"LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist"

George Washington University's Program on Extremism has a website where you can see the documents being submitted about the people apprehended by the FBI and, I think,  other law enforcement agencies.

"The Program on Extremism has launched a project to create a central database of court records related to the events of January 6, 2021. This page will be updated as additional individuals are charged with criminal activities and new records are introduced into the criminal justice system.

If you’d like to contribute to offset the costs associated with court record fees and research on this and other projects, you can support the Program’s research here."

Different people have different documents filed.  Some I've seen are (links take you to an example):

Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint

Statement of Facts

Criminal Complaint

Indictment

Detention Memo

 The documents I have looked at were mostly Statements of Facts, which seem to have the following general structure (I've given an example of each part):

1.  Identify the person filing the report and where they work

"On January 6, 2021, your affiant  [a person who swears to an affidavit.], Michael Attard was on duty and performing my official duties as a Special Agent. Specifically, I am assigned to the Counter-terrorism squad tasked with investigating criminal activity in and around the Capitol grounds. As a Special Agent, I am authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, investigation, or prosecution of a violation of Federal criminal laws."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Aaron%20Mostofsky%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

2.  Background information on what happened January 6 in the Capitol

"On January 6, 2021, a joint session of the United States Congress convened at the United States Capitol, which is located at First Street, SE, in Washington, D.C. During the joint session, elected members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate were meeting in separate chambers of the United States Capitol to certify the vote count of the Electoral College of the 2020 Presidential Election, which had taken place on November 3, 2020. The joint session began at approximately 1:00 p.m. Shortly thereafter, by approximately 1:30 p.m., the House and Senate adjourned to separate chambers to resolve a particular objection. Vice President Michael R. Pence was present and presiding, first in the joint session, and then in the Senate chamber." From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Greg%20Rubenacker%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

3.  How the agency got information about the individual being charged."

"On January 7, 2021, the FBI received several tips from the public (tipsters) that PATRICK MONTGOMERY of Littleton, Colorado, was seen in photographs posted on Facebook inside the Capitol building Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021. The persons providing the tips also indicated that MONTGOMERY had posted photographs from inside the Senate Chamber on that same day.
A tipster, who will be referred to as T-1, identified MONTGOMERY as the man circled in a photograph below, wherein he appears to be standing inside the Senate Chambers:
MONTGOMERY appears to be part of the crowd that entered the Senate Chambers on January 6, 2021, and, as explained below, MONTGOMERY is wearing the same clothes as he was wearing outside the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Your Affiant spoke with T-1 on January 12, 2021. T-1 told your Affiant that IT is a Facebook friend of MONTGOMERY and that IT knew MONTGOMERY because they worked together as river guides for three years.
Another tipster, who will be referred to as T-2, provided a post from MONTGOMERY’S Facebook page, wherein a member of the public posted on Facebook the photograph above and a commented to MONTGOMERY asking, “Is this you? I saw it on another page and it looked like

Case 1:21-mj-00044-RMM Document 1-1 Filed 01/13/21 Page 3 of 8
you.” T-1 responded, “I have saved this photo and will be indetifying [sic] you to authorities,” to which MONTGOMERY replied, “Got nothing to hide...”
Following this post, MONTGOMERY corresponded with T-1 by email on January 7, 2021. T-1 provided the email exchange to your Affiant. MONTGOMERY’S email address contains the name of MONTGOMERY’S hunting company, Pmonte Outdoors: pmonte3006@[redacted]. In response to T-1 stating, “You have been reported to the police in DC as well as the FBI,” MONTGOMERY responded, “I’m not a scared cat or running from anything. . . . Im [sic] so deeply covered by the best Federal Defense lawyers in the country in case you chicken shit cry boys don’t want it takes to defend our freedom from these corrupt politicians.” MONTGOMERY went on to explain, “I didn’t storm the castle violently. My group was let in peacefully by the police we were talking to with respect. We came a[n]d left peacefully before the anarchist and Antifa showed up breaking shit and being hoodlums.”  From https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Patrick%20Montgomery%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf       

4.  Description of the person and what that person did

"At approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 6, 2021, I was performing my official duties on the first floor of the United States Capitol building. In reacting to the crowd that had breached a window of the building, I moved to a hallway in the northwest corner of the building, i.e., the Senate wing of the Capitol building. While there, I attempted to form a barrier with other officers to stop or deter additional individuals from entering the Capitol building. In the course of this effort and while inside the Capitol building, I encountered an adult male who later identified himself to me as Mark Jefferson LEFFINGWELL. LEFFINGWELL attempted to push past me and other officers. When he was deterred from advancing further into the building, LEFFINGWELL punched me repeatedly with a closed fist. I was struck in the helmet that I was wearing and in the chest. Working with other officers, I was able to gain control over LEFFINGWELL, who attempted to struggle while being detained. I transported LEFFINGWELL to United States Capitol Police headquarters for processing. While in custody, but prior to being advised of his Miranda rights, LEFFINGWELL spontaneously apologized for striking the officer. When told that the officer who LEFFINGWELL had struck was me, LEFFINGWELL apologized to me for striking me."  From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Mark%20Jefferson%20Leffingwell%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

5.  List of the specific charges.

"Based on the foregoing, your affiant submits that there is probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2), which makes it a crime to (1) knowingly enter or remain in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do; and (2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions. For purposes of Section 1752 of Title 18, a “restricted building” includes a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service, including the Vice President, is or will be temporarily visiting; or any building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.
Finally, your affiant submits there is also probable cause to believe that BRIAN MCCREARY violated 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2), which makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly: (D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; (E) obstruct, or impede passage through or within, the Grounds or any of the Capitol Buildings; and (G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings." From:  https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Brian%20McCreary%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf

When I started writing this post I went through various statements and took some excerpts to give you a sense of what they say.  As I looked at various statements I realized they followed a general pattern.  So I went back and developed the above list of examples of each of the five part of the statements.  

So, now that I've finished that, I have already given you a lot of excerpts.  But below are the ones I started out with.  

From this Statement of Fact

"TIMOTHY LOUIS HALE-CUSANELLI (HALE-CUSANELLI) of Colts Neck, New Jersey, traveled to the District of Columbia to participate in a rally and protest at the U.S. Capitol. HALE-CUSANELLI is enlisted in the United States Army Reserves, and also works as a contractor at Naval Weapons Station Earle where he maintains a “Secret” security clearance and has access to a variety of munitions.

On January 12, 2021, I received information from an individual who has been enrolled as a Confidential Human Source (“CHS”) with NCIS. The CHS reported that HALE-CUSANELLI told the CHS that HALE-CUSANELLI was present at the riot at the United States Capitol Building and, as part of the riot, he entered the Capitol building itself. HALE-CUSANELLI then showed CHS videos on his cell phone which depicted HALE- CUSANELLI making harassing and derogatory statements toward Capitol Police officers both inside and outside the Capitol building.

During our meeting on January 12, 2021, the CHS reported to me that HALE-CUSANELLI is an avowed white supremacist and Nazi sympathizer who posts video opinion statements on YouTube proffering extreme political opinions and viewpoints under the title the “Based Hermes Show.” HALE-CUSANELLI also posts similar content in other forums. Prior to traveling to the rally and protest on January 6, 2021, HALE-CUSANELLI wrote “Trust the plan, it’s the final countdown, stay tuned next episode” and 'Trust the plan, major announcement soon.'”

From this Statement of Fact

"On or about January 6, 2021, an individual called the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center to report that the individual seen in the widely circulated Getty Images photograph (Figure 1) was named ADAM JOHNSON. The caller claimed that ADAM JOHNSON was a resident of Bradenton, Florida, and that the caller knew this information because he/she shared a mutual friend with ADAM JOHNSON. The FBI conducted research on government databases and learned that there was an individual named ADAM JOHNSON associated with residences in two cities in Florida: Bradenton and Parrish (which is near Bradenton). A search of the Florida’s Department of Motor Vehicles returned ADAM JOHNSON’s driver’s license photograph. By comparing this photograph to the image of PERSON 1, your affiant reasonably believes that PERSON 1 is identical to ADAM JOHNSON.

On or about January 8, 2021, the FBI consulted with members of the Speaker’s staff and learned that before the forced entry to the Capitol building began on January 6, 2021, the Speaker’s lectern was stored in the Speaker’s Suite, located under a staircase to the third floor on the House side of the Capitol building. On or about January 7, 2021, the lectern was found by a member of the Senate staff in the Red corridor of the Senate wing off the Rotunda in the Capitol building. According to the House of Representatives’ curator, the Speaker’s lectern has a market value of more than $1,000."

From this Statement of Facts:

"SCHAFFER was among the rioters who sprayed United States Capitol Police officers with “bear spray,” a form of capsaicin pepper spray sold by many outdoors retailers, as part of their efforts to push the officers back inside the Capitol and breach the Capitol Building themselves. SCHAFFER was photographed and captured on surveillance video carrying “bear spray” and engaging in verbal altercations with Capitol Police officers inside the Capitol Building.SCHAFFER is seen holding a clear sunglasses in one photograph, and bear spray in other photographs.

The photographs show SCHAFFER in a blue hooded sweatshirt under a tactical vest with a baseball cap that reads “Oath Keepers Lifetime Member.” The “Oath Keepers” is an organization that characterizes itself as a militia of former law enforcement and military personnel and has often, as a group, urged President Trump to declare Martial Law in order to prevent the Congress from certifying the Electoral College Results.

SCHAFFER, who is the front man of the heavy metal band “Iced Earth,” has long held far-right extremist views. During an interview in 2017, SCHAFFER identified himself as an “anarchist” and referred to the federal government as a “criminal enterprise.” During that same interview, SCHAFFER stated that the 2016 Presidential election was 'rigged.'”

"And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures."

 In his book The Black Banners: How Torture Derailed the War on Terror after 9/11, former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan,  writes in great detail about the interrogation techniques he’d been using since he’d joined the FBI in 1997.  As a native Arabic speaker from Lebanon who’d gone to school in the US, he started tracking al Qaeda already in graduate school and was put on the anti-terrorist unit after the initial rotation period in the FBI.  He gained a lot more knowledge of al Qaeda - their members, their funding, their training techniques, their communication networks, etc. - while interrogating suspects in the USS Cole bombing in Yemen.  When he interrogated detainees he got their cooperation quickly by letting them see how much he already knew about them and that lying was useless.  He also treated them with respect.  These techniques got the US volumes of intelligence.  

But after 9/11, the CIA was given control over interviewing detainees.  The CIA had very little interrogation expertise.  That wasn’t how they got information before this, so they hired a psychology professor as a contractor who introduced what came to be known as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT).  Coercive techniques and torture.  A few times Soufan got to interrogate detainees after 9/11 and was able to get useful information, but the high-value detainees were reserved for the CIA interrogators.  They basically got compliance, not cooperation.  Detainees told the CIA what they wanted to hear.  Often lies that fit the CIA narrative.  Not  useful information.  There were attempts by the FBI and inside the CIA and the military to block the EIT program, but it was supported in the White House.

Soufan writes:

“Mark Fallon, a New Jersey native from a family of law enforcement officials, found himself in a position he had warned his staff members about during their orientation. ‘Even if I give you an illegal order,’ he told them, ‘you can’t follow it.  You are bound by the Constitution.  Remember that at Nuremberg we prosecuted Nazis who claimed just to be following orders.  And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures.  One day, whether one year away or ten years away, people will be looking at what we did, so make sure you act with the utmost integrity.’”

In the book, Soufan argues persuasively, backed up by Senate reports,  that the insistence on EIT to interrogate al Qaeda meant that the kind of intelligence the FBI interrogators had been collecting was lost and attacks that could have been foiled were not foiled, and finding Bin Laden was delayed by years.  

I think this same lesson applies to Senate Republicans. Their refusal to keep Trump accountable allows him to continue to damage our government, our position in the world, and is endangering our democracy by eroding trust in government.  

I cannot comprehend their reasons for  staying silent in the face of Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the election and to defy the advice of scientists on COVID.  

But I do know that like the decision to supplant traditional interrogation techniques with EIT, the Senate’s refusal to do its Constitutional duty to be a check on the presidency is tearing this country apart.  Allowing President Trump to do further damage to our government and our country in the final 60 days will cause unnecessary additional harm.  

Early on I proposed a statue to honor the first six Republican Senators willing to join the Democrats to force Trump to follow the law and the Constitution.  But despite separating immigrant  children, infants even, from their parents; despite encouraging white supremacists, despite the lies and lack of any kind of plan on COVID, and now despite Trump's attempt to overthrow the election, there still aren't six Republican Senators with courage and integrity.  

Even Trump underestimated what he could get away with.  He just said he could could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and not lose his supporters.  At least 150,000 to 200,000 Americans are dead because of Trump's lies and inaction on COVID 19.  Those deaths belong to the Republican Senators too, who did not perform their constitutional duty to be a check on the presidency.  

I repeat Mark Fallon’s words:

And remember in the United States there are no secrets, only delayed disclosures.  One day, whether one year away or ten years away, people will be looking at what we did, so make sure you act with the utmost integrity.’”

The children and grandchildren of the Republican Senators will one day  know that their once powerful parents and grandparents  did not show integrity or courage in one of America’s darkest periods.  

So Much To Blog About Yet So Little Time - Zooming, OLÉ, Winter, Justice, Dark Banners, Anchorage International Film Festival, Elitism

 I try not to blog about sensitive stuff quickly.  I want to get it as right as I can.  And now is a time when so many things are happening that most of the media (let alone a single blogger) has trouble focusing on any one enough to get to the root of the many particular problems.  

Zooming

Yesterday I was zooming from morning to night.  Probably the best as as a visiting grandfather resource in my granddaughter's class in the Seattle area.  I got to listen to two second graders read.  They did really well.  Then I had three Olé classes, Thomas Merton, Refugee Resettlement, and Alaska Trees and Shrubs. The last of the four class fall semester.  The last class is Friday's Alaska Native Perspectives.  All the classes have got my head buzzing with ideas.  Then my San Francisco grandkids via Jitsi, my son's preferred video conferencing program.  

I also wanted to give you a look at how incredibly beautiful Anchorage is during a cold spell when all the trees are encrusted white and the sun glows on them.  But suddenly the bluetooth connection between my phone and my laptop has failed.  I have to figure out how I moved photos before I used the Blue Tooth.  

Government At Cross Purposes

The LA Times reports this morning on the dropping of drug trafficking charges of the former Mexican defense chief. 

"The U.S. government moved Tuesday to drop drug trafficking and money-laundering charges against a former Mexican defense secretary, a stunning turnaround in a case that had deeply angered Mexican authorities."

Which makes me think about the last few days' readings in Black Banners.  He writes about how the US government agencies work at cross purposes.  One part doing one thing and then having another part of the government take it away.  His example looks at how the FBI and CIA were at cross purposes in interrogating al-Qaeda detainees.   Ali Soufan, the author is a Lebanese born, native Arabic speaking, who grew up in the US and became an FBI interrogator.  He writes about clashes between seasoned FBI interrogators and a new set of CIA contractors over how to interrogate al-Qaeda detainees.   Soufan's group, which has been tracking al-Qaeda since 1998 or so, believes in 

• developing a relationship with the suspects  
• through convincing the suspects they know all about them so there's no benefit in lying  
• treating the suspects decently which confounds the counter-interrogation prep al-Qaeda gave them
• and they open up and tell the interrogaters lots of valuable information

They've already had great successes with this methods following the USS Cole bombing in Yemen where they've gathered huge files of data on various al-Qaede members and allies along with locations of training camps and networks, and communication, funding, and training methods.  They use all this along with documents  they've captured in raids of al-Qaede safe-houses and hotel rooms.  In Soufan's telling, it doesn't take long to turn the al-Qaede members and allies, once they realize how much the FBI already knows about them and the FBI demonstrates they aren't the weak, stupid, and brutal Americans al-Qaeda has portrayed them as.  As I read this, it's clear that Soufan's Arabic fluency and his good people sense play a large role in their success.  [Here's a link to a Foreign Policy article that counters the campaign against Soufan when the original very redacted book came out in 2011.  The copy I'm reading is much expanded as lots of the material has since been declassified.  I was able to read most of the Foreign Policy  article before the paywall went up.]

But after 9/11 the CIA, which didn't have interrogation specialists, hires a guy Soufan calls Boris, to coordinate the CIA's interrogation.  They're in a black site in an unnamed country (some things are still classified, though he mentions a cobra in the bathroom which means it could easily be Thailand and the black site link says Abu Zubaydah was interrogated there.)  Boris is a psychology professor who is pushing harsh interrogation methods - what is to become known as Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT).  But the CIA at first didn't believe that the captive was in fact Abu Zubaydah, "America's first high-level detainee since 9/11."  So they didn't send anyone to interrogate him, even though Soufan had been told the CIA was in charge.  So this meant Soufan and his partner had about ten days to work with Abu Zubaydah on their own.  And they gained lots of information which was sent back to DC.  So the CIA got interested and Boris arrived.  He was now going to take over by stripping Abu Zubaydah naked, playing loud rock music 24/7, and depriving him of sleep for 24 hours, which would get him to talk instantly.  But they got no information from him in ten days.  Soufan writes, that the CIA interrogator would go in and ask Abu Zubaydah to tell him what he knew.  Abu Zubaydah would then say, "What do you want to know?" and the CIA guy would walk out.  In contrast, Soufan would ask Abu Zubaydah very specific questions that Soufan knew the answers to, and if AZ lied, Soufan would present evidence that he was lying.  In one example, he asks him if he knows the person in a picture.  Abu Zubaydah says no.  Soufan then plays an audio tape of Abu Zubaydad talking to the person.)  After a week of no information, Soufan is allowed to interrogate again and gets lots more information.

But the CIA are in charge and they have bought into EIT as their interrogation method.  And, I guess, if you don't know anything about the person you're interrogating and you don't speak Arabic, torture is an easier approach.  But Soufan argues in the book, that replacing the FBI's technique with EIT meant the loss of valuable information and as the book's subtitle says, this is "How Torture Derailed the War on Terror after 9/11."

So, how, you're asking, is the related to the headline about dropping the Mexican drug charges?  Well, it appears that the Bush administration wanted certain information from the interrogations that Soufan wasn't getting.  Like, proof that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working together.  Like proof of WMD's (I guess there might be readers who need me to spell that out - Weapons of Mass Destruction.)  Soufan says he didn't get that information because it wasn't true.  But the CIA got those confessions, according to Soufan, who also quotes a Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility Report to support his personal experience, to detainees telling the CIA interrogators what they wanted to hear to stop the torture.  

So I'm guessing this Mexican case dismissal is due to funding between different departments that have different objectives, just as Soufan so high-value detainees snatched away from him because the intelligence he was getting didn't match the administration's agenda.  One part of the US is working hard to prosecute this drug trafficker and another part has interests that they believe will be harmed by pursuing this case.  And one day, an Ali Soufan of this case, will write a book telling the story.  

Getting Oliver and Jacob to Agree

A recent post  seems to have accomplished something that hasn't happened before - regular commenters Jacob and Oliver are in agreement that I'm being elitist because I mentioned that only 34% of the US adult population has a bachelors degree.  So I need to clarify that too.  

Individualism vs. Communalism and US Culture

And I'm also thinking about one of the characteristics of "United States culture" is a form of extreme individualism.  This issue came up in the Alaska Native Perspectives class where we also agreed in the that American refers to people in North, Central, and South America, not just the US.  That's wording I try to use here on the blog anyway, though sometimes American slips through.   I think it's part of the complex explanation of Trump's appeal and of the anti mask wearing nonsense,  as well as the inability of people to understand how White Privilege works.  

Anchorage International Film Festival

AND this morning pass holders for the Anchorage International Film Festival were invited to a Zoom orientation on how the virtual conference will work and a little tour of the website.  The Festival starts in a couple of weeks - December 4.  The virtual festival will have some distinct benefits over the in person festival:

1. you can watch the films whenever you want during the 9 days of the festival and as often as you want
2. you don't have to be in Anchorage to participate
3. there will be more sessions with film makers because they don't have to travel to Anchorage

So I'd urge Alaskans all over the state to consider getting a festival pass ($100) which allows you unlimited viewing of all the films and filmmaker events  OR pick out a few films you want to watch and buy individual film passes for $10 each.  There are a total of 111 films.  That includes shorts.  I think that for shorts a single $10 pass will get you to a shorts program which is a collection of shorts.  

In any case, people in Alaska outside of Anchorage who normally can't get to the festival,  and in the US, I urge you to check out the festival.  I asked festival co-director John Gamache this morning if anyone anywhere can get pass and he said yes.  There will be no restrictions for US viewers, and few restrictions for overseas viewers.  He did mention that one of the filmmakers was blocking showing of the film in the home country.  And I'd mention for my Canadian readers, that the country of Canada is a sponsor of the festival this year and there are eight Canadian feature films.  Here's the link:

Anchorage International Film Festival 2020

This opens to the main page with a link to buy passes.  But on top is a link to see the films that are showing if you want to check that out first.

John also said he'd put in "COUNTRY" as one of the searchable categories for people who might be interested in films in a particular language.  I'll try to post on what countries have films in the festival when that feature gets added.  

So all this, plus updating my daily COVID page, gets between what I'm thinking about and those thoughts turning into blog posts.   

Election Thoughts 4: Evangelical Trumpers And Al-Qaeda Members Aren't All That Different

I'm reading The Black Banners by Ali Soufan.  Soufan was born in Lebanon and came to the US with

his parents as a child.  After college he applied to the FBI and finished a graduate degree while waiting to hear back.  

Because he's a native Arabic speaker he got involved with anti-terrorism as soon as he got into the FBI and through the training program in November 1999. 

I was struck by this passage.  Soufan is writing about how they prepare for interrogating Al-Qaeda suspects.  At this point in the book, he's in Yemen tracking down the men who blew up the USS Cole in Aden.  

"Al-Qaeda members commonly had the same problems with time-lines that Yemenis did.  Part of the reason is cultural:  in the West we are trained to think in a linear manner, and we learn that the truth can be arrived at by following a series of logical steps.  Al-Qaeda members, however, are greatly influenced by conspiracy theories, and they suspend their critical thinking.  Rather than logic, they have a culture based on relationships and impressions, and there is considerable willingness, on their part, to accept conspiracy theories to explain certain events. Bin Laden capitalized on this by reiterating long-standing assertions that America, Israel, and the West were trying to subjugate the Arab and Muslim world and destroy the Islamic faith." (p. 266)

Surely this description of beliefs in conspiracy theories which interfere with logic sounds very familiar to the die-hard Trump supporters.  

And the idea of a "culture based on relationships and impressions" also corresponds to people who hero worship Trump and know truth through a sort of impression.  

So they are easily convinced by their leader that, say, Democrats have stolen or faked millions of votes.  Or however many Trump suggests.  And the fact that Trump's details vary from hour to hour doesn't matter either.  

Here he discusses the need to focus on details of time and whereabouts:

"Concomitant with pledging bayat to their leader, and in preparation for the possibility of capture by Western intelligence, al-Qaeda operatives are trained to come up with a false narrative that follows linear thinking;  but they find it hard to stick to lies when questioned in minute detail.  A key part of successful interrogations is to ask detailed question related to time and whereabouts.  Such questions are easy for a detainee to answer if he is telling the truth, but if he is lying, it is hard for him to keep the story straight.  Often Badawi would not lie completely but give a partial lie.  By zeroing in on the details, we could see where he was lying.  I would point it out, he would correct himself, and slowly we'd get the full picture." (p. 226)

The FBI has an advantage over most of us.  They get to interrogate suspects over hours and days even and to focus on factual details until the suspect trips himself up (and so far the suspects have always been male in the book.)

We, on the other hand, deal with fleeting exchanges, at best, with Trump cultists.  We don't have the luxury of pinning them down in most exchanges.  But I put down this idea of getting details because I think it's more effective than yelling and demeaning.  "Tell me exactly how Biden tampered with the votes in Pennsylvania and how you know this."  At worst you're being respectful, at best you may cause some recognition that they have no facts.  

The best rebuttal is getting more votes nationally and in enough states to win the electoral college and to have lawyers who know the law and how to argue it and who don't  hold press conferences in garden supply stores that have a name in common with giant hotel chains

 [Think of this post as notes jotted down so I don't forget.  Even more than usual.  I know this comparison of similarities between Al-Qaeda and Trump cultists is pretty limited, but I want to get this passage down before it gets lost in the 500+ pages of this very compelling  book, that shines a light into the shadows of bin Laden's terrorist network as well as the security agencies in the US government.]

 

Killers Of The Flower Moon - Chilling Story Of Power, Collusion, Racism, That's Relevant Still Today [UPDATED]

David Grann's Killers of the Flower Moon tells the chilling and disgusting story of how white men in

power murdered scores, maybe more, Osage Indians in the 1920s, to get their 'headrights' which was their right to their share of the oil wealth. The headlights couldn't be sold, but they could be inherited.

Grann's interviewed children and grandchildren of murdered Osage.  He reviewed archival documents in libraries and agencies, What he found reveals a much bigger impact than others had.  The FBI quit investigating when the got convictions of two key people, but Grann suggests a lot more people were involved in the murders - both as perpetrators and as victims.

Basically, most ofl the important white men in Osage territory were involved.  The Osage had chosen what they thought was relatively desolate land in Oklahoma on the belief that whites would take over any decent land, as had happened to them previously.  But they did have a good attorney and they reserved the underground rights to all their territory.  When oil was discovered, they became rich.  That in itself was a problem because whites derided the idea of rich Indians living in nice house with fancy cars and clothes.  And the idea that Indians had whites working for them in their houses.

The law also had problems with the idea of rich Indians.

"The law mandated that guardians be assigned to any American Indians whom the Department of the Interior deemed "incompetent"  In practice, the decision to appoint a guardian - to render an American Indian, in effect, a half citizen - was nearly always based on the quantum of Indian food in the property holder, or what a state supreme court justice referred to as "racial weakness." (p. 78)

So the headright owners had to have a white guardians watch over their money.  This position gave the guardians many opportunities to syphon off money for their own uses.   But this wasn't enough for the white power structure of the area.  They began a long and relentless crusade to murder Osage headright owners to gain control of the money.  They used guns, they used poison, they even blew up someone's house.

They got away with this because all the key people - the mayor, the private investigators the families of Osage hired, the doctors who did autopsies, the undertakers, the various attorneys, the judges, the bankers, the juries, when there was one, were all involved.  All benefited financially.

It's a horrible story that should be highlighted in American history books, but isn't.  The FBI got involved because they'd already been embarrassed by an earlier case involving the Osage.  Hoover wanted to establish his new agency's credibility.  An upright Texas ranger who'd joined the FBI took over the case and managed to get witnesses to testify who hadn't before.  But when they got a few men convicted - notably William Hale and his nephew Ernest Burkhart -  they stopped there, not investigating the many other suspicious deaths.  Both these men were not given the death sentence for killing Indians, and were out of prison after serving relatively short terms.

Here's a bit of a summary from near the end of the book.

"I remembered the Shouns.  They were the doctors who had claimed that the bullet that had killed Anna Brown had disappeared  The doctors who had initially concealed that Bill Smith had given a last statement incriminating Hale and who had arrange it so that one of them became the administrator of Rita Smith's invaluable estate.  The doctors whom investigators suspected of giving Mollie Burkhart poison instead of insulin.  Many of the cases seemed bound by a web of silent conspirators  Mathis, the Big Hill Trading Company owner and the guardian of Anna Brown and her mother, was a member of the inquest into Brown's murder that failed to turn up the bullet.  He also manage, on behalf of Mollies' family, the team of private eyes that conspicuously never cracked any of the cases.  A witness had told the bureau that after Henry Roan's murder, Hale was eager to get the corpse away from one undertaker and delivered to the funeral home at the Big Hill Trading Company.    The murder plots depended upon doctors who falsified death certificates and upon undertakers who quickly and quietly buried bodies.  The guardian who McAuliffe suspected of killing his grandmother was a prominent attorney working for the tribe who never interfered with the criminal networks operating under his nose.  Nor did the bankers, including the apparent murderer Burt, who were profiting from the criminal "Indian business."  Nor did the venal mayor of Fairfax - an ally of Hale's who also served as a guardian.  Nor did countless lawmen and prosecutors and judges who had a hand in the blood money.  In 1926, the Osage leader Bacon Rind remarked, "There are men amongst the whites, honest men, but they are might scarce."  Garrick Bailey, a leading anthropologist on Osage culture, said to me, "If Hale had told what he knew, a high percent of the county's leading citizens would have been in prison"  Indeed virtually every element of society was complicit in the urderous system.  Which is why just about any member of this society right have been responsible for the murder of McBride, in Washington:  he threatened to bring down not only Hale but a vast criminal operation that was reaping millions and millions of dollars." (pp. 590-91)

In the background, we learn a little about the development of police departments in the US and some about J. Edgar Hoover's beginnings at the FBI.  We learn about private detective companies like Pinkerton and the William J Burns International Detective Agency.   And we learn about how greed and prejudice trumped justice.

Often the web of connections that enable the well-to-do to commit crimes in impunity is invisible to those on the outside.  This book shows those connections and how insidious they can be.  This is a valuable lesson as Mueller unravels the connections that Trump had with Russia.  And, of course, Trump had in New York that allowed him to swindle and scam clients, contractors, and the public through connections with New York high society and lawyers who would buy off any potential threats with a binding non-disclosure agreement.

It's also a reminder that reading well researched and written books can offer us a much better overview of a situation than the daily snatches of news that pop up and disappear, leaving us with a temporary outrage, but no context to put it in or to help us remember the details.

[UPDATE Feb 21, 2019:  As an exclamation mark to my comments about how this is relevant still today, here's a Miami Herald story about a judge ruling. 

"A judge ruled Thursday that federal prosecutors — among them, U.S. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta — broke federal law when they signed a plea agreement with a wealthy, politically connected sex trafficker and concealed it from more than 30 of his underage victims.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, in a 33-page opinion, said that the evidence he reviewed showed that Jeffrey Epstein had been operating an international sex operation in which he and others recruited underage girls — not only in Florida — but from overseas, in violation of federal law.
'Epstein used paid employees to find and bring minor girls to him.,’’ wrote Marra, who is based in Palm Beach County. “Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minors not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others.'’’

This is exactly the kind of thing that happened in Oklahoma around the Osage killings.  Judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and the wealthy worked out deals that they hid from the victims.    In this case, the prosecutor then is now Trump's US Secretary of Labor.  And in the researching I've done in the last few years, I've run across stories saying that Trump was one of the people who enjoyed going to Epstein's parties and the young girls he provided.  From Think Progress:

"Trump told New York Magazine about his relationship with Epstein in 2002.
'I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with,” Trump said at the time. “It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it: Jeffrey enjoys his social life.'”

Bill Clinton and many others were also party-going friends of Epstein according to this article.

My point is not to indulge in gossip here, but to make the bigger point:  That white men (particularly) in power take care of each other to cover up their illegal and often despicable actions.  And it's still happening today.  Epstein's out of prison after a short stint, Trump is president, and Acosta is his Secretary of Labor.  The victims still have gotten no real justice.  Exactly like the Osage Killings.

McCabe's Interview With 60 Minutes And Seth Abramson's Explanation

Andrew McCabe's interview with 60 Minutes yesterday offers more evidence of what anyone paying attention knows:  our president is unfit for office and more than likely to be under the influence of Putin.  You can see the interview here:   Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview.

But I'm going to add to it a Twitter Thread by Seth Abramson:  

For those who keep a healthy distance from the various social media outlets like Twitter, a thread is a string of tweets all tied together. It's a way to get past the character limit of tweets.  Abramson is the author of Proof of Collusion. It's a book that pulls together all the media sources to spell out Trump's activities relating to Russia, before and after he became a candidate.  It also gives lots of background on who all the players are.

This Thread is Abramson's response to the  Ex-Acting FBI director McCabe's 60 Minutes interview.  Abramson is just a really smart guy who, among other qualifications, graduated from Harvard Law School and practiced as a prosecutor for a while.

So I'm going to highlight a couple of the tweets in the thread.  You can see the whole thread at the link above.

The rogue FBI agents in New York and NYPD, who threatened to leak info about the Clinton emails if Comey didn't go public and who leaked info to the Trump campaign, and whether Trump knew about them (he did.)

3/ I've written of how these rogue agents, in conjunction with rogue NYPD officers—including, it appears, the man running the Weiner investigation, who donated to Trump's campaign in October 2016—leaked false info and/or coordinated false leaks with top Trump adviser Erik Prince.
4/ The question has always been how much Trump knew of what his advisers Giuliani, Prince, and DiGenova were doing to make contact with rogue FBI and NYPD officials, facilitate their illegal pre-election leaks to media, and use those leaks and a threat of more to blackmail Comey.
5/ This was critical because those illegal leaks were, per IG Horowitz, a major consideration in Comey reopening Clinton's case—a decision that, per polling data, gave Trump the presidential election. If Trump knew of these crimes, he was part of a conspiracy that made him POTUS.
6/ In the first minute of CBS's interview, McCabe reveals that Trump *was aware* of a bloc of FBI agents who'd been secretly working against Comey—we now know, by illegally leaking false information about the Clinton case to the media through Trump advisers—and said so to McCabe.
7/ "I heard that you were part of the Resistance," President Trump said to Acting FBI Director Andy McCabe. Trump went on to explain that he knew of a bloc of FBI agents who "did not support Jim Comey...[who] didn't agree with him, and the decisions he made in the Clinton case."

Rosenstein's offer to wear a wire when he talked with the president.

37/ When Rosenstein "absolutely serious[ly]" volunteered, *twice*, to wear a wire into the Oval, it was shocking in its novelty but not its investigative sense. If indeed the FBI had an active counterintel probe open then, which it did, a wire would be *one* investigative method.
38/ Anyone shocked by more than the historic novelty of the act Rosenstein described—who cannot see its investigative sense—simply does not understand or has refused to process how historically serious it is when the FBI and DOJ determine a POTUS could be a witting foreign agent.
39/ If there's one thing *every person America must accept* as a condition of citizenship it's that our Constitution *is* the document from which our laws emanate. *Any* person in the Oval who's a foreign agent *must* be removed *immediately* by impeachment or the 25th Amendment.

Why they didn't invoke the 25th Amendment?

78/ So when DOJ says there's "no basis" to use the 25th, it's saying that until its Russia probe concludes, it is the finding of Main Justice (*and*, I would note, of *McCabe also*) that the threat from Trump is not *so* imminent that the investigation can't be allowed to finish.
79/ And—follow me—once you've said that the potential national security threat is *not* so imminent the investigation can't finish, you're *also* saying that the appropriate remedy once it's finished, if malfeasance is found, is impeachment not the 25th. That's all DOJ is saying.

Trump has no such scruples about calling something an emergency.



Here he discusses McCabe's comment that Trump said he believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies.

81/ So now we come to the scariest part of the McCabe interview—a discussion of which will close this thread. McCabe reveals to CBS that Trump said he believed *Russian intelligence* on North Korea's nuclear capabilities over U.S. intelligence.
That's a national security threat.
82/ Those who say McCabe's statement on what Trump said in a security briefing isn't credible are—excuse me, I don't know how to say this politely—not living in the reality the rest of us are. Trump has *repeatedly* and *publicly* accepted the Kremlin line over U.S. intelligence.
83/ Indeed, McCabe's statement that Trump said "I believe Putin" when confronted with intel that North Korea is still a significant national security risk for America—dismissing what his own intelligence was telling him—is so consistent for Trump it bolsters McCabe's credibility.

Here's a link to the 60 Minutes Interview:  Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview.

If you are represented by a Republican US Senator, contact that Senator and ask how s/he continues to tolerate in office a president who believes Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies.  It's easy to send emails to US Senators.  Just go to this link.  The more they hear, the harder it will be to continue to let this disaster continue.

Think about the investigations the Republican Congress pursued with so much less justification.

Henry v MOA - "It Is What It Is"

It's lunch break.  Since yesterday's post, I've been trying to figure out what I should be doing here. What parts of the trial to focus on.  The ADN and KTUU are also attending the trial, so I should do what they aren't doing.  But that still leaves a lot.  It's easier to take notes when Doug Parker is asking the questions because he speaks slower than Meg Simonian.

This morning was Anthony Henry being cross examined.  Parker (the attorney for the Municipality of Anchorage - MOA) is trying to give the jury a different view of Henry than we saw yesterday when his attorney questioned him.  Some lines of questioning were:

1.  Questioning the image we were presented yesterday of this long time officer with a spotless record.  Parker raised  prior complaints and internal investigations of Henry.  He asked how many there had been.  Henry didn't know.  Parker said ten and started asking about each.  Henry dismissed them as routine things that all police officers have - like investigations after a vehicle collision.

2.  He spent time on the discussion yesterday of the Rick Brown investigation.  He tried to discredit Henry's claims that he repeatedly asked Rick Brown to show him the documents so he could refresh his memory of events several yeas old, but that Brown wouldn't show him even when he had them.  He quoted Henry's attorney Ray Brown on the video deposition with Rick Brown, saying "He repeatedly begged you, 30 times, to share the documents so he could refresh his memory."  Henry denied that he ever begged, but Parker said, "Your own attorney said that."   He needed this access to documents, Henry had said yesterday, because the APD had taken away his access the computer and to all the records so he couldn't refresh his memory.
Parker went through the transcripts of the two interviews with Brown and pointed out that instances where Henry asked Brown if he had one document or another and told him he (Brown) should get the documents and read them.  Not that Henry wanted the documents.  In fact he got Henry to acknowledge that he did have access to most documents on his own computer which seemed to contradict his claim yesterday that he had no access to anything.  Henry's repeated response was - An investigator should have all this material, it's where he should go first to get the facts of each event.  To police reports, to the informant records that would show much of what he needed.

3.  Trying to pin Henry down on inconsistencies in his testimony.  There were a lot of times when Henry said, "correct."  But there are also times he would not give a yes or no answer.  I have sympathy there because often such an answer has no context.  Here's one exchange: [Note, any citations like this come from my rough notes which I took in court.  They are close to what was said, but not verbatim and there may be missing bits]

Parker:  You agree now, you were collecting for investigation.
Henry:  Correct
P:  Yesterday you denied it.
H:  No I don’t remember.  Yesterday I wasn’t clear headed.
P:  Have to be clear headed to tell the truth?
H: I was emotional
P:  Do they get a pass if emotional or not clear headed?
H:  I agree.
S:  ???
H:  The Truth is the Truth.
P:  Did you tell Rick Brown in your interview, if you had records, I can come up with emails.
H:  Yes.
P:  You never told him at any time you didn’t have access to computer?
H:  confused  I was confused yesterday, I didn’t have access on my computer, but had on other computers.

When Parker tried to pin him down - sometimes Henry agreed like he did here, but often refused and said something like he does here with "the truth is the truth."  In fact I counted in my notes that four times in this exchange between Parker and Henry, Henry said "It is what it is" or "It says what it says."  These responses came when Parker would compare what Henry said at one point (like in yesterday's testimony) and what was written in the transcript from, say, his interrogation with Rick Brown.  He'd point to the words on the page and ask, well, isn't it right here?

P:  but you don’t say that [in the document]
H:  It says what it says.

Here, Parker was trying to refute Henry's claim that he repeatedly asked to see documents to refresh his memory, say of a date.  Parker was countering that actually, most of the time Henry wasn't looking to refresh his memory, but was simply asking whether Rick Brown had seen this document or that one, because BROWN needed the information.

P:  For discussion Ex 835 - first day interview - about Prieto - lines 24 25, "you need to go back and look at the paper work it lays out the National Guard involvement.  You need to look at paper work" - you aren’t asking for documents

P:  Fr discussion Ex 835 - first day interview - about Prieto - lines 24 25, [reading transcript] "you need to go back and look at the paper work it lays out the National Guard involvement.  You need to look at paper work" - you aren’t asking for documents
H:  It says what it says

4.  Selective Memory - Sometimes Henry could remember things in great detail.  Other times he had no memory.  Of course that's fairly common.  But it seemed that he had a better memory for things that helped his case than things that didn't.  And he even spoke of three phases of memory.

H:  There are 3 phases, 2010,  what I knew during my interviews [2014], what I remember now. 

I understood this to mean, there are things I remembered back in 2010.  Four years later when I was having my interviews with Rick Brown, I remembered less than in 2010.  Now, I've had my memory refreshed by reading transcripts and documents, sitting in on all the depositions, and generally preparing for the trial.  It seemed that the 'now' memory was a mix of things that he actually remembers personally after having heard others talk about things, or reading about them, and things he still doesn't actually remember himself, but which he knows from the record.

Examples:

P;  You never took action to send to Tim McCoy anything after June 4 meeting?
H:  That’s broad statement talk to him a lot.  If there was something I needed to report.  I don’t have a direct memory.  If something had happened.

P:  You learned something about Nieves ?
H:  I don’t have an independent memory.P:  I don’t want to build your memory, just your memory.
H: I don’t remember.

P:  Sean Cockerham wrote long letter [article?] in Alaska Dispatch News that talked about sexual assault in the Guard and Blaylock’s blog
H:  I don’t recall, may have read it.
P:  Talked about Blaylock saying brought sexual assault victims to Police and Gov and got in trouble with chain of command there. You don’t remember that?
H:  No,  Don’t remember the article.
P:  Likely you read it?
H: I read the paper, but don’t recall

P:  You know there was sig increase of National Guard sex assault being covered.
H:  I knew it was around the Gov’s election, sexual assaults
P:  You thought it was all political?
H:  That’s what ??  told me  I thought it was all political.
P:  Reports about drugs and young women being lured, that was all political?
H:  Don’t know what you were reading from.
P:  You knew there were all sorts of articles coming out.
H: I knew it was political
P:  Blaylock was saying things about you?
H:  I knew he was writing and gave him no credibility.
P:  You’re aware of all this? [a meeting Henry attended with Blaylock and Katkus where Blaylock said there were sexual assault victims but he wouldn't reveal the names to Katkus.]
H:  I don’t have memory of meeting, but nothing bad at the meeting,  It was appropriate for Katkus to discuss those things.  I don’t have that memory.  If it had been, I would have take action,  That’s certain.

P:  June 3 you get call, repeatedly told Rick Brown that Katkus asked why Seth doesn’t trust me?  H:  I remember call, but no memory.
P:  You don’t recall telling Katkus about Blaylock and Seth?
H:  No, the first knowledge I had was when I got the blog.
P:  You have no memory of this crazy Blaylock, unbelievable right?  I believe is not credible or believable.

P:  You can’t tell us when KatKus called you on June 3 and asked why Seth didn’t trust you you had no idea if Katkus knew about Blaylock?
H:  I don’t have a memory of that, but it’s likely that Katkus knew that.  I don’t have an independent memory of that meeting now.  

5. Retirement - Parker seemed to be questioning  Henry's talk about how the termination had destroyed his life, when he said he couldn't get a job now that paid more than 1/3 of what he made as an APD  Lieutenant and so now he's working in Iraq in security for the US Embassy (where presumably he's getting pretty good pay compared to what he can get in Alaska.)  Parker suggested that Henry could have retired under the police retirement plan.

P;  Are you an expert on retirement system?
H:  I wouldn’t all myself an expert
P:  You talked about this retire and rehire, you could have done that before, but didn’t.
H:  Correct.  There was a change in the system that made it better to wait longer
It was always in my plan, wanted 30 years and retire, the state’s Plan 4 and I wasn’t edible for that which was a 401K plan so I wanted to wait to 30 or 32 years.
P:  Mark [Mew, Chief]  said you wanted to retire at age 50.
H:  He may have told you that.  My wife and I have not planned retirement, we have no children and our work is our ives. 

Redirect  11:28
Simonian:  When do you plan to retire.
H:  I’m 58 now, my family has longevity my wife is 12 years younger, I plan to work until I’m 70

What I took from this, was that Parker was pointing out Henry could retire, get his retirement pay and pursue other work.  Even if he got paid less, he'd still have his pension on top of it. I don't think there are very many APD officers who work until they are 70.   [I'd note that I heard 58 here as his age, but yesterday I thought he said he was a man of 50, so I must of gotten something wrong.]

It's much later now.  The afternoon began with Derek Hseih, former president of the Anchorage Police Union and now representing sheriffs in San Diego.  His key function was to show that the Municipality changed their policy of allowing Police Officers to see their own IA (Internal Affairs) electronic records.  He said that after Henry won his arbitration over his right to have are access to his files,  the MOA imitated this change. When asked how he knew this was in response to Henry's case, he said, "We informally called it the Tony Henry rule."

Hseih was followed by Ann Kirklund. (Spell check is telling me it should be with an 'a', but I really thought I heard her spell it with a 'u' when she was sworn in.)  Kirklund is a FBI agent who was in charge of the joint task force that included the FBI, APD, State Troopers.  Her function here was to:

1.  Say that there was only one investigation into the National Guard, and it was under her.  If there had been others, she would have known.

2.  She also said, that if Carson and McMillan said they were connected with the FBI investigation or were running such an investigation as part of the APD Special Activities [Assignment] Unit (SAU) then that would not be truthful.  

There were other issues she addressed - like the large drug bust that was not hampered by anything Henry was alleged to have said to Gen Katkus.  

There simply isn't enough time in the day for me to do this justice.  Tomorrow I'm going to miss most of the morning.  I've signed up for an OLE class on the Second Amendment that retired Judge Karen Hunt is giving over four Thursday mornings.  

Note to me - Role of investigator and investigated  Henry needs to be in control

FBI Names Kokayi Nosakere As Anchorage Community Leader

I got a text message from a friend with a link.  Being a troglodyte, I can't go to websites on my phone (but I do get texts!), so I checked on my computer.  It was ominous in that it had FBI in the url and Kokayi thinks of himself as something of a trouble maker.  Was he showing me that he was now on some FBI watch list?

Here's what it says:

"The Anchorage Division honors Mr. Kokayi Nosakhere. Mr. Nosakhere works to address teen violence and homicide by bringing together minority groups to get to know one another. Through employment resources and spiritual, educational, parenting, and leadership support, Mr. Nosakhere is motivating young men to put an end to violence."

Congratulations Kokayi!

Here's what their website says about these awards:

"Since 1990, the annual awards have been the principal means for the FBI to publicly acknowledge the achievements of those working to make a difference in their communities through the promotion of education and the prevention of crime and violence.
In his remarks to the group this morning, Director Christopher Wray thanked the honorees for their efforts to make the country safer and noted the similarities between community leaders and the FBI’s own workforce—both are dedicated to public service and “doing the right thing in the right way,” he said.
“We need the support, the understanding, and the trust of our community partners and the public. You’re out in your neighborhoods and your communities every day building that support and that trust and that understanding,” Wray added."

Remember That Muslim Kenyan? It Seems He Tapped Trump's Phone Too

Let's see.  The next step will be a call to have him removed from the US as an illegal alien.

The New York Times is reporting that FBI director Comey wants the Justice Department to deny Trump's claims:

"The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement."

I found the next sentence interesting for what it tells us about Comey (assuming, of course, this is accurate at all):

"Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said." (emphasis added)

Back in October when he told the world about reopening the Clinton email investigation, he wrote to FBI  employees:

"Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed." (emphasis added)

Comey seems to have a strong need to protect his own reputation, which may skew his judgment.  

Back to the phone tapping allegations, the Washington Post fact-checker searches down references to FISA court requests and gives Trump four Pinocchios.

Sounds to me like the heats on over Russia and Trump's using his usual tactic of a diversionary attack to get people's attention off Trump.  I guess his mother didn't read him the story about the boy who cried wolf.  

Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI

The Apple v. FBI debate seems to be one of the most important, long-lasting, and potentially game-changing threats to the liberty of US citizens, and people around the world.

The US has always struggled with how to balance government power and personal liberty.  Past breaches of human rights were to justified because of perceived risks to national physical or economic security.   The US constitution embraced slavery.  And in 1798, soon after it was ratified, the US passed the Alien and Sedition Act, because

"[a]s one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to 'invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity.'"

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

In the Dred Scott decision

"the [Supreme] Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States."

There's a long history of abuses against Native Americans.

The Roosevelt Administration interned US citizens of Japanese descent during WW II.

There's Guantanamo and torture following the 9/11 attacks.

There are the thousands of civilian deaths and injuries due to our current drone attacks.

So I tend to be skeptical of the FBI's claims of national security when they pressure Apple to create a way to hack their own encryption.  I'm not all that trusting of Apple either in the long run, but in this case I'm more likely to support Apple's stand than, say, I would Goldman-Sachs and other financial institutions stands against government regulation.

But like probably most Americans, I don't really understand the details of this.  It's not as obvious as waterboarding.

So I offer this link to The Intercepts' post Eight Memorable Passages From Apple’s Fiery Response to the FBI.

Blaming The Victim: FBI Chief Uses Gut Rather Than Data To Blame Protesters For Increasing Crime

Here, from the NY Times (I read it in the Alaska Dispatch), titled, "F.B.I. Chief Links Scrutiny of Police With Rise in Violent Crime":

"The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Friday that the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers in the wake of highly publicized episodes of police brutality may have led to an increase in violent crime in some cities as officers have become less aggressive.

With his remarks, Mr. Comey lent the prestige of the F.B.I., the nation’s most prominent law enforcement agency, to a theory that is far from settled: that the increased attention on the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals. But he acknowledged that there is so far no data to back up his assertion and that it may be just one of many factors that are contributing to the rise in crime, like cheaper drugs and an increase in criminals who are being released from prison.

“I don’t know whether that explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year,” Mr. Comey said in a speech at the University of Chicago Law School."

This is so bad.  So outrageous.  I know, I should settle down before I post this.

--------------------------------

That's how I started this post.  Actually I wrote very indignantly about the FBI chief.  And then I stopped and decided I needed to read the whole article, not just what was on the first page.  I also decided  I needed to read Comey's whole speech to see if they reported it accurately.

Having done that I still think that Comey is mostly wrong.  And I think the NY Times is right to call him out on it.  They quote people at the Justice Department and other police chiefs who disagree with him on the impact of greater police scrutiny and they disagree that crime is even going up.  It varies among different kinds of crime and different cities.   

So, I've edited and added to what I wrote earlier today, and at the end I'll try to summarize some conclusions. 

-----------------------------------

Cops have been killing unarmed black men for years and years.   Killing unarmed black men while wearing white robes went out of style  (translation:  it was harder to get away with) in the late1960s and 70s.  But if you did it wearing a blue uniform, it was still ok.  But cell phone cameras have changed the narrative and this year the media have suddenly paid attention to the "Cops kill unarmed black men (and sometimes women)" story.

Now, Comey thinks, that geez, cops reacting to the bad press and not beating up and shooting  suspects is causing crime to go up, with the implication that people saying "black lives matter" are the problem.  And he did say 'all lives matter' several times in the speech. 

Give me a break.  The LA Times recently reported that crime had gone down in LA because the cops under-reported crimes by mis-classifiying them to lower level crimes.   Now that they are reporting them more accurately, maybe that's the cause of the increase.

OK, I understand.  There are lots of mean nasty dudes out there and there are times when the cops have to be tough.  But the last year of reporting has demonstrated that there are also lots of cops whose brains are programmed to see bad motherfuckers when they are really looking at decent, law abiding, citizens. Sometimes irritated law abiding citizens, who get pissed when, say, the cop tells them not to smoke. We've seen cops who can get mad easily and start taking it out on kids who don't obey them immediately.

Maybe there's an issue here about policing shifts that put cops under great pressure, about understaffing due to years and years of cutting budgets.  

Maybe the problem is how police recruit and train their cops.

Maybe it's the whole message the federal government sends to Americans: glorifying the military and the idea of getting 'bad guys' around the world, bringing back a lot weapon savvy, but mentally and emotionally unstable vets to the US and funneling them into police jobs,  and selling military equipment to local police departments to make the cops look like movie robo-cops rather than humans.  Maybe it's the macho cop story we see over and over again on television and movies and internet.  Maybe it's the violent video game industry which teaches kids to shoot as quickly as they can.  All these messages matter;  they infiltrate our brains and alter how we see reality.

But dammit, blaming the protesters (yes, that's what he's doing, because he's implying without them, cops would still be shooting unarmed black guys with impunity, I mean, being appropriately aggressive when needed) is just wrong.

This is like saying Americans are becoming less religious because of all the accusations and lawsuits against the Catholic church.  It's the people complaining, not the church that's the problem.  But I say, if the church hadn't tolerated priests abusing little girls and little boys, adolescents, and grown ups, there wouldn't have been any protest.

And if police violence hadn't been tolerated all these years, there wouldn't be any protests now.

And note - this is a 'theory'.  Actually, it doesn't reach the level of theory.  This is a defensive, gut reaction.  It reveals a lack of real police science and inability to break out of old policing modes so they can objectively reevaluate the role of policing in the US.  In fact policing cannot be isolated from everything else going on - particularly the fact that the US has 16 million kids living in poverty.
I know, for Ben Carson, this is a minor challenge, but for many people it is insurmountable.

These law enforcement officers' 'theory of good policing' is roughing up the 'bad guy' and making him scared of the cops.  I'm sure that's part of the thinking with all the Darth Vader riot police costumes.   When cops think in terms of good guys and bad guys, they aren't seeing people as whole human beings who have good and bad all wrapped into one person.  I know cops will tell me there really are bad guys.  And I'd respond, I'm sure there are, but they were once cute little babies.  How did they get that way?  Why do so many boys and men think their best choice is to join a gang?  It's probably because they live in dangerous neighborhoods where if you don't join a gang, your life is even more in jeopardy.  And if cops lose their cool and get violent with kids, why should we expect kids not to do the same thing? 

And Comey has the nerve to publicly voice a 'suspicion' he has that crime has gone up because cops aren't being violent enough.  Of course my tone is angry.  This is the best Obama can do for the head of the FBI?  
---------------------------------------------------

OK, that's when I went back to see Comey's whole speech.  It's on the FBI website here.
I wanted to see if he gave more possible causes than the protests against cops.  He does, but then he says, that for him the change in policing in response to protests is the real answer:

Maybe it’s the return of violent offenders after serving jail terms. Maybe it’s cheap heroin or synthetic drugs. Maybe after we busted up the large gangs, smaller groups are now fighting for turf. Maybe it’s a change in the justice system’s approach to bail or charging or sentencing. Maybe something has changed with respect to the availability of guns.
These are all useful suggestions, but to my mind none of them explain both the map and the calendar in disparate cities over the last 10 months.  (emphasis added)

He came to this conclusion, he says, by talking to cops.

"But I’ve also heard another explanation, in conversations all over the country. Nobody says it on the record, nobody says it in public, but police and elected officials are quietly saying it to themselves. And they’re saying it to me, and I’m going to say it to you. And it is the one explanation that does explain the calendar and the map and that makes the most sense to me.
Maybe something in policing has changed.
In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?"

There is something to be said about getting on the ground and listening to what people say.  And I'm a firm believer about saying out loud what people are whispering.  But only if what they are whispering makes sense.  He talks, in his speech about getting data.  But random anecdotal accounts are not good data.  They may be useful for suggesting what data to pursue, but they reflect the biases and fears of the people who report them as much as, and often more than, the 'truth.'   I suspect if Comey had gone around the country and talked with people living in high crime areas, law abiding citizens and gang members too, he would have gotten a totally different account of why crime was going up.  Well actually, some of those folks would have agreed that they need somebody to stop the gangs and other violent characters in their neighborhoods.  And in Comey's speech he does talk about doing this in particular neighborhoods where he was in gang busting units.  But there are also neighborhoods where people are relatively safe from gangs and it's the cops they fear. 

Law enforcement has been fighting gangs seriously since at least 1982.  Maybe if the time and money spent on fighting gangs had been used for Head Start and school lunch programs, for parent training and after school programs, fewer kids would have felt they had no choice but to join a gang.

But as I say, anecdotal data, isn't any good for making policy.  And how prepared are today's police to think through complex socioeconomic and political issues to determine the causes of crime and the solutions?  The cops on the beat are too close to the problem and not really trained to do good diagnosis of the causes of crime.

Back in the 1970s the LEEP program gave police departments lots of money to send their officers to college and graduate school.  Those funds dried up long ago.  Today's police officers are not particularly well educated.  Here's from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Standards Handbook on police work:

Education

Police and detective applicants must have at least a high school education or GED and be a graduate of their agency’s training academy. Many agencies and some police departments require some college coursework or a college degree. Knowledge of a foreign language is an asset in many federal agencies and in certain geographical regions.
Candidates must be U.S. citizens, usually be at least 21 years old, have a driver’s license, and meet specific physical qualifications. Applicants may have to pass physical exams of vision, hearing, strength, and agility, as well as competitive written exams. Previous work or military experience is often seen as a plus. Candidates typically go through a series of interviews and may be asked to take lie detector and drug tests. A felony conviction may disqualify a candidate.

Are these they guys Comey spoke to?

"I spoke to officers privately in one big city precinct who described being surrounded by young people with mobile phone cameras held high, taunting them the moment they get out of their cars. They told me, “We feel like we’re under siege and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars.”

These cops and these kids need to be playing basketball or pool together, like Comey said he did in law school.  They need to get past the facades of tough guy on both sides and relate as human to human.  Back to Comey's speech:

I’ve been told about a senior police leader who urged his force to remember that their political leadership has no tolerance for a viral video.
So the suggestion, the question that has been asked of me, is whether these kinds of things are changing police behavior all over the country.
And the answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior."  (emphasis added)

And it should change behavior.  Cops should be going after criminals, but they shouldn't be treating law abiding citizens like criminals.  Cops now are increasingly isolated from the people they are supposed to protect.  Cops can no longer be this separate unit to take care of problems after the fact.  They need to be working with parents, with schools, with social workers, and with kids.  They need to be part of the neighborhood.  They need to part of a community health and educational team that prevents crime by helping kids stay healthy, stay fed, stay in school, stay off drugs, and get legal work that is enough to pay the bills.   We need more Mr. Rogers cops than Terminator cops.

Conclusions 

1.  Did the Times misconstrue what FBI Director Comey said?
No, but they left a lot out which shows Comey to be a lot more sophisticated than the article suggests.  The structure of the story stacked the worst stuff in the first paragraphs and then quoted all the folks who disagreed with him.  Only then did it give more context of what he said.  But that context of other possible causes of the increase in crime were basically dismissed in favor of the 'theory' (basically what cops have been telling him they were experiencing) that crime was rising because cops were afraid of viral Youtube videos.
The Times also pointed out that in most places most crime (except for murder) has actually been dropping not rising.
 But the Times didn't mention Comey's story about integrating the neighborhood basketball team in the south side of Chicago when he was in law school.  (It would be nice to hear what his teammates thought of him.  Did he keep in touch with any of them, or is this just a good story he uses?)  They didn't mention his long discussion about how crime has dropped dramatically since 1990 and cities have been transformed.  People could sit on their porches and get on with their lives because lots of criminals had been put in prison.  He also acknowledged that many of those put in prison were black, because, he said, many of the criminals were black.  He also pointed out that many of those killed by criminals were black, so that by putting those violent criminals in prison, many lives were saved.  He talked about Richmond, Virginia in detail and also about northwest Arkansas.

2.  Is Comey's analysis of the cause of the increase in crime reasonable?
No.  I don't doubt that there are cops who tell him that they are afraid of breaking up a bunch of guys standing on the corner at 1am because the encounter might go viral.  I know college professors who were afraid to say anything about race or religion in class because they were worried about a student saying they were discriminating.  But those aren't the best cops or the best professors.  Those are people who don't get the bigger picture.  Comey says:

“Lives are saved when those potential killers are confronted by a police officer, a strong police presence and actual, honest-to-goodness, up-close ‘What are you guys doing on this corner at 1 o’clock in the morning’ policing,” Mr. Comey said.

I'm sure that's true.  But too many of those folks who have been confronted this year were unarmed, ,  decent folks of the wrong color in the wrong place at the wrong time.   And they died because of the police, not because of criminals.

Comey gives stats showing increases in crime rates this year.  The Times cites other law enforcement leaders disputing the kinds of increases he mentions and disputing that increased scrutiny causes the increases.

3.  Should Comey bring to light the things cops are saying among themselves?
I think such discussions, if they are widespread, should be brought to the public and allowed to be scrutinized.  But Comey went further than that.  He essentially says he thinks the cops are right - that he can think of no other single cause for the (disputed) increase in crime.
I would argue that there probably isn't one single reason, that there is a myriad of reasons.  And that they differ from location to location.

Comey could have raised this and not taken a stand on it.  He could have said it needs to be studied further.  He did acknowledge there wasn't any data to prove this.

4.  Is Comey's characterization of crime increasing because cops are less aggressive because of the protests and fear of viral video tapes a good one?
No.  It blames the victims.  If you blacks wouldn't complain so much about police violence, there'd be less crime.  Women are being blamed for being raped too.  What was missing for me in his speech, was the acknowledgement, not just that there were some bad cops, but that the whole world view of most cops - we're the good guys fighting the bad guys - helps cops justify their bad behavior.  And even 'good' cops carry racial prejudices in their heads that lead them to be more confrontational with blacks.  And I recognize that cops often have good reason to fear people on the street.  It's not easy.  But innocent black men and women shouldn't have to fear cops and most black mothers of sons worry every time their kids go out - worry how the police will treat their sons.  That's a fact.  If cops think the mothers are wrong, well the mothers think the cops are wrong.  Maybe they should have cops and black mothers sit down and talk.  A lot.

5.  Is the media coverage of all this fair?
No.  It wasn't fair back when cops were always believed and it isn't fair now when the worst is believed of the cops.  But we really only hear the stories that are backed up with video tape.
And I think we should listen to the people of Ferguson who complained that all their peaceful demonstrations got very little press.  It was only when there was violence that the media jumped on the story.  That's a problem the media needs to deal with.
Most reporters have word limits, so they have to choose what to cover and what to leave out.  Comey's speech covered a lot more than what the Times focused on.  What they left out gives nuance to who Comey is and how much he understands about neighborhoods and crimes and getting to know people better.  But I couldn't find a link in the Times  online version to Comey's whole speech.  That's the least they could have given.
Finally, even if the reporters wrote a longer story, would the public have read it?  If they hadn't packed the most sensational parts of the story in the beginning, would anyone have read it?  I have the luxury of not worrying about selling blog posts.  That means I can be lazier about cleaning up what I write and about organizing it (like this rambling story), but I can also write longer pieces and those couple of readers who want to read the whole thing can.