• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1155
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы432
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации54
      • Показать ещё
      Формат10
      Компании1117
      • Показать ещё
      Издания158
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели19
      • Показать ещё
      Разное536
      • Показать ещё
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Холдер
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Эрик Химптон Холдер-младший (англ. Eric Himpton Holder, Jr., род. 21 января 1951) — американский политик, Генеральный прокурор США с 3 февраля 2009 года. До своего назначения работал в юридической фирме Covington |&| Burling.
Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
25 мая, 00:45

Supreme Court Puts States On Notice About Using Race In Redistricting

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Supreme Court has made it overwhelmingly clear that when states draw new boundaries for electoral districts after the 2020 census, they must have a strong justification if they want to use race as a factor. In a significant ruling earlier this week in a case called Cooper v. Harris, the high court threw out two congressional districts in North Carolina after determining Republican lawmakers improperly packed African-American voters into them. The decision, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, was the latest in a series of recent rulings from the court showing an unmistakable skepticism from the justices on the practice. States redraw electoral districts every 10 years after a new census. The Constitution prohibits lawmakers from using race as the predominant factor in redistricting considerations, but the Voting Rights Act allows them to take race into account to a certain extent, in order to protect the voting influence of minorities. That leaves courts to figure out if race was improperly or too overwhelmingly used when lines are redrawn. The North Carolina decision is unlikely to prompt a flood of new litigation before the next redistricting cycle. But experts say that it puts states on notice for when they draw new lines that could dilute the votes of minorities. The court is sending a clear signal that states needed to “be careful” and “do their homework” when using race as a factor in drawing district boundaries, said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Devision from 2015 to 2017. “The use of race in redistricting requires some precision tools, and legislatures in this last cycle were operating with blunt machinery. Sometimes intentionally, and perhaps sometimes unintentionally, but what the court is essentially doing is telling them to stop it,” he said. “You have precision tools, do your homework.” “The use of race in redistricting requires some precision tools, and legislatures in this last cycle were operating with blunt machinery. Levitt noted the North Carolina case fit in with recent Supreme Court gerrymandering decisions dealing with districts in Virginia and Alabama. In March, the court largely sided with Democratic plaintiffs in a case that charged that Virginia lawmakers had placed too much emphasis on race when drawing district lines. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled Alabama lawmakers too had given unfair weight to race when drawing district lines in a 2012 state redistricting. “I think this is one of a series of cases from the 2010 round of redistricting that give plaintiffs more tools to challenge unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” Richard Pildes, an election law expert and professor at NYU Law School, wrote in an email of the North Carolina case. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who is now leading the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a redistricting reform effort, called the latest decision a “watershed moment in the fight to end racial gerrymandering,” in a statement Monday. The group will use the ruling to challenge future gerrymanders, said Marc Elias, who argued both the Virginia and North Carolina cases at the Supreme Court in December and is an NRDC senior adviser. “This builds upon Supreme Court precedent striking down racial gerrymandering in North Carolina and twice in Virginia. Based off this ruling, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee will aggressively pursue new cases to end similar illegal racial gerrymandering in other states,” he said. One significant aspect of the North Carolina decision was that the majority opinion turned down North Carolina’s argument that it needed to pack black voters into one congressional district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The landmark 1965 law says states cannot block the ability of minority voters to elect a preferred candidate. North Carolina ― echoing a strategy employed by other southern states ― said this was why they increased the number of black voters in the district to over 50 percent. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the argument for District 1, noting that the district had a history of electing black voters’ preferred candidates even when its black voting-age population was under 50 percent. “The Court is not going to let jurisdictions use compliance with the Voting Rights Act as an excuse, when what they’re doing has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act, and more to do with their simply wanting to shift around populations on the basis of race in order to achieve partisan ends,” Ezra Rosenberg, co-director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in an email. “The Court did not say that any line-drawing that creates a majority-minority district is suspect. And they’re not. What is suspect is when race is the predominate and uncompromising factor, to the exclusion of all else, and there’s no good reason for that to be so,” he said. In considering the other congressional district in the case, District 12, the court dismissed North Carolina’s argument that politics, not race, was responsible for the gerrymander. In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito took issue with the fact that the court didn’t require plaintiffs in the case to provide an alternative map showing the state could have drawn the lines without using race as the predominant factor. The court required an alternate map in a previous challenge to District 12, so not asking for one now was akin to tossing away Supreme Court precedent like a “paper plate or napkin,” Alito said. Not requiring an alternate map will make it easier to challenge racial gerrymanders, said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Irvine. The latest decision could immediately impact two race-based gerrymandering cases, one in Texas and a separate one from North Carolina, moving their way through the courts. Both cases call into question whether lawmakers unconstitutionally drew congressional and state legislative maps. The North Carolina decision came as observers are closely watching a different case out of Wisconsin in which the court is expected to consider whether a gerrymander based on partisanship, not race, was too extreme. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 мая, 02:02

Burr: Flynn could be held in contempt

But Senate GOP leaders are reluctant to go after Trump's former national security adviser after he refused to comply with a subpoena.

22 мая, 23:36

Michael Flynn Invokes the Fifth

President Trump’s former national security adviser won’t comply with the Intelligence Committee’s demand for Russia-related documents, his lawyers said Monday.

22 мая, 19:45

The Federal Prosecutors Backing Jeff Sessions on Mandatory Minimums

The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys lobbied against the last major push for criminal-justice reform in Congress. Now their former president is working in the Justice Department.

22 мая, 17:59

Supreme Court rules North Carolina congressional districts unconstitutional

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that two North Carolina congressional districts were drawn unconstitutionally, affirming a previous district court decision against the state's maps.The ruling centered on two Democratic-held districts and found that Republican state legislators, in drawing the congressional map earlier this decade, "packed" African-American voters into those districts to dilute the power of their votes in other congressional seats.State Republicans argued that they increased the African-American population of the districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act, but Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her decision that the argument "does not withstand strict scrutiny.""For nearly 20 years before the new plan’s adoption, African-Americans made up less than a majority of District 1’s voters, but their preferred candidates scored consistent victories," Kagan wrote of the district currently held by Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield.North Carolina currently has three Democrats and 10 Republicans in the House of Representatives. The state has already redrawn its original congressional maps for this decade, which resulted in the member-versus-member primary between GOP Rep. George Holding and former Rep. Renee Ellmers in 2016.Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kagan in the majority alongside Clarence Thomas — an unusual majority combination.

22 мая, 17:56

Supreme Court Throws Out Two GOP-Drawn Congressional Districts As Unconstitutional

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Supreme Court agreed on Monday with a lower court ruling that found that Republican lawmakers in North Carolina drew two congressional districts with improper racial considerations in mind. “The Constitution entrusts States with the job of designing congressional districts,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan in the 5-to-3 decision. “But it also imposes an important constraint: A State may not use race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.” The court concluded that the two districts — which, following the 2010 census, were drawn to pack a higher percentage of voting-age black voters into them — violated this principle. Kagan was joined in her majority opinion by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The contested districts “have quite the history at this Court,” Kagan wrote, noting the long line of court challenges that have sought to find fault how North Carolina draws its congressional districts.  Perhaps to illustrate the unusual shapes of Districts 1 and 12, Kagan’s opinion included an appendix with images of both as well as of the whole state. District 12, in particular, was described as “snakelike.” ”The evidence offered at trial, including live witness testimony subject to credibility determinations, adequately supports the conclusion that race, not politics, accounted for the district’s reconfiguration,” Kagan said of District 12.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who is part of a Democratic initiative to challenge in the courts Republican-drawn districting, hailed Monday’s ruling “as a watershed moment in the fight to end racial gerrymandering.” “Today’s ruling sends a stark message to legislatures and governors around the country: Racial gerrymandering is illegal and will be struck down in a court of law,” Holder said in a statement. The Supreme Court’s ruling represents North Carolina’s second voting rights setback in as many weeks. Last week, the justices declined to hear an appeal that sought to salvage a broad swath of voting restrictions. This is a developing story and will be updated. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

19 мая, 05:41

Trump Asked Comey When Feds Would Say He Wasn't Under Investigation

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); President Donald Trump asked former FBI Director James Comey in a phone call when federal authorities would publicly announce the president wasn’t under suspicion in the bureau’s investigation of possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, The New York Times reported Thursday. Two people briefed on the call told the newspaper it took place just weeks after Trump’s inauguration. Comey declined to answer the question. Trump’s inquiry to the FBI director was one of several instances in which his administration directly asked about the FBI probe into whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the presidential election. In February, senior White House officials confirmed that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus asked FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to publicly dispute reports of communications between Trump campaign officials and Russia.  This week, The New York Times reported that Comey wrote in a February memo that the president had asked him to drop the bureau’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was fired after he failed to disclose communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Benjamin Wittes, a friend of Comey and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was quoted by the Times in Thursday’s article saying that Comey was deeply concerned by the administration’s requests.  “Comey spent a great deal of energy doing what he alternately described as ‘training’ the White House that officials had to go through the Justice Department and ‘reestablishing’ normal hands-off White House-Bureau relations,” Wittes wrote on the Lawfare blog, of which he is the editor-in-chief, after the Times article was published. “Comey understood Trump’s people as having neither knowledge of nor respect for the independence of the law enforcement function,” Wittes added. “And he saw it as an ongoing task on his part to protect the rest of the Bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable.” The Justice Department has long sought to keep an appropriate distance from the White House. A 2009 memo from then-Attorney General Eric Holder set guidelines about interactions, noting the DOJ would only advise the administration “concerning pending or contemplated criminal or civil investigations when ― but only when ― it is important for the performance of the President’s duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective.” Trump abruptly fired Comey last week, and included an unusual passage in his dismissal letter saying he “greatly” appreciated Comey informing him “on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation.” Trump reiterated that point in an interview with NBC News’ Lester Holt the next day, claiming the director told him there was no such investigation ― once over dinner and twice on the phone.  One day later, reports surfaced about a dinner in which Trump asked Comey for his loyalty. Comey reportedly declined to make such a pledge.  According to Wittes, Comey was deeply unsettled with Trump’s attempts at rapprochement, and told the story of a White House ceremony days after Trump took office that Comey was invited to attend. The FBI director didn’t feel comfortable attending, and tried to “blend in with the curtains in the back of the room,” Wittes wrote. But the president saw him and drew him in for an awkward hug. Trump initially cited Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation for the firing, but later said he had considered the ongoing Russia probe before giving Comey the boot. “I was going to fire Comey, knowing there was no good time to do it,” Trump told NBC News. “And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election.’” Amid growing questions over the firing, and calls for an independent investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election.  Rosenstein said he appointed Mueller so the American people will have “full confidence” in the outcome of the investigation. Trump on Thursday said the appointment “hurts our country terribly” and called the Russia probe a “witch hunt.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 мая, 04:55

Trump Fired The FBI Chief. Now An FBI Veteran Is Hired To Probe The Trump Team

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); One week after President Donald Trump fired the head of the FBI and raised fears about the future of the agency’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Department of Justice has appointed a widely admired former FBI director to lead an independent inquiry. The newly named special counsel, Robert Mueller, was James Comey’s predecessor as FBI director. He and Comey drew widespread attention, and admiration, in an infamous showdown during the George W. Bush administration. In March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft was in intensive care when White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card rushed to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to renew Bush’s domestic wiretapping operation, which the Department of Justice had just declared illegal. Comey, then deputy attorney general, learned of the ploy, and he and FBI Director Mueller raced to arrive at Ashcroft’s room first. Comey stood by as Ashcroft roused himself and refused to sign the reauthorization.   Mueller was the longest-serving head of the bureau since J. Edgar Hoover, holding the position for 12 years. The 2001 George W. Bush appointee was set to step down in 2011 but was asked to stay on by President Barack Obama, despite the position’s 10-year term. Obama asked Congress to allow the extension to lend some continuity as new leaders came aboard at the Pentagon and the CIA.  After he left the FBI, Mueller was hired by the NFL to investigate the league’s response to a surveillance video that captured Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching his fiancee in an elevator in 2014. Mueller’s report, which found that the NFL had not seen the video before TMZ released it, supported the league’s explanation, but his conclusion was met with some criticism. Most recently, Mueller has been a partner at WilmerHale, the law firm where Jamie Gorelick, who represents Trump’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, is a partner. The Justice Department said Mueller is resigning from the law firm to become special counsel. His appointment by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to lead the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election was met with support from those of various political stripes.  Brian Fallon, press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said the WilmerHale connection to Ivanka Trump and her husband does not “shake” his confidence in Mueller. This is fair to point out, but does not shake confidence in Mueller. Country can trust in his independence.https://t.co/nhAnszOCni— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) May 17, 2017 Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, cheered the selection of Mueller on Twitter.  Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted.— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 17, 2017 Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told reporters that the appointment was “the right move.”  GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger applauds appointment of Mueller: "This is the right move." (via @MSNBC) pic.twitter.com/XBZC95kDdM— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 17, 2017 The U.S. attorney in Manhattan who was fired by Trump in March, Preet Bharara, said Mueller is “independent and no-nonsense.” Having known him for years, I believe special counsel Mueller is a very good thing. He is one of the best -- independent and no-nonsense. https://t.co/nMQo6aHalM— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) May 17, 2017 Eric Holder, who was an attorney general in the Obama administration, called Mueller a “great choice” and a man who is “incorruptible.” As special counsel, Mueller will have all the authority of a U.S. attorney to conduct his investigation. He has significant autonomy, able to choose members of his team and the degree to which to consult the Justice Department on his progress. He answers only to the deputy attorney general. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from involvement in the Russia investigation because of his own contact with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. during the Trump campaign. Democrats have been urging the appointment of a special counsel since Trump fired Comey last week. Those calls grew louder as a number of bombshell news reports emerged raising questions about Trump’s dealings with Russia and Comey. The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump had disclosed classified “code-word” information during an Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The New York Times published a report Tuesday saying that Trump had asked Comey to end the FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was fired over his communications with Russian officials. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 мая, 04:23

Special Counsel Gets Praise From Both Sides Of The Aisle

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle widely embraced former FBI Director Robert Mueller as an excellent choice to serve as special counsel to oversee the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to lead the probe late Wednesday, saying the “the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Mueller has “sterling credentials and is above reproach.” Even House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) ― who just last week dismissed the need for an independent investigation, telling Fox News “I don’t think that’s a good idea” ― suddenly had a change of tone. Responding to Wednesday’s news, Ryan said his “priority has been to ensure thorough and independent investigations are allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.”  Mueller’s appointment, Ryan added, is “consistent with that goal, and I welcome his role at the Department of Justice.”  My statement on the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel at the Department of Justice → https://t.co/OOOiRBw0ti pic.twitter.com/uy1Rk7zc9o— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) May 17, 2017 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has also argued an independent probe is unwarranted, said Rosenstein’s decision “confirms that the investigation into Russian intervention into our election will continue.”  My statement on DAG Rosenstein's decisions to appoint a special counsel pic.twitter.com/s7i5LjPcg1— Leader McConnell (@SenateMajLdr) May 17, 2017 As special counsel, Mueller will look into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” along with “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” Rosenstein wrote Wednesday.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she was “pleased” to see the Justice Department answer Democrats’ demands, and called Mueller “a respected public servant of the highest integrity.” However, she stressed that the Trump administration must give Mueller the appropriate resources and independence.  “A special prosecutor is the first step, but it cannot be the last,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Director Mueller will still be in the chain of command under the Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department. He cannot take the place of a truly independent, outside commission that is completely free from the Trump Administration’s meddling. A special prosecutor does not negate the need for vigorous Congressional investigations either.” Democrats’ calls for an independent prosecutor intensified last week in the wake of President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, his admission that the FBI’s Russian probe factored into his decision to fire Comey, and his Twitter threat that Comey “better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations.” Comey had been leading the bureau’s investigation of Russia’s attempt to influence the presidential election and whether Trump’s campaign colluded in the effort.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who joined Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) last week in calling on Rosenstein to either appoint a special prosector or resign, said Mueller’s appointment is “a good first step to get to the bottom of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to the president.” “Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there’s no better person who could be asked to perform this function,” Feinstein said in a statement. “He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and ability to do the right thing.” In a post on Twitter, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Mueller has “impeccable credentials” and “should be widely accepted.” Mueller is a great selection. Impeccable credentials. Should be widely accepted.— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) May 17, 2017 In a interview later Wednesday with Fox News, Chaffetz again praised Mueller’s credentials but said he didn’t think Rosenstein should have appointed anyone. “I have not seen any evidence of actual collusion. Where is the actual crime that they think they need a special prosecutor to prosecute?” Chaffetz told Tucker Carlson. “I haven’t seen that. There’s been a lot of flailing, but that flailing started before Jan. 20.” Chaffetz added that Mueller’s appointment caught everyone totally by surprise.  Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, which is leading its own investigation into Russian meddling, said the appointment was a “positive development and will provide some certainty for the American people that the investigation will proceed fairly and free of political influence.” Burr previously said there was no need for a special prosecutor. See below for more reactions to Mueller’s appointment. Robert Mueller’s appointment is a positive step. I am hopeful that he will help us get to the bottom of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 17, 2017 Special counsel is the right move. But will Trump, Sessions give Mueller the resources, latitude he needs? If past is prologue, watch out.— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) May 17, 2017 Senator Collins’ statement on appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel #mepolitics pic.twitter.com/Ku6hk5V75e— Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) May 17, 2017 my statement on Bob Mueller, an honorable man and a true public servant pic.twitter.com/qloYJYv77X— Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) May 17, 2017 Former Attorney General Eric Holder on appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel in Trump/Russia affair: pic.twitter.com/Sowez3yFyl— Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) May 17, 2017 Our Democracy depends on getting to bottom of #TrumpRussia ties. Special counsel overseeing investigation is a step in right direction.— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) May 17, 2017 This is a victory for all Americans who believe in the integrity of the rule of law. https://t.co/WZhuWDBKF2— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) May 17, 2017 Good. We must continue to speak up & hold this Administration accountable. https://t.co/6IT644i5V2— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) May 17, 2017 He is an excellent choice to serve as special counsel investigating the criminal aspects of Russian meddling in our presidential election.— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) May 18, 2017 Special counsel appt is welcome news. I’ve pressed DOJ to take this step for months because Americans deserve nothing less than the truth pic.twitter.com/Q0W6EviVqk— Darrell Issa (@DarrellIssa) May 17, 2017 I commend @TheJusticeDept for taking the appropriate step of appointing a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/tBgRzNrMGO— Senator Bob Casey (@SenBobCasey) May 17, 2017 This is a step forward in restoring public confidence to look in to this matter. He is a well-equipped and highly respected on both sides https://t.co/N0E3RyPxfr— Rep. Erik Paulsen (@RepErikPaulsen) May 17, 2017 A Special Counsel is NOT enough and is NOT independent, they are part of @POTUS's team. We need an #independentProsecutor NOW!— Robin Kelly (@RepRobinKelly) May 17, 2017 I'm glad the DOJ is appointing a special prosecutor. We also need an independent, outside commission to investigate. https://t.co/Ub8XEX9xyS— Ro Khanna (@RoKhannaUSA) May 17, 2017 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

18 мая, 01:17

Robert Mueller Takes the Case

The former FBI director will take over the investigation of any coordination between President Trump’s campaign and Russia.

17 мая, 01:53

Trump Allegedly Urged Comey To Consider Jailing Journalists

Frustrated by leaks to the news media, President Donald Trump asked former FBI director James Comey to “consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information,” according to the New York Times. The closed-door meeting was revealed in the Times’ bombshell report Tuesday that Trump asked Comey to end the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn, who lost his job in January as national security adviser following revelations he misled the vice president about conversations with Russia’s ambassador. Trump fired Comey last week as the FBI investigated whether Trump associates colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The following day, Trump revealed highly classified information to Russia’s ambassador and top diplomat. The president’s private view about imprisoning journalists should elevate fears that his administration may break with tradition and prosecute reporters for publishing classified information ― as opposed to only those who leak it. The Obama administration aggressively targeted leakers for unauthorized disclosures, but did not charge news outlets for publication.  Former Attorney General Eric Holder pledged in 2014 that he would not jail journalists for doing their jobs, but Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, refused to make a similar commitment during his Senate confirmation hearing. Sessions recently left the door open to prosecuting news organization amid reports the Justice Department is targeting WikiLeaks. The Times report alarmed press advocates Tuesday.  “The comments attributed to President Trump cross a dangerous line,” Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement. “But no president gets to jail journalists,” Brown continued. “Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a Congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information.” While Trump promotes favorable coverage, he seems to bristle at the slightest scrutiny and waged the most anti-press presidential campaign in recent memory, complete with blacklisting critical news outlets and greatly restricting media access at events. He has also mused about changing libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, a power he doesn’t appear to have.  Trump has long showed reverence for autocrats whose anti-democratic campaigns have included clamping down on free expression. He recently extended a White House invitation to Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte, who has justified killing journalists. And just hours before the Times story broke on Tuesday, Trump met with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the world’s leading jailer of journalists. This article has been updated to include comment from Brown. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

16 мая, 01:19

Why Flynn could easily beat his Senate subpoena

Congress is handcuffed in getting obstinate witnesses to comply. That's why the FBI's Russia probe is the one that really matters.

13 мая, 00:30

Amid DOJ Turmoil, Jeff Sessions Honored By Police Union Boss Some Dub A 'Noisy Troll’

WASHINGTON ― At the end of one of the most consequential weeks in the history of the U.S. Department of Justice ― a week that featured dramatic testimony from a former acting U.S. attorney general previously dismissed by the president, a week dominated by the commander-in-chief’s shock firing of the FBI director ― Attorney General Jeff Sessions walked into the room where the Justice Department makes news. But it wasn’t Sessions who spoke first in the conference room on the seventh floor of the Justice Department’s hulking headquarters building along Pennsylvania Avenue. Nor was it someone in a leadership position at Justice. Nor was it a U.S. attorney, another federal prosecutor, an FBI official or any other federal law enforcement official authorized to speak on behalf of the DOJ. The man standing behind the seal of the Justice Department had no affiliation with the nation’s federal law enforcement organization. He’s a controversial police union president, and he was there to give the 84th attorney general of the United States an award and declare Sessions an honorary member of his New York City police union. Police Sgt. Edward Mullins Jr. is the president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York City. Standing before the cameras and reporters on Friday, Mullins said his police union was honoring Sessions because, “in a time when politicians and the top brass in police departments do not always have the courage to put the interests of non-citizens and officer safety ahead of political correctness and calculated re-election ploys,” the attorney general was committed to “having the backs” of cops in New York and beyond. Mullins, a member of the city’s police force since 1982, is a polarizing figure in New York. The Village Voice calls him “a noisy troll” and “a shrill contrarian with little regard for the public’s welfare.” Former New York City police Commissioner Bill Bratton called him “Crazy Eddie.” Another website once declared him “the worst person in New York.” He often uses inflammatory language about police-citizen conflicts, once accusing then-President Barack Obama of being anti-cop and supporting the idea of a police boycott of a Beyonce tour following her 2016 Super Bowl performance. After the murder of two New York City police officers in 2014, Mullins pinned their deaths on the mayor. “Mayor de Blasio, the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands,” he said. In 2015, when the city of New York reached a settlement with the family of Eric Garner ― the Staten Island man who died after NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo put him in a prohibited chokehold during an arrest ― Mullins called the settlement “obscene.” In 2016, after current NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill said officers had made a mistake when they shot a 66-year-old mentally ill woman armed with a baseball bat, Mullins stormed out of the meeting. Speaking at Justice Department headquarters on Friday, Sessions said he respected Mullins. “I have long expressed my admiration for the successes you have achieved, Ed, you and your members,” the attorney general said. It was an unusual sight. Matthew Miller, who served as the Justice Department’s top spokesman under then-Attorney General Eric Holder, called it “very strange” for the nation’s top law enforcement official to receive an award from a police union at Justice Department headquarters. “Attorneys general often get awards from law enforcement when they speak at dinners and other events, but holding an event at the Justice Department just so you can get an award is a Trumpian-level of self-regard and self-promotion,” Miller told HuffPost. He added that he could think of no other non-DOJ officials, other than some state attorneys general, who had appeared behind the lectern at a press event in that room during his time at the department. Mullins said after the event that this was the first time his organization had honored a U.S. attorney general. “It’s Police Week and we’re in Washington, so it’s the perfect place to do it,” Mullins said. “If he was in New York, I could’ve done it there, but Police Week wasn’t being held in New York.” The mutual admiration between Sessions and the Sergeants Benevolent Association seems to have grown out of a recent dispute between the Justice Department and the NYPD. Last month, DOJ threatened to withhold federal law enforcement grants from so-called “sanctuary cities” it says are breaking the law by not proactively cooperating with federal law enforcement. In a press release, the Justice Department described New York City as “soft on crime,” despite record low crime rates in the city. Mayor Bill de Blasio called the claim an “outrageous” attack on rank-and-file police officers, while O’Neill said the “incredibly insulting” statement from DOJ made his “blood ... boil.” But Mullins, who wants the NYPD to more fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, wasn’t insulted. He said the Justice Department was right to call out the city’s policies. In an interview after the DOJ event, Mullins praised Sessions’ decision this week to instruct federal prosecutors to always pursue the most serious charge available, including charges that trigger mandatory minimum sentences. “Law enforcement has been working at a disadvantage for a pretty long time,” Mullins said. “There’s a tremendous feeling of support that we’re experiencing right now from this office.” Sessions did not take any questions after the event, ignoring reporters’ shouted inquiries about his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

13 мая, 00:14

Hard-To-Find Trump/Comey Recording Gets 8.3 From Pitchfork

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! President Trump’s tax lawyers said the president has not done deals with Russians over the past 10 years, “with few exceptions,” much like how his entire term to date has been a complete success “with few exceptions.” Today might have been Sean Spicer’s last press briefing, although, to modify Spicer’s own words, we should “let the president’s staffing decisions speak for themselves.” And Trump threatened James Comey by insinuating he taped their conversation, though how he found the time to orchestrate that between locating voter fraud and spilling the beans on Heidi Cruz is beyond us. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, May 12th, 2017: Looks like next week will be bad, too: “Reuters: FORMER FBI DIR COMEY HAS AGREED IN PRINCIPLE TO GIVE CLOSED-DOOR TESTIMONY TO SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AT SOME POINT -SOURCE” [@SteveKopack] TRUMP’S DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA NON-EXISTENT...OR POSSIBLY EXISTENT - Anyhoo, this will all be cleared up at the pool spray in the Oval Office that only Russian media outlets are invited to. Paul Blumenthal and Ben Walsh: “President Donald Trump’s tax lawyers issued a statement on Friday that the White House wants you to take seriously: The president has not received income or taken on any debt or equity from Russian sources over the past 10 years, ‘with a few exceptions.’ This is not how you construct a credible statement about someone’s finances, let alone a sitting president of the United States. ‘With few exceptions’ is such an obvious out that it can barely even be called a loophole ― it simply and openly invalidates the denial that precedes it. Trump has a history of emphatically denying that he has any monetary connection to Russia. In January, he tweeted: ‘NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!’ His lawyers’ new admission of the ‘few exceptions’ indicates this blanket denial was false. The letter written by Sherri Dillon and Willie Nelson, Trump’s tax lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, is dated March 8.” [HuffPost] Computers might be dead soon. TRUMP JUST DARING YOU TO MAKE THAT NIXON COMPARISON NOW - Paige Lavender:   “White House press secretary Sean Spicer won’t deny that President Donald Trump may have recorded a conversation with former FBI Director James Comey in the Oval Office. Spicer said he had ‘nothing further to add’ about the potential recording during a White House press briefing on Friday. Earlier that day, Trump implied he taped a conversation with Comey, who was fired on Tuesday. [Earlier the president tweeted, ‘James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!’] … Regardless of whether a recording exists, Trump’s tweet could be seen as witness intimidation, if Comey is asked to testify during the investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.” [HuffPost] DEMOCRATS CALL BLUFF - Jessica Schulberg and Sam Stein: “The Senate Intelligence Committee is exploring ways to compel President Donald Trump to hand over any potential audio recordings of now-former FBI Director James Comey, an aide with the committee told HuffPost. But officials are grappling with two potential hurdles: They don’t actually know if the tapes exist, and likely will face fierce pushback from the White House if they request them. ‘There’s no simple mechanism, but you can be sure we’ll take a look at it,’ the committee aide said…. The Senate Intelligence Committee ― which is also probing connections between the Trump team and Russian officials ― does not necessarily need to have proof that the tapes exist in order to subpoena them, Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, told HuffPost. Senate investigators could ask for ‘any recording devices or backup copies that were referenced in the post made by President Trump on the morning of May 12, with respect to recordings with President Trump and Director Comey,’ said Moss.” [HuffPost] GOP LAWMAKERS STILL LOCATING SPINES - “Republicans said they were troubled and had questions after President Donald Trump fired the man in charge of investigating him. That was Tuesday. Asked Thursday and Friday what they planned to do about it and how they would get answers to their questions, Republican senators offered a collective ‘meh.’ Most pointed to the ongoing work of the FBI probing Trump’s Russia ties, as well as the slow-moving probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee. But few seemed at all interested in doing anything new to shed light on something that last happened when the top two Justice Department officials resigned instead of following President Richard Nixon’s orders to fire the man investigating him.” [HuffPost] Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill WHITE HOUSE A MESS, PRESIDENT CONCEDES - God, the 2020 post-debate focus group interviews on CNN are going to be so, so, so deeply upsetting. Michael Calderone: “President Donald Trump admitted Friday what White House reporters already knew: His officials’ statements at press briefings may not be true. ‘As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!’ Trump tweeted. ‘Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future “press briefings” and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???’ Trump’s Twitter rant renewed questions about the utility of press briefings and whether reporters would be better served if they spent their afternoons doing something else…. White House Correspondents’ Association President Jeff Mason said in an email that briefings and press conferences continue to ‘provide substantive and symbolic opportunities for journalists to pose questions to officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government.’” [HuffPost] OH GREAT, MORE PRISONERS - Why try to alter your party’s platform or direction when you can just try your utmost to arrest everyone on the other side? Ryan J. Reilly: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed federal prosecutors this week to take the most aggressive approach possible against federal criminal defendants. The policy change will result in lengthier prison sentences for drug offenders and likely reverse a recent drop in the federal prison population. In a memo dated May 10, Sessions wrote federal prosecutors ‘should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,’ calling that a ‘core principle’ of the Justice Department’s charging and sentencing policy. The new policy replaces the approach of the Justice Department during the Obama administration under former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. They gave federal prosecutors more leeway to decide when it was appropriate to charge crimes that trigger mandatory minimums, which automatically result in set prison terms.” [HuffPost] GOP’S LONG-TERM POLITICAL VIABILITY LOOKING REALLY GREAT - Bad news for America’s next FBI director. Kate Abbey-Lambertz: “A Houston university has canceled an upcoming commencement speech by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), days after protesters booed Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos at another historically black university’s graduation. More than 800 people signed a petition to protest Texas Southern University’s decision to invite Cornyn, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, to speak at its Saturday commencement ceremony. On Friday, the Houston Chronicle reported that the speech was off.” [HuffPost] EMILY’S LIST VET IN AT DNC - No doubt this will be a big topic of discussion next week as Democrats try to reach out to working people at the Four Seasons. Gabriel Debenedetti: “Veteran Democratic operative Jess O’Connell will take the reins as the CEO of the Democratic National Committee, the DNC announced Friday morning, putting her in charge of its day-to-day operations as she oversees its rebuilding project. O’Connell, who recently left her position as executive director of EMILY’s List, will work closely with new Chairman Tom Perez…. A campaign veteran who has also worked at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank, O’Connell’s task is a large one. The committee is largely devoid of senior staff aside from on the communications and research sides, and it has been working in overdrive to restore public trust.” [Politico] TRUMP REALLY BRINGING COAL BACK NOW FOR REAL, GUYS - Congratulations to West Virginia. Alexander C. Kaufman: “[O]n Thursday, the White House announced a new trade deal with China to bolster the natural gas industry that analysts say starved coal into a slow death by devouring the U.S. electricity market it once dominated. Under the deal, Chinese companies can begin buying liquid natural gas directly from producers in the U.S., fanning the embers of an export industry that began to heat up earlier this year. China’s cities are infamously choked by smog from years of burning coal at a breakneck pace to feed its ravenous appetite for electricity and new factories. Now, as the country moves aggressively to slash its carbon footprint, cleaner-burning natural gas has become an attractive alternative fuel. That’s bad news for coal. In the U.S., domestic coal use plummeted over the past decade as natural gas, made cheap by the so-called fracking revolution, supplanted coal as the chief source of fuel for the utility industry.” [HuffPost] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here’s Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer driving around Manhattan in a mobile briefing-room podium. COMFORT FOOD - How to pet a dog. - Try not to get too freaked out about this giant sea creature that washed up dead in Indonesia. - Because a vocal tract simulator is the simulator you’ve been looking for. TWITTERAMA @pattonoswalt: Steven Seagal WITHFEWEXCEPTIONSAvailable streaming August 2017 @petridishes: it’s days like this I wonder if Rosie O’Donnell is secretly trump’s daisy buchananand this whole thing has just been to impress her @JonHenke: Friendly reminder to people who have meetings with Donald Trump: DC only requires one-party consent to record a conversation. Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected]) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 мая, 22:48

Another Sad Old White Man Ruins Everything For Everyone

In a memo yesterday, Attorney General and demonic Keebler Elf Jeff Sessions moved to lengthen drug sentences, rolling back a core element of the Obama administration’s criminal justice reform, which allowed prosecutors to avoid harsh mandatory minimum sentencing—five years to life in prison—for low-level drug offenses, like possession of marijuana. Basically, if you’re caught with a drug that makes everyone very calm and hungry, you don’t have to die behind bars with murderers! According to a 2013 directive from former Attorney General Eric Holder, federal prosecutors should not specify the amount of drugs involved in non-violent cases, in order to set sentences lower than the mandatory minimums. Sessions’ new directive states that the Justice Department will return to the previous policy of filing the most serious charge available against the defendant. “It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,” Sessions wrote, adding that any action to lessen the impact of mandatory minimums should come from Congress. “This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency. This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us,” he wrote. This move isn’t surprising if you’re familiar with Sessions’ feelings about marijuana and the people who smoke it (“good people don’t”). Earlier this year, he called weed a “life-wrecking dependency” that’s “only slightly less awful” than heroin. This, like much of what comes out of the current administration, is inaccurate. Weed is nowhere near as dangerous and addictive as heroin. In 2015, there were more deaths from heroin than gun homicides. There have been exactly zero deaths from marijuana. But it’s not about the facts for Sessions, it’s about how he feels about drugs. These kinds of falsehoods are used by men like Sessions to justify imprisoning high numbers of people they don’t like. Richard Nixon used a similar strategy when he said he was going to “hit the marijuana thing right square in the puss.” (This is better than a president actually hitting women in the puss, but not by much.) One of Nixon’s top advisors would later admit that the “War on Drugs” was a deliberate attack on black people and anti-war demonstrators. Not only was Nixon trying to pacify the critics of the Vietnam War and oppress black communities in order to get the Southern vote, he was blatantly acting against what several dozens of studies and tests had already proven: weed is not evil. While president, Nixon appointed Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer to lead a national commission report on the effects of marijuana and recommend drug policies to the administration. Shafer’s findings weren’t as controversial as Nixon had hoped. After more than 50 studies and field surveys, the commission concluded that marijuana’s “relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.” They found “no significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities” that could be attributed to marijuana use, and no proof of a relationship between marijuana and heroin use. In addition, they found that weed doesn’t cause violent or aggressive behavior, and in fact inhibits it, therefore affirming that marijuana use doesn’t pose a threat to public safety. The commission saw criminalization of marijuana possession as “socially self-defeating.” Considering the “range of social concerns in contemporary America,” they wrote, “[marijuana] does not, in our considered judgment, rank very high. We would deemphasize [marijuana] as a problem.” And yet, Nixon still introduced mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants, and dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies. Every president since him, not wanting to look “weak,” has continued this unnecessary, unjustified attack on an essentially harmless drug that poses no real threat to our society. Since the Nixon administration, tens of millions of people have been arrested for marijuana use. Presently, marijuana arrests account for more than half of all drug arrests in the United States, and 88 percent of those arrests are simply for possession of the drug, according to the ACLU. Decades after the commission’s studies and the range of social concerns in contemporary America have grown significantly, and weed use continues to rank very low on the list of things the U.S. should put time, money, and effort toward. But I guess no one’s told Sessions this. In the same speech where he equated marijuana to heroin, he also said, “In the ’80s and ’90s, we saw how campaigns stressing prevention brought down drug use and addiction. We can do this again.” Only we didn’t see those campaigns bring down drug use. Ronald and Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign was unsuccessful at stopping teens from using drugs. It also resulted in a disproportionately high number of minorities in prison, by implementing harsher sentences for crack than for cocaine, and dramatically increased the amount of non-violent offenders behind bars. Sessions’ latest directive will likely result in the same thing. It’s scary when you think about how one man’s out-dated opinion can become the law of the land despite flying in the face of factual evidence. Like Nixon, Sessions is also a documented racist. He’s called the NAACP an “un-American organization,” and said he thought the Ku Klux Klan were “OK” until he “learned they smoked pot.” Basically, the only thing Sessions dislikes more than black people is pot. In February, Sessions reversed the government’s stance on private prisons, which was meant to limit and eventually phase out their use due to declining inmate numbers and poor security and safety conditions. Private prisons make billions every year off non-violent drug offenders, depending directly on harsh sentencing practices. Keeping marijuana illegal and enforcing strict punishments is harming the United States for many reasons. Prison populations have ballooned at such a rate that a lot of state governments can’t afford it. We’re continuing to fuel a prison industrial complex that inordinately harms people of color and poorer communities in the U.S., and we’re keeping billions of dollars out of the economy. That money could be put toward successful drug diversion programs and not more prisons or ineffective anti-drug campaigns. By focusing too much on weed, we’re neglecting a drug problem we can all agree on: the rise of opioid abuse, including prescription painkiller dependency. And while Sessions has said the opioid problem won’t be solved solely by putting people in jail, he said it’s a “critical part of it,” adding that, “We’re on a bad trend right now. We’ve got too much complacency about drugs. Too much talk about recreational drugs.” No one is suggesting legalizing recreational heroin. We’re talking about recreational marijuana. That way, when a person goes to buy weed, they’re not buying it from a drug dealer who makes their living selling illegal drugs, and could possibly have some heroin for them to try. Medical marijuana could also be an excellent supplement for prescription painkillers that are widely overprescribed by doctors. Sessions’ new policy allows for exceptions for “good judgement,” approved by supervisors in U.S. attorney’s offices or at Justice Department headquarters, but doesn’t state what exactly that means. While he’s suggested before that there wouldn’t be a crackdown on legal weed, this is a man who was caught lying under oath, so his words should be taken with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila because who wants to be sober during this waking nightmare? -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
12 мая, 18:22

Sessions Attacks Obama "Legacy": Rolls Back Relaxed Sentencing Guidelines For Drug Dealers

After 8 years of the Obama administration relaxing sentencing guidelines for drug dealers, you know because it's just racist to jail drug dealers moving cocaine by the kilo, and releasing hundreds of hardened criminals from federal prisons around the country, Jeff Sessions has taken it upon himself to undo yet another component of Obama's "legacy." "It is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.  This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency."   "This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us.  By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences." Per The Hill, the new guidelines instruct prosecutors to "disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences" — a significant departure from Holder's policies, which directed prosecutors not to disclose the quantity of drugs to courts to avoid strict mandatory minimum sentences, unless the defendant was a gang leader or repeat criminal offender. Not surprisingly, Eric Holder was outraged by Sessions' decision to actually enforce laws and issued the following statement: Former Attorney General Eric Holder statement... pic.twitter.com/VuXn5VmMHI — Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) May 12, 2017 As we noted in January, on the day before leaving office, President Obama commuted the sentences of another 330 federal prisoners, shattering his previous single-day record and bringing his total to 1,715, more than the previous 13 presidents combined.  In addition, the President pardoned 212 federal prisoners bringing his total acts of clemency to 1,927.  BREAKING: @POTUS has now commuted the sentences of 1,715 men and women, more than any president in history. https://t.co/3NRkJnCEy4 pic.twitter.com/j7gCdigJqD — The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 19, 2017 This latest move concluded Obama's mission to aggressively use his clemency power to release 100's of violent criminals serving time due to what he has described as "outdated and overly harsh drug sentencing laws."  But, while the President often claimed publicly that his commutations were only for "low-level" and "non-violent" criminals, 568 of the 1,715 commutations were offered to people serving life sentences...which typically aren't given to "low-level" criminals caught with a couple ounces of drugs on them. Here is how Obama's acts of clemency stacked up against other Presidents...can anyone spot the outlier?   We can't wait for Democrats, we're looking at you Maxine Waters, to explain to how racist it is for Jeff Sessions to insist that law enforcement officials and courts actually enforce laws.  The horror.  

12 мая, 16:51

Jeff Sessions Reinvigorates the Drug War

The U.S. attorney general is bringing back the harshest sentences for low-level drug offenses, rejecting Obama-era reforms.

12 мая, 13:24

Sessions moves to lengthen drug sentences

AG rolls back Obama-era policy that allowed many to escape stiff mandatory minimums

12 мая, 13:01

Jeff Sessions Rolls Back Obama-Era Drug Sentencing Reforms

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructed federal prosecutors this week to take the most aggressive approach possible against federal criminal defendants. The policy change will result in lengthier prison sentences for drug offenders and likely reverse a recent drop in the federal prison population. In a memo dated May 10, Sessions wrote federal prosecutors “should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,” calling that a “core principle” of the Justice Department’s charging and sentencing policy. The new policy replaces the approach of the Justice Department during the Obama administration under former Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch. They gave federal prosecutors more leeway to decide when it was appropriate to charge crimes that trigger mandatory minimums, which automatically result in set prison terms.  “This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency,” Sessions wrote in the new memo. “This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us. By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.”  Sessions’ memorandum nixes Holder’s 2010 memo, which encouraged federal prosecutors to make decisions on charging, plea agreements and sentencing recommendations. These were based on “the merits of each case, taking into account an individualized assessment of the defendant’s conduct and criminal history and the circumstances relating to the commission of the offense (including the impact of the crime on victims), the needs of the communities we serve, and federal resources and priorities.” Now, under Sessions, if prosecutors want to divert from the new policy and not pursue the most serious charge available, they must get specific approval from the U.S. Attorney or an Assistant Attorney General. Holder’s policy only required charging decisions to be reviewed by a supervisory attorney. Sessions’ memo also rescinds an Aug. 12, 2013, memo from Holder which instructed federal prosecutors to “ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers.” If the defendant met certain criteria ― if their conduct didn’t involve violence, if they weren’t a leader, if they didn’t have significant ties to gangs or drug trafficking organizations, and if they didn’t have a significant criminal history ― Holder instructed them not to charge the quantities that would trigger mandatory minimum sentences. That was part of a “Smart on Crime” initiative Holder launched toward the end of his time as attorney general. Holder, a former judge in D.C., told HuffPost in 2014 that he didn’t think extremely long sentences would necessarily induce cooperation so much as the certainly of punishment. “I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, I understand the notion of starting at the bottom and working your way up, and I would never put in place a system that would undercut that fundamental part of our law enforcement system,” Holder said at the time. “And yet I think we can be smarter. We don’t have to put people in jail for 10 and 15 years. You could have sentences that are substantially shorter that will, necessarily, continue to induce the kind of cooperation that we need.” By the end of former President Barack Obama’s term, he became the first commander in chief since Jimmy Carter to leave office with a lower federal prison population than when he arrived. Additionally, Sessions’ new policy gets rid of limitations Holder placed on the use of sentencing enhancements, which allow prosecutors to seek harsher sentences in certain cases based on prior convictions. Sessions said federal prosecutors “must disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences.” Holder’s policy only said they should seek those sentencing enhancements in more serious cases that met certain criteria. While many conservatives backed changes to federal drug sentencing policy, Sessions largely did not when he served in the Senate. Sessions came up as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s, amid a crack epidemic as the federal government took a tough approach to the war on drugs. Largely as a result of drug policies, the federal prison population exploded from 24,640 inmates in 1980 to 219,298 by 2013. Sessions said in 2015 that he believed eliminating or reducing mandatory minimums “reduces the ability of law officers to negotiate and protect the public.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

12 мая, 03:53

Trump's truth test

Since the firing of FBI director James Comey, the president and his staff have offered multiple, contradictory explanations about how events unfolded.

27 мая 2013, 11:26

Простым языком об организованной преступности финансового бизнеса. Тема: ставки Libor

Организованная преступность финансового бизнесаПора перестать смеяться над любителями теорий заговоров. Может быть, за нитки за кулисами дергают не ротшильды с рокфеллерами, а наемные менеджеры, но суть от этого не меняетсяМеждународная финансовая система, ставшая сегодня основой современной корпоративной свободнорыночной экономики - это мошенничество в особо крупных размерах.Странные порядки царили в советских СМИ. Интересные вещи появлялись в самых неожиданных местах. Журналы «Наука и жизнь» и «Знание сила» писали про политическую философию, рассказы Кафки появлялись где-нибудь в «Сибирских огнях», репродукция Пикассо впервые в СССР была опубликована в сатирическом «Крокодиле», а о Роллинг стоунз впервые написали не в музыкальном обозрении, а в детском журнале «Ровесник».В Америке все скоро будет, как в СССР эпохи застоя. Уже сейчас расследованиями финансовых спекуляций занимаются не солидные «Уолл-стрит джорнал» или «Файненшиал таймс», а журнал «Роллинг стоунз». Финансовый корреспондент журнала Мэтт Тайби практически единственный в мейнстриме, кто пишет о разрегулированном и дисфункциональном американском и мировом финансовом рынке и о том, насколько этот рынок мошеннический.Почему, как в СССР? А потому, что все меньше и меньше реальных хозяев, а делами заправляет цех наемных менеджеров, заинтересованный лишь в высокой зарплате и жирном пакете бенефитов в конце года. Именно менеджеры и финансовые спекулянты, да еще их адвокаты составляют тот 1%, который присваивает себе львиную долю национального богатства Америки. Как заметил ветеран американской журналистики Хедрик Смит, распределение богатства в Америке аналогично тому, что было в Египте в эпоху фараонов. Однако, в отличие от Египта, собственность здесь обезличена, а богатство рассредоточено и перемешано в различных банковских и финансовых продуктах, которые давно уже никто не способен контролировать.На встречу с Мэттом Тайби я шел с большим интересом. Его последняя статья «Все – мошенничество. Крупнейшая финансовая афера фиксирования цен в истории» рассказывает о манипулировании на рынке свопов. Комиссия по торговле товарными фьючерсами недавно начала следствие по делу брокерской фирмы ICAP и 15 банковских учреждений Уолл Стрит. Комиссия расследует их сговор с целью манипуляции скоростью публикации индекса ISDAfix.О ФИНАНСАХ ПРОСТО И ИНТЕРЕСНОЕсли продолжать писать о финансах в том же псевдопрофессиональном духе, зараженном корпоративным новоязом, то даже самые преданные мои читатели скоро потеряют интерес. Потому объясню просто. Что бы вы сказали, если бы результаты скачек объявлялись публике через несколько дней после того, как скачки состоялись? А в это время «умным людям» внутри системы разрешалось делать ставки? Собственно, так и происходит со скоростной электронной торговлей. Комбинаторы внутри системы получают возможность видеть и прогнозировать результаты торгов в конце дня, и на этом основании делают свои ставки, покупают и продают до того, как остальные игроки узнают, что там происходит. Покупают и продают не на свои деньги, а на деньги клиентов, против интересов которых они часто играют. ISDAfix – один из многих индексов, существующих на финансовых рынках. Он служит для определения курса в финансовых сделках. Libor – другой такой индекс, с помощью которого определяют курс практических всех банковских сделок с переменным курсом. Фокус здесь в том, что эти индексы составляются на основе оценочных данных, которые финансовые компании предоставляют добровольно и имеют возможность их поправлять.Самое простое объяснение свопа. Скажем вы – город или компания – заняли деньги под переменный курс и хотите иметь стабильность займа с фиксированным процентом. Тогда  фиксированный процент вы платите банку, а уже он разбирается с переменными процентными ставками. Это выходит дороже, но освобождает от хлопот. Своп – это многошаговая операция,  в ходе которой активы переходят из рук в руки, одновременно продаются и покупаются на заранее договоренных условиях.Сговор был в том, чтобы лишить широкую публику возможности своевременно узнавать об этих условиях. Банки докладывают о своих курсах добровольно, а это прямое приглашение не говорить всей правды.Большинство американского среднего класса слишком озабочено своими растущими долгами,  невозможностью сводить концы с концами, необходимостью выкладываться на двух-трех работах. Лишь мельком они могут услышать о скачках индекса Доу Джонс на Уолл Стрит. В конце дня им по телевизору расскажут, как шутка хакеров о взрыве в Белом Доме завалила на несколько минут финансовые рынки. Уровень торгов  потом восстановится. Вот только самого главного - кто нагрел на этом руки - СМИ не расскажут.Только недавно без лишнего шума закончилось судебной сделкой расследование аферы, в которой мошенники сманипулировали индексом Libor на пятьсот триллионов долларов. Штрафы заплатят, как водится, не виновники, а вкладчики компаний и налогоплательщики. Да еще законодатели дадут проворовавшимся банкирам налоговые скидки.Так случилось в рождественскую ночь, когда для компании, оштрафованной на $750 миллионов за уголовные нарушения, конгрессмены тихонько протащили закон об освобождении от налогов на $500 миллионов. ПОЧЕМУ ЖЕ ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛИ РАЗРЕШАЮТ ПОДОБНОЕ?– Раньше это работало или, по крайней мере, ничего не всплывало на поверхность, – говорит Тайби. – Теперь же выясняется, что котировки подправлялись довольно долгое время. Это очень легко сделать. Достаточно одному биржевому маклеру и одному из сотрудников рейтингового агентства вступить в сделку и позвонить по нескольким номерам. И это без преувеличения затрагивает интересы миллиардов людей.На манипуляциях поймали три банка, которые уже заключили судебные сделки, еще четыре - под следствием, но предполагается, что все 16 «первоклассных» банков, определенных в маркетмейкеры индекса, занимались манипуляциями. Тайби говорит, что по его данным, следствие ведется против 15-ти из них:Если там было мошенничество, то во всех 16-ти банках должны были знать о нем? – В деле есть множество косвенных улик, подтверждающих, что руководство знало о мошенничестве, – говорит Тойби. – В деле фигурирует переписка между Bank of England и гендиректором одного из крупнейших в Великобритании и мире финансовых конгломератов – Barklays в разгар глобального финансового обвала 2008 года о том, чтобы установить индекс ниже, чем он был на самом деле.Индекс Libor, по сути, измеряет, как банки доверяют друг другу, и поэтому является показателем благосостояния финансовой системы в целом. Если индекс низкий, банки доверяют и занимают друг другу деньги. Если индекс высокий – значит, банковская система нестабильна.Котировки межбанковского обмена устанавливаются ежедневно, и, вероятно, можно было создать независимую организацию для мониторинга и предотвращения мошенничества?– Да, если бы использовали реальные данные. Однако сегодня никто не обязан подавать реальные цифры о том, сколько денег они заняли вчера и по какому курсу. Предоставляют лишь свои предположения о том, какая котировка будет. Там довольно сложный процесс подсчета, охватывающий разные периоды времени и 16 основных мировых валют.Новый сговор, который расследует Комиссия, влияет на затраты по обслуживанию займов во всем мире и процентные свопы стоимостью в $379.000.000.000.000  – триста семьдесят девять триллионов долларов. Для сравнения – валовой национальный продукт США составляет около 15 триллионов, а совокупное национальное богатство США – 57.4 триллиона (на 2011 г). Эта мошенническая схема затрагивает любого, кто платит по ипотечной ссуде, по ссуде на машину, расплачивается кредитной карточкой. От этого зависит сама цена денег, обменные курсы валют во всем мире. Речь идет о небольшом подразделении внутри ICAP, – говорит Тайби. –  Около 20 человек, которые, по сути, определяли курсы свопов во всем мире. Хотя фирма зарегистрирована в Лондоне, действовали они из Джерси-сити, потому американские регуляторы смогли расследовать их деятельность.По сути же, транснациональные банковские корпорации действуют в сумеречной зоне, с неопределенными юрисдикциями. В афере Lidor все началось с японского биржевика, вступившего в сговор с сотрудником Lidor, тоже находившимся в Японии. Национальные границы не всегда позволяют эффективно расследовать новые виды корпоративной преступности.Это совершенно новый вид преступлений. Нет надобности красть у людей деньги и имущество. Вместо воровства манипулируют стоимостью имущества, которое имеется у людей, манипулируют процентными ставками, которые мы платим.НОВЫЙ ЭТАП МЕЖБАНКОВСКИХ МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫХ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙЧто же здесь нового, если Уолл-стрит и банки всегда отличались "творческими" и "новаторскими" подходами к поиску путей, как делать деньги? – Здесь нечто совершенно новое. Во время финансового коллапса 2008 вскрылся огромный объем системной коррупции в финансовых корпорациях, систематической обман в ипотечном бизнесе, укорененные аферы в аудите, мошеннические схемы в банках и компаниях, как в Лэмон Брозерс.Однако раньше мы никогда не сталкивались со случаями коррупции и мошенничества, включавшие сговор между банками. Последние аферы свидетельствуют о том, что корпоративная преступность вступила в новый этап межбанковских международных преступлений. На сцену выходит глобальная институцианализированная организованная преступность, способная безнаказанно подавить конкуренцию и манипулировать международными финансовыми рынками в невиданных ранее масштабах.Речь не идет о группе злоумышленников, ловящих рыбку в мутной воде рынка производных финансовых продуктов - деривативов. Определенные деятели зарабатывают миллиарды потому, что делают бизнес по-блатному, имеют нечестные преимущества. Мощные силы лоббируют политическую систему, и не допускают сделать рынок деривативов и свопов более прозрачным и понятным. Они имеют своих людей в Конгрессе. Они помогли Обаме избраться, а он расставил нужных людей в своей администрации. Громко разрекламированная финансовая реформа Обамы, известная еще как Додд-Френк Акт была без зубов, содержала множество лазеек и исключений, позволявший обойти закон. Даже те скромные меры обеспечения прозрачности рынка, которые содержит закон, администрация Обамы за полтора года так и не провела в жизнь.Разве банки не конкурируют между собой? Разве незримая рука свободного рынка не способна упорядочить рынок? А как же базисные мифы капитализма, которые американцы (а теперь и все остальные) впитывают чуть ли не с молоком матери? Предвидя возмущенные возгласы моих читателей-свободнорыночных энтузиастов "где вы видели свободный рынок", скажу, то, что называет себя свободным рынком, таковым и является, другого - нет.С другой стороны мои читатели-либералы, свято верящие, что американское общество стоит на защите их прав и равных возможностей, возразят, мол, а как же антимонопольное законодательство? Что бы сказал борец с монополизацией Тедди Рузвельт?Я полагаю, что антимонопольное законодательство должно применяться к подобным сговорам, но оно не применяется, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Большие корпорации, контролирующие огромные сегменты рынка и национальных ресурсов, являются монополиями. Тем самым они становятся опасными для общества.Однако, когда появляются доказательства того, что они находятся в сговоре между собой для манипуляций курсами и котировками, это становится чрезвычайно опасным  для общества. Если мы ничего с этим не делаем радикально, то это ведет нас к эскалации.ЧЕМУ БАНКИРЫ НАУЧИЛИСЬ У МАФИИ?И все-таки, что же с конкуренцией. Неужели "Чейс" и "Сити банк" не конкурируют между собой? – Они ведут борьбу за клиентов. Они конкуренты на каком-то уровне, но есть целые сферы в финансовом бизнесе, когда они заодно, – говорит Мэтт Тайби. –  Я проводил журналистское расследование по поводу манипуляций на аукционах государственных облигаций. Мало кто об  этом знает, но если город, штат или даже целая страна хочет мобилизовать средства, то по закону, они обязаны провести торги. Аукцион призван создать конкуренцию между финансовыми корпорациями, и тем самым снизить учетные ставки, которые общество платит. На деле банкиры поделили между собой рынок с целью не допустить конкуренции, мол, мы возьмем облигации этого города, вы – другого.Материал по расследованию торгов облигациями Тайби называется «Чему банкиры научились у мафии». Читателю на просторах бывшего СССР они живо напомнят мошеннические аукционы веселых времен приватизации 1990-х.В Америке власти все же уличили пять крупнейших финансовых корпораций Уолл-Стрит, да еще банковскую компанию «Дженерал Электрик» в махинациях на сумму в $3.7 млрд. Как водится, в тюрьму никто не сел. В Штатах элита выше этого и понятие личной ответственности здесь напрочь отсутствует. Никто не заплатил штрафа из собственного кармана. Откупились многомиллионными штрафами из денег держателей акций. Такие штрафы никого не отпугивают. Когда делаются десятки миллиардов, то многомиллионые штрафы – лишь производственные расходы.Да и не доходят штрафы до пострадавших. Когда американское министерство финансов в рамках судебной сделки оштрафовала банки за нарушения в сфере ипотеки, то пострадавшие получили компенсацию в размере $300 на душу, зато адвокаты банков положили в карман два миллиарда. Прокуратура предпочитает не связываться с финансистами. Уходящий министр юстиции Эрик Холдер заявил недавно, что эти компании слишком большие и не по силам прокуратуре.«Министерство юстиции не провело во время президентства Обамы никаких серьезных расследований ни одного из крупных финансовых учреждений», – говорил мне Уильям Блак, адъюнкт-профессор экономики и права в Университете Миссури, Канзас-Сити. В 1980-х годах он работал следователем в скандале S&L (saving&loans). За 4 года Холдер и его люди не только не завели ни одного дела против крупных банковских воротил, но и тщательно следили, чтобы на местах не появились такие дела. Когда генеральный прокурор Нью-Йорка Эрик Шнайдерман завел было уголовные дела за массовые нарушения законов банками при выселении людей из домов за долги, Холдер и его люди тут же надавили и заставили Шнейдермана подписать сделку с банками. При подготовки статьи, из офиса генерального прокурора штата сообщили, что взамен он добился, чтобы из сделки исключили пункт о предоставлении иммунитета банкирам от дальнейших расследований по ипотечным преступлениям.Обама привел Холдера из адвокатской фирмы «Ковингтон и партнеры», которая обслуживает и представляет худших финансовых нарушителей. Холдер зарабатывал там $2,5 млн. в год. Холдер привел с собой Ленни Брюэра, возглавлявшего в фирме отдел "белых воротничков" по защите финансовых уголовников. В юстиции Обамы, Брюэр возглавил отдел уголовного преследования и всячески заботился, чтобы его бывшие клиенты не стали его подследственными. В одном из интервью Брюер признался, что, прежде всего, его заботит, что финансовые фирмы могут пострадать, если их менеджеры окажутся на скамье подсудимых.Брюэра хорошо вознаградили, и после завершения работы в министерстве юстиции, он получил работу лоббиста с окладом $4 млн. в год. Еще два юриста из Ковингтон заняли при Холдере ключевые позиции в системе правосудия Обамы, а первый заместитель Холдера Джеймс Кол пришел из другой, не менее одиозной юридической фирмы Bryan Cave LLP.Не удивительно, что и расследование аферы Libor, по сути, закончилось пшиком.Первым обвиняемым, с кем заключили сделку, оказался Barclays. Они заплатили относительно небольшой штраф ($450 млн. способны ослепить человека с улицы, но это копейки по сравнению с суммами, которые они оборачивают). Мой друг в правоохранительных органах говорил тогда, что все ожидают, как обычно, что за легкое наказание они сдадут всех остальных и последуют обвинительные иски в уголовных преступлениях. Оказалось, что сделка с Barclays стала эталоном для всех остальных подобных сделок.    СМИ не уделяют большого внимания финансовым аферам. Когда я ехал на встречу с Мэттом Тайби, в поезде пролистал газеты. Первые полосы были заняты сообщениями о том, что Джейон Коллинз стал первым открытым геем в Высшей спортивной лиге, Анджелина Джоли в целях профилактики удалила себе грудь (в качестве рекламной кампании по защите многомиллиардного бизнеса корпорации, запатентовавшей на себя человеческие гены – прим. ред.) в городских джунглях Сиэттла нашлись три женщины, проведшие 10 лет в рабстве в подвале дома в тихом городском районе. Одна из рабынь сумела сбежать, когда ее хозяин отправился покушать в местный МакДональдс.Мэтт Тайби - один из немногих в Америке, кто берется распутать аферы и рассказать о них публике, а «Роллинг Стоунз магазин» - практически единственное издание мейстрима, готовое предоставить свои страницы для расследований на эту тему.Много лет назад я слушал выступление легендарного Бена Бредли, многолетнего главреда «Вашингтон пост», запустившего расследование «Уотергейтского дела» и опубликовавшего знаменитые «Бумаги Пентагона». В русскоязычном мире многие помнят блестящую роль Джейсона Робардса, сыгравшего Бредли в фильме «Вся президентская рать». Бредли тогда спросили, а почему бы ему не заняться финансовыми аферами. Как раз тогда в самом разгаре был кризис S&L, в котором прогорело больше четверти всех кредитно-сберегательных ассоциаций США. Бредли тогда усмехнулся и сказал, что у публики «glaze over» – глаза остекленеют от этих дел. Американская публика способна до остервенения спорить по поводу толкования конституции, гражданских, гендерных или религиозных прав, но совершенно не обучена реагировать, когда задевают ее реальные социальные или классовые интересы. Капиталистический реализм, в котором здесь выросли, не дает необходимого словаря, моделей и понятий.Михаил Дорфман

07 мая 2013, 00:39

Без суда и следствия - в лучших традициях Линча

В прошедший понедельник американцам доходчиво разъяснили при каких обстоятельствах любого из них могут убить, причем не кровожадные террористы, а собственная, горячо любимая армия, полиция, спецслужбы…Выступая перед студентами и преподавателями Северо-Западного Университета, генеральный прокурор США Эрик Холдер разъяснил, что факт убийства американских граждан их правительством не стоит расценивать как нечто ужасное, а наоборот, как демонстрацию заботы правительства о безопасности американцев. Эрик ХолдерХолдер пояснил, что: «Когда речь идет о национальной безопасности, конституция гарантирует надлежащую правовую процедуру, а не судебный процесс.» Иными слвоами, любого американца теперь могут лишить жизни без суда и следствия, лишь при одном подозрении в намерении совершить противоправные действия (теракт).Так же Холдер подчеркнул: "Мы находимся в состоянии войны с врагом без гражданства, склонного кочевать от страны к стране… Ни Конгресс, ни наши Федеральные суды не ограничили границы применения нами силы…"До недавних лишь группа высших чиновников могла расценивать уровень угрозы для национальной безопасности и принимать решение по ликвидации лиц, от которых эта угроза исходит. Среди таких чиновников были равно как министр обороны Леон Панетта (ныне Чак Хэйгел) так и президент Барака Обама, который, непосредственно и давал окончательное утверждение на ликвидацию.Леон Панетта и Барак Обама еще в январе 2012 публично обсуждали идею ликвидации подозреваемых без суда и следствия.По словам генерального прокурора, это, с недавних пор, уже пережиток прошлого. «Конституция не требует от президента откладывать действия по предотвращению теракта до момента, когда полностью становится известно, что подозреваемый планирует его совершить. Такие действия приводят к нежелательному риску».По словам Холдера отныне решения, о ликвидации граждан являются исключительной прерогативой исполнительной власти, потому что только исполнительная власть обладает "опытом принятия подобных решений и полным доступ к имеющейся.Таким образом, в ближайшее время стоит ожидать появления списков неблагонадежных граждан США, за которыми будет организована слежка. И случайный клик на гиперссылке радикального исламистского сайта может в ту же секунду призвать фею калибра 5.56.