https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/covington-lawsuit-washington...

The Covington Teen Is Suing the ‘Washington Post’ for $250 Million

The lawsuit accuses the paper of anti-Trump bias in its coverage of the student’s controversial encounter with a Native American activist

Nicholas Sandmann (left) and Nathan Phillips

The family of Nicholas Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School student who was filmed staring down a Native American protester in Washington, D.C., last month, is suing the Washington Post for its coverage of the incident. The suit, which seeks $250 million in damages, accuses the Post of “targeting and bullying” Sandmann, 16, as part of an ongoing campaign to smear President Trump. Sandmann and several of his classmates were wearing “Make America Great Again” hats during the confrontation in front of the Lincoln Memorial following a pro-life rally last month.

“In a span of three days in January of this year commencing on January 19, the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann, an innocent secondary school child,” the suit read, adding that the Post “ignored basic journalist standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented, biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump by impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the President.”

The president was tickled by the news, naturally.

“The Washington Post ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump.” Covington student suing WAPO. Go get them Nick. Fake News!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2019

Sandmann became the focus of a days-long media firestorm last month when a video emerged of him smiling in the face of a Native American protester named Nathan Phillips. Little was known about the encounter outside of what the video made obvious: that Sandmann and the classmates surrounding him were mocking Phillips as he stood chanting and beating a hand drum. Subsequent videos fleshed out the context of the encounter, which began with a confrontation between the Covington Catholic students and a group of Hebrew Israelite protesters. Phillips entered the fray and wound up face-to-face with Sandmann. The suit describes Phillips as “a phony war hero” who “targeted and bullied” Sandmann.

URGENT 🔴 President Donald Trump HEATED Press Conference from Florida

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-brennan-on-his-hyping-of-mueller-re...

Brennan on his hyping of Mueller report: 'I don't know if I received bad information'

by Diana Stancy Correll
| March 25, 2019 05:37 PM

Former CIA Director John Brennan said Monday he “suspected” special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation would reveal “more than there actually was.”

"I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," Brennan said during an interview with MSNBC on Monday.

On Sunday, Attorney General William Barr shared a summary of Mueller’s findings with Congress, which stated that the investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

"I am relieved that it's been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election," Brennan said. "I think that is good news for the country."

Less than three weeks ago Brennan appeared on MSNBC predicting more indictments as part of Mueller's investigation, which never came to pass.

Brennan said Monday he thought there were clear examples of inappropriate attempts to communicate with the Russians, but at the same time was “not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met.”

Brennan also said he was surprised Mueller did not determine whether Trump obstructed justice. Barr quotes Mueller saying “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him," after which the attorney general said he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein found there was a lack of “sufficient” evidence to determine whether Trump obstructed justice.

ection 600.9(a)(3) requires Barr to notify Congress about the completion of Mueller’s work and to explain any instances in which Barr concluded that a “proposed action” by Mueller “should not be pursued.” If Barr does not second-guess an action Mueller wants to take, then Barr’s only reporting duty is to tell Congress that Mueller’s work is done. And even if Barr does check an action proposed by Mueller, Barr is supposed to give Congress only a very brief explanation why. As the Justice Department stated in the Federal Register document that accompanied for the regulations: The reports to Congress contemplated by subsection (a) “will be brief notifications, with an outline of the actions and the reasons for them” (emphasis added).

Under subsection (c) of the regulations, Barr is additionally allowed (but not required) to release to the public whatever Mueller reported to Congress, if he determines that public release of the reports to Congress “would be in the public interest,” and even then only “to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions.”

In sum, even assuming that Mueller sends Barr a detailed report, Barr need only tell Congress that the investigation has ended and briefly explain any restriction he put on Mueller’s proposed course of action. That is all the regulations require Barr to do. There might be ways for Barr to read the law creatively to allow him to do more, as Lawfare writers have noted. We will not repeat those arguments here. The relevant point is that Barr need not do more under the law. (There is a plausible way to read the regulations to not permit Barr to do more, but we will set that aside for present purposes.)

Barr’s Confirmation Hearings

PART 3: Attorney General Nominee William Barr Confirmation Hearing

It is against this background that one should read Barr’s very carefully worded responses to senators’ questions at his confirmation hearings.

Barr said this in his opening statement: “I … believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel’s work. My goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law” (emphasis added).

Barr was then asked repeatedly whether he would share Mueller’s report with Congress. He said over and over again that he would do as much as he could, consistent with pertinent law. Here are the main examples, which we quote at length in order to emphasize just how careful Barr was not to commit to anything beyond what the law requires:

Sen. Lindsey Graham: When his report comes to you, will you share it with us as much as possible?

Barr: Consistent with the regulations and the law, yes.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Will you commit to making any report Mueller produces at the conclusion of his investigation available to Congress and to the public?

Barr: I am going to make as much information available as I can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations. …

Feinstein: Will you provide Mueller’s report to Congress, not your rewrite or a summary?

Barr: Well, the regs do say that Mueller is supposed to do a summary report of his prosecutive and his declination decisions and that they will be handled as a confidential document as are internal documents relating to any federal criminal investigation. Now, I’m not sure—and then the [attorney general] has some flexibility and discretion in terms of the [attorney general]’s report. … [M]y objective and goal is to get as much as I can of the information to congress and the public. These are departmental regulations, and I’m going to be talking to Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller. … There’s probably existing thinking in the department as to how to handle this. But all I can say at this stage, because I have no clue as to what’s being planned, is that I am going to try to get the information out there consistent with these regulations and to the extent I have discretion, I will exercise that discretion to do that. (Emphasis added)

Sen. Patrick Leahy: So you’d be in favor of releasing the investigative report when it’s completed?

Barr: As I have said, I’m in favor of as much transparency as there can be with the rules and the law.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar: Will you commit to make public all of the report’s conclusions, the Mueller report even if some of the evidence supporting the conclusions can’t be made public?

Barr: That certainly is my goal and intent. It’s hard for me to conceive of a conclusion that would run afoul of the regs as currently written, but that’s certainly my intent.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: [Will you] commit to explaining to us what the reasons are for your deleting any information that the special counsel includes that you are preventing us or the public from seeing?

Barr: Yeah. That would be my intent. … I don't know what kind of report is being prepared. I have no idea, and I have no idea what Acting Attorney General Rosenstein has discussed with Special Counsel Mueller. If I’m confirmed, I’m going to go in and see what’s being contemplated and what they’ve agreed to, and what their interpretation—you know, what game plan they have in mind … but my purpose is to get as much accurate information out as I can consistent with the regulations.

Coons: Senator Kennedy followed up by asking Richardson if the special prosecutor would have the complete authority and responsibility for determining whom he prosecuted and at what location. Richardson said simply, yes. Would you give a similar answer?

Barr: No, I would give the answer that’s in the current regulations, which is that the special counsel has, you know, broad discretion but the Acting Attorney General in this case, Rod Rosenstein, can ask him about major decisions. And if they disagree on a major decision, and if after giving great weight to the special counsel’s position, the acting attorney general felt that it was so unwarranted under established policies that it would not be followed, then that would be reported to this committee.

Coons: Senators asked Elliott Richardson what he would do if he disagreed with the special prosecutor. Richardson testified to the committee the special prosecutor’s judgment would prevail. That’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying if you have a difference of opinion with Special Counsel Mueller you won’t necessarily back his decision. You might overrule it?

Barr: Under the regulations there is the possibility of that. … A lot of water has gone under the dam since Elliott Richardson, and a lot of different administrations on both parties have experimented with special counsel arrangements, and the existing rules I think reflect the experience of both Republican and Democratic administrations and strike the right balance. They [were] put together in the Clinton administration after Ken Starr’s investigation.

Also, in exchanges with Coons, Leahy and Blumenthal, Barr emphatically reserved the possibility that valid claims of executive privilege—about which he has strong views—might inform what elements of the Mueller report he makes available to Congress:

Coons: Suppose the prosecutor determines it’s necessary to get the president’s affidavit or to have his testimony personally. Would that be the kind of determination he the special prosecutor could make? Richardson said yes. Will you give a similar answer today that you won’t interfere with Special Counsel Mueller seeking testimony from the president?

Barr: You know, I think, as I say, the regulations currently provide some avenue if there’s some disagreement. I think that in order to overrule Mueller someone would have to—the attorney general or the acting attorney general—would have to determine after giving Mueller’s position great weight, that it was so unwarranted under established policies that it should not be done. So that’s the standard I would apply, but I’m not going to surrender the—the regulations give some responsibility to the attorney general to have this sort of general—not day-to-day supervision, but sort of be there in case something really transcends the established policies. I’m not surrendering that responsibility. I’m not pledging it away.

Leahy: Do you see a case where the president could claim executive privilege and say that parts of the report could not be released?

Barr: I don’t have a clue as to what would be in the report. The report could end up being not very big, I don’t know what’s going to be in the report. In theory if there was executive privilege material to which an executive privilege claim could be made, someone might raise a claim of executive privilege.

Blumenthal: Will you commit that you will allow the special counsel to exercise his judgment on subpoenas that are issued and indictments that he may decide should be brought?

Barr: As I said, I will carry out my responsibilities under the regulations. Under the regulations, the—whoever is attorney general can only overrule the special counsel if the special counsel does something that is so unwarranted under established practice. I am not going to surrender the responsibilities I have. I would—you would not like it if I made some pledge to the president that I was going to exercise my responsibilities in a particular way, and I’m not going to make a pledge to anyone on this committee that I’m going to exercise it in a particular way or surrender it.

Barr’s claims are well within the bounds of the special counsel regulations, as Section 600.7 says that the “Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” According to the comments in the Federal Register, while the special counsel can exercise independent prosecutorial discretion, “it is intended that ultimate responsibility for the matter and how it is handled will continue to rest with the Attorney General.” In his testimony, Barr refused to make to a firm commitment on executive privilege and correctly noted his role as the final decision-maker in the investigation.

Weekly Update: Was Hillary Hacked by the Chinese? Mueller Report Victory for Trump, & More!

Mueller Report Victory for Trump...JW Takes on Illegal CNN Leaks...Was Hillary Hacked by Chinese? & Border Crisis Update

remember ,

the Steele Dossier was compiled with Russian Sources ..

even 1 source being a Russian Intelligence Officer ..

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/how-the-explosive-russian-dossier-was-co...

the Steele Dossier was purchased by Hillary and the DNC .



we research , we see , we know

╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

Karnal wrote on Apr 1^st, 2018 at 10:50am: