020

NEW YORK (AP) — An organization that successfully proved President Donald Trump violated the law when he blocked Twitter critics sued him anew on Friday, saying he continues to reject some accounts two years after losing in court.

The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued Trump a second time in Manhattan federal court over use of his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, saying the president and his staff continue to block some accounts.

Some individuals identified in a lawsuit filed in 2017, along with dozens of others who were blocked on the basis of viewpoint, have been unblocked, the lawsuit said.

But lawyers say the White House has refused to unblock those who can't identify which tweet led them to be blocked and others who were blocked before Trump was sworn in more than three years ago.


“It shouldn’t take another lawsuit to get the president to respect the rule of law and to stop blocking people simply because he doesn’t like what they’re posting,” said Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute, in a release.

The lawsuit identified as plaintiffs five individuals who remain blocked, including a digital specialist with the American Federation of Teachers, a freelance writer and researcher, a former teacher, an actor and Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University.

Moynihan could not point to a specific tweet that caused him to be blocked because he periodically deletes tweets, the lawsuit said. It added that when the institute pressed the White House to unblock Moynihan, the request was rejected.

The lawsuit said the Knight Institute was told: “Donald Trump does not intend to unblock persons who were blocked prior to his inauguration or who cannot identify a tweet that preceded and allegedly precipitated the blocking.”

It said at least 27 other Twitter accounts remain blocked.

A federal appeals panel last July concluded Trump violated the First Amendment whenever he blocked a critic to silence a viewpoint. The three-judge panel had concluded that the president’s daily pronouncements and observations were overwhelmingly official in nature.

A message seeking comment was sent to the Justice Department.

The Nazi Hunter Taking On Mark Zuckerberg

Marlow Stern,The Daily Beast•July 30, 2020

Jeff Pachoud/Getty

For the past six decades, Serge Klarsfeld has dedicated his life to hunting down Nazis and bringing them to justice. There was Klaus Barbie, the infamous “Butcher of Lyon,” whom Klarsfeld and his wife, Beate, tracked down in Peru; René Bousquet, who ordered thousands of Jews to their deaths in the Vel’ d’Hiv’ Roundup; and Paul Touvier, who was apprehended at a priory in Nice and became the first Vichy official to be convicted of crimes against humanity for Holocaust collaboration.

Now, he’s setting his sights on Mark Zuckerberg.

Klarsfeld, 84, is one of a number of Holocaust activists and survivors who are speaking out as part of #NoDenyingIt, a campaign against Facebook and its founder for allowing Holocaust denialism on the platform. In addition to Klarsfeld, who lost his father at Auschwitz, the participants include Auschwitz survivor Roman Kent, Anne Frank’s stepsister Eva Schloss, and many more.

“The internet causes a lot of people who are gullible or anti-Semitic to want to believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen,” says Klarsfeld. “It’s wrong, it’s against history, and it brings people to be anti-Semitic, because if the Holocaust didn’t happen, that means the Jews lied about their parents and grandparents being killed.”

#NoDenyingIt was launched by the Claims Conference, or the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, an organization seeking reparations for Jewish victims of Nazi oppression, recovering stolen Jewish property, and preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

Inside Trump and Farrakhan’s Strange Ties to Scientology

The Disturbing Rise of Anti-Semitism Among Black Celebs

This controversy began in 2018, when, during an interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher, Zuckerberg brought up Holocaust denialism on his own during a discussion of Facebook’s censorship policies.

“Let’s take this whole [issue] closer to home. I’m Jewish, and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,” said Zuckerberg. “I find that deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.” (He later issued a half-hearted apology, while remaining steadfast on in his position: “I personally find Holocaust denial deeply offensive, and I absolutely didn’t intend to defend the intent of people who deny that.”)

Later in the chat, Zuckerberg expanded on his company’s rather nebulous policy. “The principles that we have on what we remove from the service are: If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform,” he said.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies via video conference before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 29, 2020.
Graeme Jennings/AFP/GettyMore

But Klarsfeld and the #NoDenyingIt campaign argue that Holocaust denialism does result in “real physical harm,” and is therefore in violation of Facebook policy.

“He is Jewish,” Klarsfeld says of Zuckerberg. “And it’s important that Facebook, which is a big vehicle of ideas, thoughts, and images, does something about hateful speech—and not only hateful speech but an incitement to violence. Because if people start to believe that the Jews didn’t die in the Holocaust and this was a big hoax, then they’ll become angry with the Jews and commit violence. In the United States, there have been shootings of synagogues. In a time of crisis, people are looking for scapegoats, and throughout history, Jews have been scapegoats. Throughout history, if you give people an alibi to commit violence against Jews, they will use it.”

He adds, “If he bans pedophiles from Facebook, people who deny the Holocaust should also be banned. He bans people who bare their breasts on Facebook and won’t ban people who say that Jews didn’t die during the war.”

In addition to Facebook, Klarsfeld is deeply troubled by the rise of the far right—many of whose leaders and followers are anti-Semitic—not only in America but around the globe. One of the leaders who he says is too tolerant of the far right is U.S. President Donald Trump.

“He didn’t condemn the violence that occurred against the Jews by the extreme right, and he should have done that. He’s not responsible and he didn’t do what he had to do, which is condemn the extreme right—and the neo-Nazi extreme right,” says Klarsfeld, adding, “He called some of the [Charlottesville far right] ‘very fine people,’ which he shouldn’t have said and which was a big mistake. Some of his voters are from the extreme right. So he has a tendency to be lenient to some of the extreme-right movement.”

We’ve also seen a disturbing rise of anti-Semitism among prominent Black celebrities in America, from the rappers and actors Ice Cube and Nick Cannon, to pro athletes DeSean Jackson and Stephen Jackson, to Diddy, who took it upon himself to broadcast a speech by one of the nation’s leading anti-Semites, Louis Farrakhan, to an audience of millions this July 4.

Jewish deportees in the Buchenwald concentration camp pose for a Soviet photographer in January 1945. Middle bunk bed, the 6th from left, lies Elie Wiesel, one of the rare camp survivors and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize winner. AFP via GettyMore

“If Puff Daddy put a speech of Farrakhan, who is a known anti-Semite, on the internet, it means he shares his ideas, and it’s something that is very easy,” explains Klarsfeld. “It’s easy to explain all the worries of the world and put them on the backs of the Jews—it’s been happening for many centuries. It means you’re not responsible for your worries, or the government is not responsible for your worries, it’s the Jews who are responsible. We have to remind people that there are 12 million Jews, 2.5 billion Christians, and 2 billion Muslims. So I don’t see how the Jews could be running the world based on those numbers.”

These days, Klarsfeld—along with wife Beate and son Arno—are doing their damnedest to educate generations young and old about anti-Semitism, and the horrors of the Holocaust.

“We buy pages in newspapers, give lectures, and we try to be active against the extreme right, which until now, we still haven’t made the moves necessary to condemn these anti-Semitic parties,” he says. “It has to be done through education, and teaching compassion and tolerance.”

Nearly 12,000 US Troops Will Pull Out of Germany at Cost of Billions, SecDef Says

Richard Sisk,Military.com•July 29, 2020


Nearly 12,000 U.S. troops will be withdrawn or repositioned from Germany, with more than half of them returning to the U.S., under a long-term plan aimed at strengthening NATO's eastern flanks against Russia, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday.

He gave no overall timetable for when the pullout would begin or be completed, but said some units could start moving "within weeks" while the withdrawal of others will depend on working out agreements with allies.

Read Next: Lawmakers Grill Guard Officer on Claims Police Used Excessive Force on DC Protesters

However, "no moves will take place without thorough communication with our people" affected by the withdrawals and with Congress, Esper said.

Last month, President Donald Trump directed that 9,500 troops be withdrawn from Germany, but Esper said the overall strategy requires the pullout and repositioning of 11,900, reducing the number of U.S. service members in Germany to about 24,000.

Of the 11,900 troops, about 6,400 will eventually return to the U.S. and the rest will be repositioned in other NATO countries, with an emphasis on Poland, the Baltic states and the Black Sea region to shift NATO's force posture more to the east, Esper said.

The bulk of the troops returning to the U.S. will consist of the 4,500 members of the Army's 2nd Cavalry Regiment, a Stryker unit now garrisoned in Vilseck, Germany, he added.

Esper said an unspecified fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing now stationed in Germany will be moved to Italy.

In addition, the Army's newly established 5th Corps headquarters is slated to move into Poland, and other units are being considered for stationing in Poland and the Baltic states, he continued.

The 2,500 airmen now stationed at the U.K.'s RAF Mildenhall, who had been scheduled to reposition to Germany, will now stay put, Esper said.

He had no immediate figures for the costs of the withdrawal, but said it could be in the "single digit" billions.

Esper said the Defense Department will rely on the service branches to "assure the stability" of military families who will be making permanent change-of-station moves under the sweeping reorganization, adding that the families will be "informed well in advance" of any moves.

The SecDef outlined the plan at a Pentagon briefing with Air Force Gen. John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters, who doubles as NATO supreme commander and head of U.S. European Command.

Under the plan, Wolters said his own EUCOM headquarters will move from Stuttgart, Germany, to Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium. He added that EUCOM's Special Operations Command headquarters in Stuttgart will also move to Mons.

Esper said the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command, which currently has about 2,000 personnel in Stuttgart, Germany, will also likely be moved to Belgium, although a final location has yet to be determined.

Wolters said the plan calls for at least two Army battalions now stationed in Germany to move to Italy. He did not give a date but said the first to move will be the 52nd Civil Engineering Battalion.

The demands for deterrence in Europe require speed of movement, which could better be handled by rotational forces coming from the U.S., Wolters said, adding, "This realignment allows us to favorably deter against Russia."

The Germany pullout has triggered bipartisan criticism from Congress, with Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, calling it a "gift" to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But Hyten said the plan to rely more on rotational forces going to Europe from the U.S. will boost the unpredictability of the overall deterrent.

The plan will result in a better alignment of NATO and EUCOM forces and "provide Gen. Wolters increased ability to dynamically deploy his force," Hyten said.

Hyten and Esper sought to portray the pullout plan as part of a long-term review of the posture of all the combatant commands, although Trump in announcing the withdrawal directive last month said it was aimed at Germany's refusal to spend more on national defense.

Esper said that Trump's announcement had "accelerated" Pentagon planning "to reduce our footprint in Germany. We are still retaining a little more than 24,000 troops in Germany, which is still a lot, and more than any other country in Europe."

The number of U.S. troops in Europe has "changed many times" over years, Esper said, and "we're now at another one of those inflection points in NATO's history."

He added that Germany is one of the wealthiest countries in Europe "and should pay more for its defense."

Planning for withdrawals from Germany began well before Trump gave the order in June, Esper said.

"We began this process actually several months ago when I gave EUCOM direction to begin looking at ways to improve our force disposition in NATO," he said. "I'm telling you that this is going to accomplish what the president [ordered] with regard to getting us down to a lower number in Europe, and it meets those other objectives I laid out with regard to the strategic piece."

At a June 24 White House meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump said that some of the U.S. troops withdrawn from Germany would return to the U.S. and some would go to Poland.

There was also speculation at the time that some of the withdrawn troops would go to the Indo-Pacific region as a counter to China. Esper said there is still a possibility that some of the withdrawn troops will end up there.

"They could be, but right now there are no plans to do so," he said.

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

Related: Army Secretary Skirts Questions on US Troop Pullout from Germany

Detained Portland protesters have to promise to stop going to rallies if they want to get out of jail, reports say

Bill Bostock, INSIDER•July 30, 2020

A line of veterans oppose the use of federal agents at the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in Portland on July 24, 2020.
John Rudoff/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

CNN and ProPublica reviewed conditions-of-release documents of multiple people recently arrested in Portland on protest-related charges.

The outlets found that many had to promise not to attend future demonstrations to get out of jail.

CNN identified nine cases, and ProPublica 12, where they were made to agree to those terms in order to be released. It's not clear whether some of those cases overlap.

One condition of release document, cited by ProPublica, says: "Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon."

Legal experts told the outlets the conditions violate the first amendment right to free assembly of those detained.

Protesters detained by the police in Portland are being told they can only get out of jail if they promise to stop going to rallies, according to two reports on Wednesday and Thursday.

Anti-racism and police-brutality protests that had rumbled on in the city since the killing of George Floyd in late May reached a fever pitched two weeks ago, with security forces sent by the federal government descending on the city and clashing with demonstrators.

Close to 100 protesters have been arrested on various charges since July 4, acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary Chad Wolf told CNN on Wednesday.


Many of those detained were only allowed to leave if they agreed not to attend any future protests in either Portland and/or Oregon state as a whole, according to release documents seen by CNN and ProPublica.

If they break the condition they be sent back to jail.

People gather in protest in front of the federal courthouse in Portland on July 25, 2020.
Spencer Platt/Getty Image

At least 12 protesters arrested in July were spared further jail time on the condition that they would not attend future protests, ProPublica reported.

One condition of release document for a detained protester, published by ProPublica, stipulated : "Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon."

CNN also found at least nine people who were arrested between July 23 and July 27, for either failing to obey a lawful order or assaulting a federal officer, were released if they promised not to rally again.

It is not clear whether ProPublica's 12 sources and CNN's nine overlap.

The conditions of release are usually decided by the federal magistrate in Portland, the US Pretrial Services, and the US Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon.

The Attorney's Office told CNN it intended to prevent those arrested from entering a five-block section around the Hatfield Courthouse in the future.

"The additional restrictions were added by the court," the office said.

Federal agents disperse protesters near the federal courthouse in Portland on July 20, 2020. AP Photo/Noah Berger

Legal experts say the conditions of release violate the constitutional rights and the right to free assembly of those arrested.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, told ProPublica: "Even if they're right that these people did, in fact, step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal, that doesn't mean you can then restrict their First Amendment right."

Somil Trivedi, an attorney with the Criminal Law Reform Project, told CNN: "This release condition is blatantly unconstitutional."

"The government cannot force you to relinquish your First Amendment rights as a condition for your freedom. Release conditions must be related to public safety or flight. This is neither."

Business Insider contacted the US Attorney's Office for the District of Oregon for comment but is yet to receive a response.

On July 23, the Department of Justice opened an investigation into the "use of force" by around 110 unmarked federal agents patrolling the streets of Portland, who were sent there at the behest of Donald Trump.

Local and state officials, as well as some DHS employees, have called their actions "unconstitutional," Business Insider's Oma Seddiq previously reported.

Videos posted to social media purport to show agents snatching people off the street. The governor of Oregon, Kate Brown, said Wednesday that the federal agents would begin to leave from Thursday.