'Israel is what the Arab world can be but is unable to be'
By Dudi Caspi
Israel Hayom
December 1, 2019
Egyptian-born Hussein Aboubakr was 14 when he discovered much of what he was told about Israel was a lie and the revelation sent him down a harrowing path, from which he emerged as a pro-Israel advocate in the United States. "I dream of making the Arabs understand what Israel really stands for," he says.
Hussein Aboubakr loves Israel. This is always a welcome sentiment, of course, but it is twice as moving when it comes from an Egyptian-born Muslim, and even more so when you consider that Aboubakr is one of the most outspoken activists fighting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement in Los Angeles.
Aboubakr, 30, defines himself as a Zionist. His sympathy for Israel forced him out of Egypt and in the last seven years he has been living in the United States. He moved to Los Angeles after getting a job with Stand With Us – a non-profit pro-Israel education and advocacy organization, seeking to bolster Israel's image among the American public.
Our interview is conducted in Hebrew, which Aboubakr speaks fluently and with a barely detectable accent.
"There's a new generation today of Western Arabs who grew up in the US, speak English and understand how to take advantage of the system," he said. "They were brought up to honor the edicts of Islam even though they are completely secular. People like that are, in fact, the driving force behind BDS. They run an anti-Israel campaign in American academia, but they also have an anti-US campaign.
"They think I'm a traitor. They come to my lectures to heckle me. They won't hear of anti-Semitism in the Arab world and they accuse me of racism."
Touching on current affairs and the recent flare-up in southern Israel during which Islamic Jihad terrorists fired over 450 rockets at Israel in retaliation over the elimination of top Islamic Jihad commander Baha Abu al-Ata in his Gaza home, Aboubakr said, "It's hard for me to see Israelis undergo this annual rocket event. Usually, there is [security] escalation, then Hamas receives more money from Qatar, and uses most of it to increase its arsenal. Israel eliminated a terrorist, not a social worker."
'We were told Jews are evil'
Aboubakr was born and raised in Giza, a few miles from the pyramids. He has three brothers and a sister. His father, Ahmed, was a banker at one of the largest government banks in Egypt. His mother, Huda, is a housewife.
"We were a typical family when it came to religion," he said. "We would go to the mosque with my dad every Friday and fast during the holy month of Ramadan. But unlike many religious families, there was a television in the house, and at some point, there was even internet."
At the age of 11, Aboubakr became interested in religion.
"I delved into the Quran and became a devout Muslim. I also started hanging out with Salafists – they're like the haredim of the Muslim world – and that was steeped with anti-Semitism. There were stories about how the Jews tried to kill the Prophet Muhammad after what they did to Jesus.
"They called Jews 'traitors' and said they were 'evil,' and I believed that. At that time – it was post 9/11 – whenever you would turn on the TV you'd see the war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. This was also the height of the Second Intifada in Israel. All we saw was how Muslims were getting killed everywhere. That tied into everything I heard at the mosque and I started to believe that Jews were the source of all evil."
At this point, he said, he decided to learn more about Jews so he could fight them more successfully.
"At the age of 14, I began studying the issue independently," he recalled. "I stopped going to the mosque and just searched the internet to read and understand more. Then I discovered that reality was totally different and that Israel has values such as tolerance and humanity.
"It was a difficult moment. I discovered the moral gap between my background and Western culture, especially with respect to Israel. All of a sudden, you realize that there is nothing to the stories that were drilled into you, that there's no one in Israel who gets up in the morning and thinks up ways to harm Egypt."
This was a defining moment for Aboubakr and the ensuing personal crisis was unavoidable.
"I completely lost my faith. We all want to believe that all religions are similar and impart values for human relationships but in reality, religious systems are archaic and so are their ideas – certainly Islam, which has caused so much harm in the world.
"I decided to keep the change I was going through a secret. It's not like I could tell the people around me that Israel is right and that there is no Palestine."
In college, Aboubakr began studying Hebrew, something he said was "very usual, because you can use it during your military service" – like Israel, Egypt has compulsory military service from men – "and after the service you can use it if you teach or work in the media, so it didn't raise suspicion.
"The Oriental languages Department, where I studied, was set up in the 1960s as part of the fight against Zionism. Like many other things in Egypt, these things began when [Egyptian President Gamal Abdel] Nasser came to power and are frozen in time. My professors didn’t speak very good Hebrew."
Presumed guilty
The outdated material frustrated Aboubakr and in late 2009, he decided to visit the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo, established in the early 1980s after Egypt and Israel inked their peace treaty.
Many in Egypt believe the center actually houses secret Israeli espionage headquarters, he said.
"I was curious to visit there, to speak Hebrew," he explained. "The first time I only met the security guard, who spoke to me a little in Hebrew. On my second visit, I met the director of the center, Prof. Gabi Rosenbaum. After I left, Egyptian security personnel approached me on the street and started asking me questions, like why I was there. They also called my friends to gather information about me."
About a week later, the Egyptian National Security Agency contacted Aboubakr and ordered him not to set foot in the center again, as well as abandon his studies.
"I refused. I shared the story on my blog and eventually Israeli media picked it up," he said.
Three days later, he and his father were arrested.
"My father promised them that the family will handle it. Afterward, he and my uncles gave me a long talking-to, but I told them I no longer consider myself a Muslim. They were deeply offended. The men hit me. The women were sobbing. I left home that very day. It was the last time I saw them."
The disconnect lasted nearly a decade.
"My mother contacted me last April, she found me on Facebook," he said. "Lately, we've been talking on the phone every week. My younger brother got married recently and she sent me videos of the wedding. I have no contact with my father or anyone else from my family. Maybe in the future, but I'm not ready yet."
After leaving home, Aboubakr went to live with friends, first in Cairo and later in Alexandria. He also became a prolific blogger, writing about the anti-Semitism in Egypt.
And he was firmly on the Egyptian National Security Agency's radar.
"It became an absurd, repetitive situation. I would be taken in for questioning, they would ask me which Israelis I was in contact with and why I posted a certain text on the blog, I would apologize, and they would let me go," he said.
"At the end of 2010, I was supposed to enlist in the army. In Egypt, if you study for a degree you go into service after you graduate and every year they announce which degrees are relevant for conscription. Anyone with a degree in Hebrew is automatically enlisted because of the same Nasser-era mental fixation.
"Once I was drafted, instead of sending me to boot camp, I was taking in for questioning in an intelligence unit. They had pictures of any Israeli I ever spoke with, reports on every word I ever typed. They were sure I was some kind of spy."
Aboubakr was then jailed for two months.
"No formal charges were ever filed – all they had were suspicions that I was a 'Zionist agent.' I was put in solitary confinement and tortured. My family didn't even know I was there. They let me go after two months. I was also discharged from the army. The discharge papers cited, 'Poses a threat to the integrity of the Egyptian social fabric.'
"I didn't know what to do next. I went to my friends in Alexandria, but they didn't understand what I was going through. These things don't usually happen – most people are 'normal,' no one has run-ins with the authorities, and even if they do, it's usually over religion, not things like Israel.
"I never consider myself a political activist, just someone who expands his interests. I knew that I was neither an agent nor a spy, and I didn’t understand what I was doing wrong that I was being interrogated that way."
And then came the Arab Spring.
Conspiracy theories
Tahrir Square in Cairo, where masses gathered, demanding the ouster of then-President Hosni Mubarak had ostensibly subversive ideas and demands for reforms but they, too, were very anti-Israel, he said.
"It was very strange. As much as they [protesters] came out against religion and tradition, when it came to Israel – it was still the enemy. This hatred is instilled from an early age.
"Once Mubarak was ousted and the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, anti-Semitism grew. The government-controlled media featured intimidating headlines saying that 'Israeli tanks are on their way to Sinai' and 'the Zionist army's ships are about to attack us.' They wanted to create a panic, to convince people that the revolution was an Israeli conspiracy. When new politicians were trying to win over voters, the strongest accusation you could throw at them was that they were 'in service of the Jews.'"
The anti-Semitism grew more intense until it erupted on Sept. 9, 2011, when thousands of Egyptian protesters rushed the Israeli Embassy in Giza, Greater Cairo, after breaking down a recently constructed wall built to protect the compound. Six members of the embassy's staff, who had been in a safe room, were extracted by Egyptian commandos, at the personal intervention of then-US President Barack Obama.
A few months after that, Aboubakr lost his job. He was arrested almost immediately and detained for a week.
"When they let me go, they made it clear that I would no longer be able to get a job, that this was it – I won't be released next time. At the time, protesters could turn to human rights organizations for help. I couldn’t do that because they, too, saw me as an Israeli agent. I knew no one would save me."
After six months in hiding and with the help of some friends, Aboubakr was able to reach the American Embassy in Cairo where he sought – and received – asylum.
Two weeks later, he was able to leave Egypt and head to Los Angeles.
'Israel isn’t perfect, but I love it'
During his first year in LA, Aboubakr was unable to find his place among the local Muslim community, which did not exactly welcome him with open arms.
Through his contacts in the Israeli academia, he was able to contact Dr. Nir Boms, a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, who put him in touch with the local Jewish community.
He first worked at a warehouse and then managed to find work teaching Hebrew at an Orthodox Jewish high school in the Valley area. In 2013, he moved to the picturesque town of Monterey and enlisted in the US Army.
"I went through boot camp after which I was stationed at a base that has an educational center for language studies. I taught Hebrew to officers and US Army officials who work with Israel."
In 2018, he visited Israel for the first time, an experience that, given his extensive knowledge of all things Israel, he described as surreal.
"It was the first time I was in an environment that was very similar to the one I knew in Egypt. Israelis sometimes like to 'sell' themselves to the West in Western-looking photos of beautiful beaches and girls, but Israel is first and foremost a Middle Eastern country," he said.
"For the first time, I experienced the culture I came from – the food, the smells, the atmosphere, the noise, the mentality – with an atmosphere of freedom. It made me want to explain to the Arabs how it feels to live their life, only with freedom. Israel is what the Arab world can be but is unable to be."
The atmosphere in Jerusalem, he said, "is much more Middle Eastern than the one in Tel Aviv. When I walked through the streets it was clear to people that I was a foreigner, but they didn't know exactly where I was from, and I could feel the tension in the air. There are some problematic Middle East issues there, that I knew about from [living in] Egypt. But it's not violent. You can live with it."
Arriving in Israel and going through security at Ben-Gurion International Airport with the name Hussein Aboubakr was an "interesting experience," he said, smiling.
"It was after I became a US citizen and held an American passport, but it says I was born in Egypt. And I spoke Hebrew at passport control and they panicked. I was detained for questioning because they tried to understand how a guy named Hussein, who was born in Egypt, came to Israel from the US and speaks Hebrew. It took me a while to explain.
"Leaving Israel was more complicated. They [airport security] gave me the strictest security rating, six, which required full scrutiny of all my things and a comprehensive physical examination. So I was delayed and underwent a full body search, every inch, before I was allowed to board the plane. I visited Israel again a few months later and had to go through the same inspection. It wasn't a pleasant experience."
"I know Israel is not perfect, I'm friends with enough Israelis to know that, but I support it and I love it," he stated.
'I want to debunk Arab myths about Israel'
Aboubakr defines himself as "an Egyptian-American from a Muslim background. This may include a religious affiliation – I can't say I'm a practicing Muslim – but it also expresses a cultural-historical identity and affiliation. I'm a spiritual person and I believe in a higher power."
His life, he said, has taken a surreal twist.
"This is the last thing I expected my life to be. It's very strange, but it feels good. It feels right. I want people to understand that you don't have to become like someone else to understand them. You don't have to be Jewish to understand what anti-Semitism is. I'm not thinking about converting to prove it, because there is no need. I have Stars of David at home because I love Jewish art. Learning Hebrew changed my life."
But Aboubakr was less optimistic as to the possibility that Egypt will undergo a real liberal revolution.
"Egypt may like to boast that it is a modern and developed country in the heart of the Middle East, but in reality, as far back as the 1970s, it has been undergoing a gradual process of religification. I was born in 1989 into a secular home and within 10 years not one woman in my family walked around without a headdress.
"I am optimistic about the future of the Middle East, because the smartphone I, and an increasing number of people hold in our hands will change the world. Today there is access to everything, and Arab states are not sophisticated enough to systematically block and censor everything. This could be the beginning of something good."
When it comes to Arabs from "non-friendly" countries visiting Israel, like the Saudi blogger, Aboubakr said that while this was a welcome phenomenon, "There is still a very big psychological barrier. I hope to do something similar – to visit Israel, take photos and show Arabs what Israel is really like; to show that Muslims are not limited when it comes to observing their beliefs. I want to debunk these myths."
Aboubakr said he misses Egypt very much, but going back simply isn’t an option.
"I can't go back there – I'll be arrested at the airport. It's no secret that I'm a Zionist, I work for a Zionist organization, and under Egyptian law that's grounds to have your citizenship revoked. They'll probably do that after I publish my book, A Minority of One. It's currently in the editing stage.
Asked if his life experiences have bred political aspirations, Aboubakr says the thought hasn’t even crossed his mind.
"I want to be a teacher," he said. "I haven’t pursued my academic studies to make it happen, because it costs a lot, and I don’t have good grades from college [in Egypt] or recommendations from professors. I came from an anti-Semitic system, so [they] deliberately gave me low scores. My alternative is to study in Israel. Maybe I'll live there for a while."
Wednesday, December 04, 2019
MARTIN LUTHER SOWED THE SEEDS OF THE HOLOCAUST WHEN HE DECLARED THE JEWS ARE A DESPISED PEOPLE WHOM GOD HAS CAST OFF
Holocaust shocker: Church confesses its contribution to Jewish suffering
By Charles Gardner
Israel Today
December 1, 2019
A Church of England document calling for repentance from Christians for contributing to the Holocaust is welcome indeed, especially at a time of drastically rising anti-Semitism.
Also welcome is the unprecedented political intervention of South African-born Ephraim Mirvis, the UK’s Chief Rabbi, in the run-up to the General Election, saying that the soul of the nation is at stake over the prospect of the opposition Labour Party winning power.
“Many members of the Jewish community can hardly believe this is the same party that they proudly called their political home,” he wrote in The Times with reference to the ongoing scandal of anti-Semitic activity within Labour, before asking: “What will the result of this election say about the moral compass of our country?”
Meanwhile the C of E report, welcomed with reservation by the rabbi, acknowledges the substantial role played by mistaken Christian theology in the stereotyping and persecution of Jewish people over the centuries – for example, in attributing Jewish suffering as punishment for crucifying Christ when the Bible clearly states that it was God’s will for Jesus to suffer (Isaiah 53.10).
This is a much more helpful approach than that just taken by South Africa’s Anglicans in passing a resolution supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign – a wholly anti-Israel document promoting the lie that today’s Jews are responsible for oppressive apartheid-style policies.
With the worldwide Anglican communion on the brink of break-up over the authority of Scripture, particularly relating to sex and marriage, and church bodies queuing up behind the global move to isolate Israel through BDS, the C of E report is a surprising development.
For anti-Zionism is rife within today’s Western church, which means that repenting of the past must also convert to mending our modern ways of relating to Jews – as the report admittedly suggests. But we will never get rid of anti-Semitism while replacement theology – the idea that the church has replaced Israel in God’s purposes – continues to be widely taught. It’s not just Corbyn and his cronies who contribute to Jew-hatred, but also those churches who fail to see that a glorious future still awaits the chosen people!
So will this report, appropriately named God’s Unfailing Word, change the climate surrounding our pulpits, where Israel rarely gets a mention – except perhaps in terms of the lessons taught by her historical misdemeanors or triumphs? Yet the Bible is liberally strewn with references to Israel in the context not just of history but of present and future reality. It is the third most used name in all of Scripture, after Adonai and Elohim.
But we repeatedly ignore it. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into a worldly view that the oppressed have become oppressors and that the nation which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust is not to be confused with the Jews of the Bible. This is what the South African Anglicans now officially claim, but I know it’s also the view of many UK pastors – probably, in no small measure, due to the Bible Colleges they attended.
So let’s examine the full implication of the report. If indeed the church is responsible in part for the Holocaust – the extermination of six million Jews just for being Jewish – it calls into question the true nature of such an organization. Likewise, if the Labour leadership has allowed anti-Semites into its midst, it surely calls into question the ethos of the entire party.
It was when the early church severed its Jewish roots that we plunged into the Dark Ages, which lasted over a thousand years until the likes of Martin Luther saw the light. But even he perpetuated anti-Semitic tropes and caricatures as he wrote off the Jews as a despised people whom God had cast off, thus sowing the seeds of the Holocaust in the very nation he helped to create.
Yet without the Jews, we would have no Bible. no patriarchs, no prophets – and no Jesus! And God still has glorious plans for his ancient people, whom we Gentile Christians are commanded to support (Rom 15.27), pray for (Psalm 122.6) and share the gospel with. It is, after all, “to the Jew first…” (Rom 1.16).
It is of paramount importance that preachers urgently reconnect with the roots of our faith. For too long we have ignored Israel, with whom we share “the nourishing sap from the olive root” (Rom 11.17) without which we will wither and die. Yes, we will dry up like the rotten tree that much of the institutional church has become because, as the Apostle Paul scolded Gentile Christians: “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Rom 11.18)
If we seek to proclaim the full counsel of God, we cannot possibly ignore the Israel factor. If we take the world’s side by cursing them, we will come under judgment. But if we rise up to encourage them, we will know untold blessing (Gen 12.3).
The Bible speaks of Israel – past, present and future – prophesying things to come which will surely take place there. Therefore, watch what is happening there so you can pray and preach in the light of Scripture.
We need to dig afresh into our Jewish roots. It should no longer be seen simply as an eccentric hobby engaged by zealous Zionists, but as an exercise to keep us alive!
By Charles Gardner
Israel Today
December 1, 2019
A Church of England document calling for repentance from Christians for contributing to the Holocaust is welcome indeed, especially at a time of drastically rising anti-Semitism.
Also welcome is the unprecedented political intervention of South African-born Ephraim Mirvis, the UK’s Chief Rabbi, in the run-up to the General Election, saying that the soul of the nation is at stake over the prospect of the opposition Labour Party winning power.
“Many members of the Jewish community can hardly believe this is the same party that they proudly called their political home,” he wrote in The Times with reference to the ongoing scandal of anti-Semitic activity within Labour, before asking: “What will the result of this election say about the moral compass of our country?”
Meanwhile the C of E report, welcomed with reservation by the rabbi, acknowledges the substantial role played by mistaken Christian theology in the stereotyping and persecution of Jewish people over the centuries – for example, in attributing Jewish suffering as punishment for crucifying Christ when the Bible clearly states that it was God’s will for Jesus to suffer (Isaiah 53.10).
This is a much more helpful approach than that just taken by South Africa’s Anglicans in passing a resolution supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign – a wholly anti-Israel document promoting the lie that today’s Jews are responsible for oppressive apartheid-style policies.
With the worldwide Anglican communion on the brink of break-up over the authority of Scripture, particularly relating to sex and marriage, and church bodies queuing up behind the global move to isolate Israel through BDS, the C of E report is a surprising development.
For anti-Zionism is rife within today’s Western church, which means that repenting of the past must also convert to mending our modern ways of relating to Jews – as the report admittedly suggests. But we will never get rid of anti-Semitism while replacement theology – the idea that the church has replaced Israel in God’s purposes – continues to be widely taught. It’s not just Corbyn and his cronies who contribute to Jew-hatred, but also those churches who fail to see that a glorious future still awaits the chosen people!
So will this report, appropriately named God’s Unfailing Word, change the climate surrounding our pulpits, where Israel rarely gets a mention – except perhaps in terms of the lessons taught by her historical misdemeanors or triumphs? Yet the Bible is liberally strewn with references to Israel in the context not just of history but of present and future reality. It is the third most used name in all of Scripture, after Adonai and Elohim.
But we repeatedly ignore it. Why? Because we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into a worldly view that the oppressed have become oppressors and that the nation which arose from the ashes of the Holocaust is not to be confused with the Jews of the Bible. This is what the South African Anglicans now officially claim, but I know it’s also the view of many UK pastors – probably, in no small measure, due to the Bible Colleges they attended.
So let’s examine the full implication of the report. If indeed the church is responsible in part for the Holocaust – the extermination of six million Jews just for being Jewish – it calls into question the true nature of such an organization. Likewise, if the Labour leadership has allowed anti-Semites into its midst, it surely calls into question the ethos of the entire party.
It was when the early church severed its Jewish roots that we plunged into the Dark Ages, which lasted over a thousand years until the likes of Martin Luther saw the light. But even he perpetuated anti-Semitic tropes and caricatures as he wrote off the Jews as a despised people whom God had cast off, thus sowing the seeds of the Holocaust in the very nation he helped to create.
Yet without the Jews, we would have no Bible. no patriarchs, no prophets – and no Jesus! And God still has glorious plans for his ancient people, whom we Gentile Christians are commanded to support (Rom 15.27), pray for (Psalm 122.6) and share the gospel with. It is, after all, “to the Jew first…” (Rom 1.16).
It is of paramount importance that preachers urgently reconnect with the roots of our faith. For too long we have ignored Israel, with whom we share “the nourishing sap from the olive root” (Rom 11.17) without which we will wither and die. Yes, we will dry up like the rotten tree that much of the institutional church has become because, as the Apostle Paul scolded Gentile Christians: “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” (Rom 11.18)
If we seek to proclaim the full counsel of God, we cannot possibly ignore the Israel factor. If we take the world’s side by cursing them, we will come under judgment. But if we rise up to encourage them, we will know untold blessing (Gen 12.3).
The Bible speaks of Israel – past, present and future – prophesying things to come which will surely take place there. Therefore, watch what is happening there so you can pray and preach in the light of Scripture.
We need to dig afresh into our Jewish roots. It should no longer be seen simply as an eccentric hobby engaged by zealous Zionists, but as an exercise to keep us alive!
Tuesday, December 03, 2019
BRITISH COPS DID WHAT AMERICAN COPS DO NOT DARE TO DO
After knife-wielding Jihadist terrorist was subdued by civilians, British cops shot him dead
After Jihadist Usman Khan stabbed two people to death and seriously wounded three others in a knife attack on Friday near the London Bridge, civilians subdued him. Then the London cops shot the terrorist to death while he was lying on the ground.
Had cops in America don that, there would be an immediate outcry from liberals about cops murdering a subdued man of color. And since the terrorist was a man of color, there would have been anti-police demonstrations and riots in the streets.
In response to the riots, the cops would have been indicted for murder.
Three cheers for the London cops!
After Jihadist Usman Khan stabbed two people to death and seriously wounded three others in a knife attack on Friday near the London Bridge, civilians subdued him. Then the London cops shot the terrorist to death while he was lying on the ground.
Had cops in America don that, there would be an immediate outcry from liberals about cops murdering a subdued man of color. And since the terrorist was a man of color, there would have been anti-police demonstrations and riots in the streets.
In response to the riots, the cops would have been indicted for murder.
Three cheers for the London cops!
PIERS BLASTS BRITISH FOR RELEASING JIHADISTS FROM PRISON
Most terrorists don't change their evil spots so it's time Britain stopped going soft on hate-filled jihadis to please the PC hand-wringing brigade and does what Americans do - lock them up forever
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
December 2, 2019
What does it take these days for a nihilistic terrorist to get locked up in prison for the rest of his life?
In America, that's a relatively simple question: if you're a convicted Al-Qaeda or ISIS operative, you're led to a small cold foreboding window-less cell and you don't come out again.
Ever.
Well not back into society, anyway.
That's your punishment for deciding to align yourself with the worst terror groups in modern history - responsible for mass murder and carnage on a grotesque, heinous scale.
Americans take the view that if you're part of an organization that beheads aid workers, throws gay people off roofs, sets victims on fire in cages, or flies planes in to sky-scrapers, then you're unlikely to rehabilitate to an extent where you can be trusted not to carry on doing such diabolical things.
But in Britain, we take a rather different approach.
If you're a convicted Al-Qaeda terrorist in my country, then you get to walk free after just eight years, without anyone even bothering to check if you're still dangerous.
Sounds insane, right?
Well that's because it IS insane.
And to illustrate just how insane it is, the Al-Qaeda terrorist I am referring to committed an appalling act of terror in London last Friday, murdering two brilliant young Cambridge-educated people in their 20s, and wounding three others, during a violent rampage that only ended when heroic members of the public stopped him with a fire extinguisher, whale tusk and their fists before police arrived to shoot him dead.
The horrifying attack came less than a year after the terrorist was released.
And by cruel irony, his victims were trying to help ex-prisoners like him at a rehabilitation conference when he mercilessly stabbed them to death.
The murderer was a man named Usman Khan.
And it's worth examining exactly who he was and what he did prior to his deadly attack.
Khan was a British-born son of Pakistani immigrants.
When he was just 14, he used to walk around his school, Haywood High in Stoke-on-Trent with a photo of Osama Bin Laden attached to the front of his exercise book, and he was spotted laughing at videos of the 9/11 attacks in a café.
Later, he began preaching Islamic extremism on the streets, on behalf of infamous hate preacher Anjem Choudary's banned terror group al-Muhajiroun.
Khan, who called himself Abu Saif, was photographed waving an Al Qaeda flag as he ranted into a megaphone.
He distributed disturbing extremist literature until it attracted the attention of anti-terror cops who raided his family's home when he was 17.
'I ain't no terrorist,' he insisted.
And the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press criminal charges due to lack of hard evidence that he was.
An emboldened Khan vowed: 'We are going to carry on until the last breath, because we believe this to be true.'
He spoke at a conference about why Britain should adopt Sharia law and campaigned to stage a march through a military town where British soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan were honored.
Khan became a member of Islam4UK, another of Choudary's banned extremist groups, which led to security services launching a second covert surveillance operation against him in 2010.
And that's when his real nefarious intent was uncovered.
Bugs installed in his home recorded Khan talking how to make a pipe bomb after seeing a 'recipe' in an Al Qaeda magazine. He was heard calling non-Muslims 'dogs' - and talking about buying weapons and attacking pubs and clubs with explosives.
He and two other jihadists from Stoke made contact with other extremists in London and Wales, and the nine of them met up to discuss how to train terrorists in a camp, embark on letter-bomb campaigns, blow up civilians, and attack targets including London's Stock Exchange, the US embassy in London and Britain's new Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
When they were arrested, Khan pled guilty to planning a terror camp, advised he would get a reduction in sentence by doing so.
At his trial, the judge singled Khan out from the others.
Justice Wilkie, sentencing him to just 16 years in prison, wrote that Khan's 'ability to act on a strategic level' and to plan terror attacks meant he should only be released if and when a parole board was convinced he was no longer a threat.
Wilkie warned that the nine jihadis, including Khan, 'would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on license in the community.'
Yet just eight years later, Khan was released on license into the community.
How the hell did this happen?
It started when the cunning terrorist began playing the deradicalized card immediately he was imprisoned.
'I don't carry the views before my arrest,' he said, 'and can prove at the time I was immature, and now want to live my life as a good Muslim and a good citizen of Britain.'
His strategy worked, and a year later, three Appeal Court judges led by Sir Brian Leveson inexplicably concluded it was wrong for him to have received such a 'tough' indeterminate sentence and gave him a determinate one instead that meant he would automatically be released after eight years.
So, last December, Khan was let out of prison without any formal assessment of his potential risk.
He was just electronically tagged and ordered to report twice weekly to a parole officer.
He was able to hoodwink everyone into believing he was a changed man, even joining Learning Together, a program run by Cambridge University, that rehabilitates prisoners.
And it was at their conference on Friday that he carried out his barbaric attack.
Khan had been given a day-release to attend the event without any escort.
His victims, Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, were two young people working with the ex-cons that day who cared passionately about criminal justice.
'Jack was an intelligent, thoughtful and empathetic person (who) lived by his principles,' said his family.
'Saskia was a funny, kind, positive influence... and was generous to the point of always wanting to see the best in all people,' said her family.
My heart breaks for them both and their poor families.
I can't imagine anything worse than losing a child in such disgusting circumstances.
Although actually, I can.
Imagine hearing your child had been stabbed to death by a convicted Al Qaeda terrorist who'd served just eight years in prison and not even seen a parole board before his release to properly assess his current danger levels?
The British justice system is a hot, shameful mess.
The prisons are over-crowded and woefully under-staffed.
The probation service is also creaking at the seams and totally incapable of keeping up with all the serious criminals they are charged with keeping an eye on.
Police numbers have been drastically and disastrously slashed in recent years.
And supine politicians who predictably raced to score cheap, petty and utterly insensitive points against each other after Friday's attack, have all conspired to substantially reduce our capacity to defend the country from murderous jihadists.
As I write this column, there are 73 other convicted terrorists who've been released early back onto the streets of Britain. One of them was re-arrested after the London Bridge attack because police found new evidence he may be planning a terror attack.
Another 400 battle-scarred Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters have returned from war zones like Iraq and Syria to also freely roam around.
And police estimate there may be a further 20,000 jihadists in Britain, brainwashed and radicalized.
Who are they?
Where are they?
What danger do they pose?
The most shocking and disturbing thing about those questions is that the authorities don't seem to really know.
What we do know is that releasing Usman Khan after just eight years proved to be a bloody fiasco.
And it was always going to be a bloody fiasco.
As Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, said: 'Nobody apologizes for the fact the liberal elite have given us a ridiculous sentencing system. I don't care if you were in prison for six years or 12 years, if you have committed mass murder or planned to commit mass murder, you are not just an ordinary criminal, you have got the virus of jihadism. I don't think these people should ever be let out of prison unless we are absolutely convinced they do not have a jihadi virus. But political correctness stops us doing that.'
I agree with him.
It's not like we don't already do this for some violent offenders.
There are currently 74 prisoners in Britain who've been given 'whole life' sentences, meaning they will never come out.
They include serial killers like Peter 'Yorkshire Ripper' Sutcliffe, murderous pedophiles, and a far-right fanatic named Thomas Mair who assassinated female Member of Parliament Jo Cox in 2016.
Yet extraordinarily, Usman Khan and his Al Qaeda mates were not deemed to be in that category. They'd only plotted to commit mass murder, to train terrorists, to assassinate politicians, to kill and main civilians in pubs and clubs – and were caught before they got the chance to do any of it.
So Khan gets out after eight years, and of course, then gets the chance to do what he had craved for many years.
It's an absolute disgrace that he was released.
Just as it was an absolute disgrace that most of his other accomplices were released too, including Mohibur Rahman who was let out early after applying to a deradicalization program but was jailed again in 2017 for plotting a 'mass casualty attack' on a police or military target, receiving a minimum 20-year sentence.
It's an even bigger disgrace that Britain continues to have a legal system that views Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists as little more dangerous than armed robbers.
Like Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, I firmly believe in rehabilitation of offenders, and in giving people a second chance.
But not for everyone.
Some criminals are so dangerous they have to be treated differently to others.
And those who willingly and ideologically embrace terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS deserve nothing but the treatment they get in America.
Britain's gone weak on terror because our cowardly politicians have allowed the do-gooder, hand-wringing PC brigade to neuter down our sentencing of terrorists to the point where there is little disincentive for them to stop plotting committing terror attacks.
Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists don't change their spots.
And even if some of them do, I don't see why we should take the risk.
Usman Khan looked like he had, then launched a terror attack.
They should never be let out of prison.
By Piers Morgan
Daily Mail
December 2, 2019
What does it take these days for a nihilistic terrorist to get locked up in prison for the rest of his life?
In America, that's a relatively simple question: if you're a convicted Al-Qaeda or ISIS operative, you're led to a small cold foreboding window-less cell and you don't come out again.
Ever.
Well not back into society, anyway.
That's your punishment for deciding to align yourself with the worst terror groups in modern history - responsible for mass murder and carnage on a grotesque, heinous scale.
Americans take the view that if you're part of an organization that beheads aid workers, throws gay people off roofs, sets victims on fire in cages, or flies planes in to sky-scrapers, then you're unlikely to rehabilitate to an extent where you can be trusted not to carry on doing such diabolical things.
But in Britain, we take a rather different approach.
If you're a convicted Al-Qaeda terrorist in my country, then you get to walk free after just eight years, without anyone even bothering to check if you're still dangerous.
Sounds insane, right?
Well that's because it IS insane.
And to illustrate just how insane it is, the Al-Qaeda terrorist I am referring to committed an appalling act of terror in London last Friday, murdering two brilliant young Cambridge-educated people in their 20s, and wounding three others, during a violent rampage that only ended when heroic members of the public stopped him with a fire extinguisher, whale tusk and their fists before police arrived to shoot him dead.
The horrifying attack came less than a year after the terrorist was released.
And by cruel irony, his victims were trying to help ex-prisoners like him at a rehabilitation conference when he mercilessly stabbed them to death.
The murderer was a man named Usman Khan.
And it's worth examining exactly who he was and what he did prior to his deadly attack.
Khan was a British-born son of Pakistani immigrants.
When he was just 14, he used to walk around his school, Haywood High in Stoke-on-Trent with a photo of Osama Bin Laden attached to the front of his exercise book, and he was spotted laughing at videos of the 9/11 attacks in a café.
Later, he began preaching Islamic extremism on the streets, on behalf of infamous hate preacher Anjem Choudary's banned terror group al-Muhajiroun.
Khan, who called himself Abu Saif, was photographed waving an Al Qaeda flag as he ranted into a megaphone.
He distributed disturbing extremist literature until it attracted the attention of anti-terror cops who raided his family's home when he was 17.
'I ain't no terrorist,' he insisted.
And the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to press criminal charges due to lack of hard evidence that he was.
An emboldened Khan vowed: 'We are going to carry on until the last breath, because we believe this to be true.'
He spoke at a conference about why Britain should adopt Sharia law and campaigned to stage a march through a military town where British soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan were honored.
Khan became a member of Islam4UK, another of Choudary's banned extremist groups, which led to security services launching a second covert surveillance operation against him in 2010.
And that's when his real nefarious intent was uncovered.
Bugs installed in his home recorded Khan talking how to make a pipe bomb after seeing a 'recipe' in an Al Qaeda magazine. He was heard calling non-Muslims 'dogs' - and talking about buying weapons and attacking pubs and clubs with explosives.
He and two other jihadists from Stoke made contact with other extremists in London and Wales, and the nine of them met up to discuss how to train terrorists in a camp, embark on letter-bomb campaigns, blow up civilians, and attack targets including London's Stock Exchange, the US embassy in London and Britain's new Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
When they were arrested, Khan pled guilty to planning a terror camp, advised he would get a reduction in sentence by doing so.
At his trial, the judge singled Khan out from the others.
Justice Wilkie, sentencing him to just 16 years in prison, wrote that Khan's 'ability to act on a strategic level' and to plan terror attacks meant he should only be released if and when a parole board was convinced he was no longer a threat.
Wilkie warned that the nine jihadis, including Khan, 'would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on license in the community.'
Yet just eight years later, Khan was released on license into the community.
How the hell did this happen?
It started when the cunning terrorist began playing the deradicalized card immediately he was imprisoned.
'I don't carry the views before my arrest,' he said, 'and can prove at the time I was immature, and now want to live my life as a good Muslim and a good citizen of Britain.'
His strategy worked, and a year later, three Appeal Court judges led by Sir Brian Leveson inexplicably concluded it was wrong for him to have received such a 'tough' indeterminate sentence and gave him a determinate one instead that meant he would automatically be released after eight years.
So, last December, Khan was let out of prison without any formal assessment of his potential risk.
He was just electronically tagged and ordered to report twice weekly to a parole officer.
He was able to hoodwink everyone into believing he was a changed man, even joining Learning Together, a program run by Cambridge University, that rehabilitates prisoners.
And it was at their conference on Friday that he carried out his barbaric attack.
Khan had been given a day-release to attend the event without any escort.
His victims, Jack Merritt, 25, and Saskia Jones, 23, were two young people working with the ex-cons that day who cared passionately about criminal justice.
'Jack was an intelligent, thoughtful and empathetic person (who) lived by his principles,' said his family.
'Saskia was a funny, kind, positive influence... and was generous to the point of always wanting to see the best in all people,' said her family.
My heart breaks for them both and their poor families.
I can't imagine anything worse than losing a child in such disgusting circumstances.
Although actually, I can.
Imagine hearing your child had been stabbed to death by a convicted Al Qaeda terrorist who'd served just eight years in prison and not even seen a parole board before his release to properly assess his current danger levels?
The British justice system is a hot, shameful mess.
The prisons are over-crowded and woefully under-staffed.
The probation service is also creaking at the seams and totally incapable of keeping up with all the serious criminals they are charged with keeping an eye on.
Police numbers have been drastically and disastrously slashed in recent years.
And supine politicians who predictably raced to score cheap, petty and utterly insensitive points against each other after Friday's attack, have all conspired to substantially reduce our capacity to defend the country from murderous jihadists.
As I write this column, there are 73 other convicted terrorists who've been released early back onto the streets of Britain. One of them was re-arrested after the London Bridge attack because police found new evidence he may be planning a terror attack.
Another 400 battle-scarred Al Qaeda and ISIS fighters have returned from war zones like Iraq and Syria to also freely roam around.
And police estimate there may be a further 20,000 jihadists in Britain, brainwashed and radicalized.
Who are they?
Where are they?
What danger do they pose?
The most shocking and disturbing thing about those questions is that the authorities don't seem to really know.
What we do know is that releasing Usman Khan after just eight years proved to be a bloody fiasco.
And it was always going to be a bloody fiasco.
As Nigel Farage, leader of the Brexit Party, said: 'Nobody apologizes for the fact the liberal elite have given us a ridiculous sentencing system. I don't care if you were in prison for six years or 12 years, if you have committed mass murder or planned to commit mass murder, you are not just an ordinary criminal, you have got the virus of jihadism. I don't think these people should ever be let out of prison unless we are absolutely convinced they do not have a jihadi virus. But political correctness stops us doing that.'
I agree with him.
It's not like we don't already do this for some violent offenders.
There are currently 74 prisoners in Britain who've been given 'whole life' sentences, meaning they will never come out.
They include serial killers like Peter 'Yorkshire Ripper' Sutcliffe, murderous pedophiles, and a far-right fanatic named Thomas Mair who assassinated female Member of Parliament Jo Cox in 2016.
Yet extraordinarily, Usman Khan and his Al Qaeda mates were not deemed to be in that category. They'd only plotted to commit mass murder, to train terrorists, to assassinate politicians, to kill and main civilians in pubs and clubs – and were caught before they got the chance to do any of it.
So Khan gets out after eight years, and of course, then gets the chance to do what he had craved for many years.
It's an absolute disgrace that he was released.
Just as it was an absolute disgrace that most of his other accomplices were released too, including Mohibur Rahman who was let out early after applying to a deradicalization program but was jailed again in 2017 for plotting a 'mass casualty attack' on a police or military target, receiving a minimum 20-year sentence.
It's an even bigger disgrace that Britain continues to have a legal system that views Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists as little more dangerous than armed robbers.
Like Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, I firmly believe in rehabilitation of offenders, and in giving people a second chance.
But not for everyone.
Some criminals are so dangerous they have to be treated differently to others.
And those who willingly and ideologically embrace terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS deserve nothing but the treatment they get in America.
Britain's gone weak on terror because our cowardly politicians have allowed the do-gooder, hand-wringing PC brigade to neuter down our sentencing of terrorists to the point where there is little disincentive for them to stop plotting committing terror attacks.
Al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists don't change their spots.
And even if some of them do, I don't see why we should take the risk.
Usman Khan looked like he had, then launched a terror attack.
They should never be let out of prison.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH HALF OF THIS EQUATION IS SADDER
by Bob Walsh
A Hill X poll of likely Democrat voters that just came out yesterday shows that Kamala Harris, one-time darling of the MSM, gasping and staggering at 2%, with Mike Bloomberg, gazzilionaire pimp for the nanny state, running at 6% after less than a week in, albeit with a $30 million dollar ad buy in that week.
The Harris campaign is allegedly struggling to stagger into Iowa with some semblance of a organization. Bloomberg isn't even going to make an appearance on a ballot until Super Tuesday.
A Hill X poll of likely Democrat voters that just came out yesterday shows that Kamala Harris, one-time darling of the MSM, gasping and staggering at 2%, with Mike Bloomberg, gazzilionaire pimp for the nanny state, running at 6% after less than a week in, albeit with a $30 million dollar ad buy in that week.
The Harris campaign is allegedly struggling to stagger into Iowa with some semblance of a organization. Bloomberg isn't even going to make an appearance on a ballot until Super Tuesday.
COP SERIOUSLY DISCOURAGES SCHOOL SHOOTER
by Bob Walsh
Yesterday morning some snitch at Waukesah (WI) South High School told the local school resources officer that a student was known to have a gun on him. The resources officer went to the appropriate classroom to confront the student and move other students out while backup was on the way.
The suspect ignored the officer's commands to take his hands from his jacket and then, at some point, the student pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the cop. Bad move.
The 17-year old dickhead caught a round in the arm. Nobody else was hurt.
While the incident was underway the school initiated a "safety drill" wherein doors were barricaded and students dove under desks. When they heard multiple gunshots they figured out it wasn't really a drill.
The dickhead is in custody.
Yesterday morning some snitch at Waukesah (WI) South High School told the local school resources officer that a student was known to have a gun on him. The resources officer went to the appropriate classroom to confront the student and move other students out while backup was on the way.
The suspect ignored the officer's commands to take his hands from his jacket and then, at some point, the student pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at the cop. Bad move.
The 17-year old dickhead caught a round in the arm. Nobody else was hurt.
While the incident was underway the school initiated a "safety drill" wherein doors were barricaded and students dove under desks. When they heard multiple gunshots they figured out it wasn't really a drill.
The dickhead is in custody.
CHICAGO POLICE SUPERINTENDENT GIVEN THE HEAVE-HO
by Bob Walsh
Eddie Johnson was all set to retire in a few weeks anyway. He didn't get that far. He was fired yesterday by Mayor Lori Lightfoot for lying to the mayor.
You might remember a few weeks ago Johnson was found "sleeping" (passed out drunk) in his car. I guess the mayor didn't like the song and sang and the dance he danced while explaining himself.
The new interim police superintendent, Charlie Beck (of LAPD fame) will be taking over pretty much immediately rather than a few weeks down the road.
Back in October somebody called the cops on Johnson. When the cops rolled up on him he said that he had had an adverse reaction to a change in his medication, leading him to fall asleep in his city issued vehicle while on the way home from dindin.
EDITOR'S NOTE: What a shame. Chicago's mayor fired a pretty good police chief.
Eddie Johnson was all set to retire in a few weeks anyway. He didn't get that far. He was fired yesterday by Mayor Lori Lightfoot for lying to the mayor.
You might remember a few weeks ago Johnson was found "sleeping" (passed out drunk) in his car. I guess the mayor didn't like the song and sang and the dance he danced while explaining himself.
The new interim police superintendent, Charlie Beck (of LAPD fame) will be taking over pretty much immediately rather than a few weeks down the road.
Back in October somebody called the cops on Johnson. When the cops rolled up on him he said that he had had an adverse reaction to a change in his medication, leading him to fall asleep in his city issued vehicle while on the way home from dindin.
EDITOR'S NOTE: What a shame. Chicago's mayor fired a pretty good police chief.
REALLY INTERESTING ASSAULT ON AN OFFICER
by Bob Walsh
A really interesting assault with a weapon took place on a peace officer on the other side of the pond recently. Really interesting.
Kirsty Bearfield, 24, was a pissed off mother in East Yorkshire. She happened to be at the Hull Royal Infirmary to get medical treatment for the older of her two rugrats when she was informed by a social worker that her children were going to be allowed to spend the night with their biological father.
Bearfield stood up, took the infant she had been holding on her lap and threw the baby (30 pounds) at a nearby female D.C. with enough force that the detective constable was significantly injured. The female officer managed to catch the child but ended up with nerve damage in her back that required surgery.
Bearfield has four priors for assault, but none of them appear to have used a baby as a weapon. The officer has a significant long-term disability which may be permanent.
A really interesting assault with a weapon took place on a peace officer on the other side of the pond recently. Really interesting.
Kirsty Bearfield, 24, was a pissed off mother in East Yorkshire. She happened to be at the Hull Royal Infirmary to get medical treatment for the older of her two rugrats when she was informed by a social worker that her children were going to be allowed to spend the night with their biological father.
Bearfield stood up, took the infant she had been holding on her lap and threw the baby (30 pounds) at a nearby female D.C. with enough force that the detective constable was significantly injured. The female officer managed to catch the child but ended up with nerve damage in her back that required surgery.
Bearfield has four priors for assault, but none of them appear to have used a baby as a weapon. The officer has a significant long-term disability which may be permanent.
TRUMP TELLS JERRY NADLER TO TAKE A FLYING FUCK AT A ROLLING DONUT
by Bob Walsh
To no great surprise President Trump told Jerry Nadler that he would NOT be appearing before his kangaroo court committee. It is obvious that the house wants desperately to impeach Trump (but are afraid of the secondary consequences). Trump would have zero gain from appearing, so if you can't gain the only thing you can do is lose. Why take the chance?
Public support for impeachment is dropping. It dropped 6% during the last week of the last round of hearings. That is while the hearings were actually running. Unless some real (as opposed to fake, media created) bombshell shows up what they have is what they have. There are now at least two KNOWN Democrat defectors. There will likely be more before the dust settles. If it comes to a vote it still seems very likely, almost a sure thing, that the house would vote a bill of impeachment.
Sorry Howie, but I still think there is a real possibility the house will snivel out, vote a bill of censure, and walk away with a small win. I might be wrong, in fact I am probably wrong. But I think the possibility is there and is not far-fetched.
To no great surprise President Trump told Jerry Nadler that he would NOT be appearing before his kangaroo court committee. It is obvious that the house wants desperately to impeach Trump (but are afraid of the secondary consequences). Trump would have zero gain from appearing, so if you can't gain the only thing you can do is lose. Why take the chance?
Public support for impeachment is dropping. It dropped 6% during the last week of the last round of hearings. That is while the hearings were actually running. Unless some real (as opposed to fake, media created) bombshell shows up what they have is what they have. There are now at least two KNOWN Democrat defectors. There will likely be more before the dust settles. If it comes to a vote it still seems very likely, almost a sure thing, that the house would vote a bill of impeachment.
Sorry Howie, but I still think there is a real possibility the house will snivel out, vote a bill of censure, and walk away with a small win. I might be wrong, in fact I am probably wrong. But I think the possibility is there and is not far-fetched.
OK, SO WHO THE HELL IS STEVE BULLOCK ?
by Bob Walsh
Steve Bullock is one of the 1,857 people running for the Democrat nomination for president. He bailed out of the race yesterday after getting pretty much zero traction and zero money.
He was elected governor twice in Montana so if you don't live in Montana you have probably never even heard of him.
Also, on Sunday, Joe Sestak, a former member of congress from Pennsylvania, ended his campaign.
At this rate the number of people running may be down to less than 400 by the time the convention rolls around.
Steve Bullock is one of the 1,857 people running for the Democrat nomination for president. He bailed out of the race yesterday after getting pretty much zero traction and zero money.
He was elected governor twice in Montana so if you don't live in Montana you have probably never even heard of him.
Also, on Sunday, Joe Sestak, a former member of congress from Pennsylvania, ended his campaign.
At this rate the number of people running may be down to less than 400 by the time the convention rolls around.
PRINCE HORSEFACE ALLEGEDLY WANTS TO THIN THE ROYAL HERD
by Bob Walsh
Charles, Prince of Wales, heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, has allegedly decided that, when he becomes HMFIC, he wants to shrink the number of people in the family that are officially considered to be "royal."
Currently any directly blood descendants from the monarch are part of the royal family.
Theoretically, if Charles gets his way, the new and improved royal family would consist only of the primary heirs (in this case his two sons, Harry and William) and their wives and children when that comes around. Charlie's three siblings and their spouses and rugrats would be ass-out, more or less.
Trouble is, the queen is still hanging in there and has shown no interest in giving up power or dropping dead. In fact the rumor mill says that, after Charles dumping Diana, the queen would be just as happy if Charles took a pass and let Harry be the next king. Of course that isn't likely to happen, at least willingly. Camilla, aka The Rotweiller, wants desperately to see her husband as the next grand poobah.
But you don't have to worry. The royal family outcasts would not become impoverished commoners and forced to actually work for a living. Their status, however, would be diminished.
Life is hard. Especially when you spend a lot of time hanging out with known and notorious child molesters then tell stupid lies about it.
Charles, Prince of Wales, heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, has allegedly decided that, when he becomes HMFIC, he wants to shrink the number of people in the family that are officially considered to be "royal."
Currently any directly blood descendants from the monarch are part of the royal family.
Theoretically, if Charles gets his way, the new and improved royal family would consist only of the primary heirs (in this case his two sons, Harry and William) and their wives and children when that comes around. Charlie's three siblings and their spouses and rugrats would be ass-out, more or less.
Trouble is, the queen is still hanging in there and has shown no interest in giving up power or dropping dead. In fact the rumor mill says that, after Charles dumping Diana, the queen would be just as happy if Charles took a pass and let Harry be the next king. Of course that isn't likely to happen, at least willingly. Camilla, aka The Rotweiller, wants desperately to see her husband as the next grand poobah.
But you don't have to worry. The royal family outcasts would not become impoverished commoners and forced to actually work for a living. Their status, however, would be diminished.
Life is hard. Especially when you spend a lot of time hanging out with known and notorious child molesters then tell stupid lies about it.
THE BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENSE....MAYBE
by Bob Walsh
Lisa Page has been low profile for two years, since the excrement hit the air circulation device with her name on it. Her stupid trail of emails with her married-to-somebody-else squeeze at the FBI showed both of them working hard against Donald Trump while they were supposed to be working for the FBI.
She has decided to speak up, asserting in a very positive manner that she has done absolutely nothing illegal.
I am kind of wondering if her sudden lack of reticence has something to do with the Horowitz FISA report due to come out in one week. Perhaps she believes she will be a prominent player in that report, and may even be the subject of a referral for prosecution, so she wants to get her licks in when she can get a few uncontested free hits.
Hell, it might even work for her.
Lisa Page has been low profile for two years, since the excrement hit the air circulation device with her name on it. Her stupid trail of emails with her married-to-somebody-else squeeze at the FBI showed both of them working hard against Donald Trump while they were supposed to be working for the FBI.
She has decided to speak up, asserting in a very positive manner that she has done absolutely nothing illegal.
I am kind of wondering if her sudden lack of reticence has something to do with the Horowitz FISA report due to come out in one week. Perhaps she believes she will be a prominent player in that report, and may even be the subject of a referral for prosecution, so she wants to get her licks in when she can get a few uncontested free hits.
Hell, it might even work for her.
JUST ANOTHER CELEBRATORY NIGHT IN NEW ORLEANS
10 shot in early morning shooting near New Orleans' French Quarter
CBS News
December 1, 2019
NEW ORLEANS -- New Orleans police said 10 people were shot in an early morning shooting on the edge of the city's famed French Quarter. The victims were taken to local hospitals, and two people were listed in critical condition on Sunday afternoon. One of those victims was shot in the chest and the other in the torso.
Police Superintendent Shaun Ferguson said a person of interest has been detained, but that person is not being named as a suspect, according to CBS New Orleans affiliate WWL-TV.
"We had officers on that very block that thought they were being fired upon," Ferguson said. "Unfortunately, there were so many people out here we were unable to determine who was actually firing shots at the time."
Police said 10 people were taken to two hospitals and another walked in. Further details haven't been released.
The shooting took place on a busy commercial block of Canal Street that has streetcar tracks and is near many hotels during the busy Bayou Classic weekend. Ferguson said the streets were so crowded at the time of the shooting, patrolling officers couldn't see who had the gun. It's still unclear what led to the gunfire.
"We had officers right there within that very block that actually thought they were being fired upon and took a position to respond to this," Ferguson said.
No officers were hit, Ferguson said.
"This is still in the preliminary stages of the investigation. We do not know if this individual had any involvement in this incident as of right now," Ferguson said.
Police are gathering surveillance video and other evidence in the area that they hoped would lead to answers — and arrests.
There have been six shootings with more than 10 victims in New Orleans since 2013, according to WWL-TV. New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell said Sunday her administration will not "allow incidents like this to derail the progress we have made, or to further disrupt our community."
CBS News
December 1, 2019
NEW ORLEANS -- New Orleans police said 10 people were shot in an early morning shooting on the edge of the city's famed French Quarter. The victims were taken to local hospitals, and two people were listed in critical condition on Sunday afternoon. One of those victims was shot in the chest and the other in the torso.
Police Superintendent Shaun Ferguson said a person of interest has been detained, but that person is not being named as a suspect, according to CBS New Orleans affiliate WWL-TV.
"We had officers on that very block that thought they were being fired upon," Ferguson said. "Unfortunately, there were so many people out here we were unable to determine who was actually firing shots at the time."
Police said 10 people were taken to two hospitals and another walked in. Further details haven't been released.
The shooting took place on a busy commercial block of Canal Street that has streetcar tracks and is near many hotels during the busy Bayou Classic weekend. Ferguson said the streets were so crowded at the time of the shooting, patrolling officers couldn't see who had the gun. It's still unclear what led to the gunfire.
"We had officers right there within that very block that actually thought they were being fired upon and took a position to respond to this," Ferguson said.
No officers were hit, Ferguson said.
"This is still in the preliminary stages of the investigation. We do not know if this individual had any involvement in this incident as of right now," Ferguson said.
Police are gathering surveillance video and other evidence in the area that they hoped would lead to answers — and arrests.
There have been six shootings with more than 10 victims in New Orleans since 2013, according to WWL-TV. New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell said Sunday her administration will not "allow incidents like this to derail the progress we have made, or to further disrupt our community."
HOW CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM IS WORKING IN CALIFORNIA
Car Burglaries In Some California Cities Are At Crisis Levels. Prosecutors Say Their Hands Are Tied
LAPPL News Watch
December 2, 2019
An epidemic of car burglaries in San Francisco over the last few years has led one Democratic lawmaker to propose plugging a loophole in state law that allows some break-ins to go unpunished, but the Legislature has balked at prosecutors’ requests to make obtaining convictions easier.
The proposal, which would eliminate a requirement that prosecutors prove a car’s doors were locked at the time of a break-in, has been shelved two years in a row in legislative committees.
Lawmakers struggling with prison crowding and public pressure to enact criminal justice reform have been reluctant to do anything to put more people behind bars. But local officials and the legislator behind the bill say the legislation is needed to help chip away at a statewide car burglary problem that they believe has reached crisis levels in some cities.
“It’s ridiculous that under current law you can have a video of someone bashing out a car window, but if you can’t prove that the door is locked you may not be able to get an auto burglary conviction,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation at the request of the San Francisco district attorney’s office.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Criminal justice reform in California is punishing the victim and rewarding the burglar because the victim may have left the car unlocked.
LAPPL News Watch
December 2, 2019
An epidemic of car burglaries in San Francisco over the last few years has led one Democratic lawmaker to propose plugging a loophole in state law that allows some break-ins to go unpunished, but the Legislature has balked at prosecutors’ requests to make obtaining convictions easier.
The proposal, which would eliminate a requirement that prosecutors prove a car’s doors were locked at the time of a break-in, has been shelved two years in a row in legislative committees.
Lawmakers struggling with prison crowding and public pressure to enact criminal justice reform have been reluctant to do anything to put more people behind bars. But local officials and the legislator behind the bill say the legislation is needed to help chip away at a statewide car burglary problem that they believe has reached crisis levels in some cities.
“It’s ridiculous that under current law you can have a video of someone bashing out a car window, but if you can’t prove that the door is locked you may not be able to get an auto burglary conviction,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation at the request of the San Francisco district attorney’s office.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Criminal justice reform in California is punishing the victim and rewarding the burglar because the victim may have left the car unlocked.
KIM KARDASHIAN TO THE RESCUE OF OKLAHOMA DEATH ROW INMATE
Former OU student Julius Jones continues fight to prove innocence after 20 years on death row
By Sydney Schwichtenberg,
OU Daily
December 1, 2019
On an early October morning in McAlester, Oklahoma, a banner with the words “Welcome Rodeo” hung above the entry gates of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
Marc Howard, a Georgetown University law professor leading the Prisons and Justice Initiative, a Georgetown organization that responds to the mass incarceration crisis, drove his rental car through the entrance of the maximum security prison. Howard drove over three hours to meet one of the death row inmates in person, 39-year-old Julius Jones, a man many believe to be innocent.
Over the years, cement bricks painted in a patriotic combination of red, white and blue faded to a soft pink and pale blue from the unforgiving Oklahoma sun. Beyond the gates, deep inside the 1,556 acres of property, 46 inmates waited on death row in the infamous H Unit, which houses all male Oklahomans sentenced to death.
“(Jones’ case) is not a unique situation,” Howard said.
“At least 4.1 percent of defendants sentenced to death in the United States are innocent,” according to the National Academy of Sciences.
In the fall of 1998, Jones was an 18-year-old engineering freshman at the University of Oklahoma, a recipient of the president leadership scholarship and on the verge of gaining a basketball scholarship.
“He was supposed to been walking on at OU (his sophomore year), and he was going to get a full ride if he did good and kept his grades up,” said Antoinette Jones, Julius’ younger sister.
In the summer of 1999, three days after his 19th birthday, Jones was the number one suspect in the killing of Edmond businessman Paul Howell.
August 1999 passed, and instead of playing on OU’s basketball court, Jones remained in police custody. By 2002, Jones was convicted of the murder in the first degree and sentenced to death.
In October 2019, Jones filed for clemency after exhausting all efforts to fight the death penalty.
“As God is my witness, I was not involved in any way in the crimes that led to Paul Howell being shot and killed,” Jones’ clemency report stated. “I have spent the past 20 years on death row for a crime I did not commit, did not witness and was not at.”
Over the course of 17 years, as Jones spent his time in solitary confinement in the penitentiary, his story faded out of news publications, until Kim Kardashian West, an American socialite with a net worth of $370 million, tweeted his name.
“(Kardashian West has) established herself as one of the leading figures in the country in support of criminal justice reform and in support of people who have been wronged by the criminal justice system,” Howard said. “She has a reach through her network on social media that is basically second to none.”
Kardashian West, whom Howard works closely with in efforts to free innocent people from incarceration, believes Jones was wrongfully convicted.
The crime and sentence
On July 28, 1999, Jones enjoyed the summer night at his parents’ Oklahoma City home.
Jones played Monopoly on the dining room table with his siblings, and after the game ended, they moved on to dominoes. Together, the family ate a homemade spaghetti dinner.
“The dinner sticks out in my mind because it was close to my birthday, and one of my friends had given me a large birthday cookie,” Jones’ clemency report stated.
Less than 20 miles away, in the quiet suburb of Edmond, 45-year-old Paul Howell parked his 1997 GMC suburban outside of his parents’ house. Moments later, he was shot as the victim of a car theft. He was murdered just a few feet from his two daughters and sister, Megan Tobey, who were still inside the car.
“(Howell’s sister) described (the shooter) as a black man wearing a stocking cap and a red bandana across his face,” said Dale Baich, Jones’ attorney. “She said that half an inch of hair was hanging out from the stocking cap. Julius, his hair was short. It was almost shaved to his skin.”
As Jones’ attorneys uncovered possible racial bias and questionable evidence in the case, Howell’s murder became the backbone for two attempts for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case in efforts to fight for Jones’ freedom.
“The police, rather than conducting a thorough investigation, let tunnel vision set in and did not follow the facts and evidence,” Baich said. “Instead, they focused on Julius.”
Despite the two decades since the murder, Jones’ retelling of the day of Howell’s murder remains the same. Unlike Jones’ clear memory of the July night, Christopher Jordan, Jones’ teammate from their high school basketball team and convicted co-defendant to Howell’s murder, changed his story six times.
“Julius was targeted by self-proclaimed car thugs and a gang member,” Baich said. “Two separate prisoners while he was in jail said Chris set Julius up.”
Three suspects were interviewed by Edmond Police before Jones — Kermit Lottie, a convicted felon and Oklahoma City Police informant, and Ladell King, a habitual offender facing a minimum of 20 years for check fraud, led the police to Jordan and, finally, Jones, according to the clemency report.
Baich said Jordan directed investigators into Jones’ path. Despite King’s past and Jordan’s changing story, police ignored inconsistencies.
The day before Jones’ arrest, police surrounded his parents’ home. With Jordan in police custody nearby, he told officers exactly where they would find the murder weapon.
Wrapped in a red bandana that was tested nearly two decades after the trial and found inconclusive to share a complete connection with Jones, officers found the gun used in the murder inside a crawlspace upstairs in Jones’ family home.
“On Thursday evening, the night before Julius was taken into custody, Chris Jordan spent the night at Julius’ parents' home,” Baich said. “Julius (slept) in the living room on the couch ... Chris Jordan went to the upstairs room where the gun was found ... He spent the night in that room.”
Jordan was given life with all but 30 years suspended. Because the men testified against Jones in the trial for lesser sentences, Jordan served only 15 years, and King was given 10 years of probation instead of two decades in prison.
Although there has never been conclusive evidence found to directly connect Jones to the case, he was given death and 40 years.
“We have serious concerns by the way the evidence was collected, handled and stored,” Baich said.
Jones never testified his innocence in court, Baich said. His attorneys had no prior experience in capital punishment.
“I have been haunted by those terrible decisions every day for the past 20 years,” Jones’ clemency report stated. “I know Ladell and Chris framed me to save themselves.”
Jerome Holmes, a judge assigned to Jones’ case, served as a deputy criminal chief in 2002. Today, he is a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Before he became the first African American to serve in the circuit court, he published an editorial in The Oklahoman on April 28, 2002, that revealed a bias created by media surrounding Jones’ case, according to page 20 of the appellate report.
“Jones deserved to die for his actions,” Holmes wrote in the editorial.
In October 2014, after Holmes published his opinion, Holmes was assigned through the circuit court as one of three judges to decide the future of Jones’ case. Although Holmes had a conflict of interest due to his published opinion of Jones, Holmes remained on the case.
“Judge Holmes had a duty to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1), based on his extrajudicial opinions about this case,” the Appellant’s Petition for rehearing Jones' case stated.
Despite this rule, Holmes remained on the panel of judges and created the possibility of influence over the remaining two judges' final decisions.
On Dec. 7, two days after the panel reached a decision, David McKenzie, Jones’ trial attorney, sent an email to the undersigned counsel that revealed Holmes’ bias from 2002.
Despite Holmes’ ethical obligation to grant Jones a fair trial, Jones has not been granted a rehearing.
“I am innocent."
The words written by Jones are stamped in bold Times New Roman font within the first opening lines of his reasons for seeking a commutation.
Jones was hardly 19 years old when he was forced awake and dragged by the police into a cop car. Jones wasn’t given the option to put on shoes or a shirt before he was handcuffed.
“The officers were high-fiving one another and told me: 'You know you’re gonna fry,'” Jones’ clemency report stated. “While being transferred from an Oklahoma City police car to an Edmond police car, an officer removed my handcuffs and said: 'Run, n*****, I dare you.' I stood frozen, knowing that if I moved, I would be shot and killed.”
This would not be the last time Jones experienced racism in his trial. According to his attorney, a racist juror named Jerry Brown remained on the case, even after being reported by another member of the jury.
“(The juror said the case) was a waste of time and ‘they should just take the n***** out and shoot him behind the jail,’” the clemency report stated. “I was tried by a jury that included at least one racist, and I never had a chance.”
By the time Jones’ trial came in 2002, Jones had been incarcerated for three years. He had no prior violent felony convictions.
“During my trial, prosecutors took every opportunity to racialize me by appealing to the deeply entrenched and stereotypical association between blackness and dangerousness,” Jones’ clemency report stated.
Cece Jones-Davis is an advocate who created Justice for Julius, a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on Jones’ case. Jones-Davis was inspired by the ABC featurette “The Last Defense,” a three-part docuseries featuring Jones as an innocent man on death-row.
“Being a taxpayer in Oklahoma and then a person living here, and then pressing on as if I had not seen this,” Jones-Davis said. “There was just something about it I couldn’t shake. I just knew that, in my conscience, I wasn’t going to be able to move on as if this was not a major problem.”
Jones-Davis raised awareness for freeing Jones on social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and she said Jones’ case changed her perspective on the criminal justice system.
“Should we expect, from the outside, better from ourselves and of our own humanity?” Jones-Davis said. “Should we be a more merciful people?”
Jones-Davis said Justice for Julius has grown throughout the state with the help of her grassroots advocacy bringing awareness to Jones’ case.
“There is a lot of luck in the criminal justice system,” Baich said. “It’s arbitrary.”
Baich said David Prater, the district attorney of Oklahoma County, initially refused to release the prosecution files that could address the injustices in Jones’ case. After two years of asking Prater for the files, Prater agreed to release the files to Baich.
Baich said Prater later went back on his word.
“(Prater said) ‘I can’t let you see the file, I need to protect the integrity of the file for the people of Oklahoma,’” Baich said. “He changed his mind after ignoring me for almost two years.”
In a report from NonDoc, Prater said everything Jones’ supporters claim has either been disproved or addressed.
“(Jones’) advocates and lawyers are some of the most dishonest people I have dealt with in my professional career,” Prater said in the report.
On Oct. 24, Prater was accused of whistleblower claims for partaking in activities deemed unethical by a former U.S. Secret Service agent after wrongful termination.
The Daily contacted Prater’s office for a comment and did not receive a response in time for publication.
Despite Prater’s resistance to release the persecution files, Baich holds out for the files in hopes they will help Jones’ case.
“The facts are the facts, and what we are trying to do is get information from his files and other sources,” Baich said. “You know, if he doesn’t have anything to hide, why is he keeping the file from us?”
Through the glass
With a thick pane of glass between them, Howard and Jones met for the first time in the state penitentiary.
Howard, a man free enough to travel 200 miles from Tyler, Texas, to McAlester, bent down to speak through a grate at the bottom of the glass pane. Jones, a man whose identity is now a collection of numbers and letters, #270147OSP, leaned forward to listen to the other man.
This is the closest Jones has come into contact with other people for the last 20 years. On death row, inmates are isolated in solitary confinement and forbidden from touching anyone from the free world, aside from their attorneys.
“That’s the only human contact that he has, aside from when the guards put handcuffs on him or the leg shackles to move him from his cell to the visiting room,” Baich said.
As well as decades spent without human touch, Jones is shackled while he showers for five minutes three times a week.
“He’s been locked away, essentially buried alive,” Howard said. “And that’s a horrible, horrible mistake that absolutely needs to be corrected.”
Although Jones hasn’t seen the sun in 14 years, he remains connected to the outside world through his calls home and letters written to supporters across the country, despite the carpal tunnel in his right hand.
“(Jones is) blown away by the fact that, while he’s sitting 23 hours a day alone in a cell, in the outside world, all of these people ... are talking about him and know his name and want to help him,” Howard said.
Currently, Jones has no execution date due to the botched 2015 execution of Clayton Lockett. For now, Jones’ attorneys are fighting to get him off death row and to time served, which would allow him to live the remainder of his life as a free man.
A petition over Jones’ conviction is live on change.org and has over 47,000 signatures.
As the case for Jones’ innocence grows, Jones-Davis believes every step can help uncover the truth of Jones’ conviction. On JusticeforJulius.com, supporters can send an e-letter to Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board or download and print a letter to send to Gov. Kevin Stitt.
“He was a Sooner — he still is,” Howard said. “And if something were to happen to you, wouldn’t you want your community to help you? ... Bring that out and support Julius Jones.”
By Sydney Schwichtenberg,
OU Daily
December 1, 2019
On an early October morning in McAlester, Oklahoma, a banner with the words “Welcome Rodeo” hung above the entry gates of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.
Marc Howard, a Georgetown University law professor leading the Prisons and Justice Initiative, a Georgetown organization that responds to the mass incarceration crisis, drove his rental car through the entrance of the maximum security prison. Howard drove over three hours to meet one of the death row inmates in person, 39-year-old Julius Jones, a man many believe to be innocent.
Over the years, cement bricks painted in a patriotic combination of red, white and blue faded to a soft pink and pale blue from the unforgiving Oklahoma sun. Beyond the gates, deep inside the 1,556 acres of property, 46 inmates waited on death row in the infamous H Unit, which houses all male Oklahomans sentenced to death.
“(Jones’ case) is not a unique situation,” Howard said.
“At least 4.1 percent of defendants sentenced to death in the United States are innocent,” according to the National Academy of Sciences.
In the fall of 1998, Jones was an 18-year-old engineering freshman at the University of Oklahoma, a recipient of the president leadership scholarship and on the verge of gaining a basketball scholarship.
“He was supposed to been walking on at OU (his sophomore year), and he was going to get a full ride if he did good and kept his grades up,” said Antoinette Jones, Julius’ younger sister.
In the summer of 1999, three days after his 19th birthday, Jones was the number one suspect in the killing of Edmond businessman Paul Howell.
August 1999 passed, and instead of playing on OU’s basketball court, Jones remained in police custody. By 2002, Jones was convicted of the murder in the first degree and sentenced to death.
In October 2019, Jones filed for clemency after exhausting all efforts to fight the death penalty.
“As God is my witness, I was not involved in any way in the crimes that led to Paul Howell being shot and killed,” Jones’ clemency report stated. “I have spent the past 20 years on death row for a crime I did not commit, did not witness and was not at.”
Over the course of 17 years, as Jones spent his time in solitary confinement in the penitentiary, his story faded out of news publications, until Kim Kardashian West, an American socialite with a net worth of $370 million, tweeted his name.
“(Kardashian West has) established herself as one of the leading figures in the country in support of criminal justice reform and in support of people who have been wronged by the criminal justice system,” Howard said. “She has a reach through her network on social media that is basically second to none.”
Kardashian West, whom Howard works closely with in efforts to free innocent people from incarceration, believes Jones was wrongfully convicted.
The crime and sentence
On July 28, 1999, Jones enjoyed the summer night at his parents’ Oklahoma City home.
Jones played Monopoly on the dining room table with his siblings, and after the game ended, they moved on to dominoes. Together, the family ate a homemade spaghetti dinner.
“The dinner sticks out in my mind because it was close to my birthday, and one of my friends had given me a large birthday cookie,” Jones’ clemency report stated.
Less than 20 miles away, in the quiet suburb of Edmond, 45-year-old Paul Howell parked his 1997 GMC suburban outside of his parents’ house. Moments later, he was shot as the victim of a car theft. He was murdered just a few feet from his two daughters and sister, Megan Tobey, who were still inside the car.
“(Howell’s sister) described (the shooter) as a black man wearing a stocking cap and a red bandana across his face,” said Dale Baich, Jones’ attorney. “She said that half an inch of hair was hanging out from the stocking cap. Julius, his hair was short. It was almost shaved to his skin.”
As Jones’ attorneys uncovered possible racial bias and questionable evidence in the case, Howell’s murder became the backbone for two attempts for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case in efforts to fight for Jones’ freedom.
“The police, rather than conducting a thorough investigation, let tunnel vision set in and did not follow the facts and evidence,” Baich said. “Instead, they focused on Julius.”
Despite the two decades since the murder, Jones’ retelling of the day of Howell’s murder remains the same. Unlike Jones’ clear memory of the July night, Christopher Jordan, Jones’ teammate from their high school basketball team and convicted co-defendant to Howell’s murder, changed his story six times.
“Julius was targeted by self-proclaimed car thugs and a gang member,” Baich said. “Two separate prisoners while he was in jail said Chris set Julius up.”
Three suspects were interviewed by Edmond Police before Jones — Kermit Lottie, a convicted felon and Oklahoma City Police informant, and Ladell King, a habitual offender facing a minimum of 20 years for check fraud, led the police to Jordan and, finally, Jones, according to the clemency report.
Baich said Jordan directed investigators into Jones’ path. Despite King’s past and Jordan’s changing story, police ignored inconsistencies.
The day before Jones’ arrest, police surrounded his parents’ home. With Jordan in police custody nearby, he told officers exactly where they would find the murder weapon.
Wrapped in a red bandana that was tested nearly two decades after the trial and found inconclusive to share a complete connection with Jones, officers found the gun used in the murder inside a crawlspace upstairs in Jones’ family home.
“On Thursday evening, the night before Julius was taken into custody, Chris Jordan spent the night at Julius’ parents' home,” Baich said. “Julius (slept) in the living room on the couch ... Chris Jordan went to the upstairs room where the gun was found ... He spent the night in that room.”
Jordan was given life with all but 30 years suspended. Because the men testified against Jones in the trial for lesser sentences, Jordan served only 15 years, and King was given 10 years of probation instead of two decades in prison.
Although there has never been conclusive evidence found to directly connect Jones to the case, he was given death and 40 years.
“We have serious concerns by the way the evidence was collected, handled and stored,” Baich said.
Jones never testified his innocence in court, Baich said. His attorneys had no prior experience in capital punishment.
“I have been haunted by those terrible decisions every day for the past 20 years,” Jones’ clemency report stated. “I know Ladell and Chris framed me to save themselves.”
Jerome Holmes, a judge assigned to Jones’ case, served as a deputy criminal chief in 2002. Today, he is a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Before he became the first African American to serve in the circuit court, he published an editorial in The Oklahoman on April 28, 2002, that revealed a bias created by media surrounding Jones’ case, according to page 20 of the appellate report.
“Jones deserved to die for his actions,” Holmes wrote in the editorial.
In October 2014, after Holmes published his opinion, Holmes was assigned through the circuit court as one of three judges to decide the future of Jones’ case. Although Holmes had a conflict of interest due to his published opinion of Jones, Holmes remained on the case.
“Judge Holmes had a duty to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1), based on his extrajudicial opinions about this case,” the Appellant’s Petition for rehearing Jones' case stated.
Despite this rule, Holmes remained on the panel of judges and created the possibility of influence over the remaining two judges' final decisions.
On Dec. 7, two days after the panel reached a decision, David McKenzie, Jones’ trial attorney, sent an email to the undersigned counsel that revealed Holmes’ bias from 2002.
Despite Holmes’ ethical obligation to grant Jones a fair trial, Jones has not been granted a rehearing.
“I am innocent."
The words written by Jones are stamped in bold Times New Roman font within the first opening lines of his reasons for seeking a commutation.
Jones was hardly 19 years old when he was forced awake and dragged by the police into a cop car. Jones wasn’t given the option to put on shoes or a shirt before he was handcuffed.
“The officers were high-fiving one another and told me: 'You know you’re gonna fry,'” Jones’ clemency report stated. “While being transferred from an Oklahoma City police car to an Edmond police car, an officer removed my handcuffs and said: 'Run, n*****, I dare you.' I stood frozen, knowing that if I moved, I would be shot and killed.”
This would not be the last time Jones experienced racism in his trial. According to his attorney, a racist juror named Jerry Brown remained on the case, even after being reported by another member of the jury.
“(The juror said the case) was a waste of time and ‘they should just take the n***** out and shoot him behind the jail,’” the clemency report stated. “I was tried by a jury that included at least one racist, and I never had a chance.”
By the time Jones’ trial came in 2002, Jones had been incarcerated for three years. He had no prior violent felony convictions.
“During my trial, prosecutors took every opportunity to racialize me by appealing to the deeply entrenched and stereotypical association between blackness and dangerousness,” Jones’ clemency report stated.
Cece Jones-Davis is an advocate who created Justice for Julius, a nonprofit organization that raises awareness on Jones’ case. Jones-Davis was inspired by the ABC featurette “The Last Defense,” a three-part docuseries featuring Jones as an innocent man on death-row.
“Being a taxpayer in Oklahoma and then a person living here, and then pressing on as if I had not seen this,” Jones-Davis said. “There was just something about it I couldn’t shake. I just knew that, in my conscience, I wasn’t going to be able to move on as if this was not a major problem.”
Jones-Davis raised awareness for freeing Jones on social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, and she said Jones’ case changed her perspective on the criminal justice system.
“Should we expect, from the outside, better from ourselves and of our own humanity?” Jones-Davis said. “Should we be a more merciful people?”
Jones-Davis said Justice for Julius has grown throughout the state with the help of her grassroots advocacy bringing awareness to Jones’ case.
“There is a lot of luck in the criminal justice system,” Baich said. “It’s arbitrary.”
Baich said David Prater, the district attorney of Oklahoma County, initially refused to release the prosecution files that could address the injustices in Jones’ case. After two years of asking Prater for the files, Prater agreed to release the files to Baich.
Baich said Prater later went back on his word.
“(Prater said) ‘I can’t let you see the file, I need to protect the integrity of the file for the people of Oklahoma,’” Baich said. “He changed his mind after ignoring me for almost two years.”
In a report from NonDoc, Prater said everything Jones’ supporters claim has either been disproved or addressed.
“(Jones’) advocates and lawyers are some of the most dishonest people I have dealt with in my professional career,” Prater said in the report.
On Oct. 24, Prater was accused of whistleblower claims for partaking in activities deemed unethical by a former U.S. Secret Service agent after wrongful termination.
The Daily contacted Prater’s office for a comment and did not receive a response in time for publication.
Despite Prater’s resistance to release the persecution files, Baich holds out for the files in hopes they will help Jones’ case.
“The facts are the facts, and what we are trying to do is get information from his files and other sources,” Baich said. “You know, if he doesn’t have anything to hide, why is he keeping the file from us?”
Through the glass
With a thick pane of glass between them, Howard and Jones met for the first time in the state penitentiary.
Howard, a man free enough to travel 200 miles from Tyler, Texas, to McAlester, bent down to speak through a grate at the bottom of the glass pane. Jones, a man whose identity is now a collection of numbers and letters, #270147OSP, leaned forward to listen to the other man.
This is the closest Jones has come into contact with other people for the last 20 years. On death row, inmates are isolated in solitary confinement and forbidden from touching anyone from the free world, aside from their attorneys.
“That’s the only human contact that he has, aside from when the guards put handcuffs on him or the leg shackles to move him from his cell to the visiting room,” Baich said.
As well as decades spent without human touch, Jones is shackled while he showers for five minutes three times a week.
“He’s been locked away, essentially buried alive,” Howard said. “And that’s a horrible, horrible mistake that absolutely needs to be corrected.”
Although Jones hasn’t seen the sun in 14 years, he remains connected to the outside world through his calls home and letters written to supporters across the country, despite the carpal tunnel in his right hand.
“(Jones is) blown away by the fact that, while he’s sitting 23 hours a day alone in a cell, in the outside world, all of these people ... are talking about him and know his name and want to help him,” Howard said.
Currently, Jones has no execution date due to the botched 2015 execution of Clayton Lockett. For now, Jones’ attorneys are fighting to get him off death row and to time served, which would allow him to live the remainder of his life as a free man.
A petition over Jones’ conviction is live on change.org and has over 47,000 signatures.
As the case for Jones’ innocence grows, Jones-Davis believes every step can help uncover the truth of Jones’ conviction. On JusticeforJulius.com, supporters can send an e-letter to Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board or download and print a letter to send to Gov. Kevin Stitt.
“He was a Sooner — he still is,” Howard said. “And if something were to happen to you, wouldn’t you want your community to help you? ... Bring that out and support Julius Jones.”
THE DAUGHTER OKLAHOMA POLICE CHIEF SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAD
'He is absolutely a pig and has no business being a police officer': Estranged 'daughter' of Oklahoma police chief who called out Starbucks staff for putting a 'pig' sticker on five cops' cups says he IS a racist - as barista gets fired
Daily Mail
December 2, 2019
Police Chief Johnny O'Mara posted a picture of a coffee cup with an offensive word printed on the label that had been given to his emergency dispatchers working on Thanksgiving.
His picture of the 'PIG' label that had been printed on all five cups went viral and a barista at the Glenpool, Oklahoma, Starbucks was fired.
Following the incident the officer who did the Starbucks run says the barista contacted him and apologized, adding that the label was meant to be a joke.
Since the social media outrage over the incident, a woman claiming to be the daughter Police Chief O'Mara claimed he is 'absolutely a pig' and has no 'business being a police officer'. She also thanked the 'brave' staff of the Glenpool coffee shop 'for their service', before adding that she had not seen her father in years.
Daily Mail
December 2, 2019
Police Chief Johnny O'Mara posted a picture of a coffee cup with an offensive word printed on the label that had been given to his emergency dispatchers working on Thanksgiving.
His picture of the 'PIG' label that had been printed on all five cups went viral and a barista at the Glenpool, Oklahoma, Starbucks was fired.
Following the incident the officer who did the Starbucks run says the barista contacted him and apologized, adding that the label was meant to be a joke.
Since the social media outrage over the incident, a woman claiming to be the daughter Police Chief O'Mara claimed he is 'absolutely a pig' and has no 'business being a police officer'. She also thanked the 'brave' staff of the Glenpool coffee shop 'for their service', before adding that she had not seen her father in years.
Monday, December 02, 2019
SIGNIFICANT SCOTUS CASE TO BE HEARD TODAY
by Bob Walsh
Today SCOTUS will hear New York City vs. New York Rifle and Pistol Association. The city is trying to convince the court that the case is moot as they have already withdrawn the asinine regulations. The plaintiffs are trying to pursue it to get the case on the record. They are asserting (correctly I believe) that they could always change the rules back plus their membership still might take civil action in the matter.
Under the old rules if you have a premisis permit (as opposed to a carry permit, those being very very hard to get) you could ONLY possess your weapon at the licensed location or while moving it to one of only seven named, authorized ranges in the city. That's it. You could not take it upstate or out of state, even to shoot at a recognized pistol competition, or to hunt, or to shoot on land you personally own. The city backed away from those rules, at least for the nonce, because they knew they were indefensible and they would end up eating it. They still might, but even though the court has agreed to hear the case they could still decide the issue is moot after the hearing. There have been about 50 amicus briefs filed in the case.
A ruling, if one is made at all, will likely not surface for six or seven months.
Today SCOTUS will hear New York City vs. New York Rifle and Pistol Association. The city is trying to convince the court that the case is moot as they have already withdrawn the asinine regulations. The plaintiffs are trying to pursue it to get the case on the record. They are asserting (correctly I believe) that they could always change the rules back plus their membership still might take civil action in the matter.
Under the old rules if you have a premisis permit (as opposed to a carry permit, those being very very hard to get) you could ONLY possess your weapon at the licensed location or while moving it to one of only seven named, authorized ranges in the city. That's it. You could not take it upstate or out of state, even to shoot at a recognized pistol competition, or to hunt, or to shoot on land you personally own. The city backed away from those rules, at least for the nonce, because they knew they were indefensible and they would end up eating it. They still might, but even though the court has agreed to hear the case they could still decide the issue is moot after the hearing. There have been about 50 amicus briefs filed in the case.
A ruling, if one is made at all, will likely not surface for six or seven months.
$10 MILLION REWARD FOR ‘EL MENCHO’
How The CJNG Mexican Drug Cartel Is Infiltrating U.S. Towns
LAPPL News Watch
November 29, 2019
Somewhere deep in Mexico's remote wilderness, the world's most dangerous and wanted drug lord is hiding.
If someone you love dies from an overdose tonight, he may very well be to blame. He's called "El Mencho." And though few Americans know his name, authorities promise they soon will.
Rub'n "Nemesio" Oseguera Cervantes is the leader of C'rtel Jalisco Nueva Generaci'n, better known as CJNG. With a $10 million reward on his head, he's on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Most Wanted list.
El Mencho's powerful international syndicate is flooding the U.S. with thousands of kilos of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl every year — despite being targeted repeatedly by undercover stings, busts and lengthy investigations.
The unending stream of narcotics has contributed to America's unprecedented addiction crisis, devastating families and killing more than 300,000 people since 2013.
LAPPL News Watch
November 29, 2019
Somewhere deep in Mexico's remote wilderness, the world's most dangerous and wanted drug lord is hiding.
If someone you love dies from an overdose tonight, he may very well be to blame. He's called "El Mencho." And though few Americans know his name, authorities promise they soon will.
Rub'n "Nemesio" Oseguera Cervantes is the leader of C'rtel Jalisco Nueva Generaci'n, better known as CJNG. With a $10 million reward on his head, he's on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Most Wanted list.
El Mencho's powerful international syndicate is flooding the U.S. with thousands of kilos of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and fentanyl every year — despite being targeted repeatedly by undercover stings, busts and lengthy investigations.
The unending stream of narcotics has contributed to America's unprecedented addiction crisis, devastating families and killing more than 300,000 people since 2013.
LA CONENIENCE STORE CONVENIENT FOR POT SMOKING GANG MEMBERS
Gang Activity, Crime Rampant At 24-Hour South LA Market, City Attorney Says In Lawsuit
LAPPL News Watch
November 29, 2019
The City Attorney's Office is suing a South Los Angeles store owner, alleging his Happy Shoppers Market is a public nuisance due to ongoing crime at the location, including the fatal shooting of a young man the day after the business opened in June.
The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed Monday alleges Kenneth Wayne Franklin is a "documented and a founding member of a violent criminal street gang" who permits fellow gang members and their associates to "congregate, hang out and smoke marijuana at his business on a regular basis" both inside and behind the store in the 6400 block of South Vermont Avenue.
Franklin could not be immediately reached for comment.
The city attorney is seeking a court order declaring the store a public nuisance, forcing its closure and enjoining Franklin from owning or operating any businesses in the state without court approval.
LAPPL News Watch
November 29, 2019
The City Attorney's Office is suing a South Los Angeles store owner, alleging his Happy Shoppers Market is a public nuisance due to ongoing crime at the location, including the fatal shooting of a young man the day after the business opened in June.
The Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed Monday alleges Kenneth Wayne Franklin is a "documented and a founding member of a violent criminal street gang" who permits fellow gang members and their associates to "congregate, hang out and smoke marijuana at his business on a regular basis" both inside and behind the store in the 6400 block of South Vermont Avenue.
Franklin could not be immediately reached for comment.
The city attorney is seeking a court order declaring the store a public nuisance, forcing its closure and enjoining Franklin from owning or operating any businesses in the state without court approval.
DURING THE SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL TRUMP WILL ENJOY ALL THE ADVANTAGES SCHIFF DENIED HIM IN THE HOUSE’S KANGAROO COURT
Impeachment trial is the ace up President Trump’s sleeve
By Michael Goodwin
New York Post
November 23, 2019
Here’s my slam-dunk choice for the Quote of the Year: “I want a trial.”
The President of the United States said that Friday morning, and his title alone would be reason enough to make it the most significant thing said in 2019. But there’s much more to it because Donald Trump’s demand highlights the historically unique set of circumstances he and the nation face in 2020.
As of now, the new year will feature an impeachment trial in the Senate followed by the presidential election. If Trump survives Democrats’ effort to remove him, he would be the first impeached president to face voters again.
Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868, was later denied his party’s nomination for a second term. Bill Clinton won his second term before he was impeached.
While there’s some skepticism that Trump really wants to put everything on the line over allegations involving his dealings with Ukraine, I’m convinced he’s ¬serious.
I’m also convinced he’s crazy like a fox. Given the flimsy allegations and the unfair, one-party nature of the House process, beating impeachment in the Senate seems close to a sure thing. And doing so would dramatically boost Trump’s chances of getting four more years.
Indeed, it’s probable that as impeachment goes, so goes the election.
Of course, there’s no question Trump would much prefer the House not brand him with the “I” word, but that’s a pipe dream.
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff can’t muster 218 votes on a set of articles after five long days of public testimony and hyperbolic assertions that the president is an existential threat to the world, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Who could blame him?
Pelosi can’t let that happen, having picked her poison by embracing the whistleblower complaint before she saw the transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Turning back now is not an option, so she’ll beg, bribe and twist the arms of any reluctant Dems to get to 218.
That vote will probably come in December, with a Senate trial starting in January.
There, the president will enjoy all the advantages Schiff denied him in the House’s kangaroo court. Most important, Trump starts with 53 GOP senators in the jury, and with a super-majority of 67 votes required for conviction, Dems need to flip 20 of them. That assumes they can hold all Democrats, which is not certain.
In addition to Trump having home-field advantage, a Senate trial, presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, would be expected to follow federal rules on evidence and procedures.
One clear change from the House: no hearsay testimony. Thus, much of what passed for evidence there — and spurred the most sensational headlines — would not be permitted in the ¬Senate.
For another, Trump’s lawyers would have wide latitude in a witness list and would use it to turn the tables on Democrats, the resistance and the Bidens. Trump likes nothing more than being on offense, and his aim would be to put his accusers on trial.
Already the president has named three people he wants grilled, starting with Hunter Biden and his lucrative gig on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.
Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect:
• Is it true you were discharged from the Navy for cocaine use months before being named to Burisma in 2014?
• Do you speak Ukrainian?
• What do you know about energy exploration and markets?
• How many board meetings did you attend?
• Is it true you were paid more than $3 million over five years?
• How much more?
• Did you discuss the job with your father?
• Did you ask your father to intercede in Ukrainian politics to help Burisma?
Joe Biden is already showing the strains, blasting Sen. Lindsey Graham for asking the State Department for documents relating to Joe Biden’s calls with Ukraine’s then-president and his own documented efforts to oust a prosecutor.
“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Joe Biden told reporters.
Actually, you would assume Biden might be filled with regret, given the shameful way his son profited from his father’s position.
Moreover, there are legitimate questions about the 2016 anti-Trump campaign waged by Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, which included millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Were the payments to Hunter Biden and the foundation aimed at buying Democrats’ silence over Ukrainian corruption? What does Joe Biden know about that effort?
Trump also wants to call Schiff, and GOP lawyers believe there is ample precedent. They note that Bill Clinton’s lawyers grilled independent prosecutor Ken Starr during Clinton’s Senate trial.
Schiff acted as chief prosecutor against Trump and his dealings with the whistleblower would make him a key witness to the initial allegations.
Trump also wants the whistleblower to be named and forced to testify because he had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s Ukraine call. Some of the initial allegations were proven false by the transcript and some of the whistleblower’s sources might have broken the law. His links to Dems could also undermine his assertions about Trump.
A fourth possible witness would be Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower’s attorneys. Zaid tweeted in January 2017 that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Trump has called Zaid a “disgrace” and suggested he should be sued for treason.
Naturally, a trial poses risks to Trump as well. New evidence and witnesses could emerge, chief among them John Bolton, the former national security adviser Trump fired. Bolton is writing a book on his time in the White House and dropping hints he’s eager to air dirty laundry.
There is also the danger that, even if Trump beats back the effort to remove him, a trial could dirty him enough that he loses at the ballot box next November.
For now, though, the president has picked a path that appears to give him the upper hand. As he likes to say, we’ll see what happens.
By Michael Goodwin
New York Post
November 23, 2019
Here’s my slam-dunk choice for the Quote of the Year: “I want a trial.”
The President of the United States said that Friday morning, and his title alone would be reason enough to make it the most significant thing said in 2019. But there’s much more to it because Donald Trump’s demand highlights the historically unique set of circumstances he and the nation face in 2020.
As of now, the new year will feature an impeachment trial in the Senate followed by the presidential election. If Trump survives Democrats’ effort to remove him, he would be the first impeached president to face voters again.
Andrew Johnson, impeached in 1868, was later denied his party’s nomination for a second term. Bill Clinton won his second term before he was impeached.
While there’s some skepticism that Trump really wants to put everything on the line over allegations involving his dealings with Ukraine, I’m convinced he’s ¬serious.
I’m also convinced he’s crazy like a fox. Given the flimsy allegations and the unfair, one-party nature of the House process, beating impeachment in the Senate seems close to a sure thing. And doing so would dramatically boost Trump’s chances of getting four more years.
Indeed, it’s probable that as impeachment goes, so goes the election.
Of course, there’s no question Trump would much prefer the House not brand him with the “I” word, but that’s a pipe dream.
If Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff can’t muster 218 votes on a set of articles after five long days of public testimony and hyperbolic assertions that the president is an existential threat to the world, Trump will claim he’s been exonerated. Who could blame him?
Pelosi can’t let that happen, having picked her poison by embracing the whistleblower complaint before she saw the transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Turning back now is not an option, so she’ll beg, bribe and twist the arms of any reluctant Dems to get to 218.
That vote will probably come in December, with a Senate trial starting in January.
There, the president will enjoy all the advantages Schiff denied him in the House’s kangaroo court. Most important, Trump starts with 53 GOP senators in the jury, and with a super-majority of 67 votes required for conviction, Dems need to flip 20 of them. That assumes they can hold all Democrats, which is not certain.
In addition to Trump having home-field advantage, a Senate trial, presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, would be expected to follow federal rules on evidence and procedures.
One clear change from the House: no hearsay testimony. Thus, much of what passed for evidence there — and spurred the most sensational headlines — would not be permitted in the ¬Senate.
For another, Trump’s lawyers would have wide latitude in a witness list and would use it to turn the tables on Democrats, the resistance and the Bidens. Trump likes nothing more than being on offense, and his aim would be to put his accusers on trial.
Already the president has named three people he wants grilled, starting with Hunter Biden and his lucrative gig on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian energy company, while his father was vice president.
Some sample questions Hunter Biden can expect:
• Is it true you were discharged from the Navy for cocaine use months before being named to Burisma in 2014?
• Do you speak Ukrainian?
• What do you know about energy exploration and markets?
• How many board meetings did you attend?
• Is it true you were paid more than $3 million over five years?
• How much more?
• Did you discuss the job with your father?
• Did you ask your father to intercede in Ukrainian politics to help Burisma?
Joe Biden is already showing the strains, blasting Sen. Lindsey Graham for asking the State Department for documents relating to Joe Biden’s calls with Ukraine’s then-president and his own documented efforts to oust a prosecutor.
“Lindsey is about to go down in a way that I think he’s going to regret his whole life,” Joe Biden told reporters.
Actually, you would assume Biden might be filled with regret, given the shameful way his son profited from his father’s position.
Moreover, there are legitimate questions about the 2016 anti-Trump campaign waged by Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, which included millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Were the payments to Hunter Biden and the foundation aimed at buying Democrats’ silence over Ukrainian corruption? What does Joe Biden know about that effort?
Trump also wants to call Schiff, and GOP lawyers believe there is ample precedent. They note that Bill Clinton’s lawyers grilled independent prosecutor Ken Starr during Clinton’s Senate trial.
Schiff acted as chief prosecutor against Trump and his dealings with the whistleblower would make him a key witness to the initial allegations.
Trump also wants the whistleblower to be named and forced to testify because he had no first-hand knowledge of the president’s Ukraine call. Some of the initial allegations were proven false by the transcript and some of the whistleblower’s sources might have broken the law. His links to Dems could also undermine his assertions about Trump.
A fourth possible witness would be Mark Zaid, one of the whistleblower’s attorneys. Zaid tweeted in January 2017 that a “coup has started” and that “impeachment will follow ultimately.” Trump has called Zaid a “disgrace” and suggested he should be sued for treason.
Naturally, a trial poses risks to Trump as well. New evidence and witnesses could emerge, chief among them John Bolton, the former national security adviser Trump fired. Bolton is writing a book on his time in the White House and dropping hints he’s eager to air dirty laundry.
There is also the danger that, even if Trump beats back the effort to remove him, a trial could dirty him enough that he loses at the ballot box next November.
For now, though, the president has picked a path that appears to give him the upper hand. As he likes to say, we’ll see what happens.
ADAM SCHITT’S KEY WITNESS ACCUSED OF WAVING HIS DICK AT A WOMAN
Three women accuse Gordon Sondland of sexual misconduct: They say Trump's EU ambassador at center of impeachment inquiry 'exposed himself and punished all three professionally after they rejected him'
Daily Mail
November 27, 2019
Three women have accused Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union who is at the center of the presidential impeachment inquiry of sexual misconduct.
The three women say that Sondland made unwanted sexual contact with them in business settings, and on one occasion exposed himself, before he became the diplomat to the E.U.
The women say that Sondland retaliated against them after they rejected him advances, according to a bombshell ProPublica report.
__________
MULTIPLE WOMEN RECALL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND RETALIATION BY GORDON SONDLAND
Three women recall Sondland made unwanted sexual contact in business settings. One says he exposed himself. All recall professional retaliation after they rejected him. Sondland denies the allegations
by Julia Silverman, Kelly Clarke, and Fiona McCann, Portland Monthly, with Maryam Jameel and Doris Burke, ProPublica
ProPublica
November 27, 2019
Three women say they faced sexual misconduct by Gordon Sondland before he was the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and at the center of the presidential impeachment inquiry. They say he retaliated against them professionally after they rejected his advances.
In one case, a potential business partner recalls that Sondland took her to tour a room in a hotel he owns, only to then grab her face and try to kiss her. After she rejected him, Sondland backtracked on investing in her business.
Another woman, a work associate at the time, says Sondland exposed himself to her during a business interaction. She also recalls falling over the back of a couch trying to get away from him. After she made her lack of interest clear, she says Sondland called her, screaming about her job performance.
A third woman, 27 years Sondland’s junior, met him to discuss a potential job. She says he pushed himself against her and kissed her. She shoved him away. She says his job help stopped.
All three women have agreed to be named in this story. In all the cases, friends, family members or colleagues of the women recall being told about the encounters at the time. The cases span a seven-year period, ending less than a decade ago. Sondland denies the allegations.
“In decades of my career in business and civic affairs, my conduct can be affirmed by hundreds of employees and colleagues with whom I have worked in countless circumstances,” Sondland said in a statement. “These untrue claims of unwanted touching and kissing are concocted and, I believe, coordinated for political purposes. They have no basis in fact, and I categorically deny them.” (Read his statement.)
Sondland’s lawyer added in a letter: “Notably, what each of these three women share in common is that they pursued Ambassador Sondland for financial and personal gain — an investment, a job, and insurance brokerage work — and he declined their proposals.”
The lawyer, Jim McDermott, also wrote that the three women are trying to undermine Sondland’s latest testimony. “Given the timing of your intended story, a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that you are attempting to affect Ambassador Sondland’s credibility as a fact witness in the pending impeachment inquiry,” McDermott wrote. “Given the politically charged climate in which current events are unfolding, some might consider this to be veiled witness tampering.”
Reporting on this story began in October, around the time of Sondland’s initial impeachment testimony, in which he backed the president’s assertion that there was no quid pro quo involving Ukraine.
The day after Sondland gave that testimony, Nicole Vogel spoke at the Day of the Girl Luncheon in Seattle, an event hosted by a regional nonprofit, Girls Inc., whose mission is to inspire “all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.” Vogel decided to recount her Sondland story and name him.
Vogel also mentioned it to an editor at Portland Monthly, the co-publisher of this story, and she later spoke about it again at a breakfast event in Portland.
[Editor’s note: Vogel is the owner of Portland Monthly. Vogel cooperated with the story as a source. She was not involved in editorial decisions. The magazine’s editorial team decided to partner with ProPublica to independently report her story.]
“There were a lot of indecent proposals when I was raising capital, but none as brazen as his,” Vogel recalls. She encountered Sondland 16 years ago when she was trying to raise money to start her magazine. “I have nothing to say about what he did or didn’t do [involving Ukraine]. But if people are asking what his moral character is, I have one more piece of evidence for them.”
The women had kept their stories to their own circles, even after Sondland was nominated and vetted for an ambassadorship by a president who himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women. The women say they were not contacted by the government for any background checks.
In 2003, Vogel had an idea to start a magazine with her journalist brother that would chronicle Portland’s exploding art, culture and food scenes. She was 34 years old and fresh off a job at Move.com. Armed with full mock-ups of the magazine and detailed financial projections, the search for investors led her to Sondland.
Sondland has long been a power player in Portland, where he is one of the region’s most prominent business figures. He owns five hotels in Portland under the umbrella of the company he founded, Provenance Hotel Group. He was once asked at a panel why he got into the business. “It combines all the elements that give me a reason to get up in the morning,” Sondland said. “You have food, you have wine, you have design, you have art, you have intrigue, you have sex. You have everything you can think of.”
Sondland is also a prominent philanthropist. He has served on several high-profile nonprofit boards, including as the chairman of the board of trustees of the Portland Art Museum. A prominent staircase there bears his name and that of his wife, Katherine Durant.
According to Vogel, Sondland was helpful, connecting her with potential advertisers and investors. Then, in the spring of 2003, he invited her to dinner at El Gaucho, a clubby, old-school steakhouse, requesting information on the business’s projected financials. Over dinner, he told her that he would invest his own money in the magazine, and that Portland needed people like her.
“Gordon had said that night that he was going to invest,” Vogel recalls. “And in fact, he said to me that he was interested in investing in the company, but that he was more interested in investing in me, because he felt as if Portland didn’t keep people of high ambition and talent.”
After dinner, Vogel remembers Sondland proposing a walk across the street to Hotel Lucia, which Provenance had acquired two years before and filled with splashy art. Vogel says he introduced her to staff on the first floor — the concierge, the doorman, the front desk attendants — before suggesting that she might want to see one of the rooms.
In Vogel’s memory, the room was small and mundane, but she made admiring comments before turning to open the door and let herself out when Sondland’s voice stopped her.
“I remember seeing my hand drop from the door handle,” she says. “I turned around, and he’s standing right behind me, and he says, ‘Can I just have a hug first?’”
So she did the only thing she could think of to ensure a safe exit, giving him a hearty-back-pat-we’re-all-friends-here hug.
“And as I pulled back, he grabs my face and goes to kiss me.”
Vogel deflected the kiss and brought out a well-practiced line, designed, she says, to preserve his ego: “I said, ‘Ooh Gordon, you’re a married man, and you’d just break my heart.’” She left through the hotel lobby, making sure to say goodbye to everyone she’d been introduced to, so they’d all remember that she hadn’t been upstairs for more than a few minutes.
Shortly after, Vogel’s records show, Sondland emailed her requesting a financial analysis for her business plan. He included a brief aside: “Sorry I was such a dud.”
Afterward, Vogel confided in a friend, Craig Sweitzer, and her sister, both of whom confirmed her account. “I think she was just exhausted,” Lorrie Vogel says. “All you’re trying to do is raise funding for something, and you’re appalled that people would use their power to try and take advantage of you.”
Sondland and Vogel had a second lunch on the calendar for a few weeks later to hammer out details of the investment. Vogel says she decided to keep the appointment, hoping the encounter at the Lucia had been a momentary lapse in judgment.
Vogel and Sondland had offices in the same neighborhood, Portland’s trendy Pearl District, which is full of warehouses-turned-galleries, shops and many restaurants. Instead of going to lunch there, Vogel recalls Sondland showed up in a vintage convertible and drove them to an out-of-the-way restaurant 8 miles away, across two rivers.
Vogel remembers little of the meal itself, but she recalls the drive back well. She says Sondland placed his hand on her midthigh and left it there for 10 or so minutes. She clamped her own hand on top of his so he couldn’t move it any farther up her thigh. They spent the rest of the ride in silence.
“God, I would love to have told him to shove it. To have kneed him in the balls,” she says. “But I didn’t do that. It was precarious.” She knew that having her fledgling magazine in Sondland’s hotel rooms, reaching thousands of guests, would boost readership numbers and ad rates.
Then, just days before she was due to close her first round of financing, Sondland sent an email, changing the terms on his investment.
“Nicole,” Sondland’s email began. “After further reflection on this opportunity, I have come to the definite conclusion that this will be a ‘labor of love’ investment, at least at the beginning. In checking further, I have determined that the Lucia cannot participate under your very creative structure.”
Sondland’s lawyer disputes that the turnabout was motivated by anything other than business. “A decision not to invest cannot fairly be characterized as retaliation,” McDermott wrote. “Ambassador Sondland, in fact, conducted lengthy due diligence about Ms. Vogel’s investment proposal that included enlisting analyses from other regional publishers, before deciding not to invest.”
Vogel says that Sondland had been planning to put in at least $25,000, her minimum required investment. That money would have allowed Vogel to reach her business plan’s goal of $300,000. Instead, Sondland said in the email that he would commit to $10,000 and would only do so if Vogel raised an extra $100,000.
Vogel says she ended up emptying her own bank account to make up for Sondland’s reversal, and the magazine went forward without him. Today, she runs magazines in six states.
In his letter denying the women’s accounts, Sondland’s lawyer wrote:
As you are doubtless aware, one of the three complainants, Nicole Vogel, is the owner and publisher of the Portland Monthly. She and her publication stand to benefit directly from publishing these allegations, and Ms. Vogel’s delay in bringing these forward — even as Ambassador Sondland was undergoing public scrutiny by Congress as part of his confirmation in 2018 — casts grave doubt on her credibility. Indeed, we understand that Portland Monthly is under significant financial pressure and Ms. Vogel’s efforts seem designed to salvage it.
Vogel says the only reason she has shared her story is because “it feels like the right thing to do.” Vogel adds that she “can’t imagine a scenario where there is a financial benefit to Portland Monthly from this story.” The magazine, which Vogel says has been profitable this year, was long placed in rooms in Sondland’s hotels in both Portland and Seattle. Vogel says she decided last week to stop placing the magazines there. Halting that arrangement hurts the magazine’s reach, says the magazine’s publisher.
Sondland’s attorney also wrote:
You should know that Ms. Vogel is a close associate of Rep. Earl Blumenauer who has maligned Ambassador Sondland and threatened his company, misconduct that is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Office complaint. Congressman Blumenauer is also a vocal critic of the Trump Administration.
Vogel says she has no relationship with the congressman. Blumenauer did occasionally contribute to the magazine, which is cited on one of Vogel’s pages on the website. The ethics complaint was filed by Provenance in response to Blumenauer calling for a boycott of Sondland’s company. The congressman did this after Sondland initially declined to testify in the impeachment inquiry. When Sondland did ultimately testify publicly, undercutting the president’s defense, Blumenauer praised him.
Jana Solis met Sondland in 2008. Solis, who went by Janice Schnabel at the time, worked as a hospitality safety engineer for New York City-based insurance giant Marsh & McLennan, creating risk management plans and evaluating the safety of restaurants and hotels. The executive also sometimes pitched clients to sign with the company. (Solis initially misremembered the year she met Sondland as 2003 or 2004. She reviewed her records after Sondland’s lawyer noted that Marsh’s work with Provenance started in 2008.)
Knowing that Solis had experience in the hotel industry, a colleague asked her to take a meeting with Sondland, a lunch at Pazzo Ristorante, the Italian mainstay at what was then the Hotel Vintage Plaza.
“He was flirting through the lunch, and ends up just saying, ‘OK, I’ve heard enough,’” Solis remembers. “‘You’re hired. Congratulations. You’re my new hotel chick.’”
Then, on the way out, Solis recalls that Sondland suddenly “slap[ped] me on the ass and said, ‘I look forward to working with you.’”
Sondland’s lawyer wrote that Sondland rejects that account: “Ambassador Sondland denies slapping Ms. Solis on the rear end.”
Next, Sondland requested she visit his home, so that she could evaluate his personal art collection. Solis wasn’t trained in art valuations, but she agreed to go to his home, she says, to keep the business account intact. She was tough, she figured, after years spent working in industries like manufacturing.
The two toured Sondland’s home in Portland’s exclusive West Hills, Solis making notes about the artwork as the hotelier showed off pictures of himself with then-President George W. Bush and Bush’s dog. And then, she recalls, he told her there was even more of his collection to see in the pool house. She’d meet him there, she said, excusing herself both to go to the bathroom and map out a potential exit strategy.
“I get out to the pool house, and he is now naked from the waist down,” Solis remembers. “He said something about, ‘I thought we could chat.’ And I said something, trying to keep his ego intact — not that he needed that, not that it wouldn’t have been anyway — I said something like, ‘I can’t have that conversation.’”
Solis remembers apologizing, saying she was sorry if she’d given Sondland the wrong impression. She wanted to preserve the business relationship and not jeopardize her senior position at a job she loved. Also, he was her ride home: “I thought, ‘I need to keep myself intact and get out,’” she recalls. “So that’s what you do, apologize.”
“So he’s like, ‘Well, I just thought we could have some fun, but you know, it’s cool.’”
Sondland put his pants back on. Then he drove her back to downtown Portland, but not before, in Solis’ memory, he made one more request: “Can I have a hug?”
It wasn’t Solis’ last encounter with Sondland. A few months later, she was tasked with inspecting and holding staff training sessions at his hotel properties, including the Roosevelt Hotel in Seattle (now renamed the Hotel Theodore), where Sondland keeps a penthouse apartment.
“And the last day I was there doing the training, he said, ‘I need you to see the penthouse as well.’” She didn’t know it was his private living quarters.
“So I’m acting very professional, and I’m going over some of the things I think he needs to deal with [as part of my inspection] and just trying to stay down that road. [He says:] ‘Have a drink. Thanks for all you’ve done this week.’”
Solis remembers sitting on the couch with him, having a glass of wine and hoping as hard as she could — praying — that it would go no further.
“The next thing I know, he’s all over me,” she recalls. “He’s on top of me. He’s kissing me, shoving his tongue down my throat. And I’m trying to wiggle out from under him, and the next thing you know, I’m sort of rising up to get away from him, and I fall over the back of the couch.”
She remembers suddenly finding herself on the floor. “And I’m like: ‘Gordon, I’m not sure what else to say. You know, I really, really want to do business with you, but I’m not sure we can. I don’t know what your issues are, but I am telling you, I cannot make them mine.’”
Sondland’s lawyer says the ambassador denies that happened. “Ambassador Sondland also denies exposing himself to her or forcibly kissing her,” he wrote. “We have been able to review Provenance’s records interacting with Ms. Solis’s company, and at no time did she or her employer convey any concern about Ambassador Sondland, his comportment, or the nature of any business dealings he had with them or their personnel.”
Solis’ former husband, Kevin Schnabel, recalls Solis was upset when she arrived home from that trip. “One of the things that always stuck in my head is her comment that he literally had his tongue down [her] throat, [and as she was] trying to get away from him she had fallen over the back of the couch,” Schnabel remembers. Solis also told Schnabel her recollection of what happened in the pool house.
A few days later, Solis was back in her office, working late, when the phone rang. She recalls Sondland was on the other end, screaming at her over insurance issues tangential to her job. “At the end of the day, it wasn’t about insurance. He was pissed. He didn’t get his way [with me], and he was making it about work,” she says. “And he was making it all my fault.”
Alone at her desk, Solis started to sob. She says a colleague found her there; he’d heard Sondland’s screams on the speakerphone from his office. The colleague, who declined to be named, says he saw the incident. She “became emotional,” he says, “and concerned about what Marsh would think if [she] lost the account over the matter.”
It was the last time Solis ever spoke with Sondland. Solis left the account. Provenance is currently a client of Marsh. Today, she still works in the insurance industry and often travels the country as a speaker and leader in her industry.
Sondland’s lawyer provided an email that one of Solis’ colleagues at her current firm sent to Provenance in 2016 pitching them on business. The colleague wrote that he had been referred by Solis.
Solis says she didn’t know about the email. “You didn’t see me on the signature block, nor did you see me copied on it,” she says. “I certainly wouldn’t have directed him to Provenance and, at a minimum, certainly would not have said ‘use my name when you’re talking to Gordon.’ That’s a complete recipe for disaster.”
The third woman who says she faced sexual misconduct by Sondland is Natalie Sept. In 2008, Sept moved home to Portland after a post-college job teaching in the Chicago suburbs. Sept had always been interested in politics and eventually connected with Portland City Council member Nick Fish, who was running for reelection and needed a fundraiser. He hired Sept, whose role eventually expanded to campaign manager.
After Fish won his 2010 election in a landslide, Sept had breakfast with him at the restaurant of the Heathman Hotel (Provenance would add the hotel to its portfolio in 2017), a frequent watering hole for Portland’s political class. Sondland, who had donated to Fish, was at a nearby table.
Sept remembers that her boss introduced her to Sondland and said: “‘This is Natalie. She’s a rising star.’” Intrigued, Sondland invited her to another breakfast, this time at Gracie’s, the cavernous dining room at the Hotel deLuxe (Provenance bought the century-old hotel in 2004).
“So I’m talking to him about sports and downtown economic development, and he’s telling me about the Oregon governor’s film board doing a tour in LA, promising me huge opportunities, and the chance to work with the governor,” Sept recalls. In addition to being a major benefactor of the art museum, Sondland was the chair of the film board.
“I was so starry-eyed about all of these institutions and people and power associated with these kinds of opportunities,” Sept says. “I was convinced it was something he could help me attain.”
Soon after, Sept learned her path crisscrossed with Sondland’s in familial ways: Sondland had hired her uncle to paint his house, and her stepfather served with Sondland’s wife on the Oregon Investment Council. “I started to feel really comfortable,” Sept remembers. “We had all these points of connection. I thought, ‘I can trust this person.’”
Sondland invited Sept to dinner at El Gaucho, the same spot he took Vogel, to discuss a potential job at the film office. Sept showed up in a business suit, ready to network. When she arrived, she found that Sondland had ordered them what she recalls as “the nicest bottle of wine” on the menu.
Sondland spent much of the meal, Sept remembers, talking about his family and showing her pictures of his kids at the White House with then-President Bush. (The former president had appointed Sondland to the Commission on White House Fellowships.) It wasn’t until the tail end of the meal that the film office job finally came up. So Sept agreed to continue the conversation down the street at Saucebox, a cocktail bar.
Sept says she immediately headed for the bar’s bathroom.
“When I come back, he is sitting on the booth side of this big table,” she recalls. “He says, ‘Come sit next to me.’ And I thought, ‘Oh my god, this isn’t good.’ So I said, ‘Oh, I forgot, I have to go home.’”
Sept says she apologized for cutting the evening short. Sondland paid the tab and then offered to walk her to her car. “He keeps insisting, and I’m nervous and afraid and I don’t want to make a scene, so I say, ‘OK, fine,’” Sept says.
At her car, Sept says, Sondland leaned in for a hug.
“So I give him a quick hug and he holds onto my shoulders and looks at me and pushes himself into me and tries to kiss me.”
Sept says she pushed him to the side, got into her car and sped off. The next day, trying to be the conscientious professional, she sent a follow-up email scheduling Sondland for a meeting with Fish.
“What was most important was that I maintain professionalism. I didn’t want him to think I was frazzled by this,” she says.
In response to Sept’s account, Sondland’s lawyer wrote: “Ambassador Sondland did discuss Ms. Sept’s job prospects with her, but he denies any unwanted touching. He specifically denies attempting to kiss her, along with her claim that she pushed him away.”
Soon after Sept’s encounter, she told a friend in local government about the incident. “She was shaken up,” says the friend, who declined to be identified. “That sort of behavior is shocking and should be shocking, and that’s how she reacted.”
Sept never heard from Sondland again about the state film commission job. She went on to work for prominent Democratic politicians, including on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.
In his statement, Sondland said he has never been aware of any accusations of unwanted touching or kissing against him. “There has never been mention of them in any form during the period of the allegations,” he wrote, “although such a complaint could easily have been aired through multiple channels. These false incidents are at odds with my character.”
Sondland might have remained a Northwest power player, if not for his focus on becoming an ambassador, reportedly a lifetime goal.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Sondland had pulled away from Trump, removing his name as one of the hosts of a Seattle fundraiser after Trump ridiculed the Muslim family of a slain U.S. soldier. He initially supported Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign. But when Trump was elected, Sondland donated $1 million to his inaugural committee.
Sondland’s dream of being an envoy was realized when Trump nominated him to be ambassador to the European Union in May 2018, the latest in a line of political donors named to the position.
Sondland has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in election campaign donations to mostly Republican candidates and causes. But he’s also donated to various Democrats, including Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Wyden spoke in support of Sondland during his confirmation hearings. The senator said he’s known “Gordy” for more than 25 years and said he expected that Sondland would represent “the Oregon way,” which Wyden described as “caring about people, having a good heart.”
The Senate approved Sondland’s nomination by a voice vote.
This fall, Vogel was driving to work, listening to NPR, when she heard “Morning Edition” co-host Rachel Martin detailing Sondland’s involvement in the impeachment inquiry.
“Was there a quid pro quo?” Martin asked. “And did Sondland make it happen?”
Vogel started to cry in her car.
“I’m somebody who has sort of laughed it off and rolled my eyes and said, ‘What a jerk,’ all these years, and suddenly I’m crying in my car?” she says. “What the hell? That doesn’t sound like me.” She recalls thinking at that moment about the transactional nature of Sondland’s Ukraine mission and saw it as a painful reminder of her own experience.
“The fact that [Sondland] uses his power to terrorize people who he perceives as having less power is really disgusting,” Sept says. “I want other women to feel comfortable to share their stories, and be believed.”
“I would hate to see anybody else go through it. This runs so far beyond just a little groping. It affects how I do business. And who I can do business with,” says Solis. So if talking “is the right thing to do, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
She wants her children to know that what their "mom did was right, that I had a sense of self and a strong character. And I want my character to be revealed to people in a positive way and in a way that is courageous to the degree that I can be.”
(This article was co-published with Portland Monthly.)
Daily Mail
November 27, 2019
Three women have accused Gordon Sondland, the American ambassador to the European Union who is at the center of the presidential impeachment inquiry of sexual misconduct.
The three women say that Sondland made unwanted sexual contact with them in business settings, and on one occasion exposed himself, before he became the diplomat to the E.U.
The women say that Sondland retaliated against them after they rejected him advances, according to a bombshell ProPublica report.
__________
MULTIPLE WOMEN RECALL SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AND RETALIATION BY GORDON SONDLAND
Three women recall Sondland made unwanted sexual contact in business settings. One says he exposed himself. All recall professional retaliation after they rejected him. Sondland denies the allegations
by Julia Silverman, Kelly Clarke, and Fiona McCann, Portland Monthly, with Maryam Jameel and Doris Burke, ProPublica
ProPublica
November 27, 2019
Three women say they faced sexual misconduct by Gordon Sondland before he was the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and at the center of the presidential impeachment inquiry. They say he retaliated against them professionally after they rejected his advances.
In one case, a potential business partner recalls that Sondland took her to tour a room in a hotel he owns, only to then grab her face and try to kiss her. After she rejected him, Sondland backtracked on investing in her business.
Another woman, a work associate at the time, says Sondland exposed himself to her during a business interaction. She also recalls falling over the back of a couch trying to get away from him. After she made her lack of interest clear, she says Sondland called her, screaming about her job performance.
A third woman, 27 years Sondland’s junior, met him to discuss a potential job. She says he pushed himself against her and kissed her. She shoved him away. She says his job help stopped.
All three women have agreed to be named in this story. In all the cases, friends, family members or colleagues of the women recall being told about the encounters at the time. The cases span a seven-year period, ending less than a decade ago. Sondland denies the allegations.
“In decades of my career in business and civic affairs, my conduct can be affirmed by hundreds of employees and colleagues with whom I have worked in countless circumstances,” Sondland said in a statement. “These untrue claims of unwanted touching and kissing are concocted and, I believe, coordinated for political purposes. They have no basis in fact, and I categorically deny them.” (Read his statement.)
Sondland’s lawyer added in a letter: “Notably, what each of these three women share in common is that they pursued Ambassador Sondland for financial and personal gain — an investment, a job, and insurance brokerage work — and he declined their proposals.”
The lawyer, Jim McDermott, also wrote that the three women are trying to undermine Sondland’s latest testimony. “Given the timing of your intended story, a reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that you are attempting to affect Ambassador Sondland’s credibility as a fact witness in the pending impeachment inquiry,” McDermott wrote. “Given the politically charged climate in which current events are unfolding, some might consider this to be veiled witness tampering.”
Reporting on this story began in October, around the time of Sondland’s initial impeachment testimony, in which he backed the president’s assertion that there was no quid pro quo involving Ukraine.
The day after Sondland gave that testimony, Nicole Vogel spoke at the Day of the Girl Luncheon in Seattle, an event hosted by a regional nonprofit, Girls Inc., whose mission is to inspire “all girls to be strong, smart, and bold.” Vogel decided to recount her Sondland story and name him.
Vogel also mentioned it to an editor at Portland Monthly, the co-publisher of this story, and she later spoke about it again at a breakfast event in Portland.
[Editor’s note: Vogel is the owner of Portland Monthly. Vogel cooperated with the story as a source. She was not involved in editorial decisions. The magazine’s editorial team decided to partner with ProPublica to independently report her story.]
“There were a lot of indecent proposals when I was raising capital, but none as brazen as his,” Vogel recalls. She encountered Sondland 16 years ago when she was trying to raise money to start her magazine. “I have nothing to say about what he did or didn’t do [involving Ukraine]. But if people are asking what his moral character is, I have one more piece of evidence for them.”
The women had kept their stories to their own circles, even after Sondland was nominated and vetted for an ambassadorship by a president who himself has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women. The women say they were not contacted by the government for any background checks.
In 2003, Vogel had an idea to start a magazine with her journalist brother that would chronicle Portland’s exploding art, culture and food scenes. She was 34 years old and fresh off a job at Move.com. Armed with full mock-ups of the magazine and detailed financial projections, the search for investors led her to Sondland.
Sondland has long been a power player in Portland, where he is one of the region’s most prominent business figures. He owns five hotels in Portland under the umbrella of the company he founded, Provenance Hotel Group. He was once asked at a panel why he got into the business. “It combines all the elements that give me a reason to get up in the morning,” Sondland said. “You have food, you have wine, you have design, you have art, you have intrigue, you have sex. You have everything you can think of.”
Sondland is also a prominent philanthropist. He has served on several high-profile nonprofit boards, including as the chairman of the board of trustees of the Portland Art Museum. A prominent staircase there bears his name and that of his wife, Katherine Durant.
According to Vogel, Sondland was helpful, connecting her with potential advertisers and investors. Then, in the spring of 2003, he invited her to dinner at El Gaucho, a clubby, old-school steakhouse, requesting information on the business’s projected financials. Over dinner, he told her that he would invest his own money in the magazine, and that Portland needed people like her.
“Gordon had said that night that he was going to invest,” Vogel recalls. “And in fact, he said to me that he was interested in investing in the company, but that he was more interested in investing in me, because he felt as if Portland didn’t keep people of high ambition and talent.”
After dinner, Vogel remembers Sondland proposing a walk across the street to Hotel Lucia, which Provenance had acquired two years before and filled with splashy art. Vogel says he introduced her to staff on the first floor — the concierge, the doorman, the front desk attendants — before suggesting that she might want to see one of the rooms.
In Vogel’s memory, the room was small and mundane, but she made admiring comments before turning to open the door and let herself out when Sondland’s voice stopped her.
“I remember seeing my hand drop from the door handle,” she says. “I turned around, and he’s standing right behind me, and he says, ‘Can I just have a hug first?’”
So she did the only thing she could think of to ensure a safe exit, giving him a hearty-back-pat-we’re-all-friends-here hug.
“And as I pulled back, he grabs my face and goes to kiss me.”
Vogel deflected the kiss and brought out a well-practiced line, designed, she says, to preserve his ego: “I said, ‘Ooh Gordon, you’re a married man, and you’d just break my heart.’” She left through the hotel lobby, making sure to say goodbye to everyone she’d been introduced to, so they’d all remember that she hadn’t been upstairs for more than a few minutes.
Shortly after, Vogel’s records show, Sondland emailed her requesting a financial analysis for her business plan. He included a brief aside: “Sorry I was such a dud.”
Afterward, Vogel confided in a friend, Craig Sweitzer, and her sister, both of whom confirmed her account. “I think she was just exhausted,” Lorrie Vogel says. “All you’re trying to do is raise funding for something, and you’re appalled that people would use their power to try and take advantage of you.”
Sondland and Vogel had a second lunch on the calendar for a few weeks later to hammer out details of the investment. Vogel says she decided to keep the appointment, hoping the encounter at the Lucia had been a momentary lapse in judgment.
Vogel and Sondland had offices in the same neighborhood, Portland’s trendy Pearl District, which is full of warehouses-turned-galleries, shops and many restaurants. Instead of going to lunch there, Vogel recalls Sondland showed up in a vintage convertible and drove them to an out-of-the-way restaurant 8 miles away, across two rivers.
Vogel remembers little of the meal itself, but she recalls the drive back well. She says Sondland placed his hand on her midthigh and left it there for 10 or so minutes. She clamped her own hand on top of his so he couldn’t move it any farther up her thigh. They spent the rest of the ride in silence.
“God, I would love to have told him to shove it. To have kneed him in the balls,” she says. “But I didn’t do that. It was precarious.” She knew that having her fledgling magazine in Sondland’s hotel rooms, reaching thousands of guests, would boost readership numbers and ad rates.
Then, just days before she was due to close her first round of financing, Sondland sent an email, changing the terms on his investment.
“Nicole,” Sondland’s email began. “After further reflection on this opportunity, I have come to the definite conclusion that this will be a ‘labor of love’ investment, at least at the beginning. In checking further, I have determined that the Lucia cannot participate under your very creative structure.”
Sondland’s lawyer disputes that the turnabout was motivated by anything other than business. “A decision not to invest cannot fairly be characterized as retaliation,” McDermott wrote. “Ambassador Sondland, in fact, conducted lengthy due diligence about Ms. Vogel’s investment proposal that included enlisting analyses from other regional publishers, before deciding not to invest.”
Vogel says that Sondland had been planning to put in at least $25,000, her minimum required investment. That money would have allowed Vogel to reach her business plan’s goal of $300,000. Instead, Sondland said in the email that he would commit to $10,000 and would only do so if Vogel raised an extra $100,000.
Vogel says she ended up emptying her own bank account to make up for Sondland’s reversal, and the magazine went forward without him. Today, she runs magazines in six states.
In his letter denying the women’s accounts, Sondland’s lawyer wrote:
As you are doubtless aware, one of the three complainants, Nicole Vogel, is the owner and publisher of the Portland Monthly. She and her publication stand to benefit directly from publishing these allegations, and Ms. Vogel’s delay in bringing these forward — even as Ambassador Sondland was undergoing public scrutiny by Congress as part of his confirmation in 2018 — casts grave doubt on her credibility. Indeed, we understand that Portland Monthly is under significant financial pressure and Ms. Vogel’s efforts seem designed to salvage it.
Vogel says the only reason she has shared her story is because “it feels like the right thing to do.” Vogel adds that she “can’t imagine a scenario where there is a financial benefit to Portland Monthly from this story.” The magazine, which Vogel says has been profitable this year, was long placed in rooms in Sondland’s hotels in both Portland and Seattle. Vogel says she decided last week to stop placing the magazines there. Halting that arrangement hurts the magazine’s reach, says the magazine’s publisher.
Sondland’s attorney also wrote:
You should know that Ms. Vogel is a close associate of Rep. Earl Blumenauer who has maligned Ambassador Sondland and threatened his company, misconduct that is now the subject of a Congressional Ethics Office complaint. Congressman Blumenauer is also a vocal critic of the Trump Administration.
Vogel says she has no relationship with the congressman. Blumenauer did occasionally contribute to the magazine, which is cited on one of Vogel’s pages on the website. The ethics complaint was filed by Provenance in response to Blumenauer calling for a boycott of Sondland’s company. The congressman did this after Sondland initially declined to testify in the impeachment inquiry. When Sondland did ultimately testify publicly, undercutting the president’s defense, Blumenauer praised him.
Jana Solis met Sondland in 2008. Solis, who went by Janice Schnabel at the time, worked as a hospitality safety engineer for New York City-based insurance giant Marsh & McLennan, creating risk management plans and evaluating the safety of restaurants and hotels. The executive also sometimes pitched clients to sign with the company. (Solis initially misremembered the year she met Sondland as 2003 or 2004. She reviewed her records after Sondland’s lawyer noted that Marsh’s work with Provenance started in 2008.)
Knowing that Solis had experience in the hotel industry, a colleague asked her to take a meeting with Sondland, a lunch at Pazzo Ristorante, the Italian mainstay at what was then the Hotel Vintage Plaza.
“He was flirting through the lunch, and ends up just saying, ‘OK, I’ve heard enough,’” Solis remembers. “‘You’re hired. Congratulations. You’re my new hotel chick.’”
Then, on the way out, Solis recalls that Sondland suddenly “slap[ped] me on the ass and said, ‘I look forward to working with you.’”
Sondland’s lawyer wrote that Sondland rejects that account: “Ambassador Sondland denies slapping Ms. Solis on the rear end.”
Next, Sondland requested she visit his home, so that she could evaluate his personal art collection. Solis wasn’t trained in art valuations, but she agreed to go to his home, she says, to keep the business account intact. She was tough, she figured, after years spent working in industries like manufacturing.
The two toured Sondland’s home in Portland’s exclusive West Hills, Solis making notes about the artwork as the hotelier showed off pictures of himself with then-President George W. Bush and Bush’s dog. And then, she recalls, he told her there was even more of his collection to see in the pool house. She’d meet him there, she said, excusing herself both to go to the bathroom and map out a potential exit strategy.
“I get out to the pool house, and he is now naked from the waist down,” Solis remembers. “He said something about, ‘I thought we could chat.’ And I said something, trying to keep his ego intact — not that he needed that, not that it wouldn’t have been anyway — I said something like, ‘I can’t have that conversation.’”
Solis remembers apologizing, saying she was sorry if she’d given Sondland the wrong impression. She wanted to preserve the business relationship and not jeopardize her senior position at a job she loved. Also, he was her ride home: “I thought, ‘I need to keep myself intact and get out,’” she recalls. “So that’s what you do, apologize.”
“So he’s like, ‘Well, I just thought we could have some fun, but you know, it’s cool.’”
Sondland put his pants back on. Then he drove her back to downtown Portland, but not before, in Solis’ memory, he made one more request: “Can I have a hug?”
It wasn’t Solis’ last encounter with Sondland. A few months later, she was tasked with inspecting and holding staff training sessions at his hotel properties, including the Roosevelt Hotel in Seattle (now renamed the Hotel Theodore), where Sondland keeps a penthouse apartment.
“And the last day I was there doing the training, he said, ‘I need you to see the penthouse as well.’” She didn’t know it was his private living quarters.
“So I’m acting very professional, and I’m going over some of the things I think he needs to deal with [as part of my inspection] and just trying to stay down that road. [He says:] ‘Have a drink. Thanks for all you’ve done this week.’”
Solis remembers sitting on the couch with him, having a glass of wine and hoping as hard as she could — praying — that it would go no further.
“The next thing I know, he’s all over me,” she recalls. “He’s on top of me. He’s kissing me, shoving his tongue down my throat. And I’m trying to wiggle out from under him, and the next thing you know, I’m sort of rising up to get away from him, and I fall over the back of the couch.”
She remembers suddenly finding herself on the floor. “And I’m like: ‘Gordon, I’m not sure what else to say. You know, I really, really want to do business with you, but I’m not sure we can. I don’t know what your issues are, but I am telling you, I cannot make them mine.’”
Sondland’s lawyer says the ambassador denies that happened. “Ambassador Sondland also denies exposing himself to her or forcibly kissing her,” he wrote. “We have been able to review Provenance’s records interacting with Ms. Solis’s company, and at no time did she or her employer convey any concern about Ambassador Sondland, his comportment, or the nature of any business dealings he had with them or their personnel.”
Solis’ former husband, Kevin Schnabel, recalls Solis was upset when she arrived home from that trip. “One of the things that always stuck in my head is her comment that he literally had his tongue down [her] throat, [and as she was] trying to get away from him she had fallen over the back of the couch,” Schnabel remembers. Solis also told Schnabel her recollection of what happened in the pool house.
A few days later, Solis was back in her office, working late, when the phone rang. She recalls Sondland was on the other end, screaming at her over insurance issues tangential to her job. “At the end of the day, it wasn’t about insurance. He was pissed. He didn’t get his way [with me], and he was making it about work,” she says. “And he was making it all my fault.”
Alone at her desk, Solis started to sob. She says a colleague found her there; he’d heard Sondland’s screams on the speakerphone from his office. The colleague, who declined to be named, says he saw the incident. She “became emotional,” he says, “and concerned about what Marsh would think if [she] lost the account over the matter.”
It was the last time Solis ever spoke with Sondland. Solis left the account. Provenance is currently a client of Marsh. Today, she still works in the insurance industry and often travels the country as a speaker and leader in her industry.
Sondland’s lawyer provided an email that one of Solis’ colleagues at her current firm sent to Provenance in 2016 pitching them on business. The colleague wrote that he had been referred by Solis.
Solis says she didn’t know about the email. “You didn’t see me on the signature block, nor did you see me copied on it,” she says. “I certainly wouldn’t have directed him to Provenance and, at a minimum, certainly would not have said ‘use my name when you’re talking to Gordon.’ That’s a complete recipe for disaster.”
The third woman who says she faced sexual misconduct by Sondland is Natalie Sept. In 2008, Sept moved home to Portland after a post-college job teaching in the Chicago suburbs. Sept had always been interested in politics and eventually connected with Portland City Council member Nick Fish, who was running for reelection and needed a fundraiser. He hired Sept, whose role eventually expanded to campaign manager.
After Fish won his 2010 election in a landslide, Sept had breakfast with him at the restaurant of the Heathman Hotel (Provenance would add the hotel to its portfolio in 2017), a frequent watering hole for Portland’s political class. Sondland, who had donated to Fish, was at a nearby table.
Sept remembers that her boss introduced her to Sondland and said: “‘This is Natalie. She’s a rising star.’” Intrigued, Sondland invited her to another breakfast, this time at Gracie’s, the cavernous dining room at the Hotel deLuxe (Provenance bought the century-old hotel in 2004).
“So I’m talking to him about sports and downtown economic development, and he’s telling me about the Oregon governor’s film board doing a tour in LA, promising me huge opportunities, and the chance to work with the governor,” Sept recalls. In addition to being a major benefactor of the art museum, Sondland was the chair of the film board.
“I was so starry-eyed about all of these institutions and people and power associated with these kinds of opportunities,” Sept says. “I was convinced it was something he could help me attain.”
Soon after, Sept learned her path crisscrossed with Sondland’s in familial ways: Sondland had hired her uncle to paint his house, and her stepfather served with Sondland’s wife on the Oregon Investment Council. “I started to feel really comfortable,” Sept remembers. “We had all these points of connection. I thought, ‘I can trust this person.’”
Sondland invited Sept to dinner at El Gaucho, the same spot he took Vogel, to discuss a potential job at the film office. Sept showed up in a business suit, ready to network. When she arrived, she found that Sondland had ordered them what she recalls as “the nicest bottle of wine” on the menu.
Sondland spent much of the meal, Sept remembers, talking about his family and showing her pictures of his kids at the White House with then-President Bush. (The former president had appointed Sondland to the Commission on White House Fellowships.) It wasn’t until the tail end of the meal that the film office job finally came up. So Sept agreed to continue the conversation down the street at Saucebox, a cocktail bar.
Sept says she immediately headed for the bar’s bathroom.
“When I come back, he is sitting on the booth side of this big table,” she recalls. “He says, ‘Come sit next to me.’ And I thought, ‘Oh my god, this isn’t good.’ So I said, ‘Oh, I forgot, I have to go home.’”
Sept says she apologized for cutting the evening short. Sondland paid the tab and then offered to walk her to her car. “He keeps insisting, and I’m nervous and afraid and I don’t want to make a scene, so I say, ‘OK, fine,’” Sept says.
At her car, Sept says, Sondland leaned in for a hug.
“So I give him a quick hug and he holds onto my shoulders and looks at me and pushes himself into me and tries to kiss me.”
Sept says she pushed him to the side, got into her car and sped off. The next day, trying to be the conscientious professional, she sent a follow-up email scheduling Sondland for a meeting with Fish.
“What was most important was that I maintain professionalism. I didn’t want him to think I was frazzled by this,” she says.
In response to Sept’s account, Sondland’s lawyer wrote: “Ambassador Sondland did discuss Ms. Sept’s job prospects with her, but he denies any unwanted touching. He specifically denies attempting to kiss her, along with her claim that she pushed him away.”
Soon after Sept’s encounter, she told a friend in local government about the incident. “She was shaken up,” says the friend, who declined to be identified. “That sort of behavior is shocking and should be shocking, and that’s how she reacted.”
Sept never heard from Sondland again about the state film commission job. She went on to work for prominent Democratic politicians, including on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.
In his statement, Sondland said he has never been aware of any accusations of unwanted touching or kissing against him. “There has never been mention of them in any form during the period of the allegations,” he wrote, “although such a complaint could easily have been aired through multiple channels. These false incidents are at odds with my character.”
Sondland might have remained a Northwest power player, if not for his focus on becoming an ambassador, reportedly a lifetime goal.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Sondland had pulled away from Trump, removing his name as one of the hosts of a Seattle fundraiser after Trump ridiculed the Muslim family of a slain U.S. soldier. He initially supported Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign. But when Trump was elected, Sondland donated $1 million to his inaugural committee.
Sondland’s dream of being an envoy was realized when Trump nominated him to be ambassador to the European Union in May 2018, the latest in a line of political donors named to the position.
Sondland has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in election campaign donations to mostly Republican candidates and causes. But he’s also donated to various Democrats, including Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Wyden spoke in support of Sondland during his confirmation hearings. The senator said he’s known “Gordy” for more than 25 years and said he expected that Sondland would represent “the Oregon way,” which Wyden described as “caring about people, having a good heart.”
The Senate approved Sondland’s nomination by a voice vote.
This fall, Vogel was driving to work, listening to NPR, when she heard “Morning Edition” co-host Rachel Martin detailing Sondland’s involvement in the impeachment inquiry.
“Was there a quid pro quo?” Martin asked. “And did Sondland make it happen?”
Vogel started to cry in her car.
“I’m somebody who has sort of laughed it off and rolled my eyes and said, ‘What a jerk,’ all these years, and suddenly I’m crying in my car?” she says. “What the hell? That doesn’t sound like me.” She recalls thinking at that moment about the transactional nature of Sondland’s Ukraine mission and saw it as a painful reminder of her own experience.
“The fact that [Sondland] uses his power to terrorize people who he perceives as having less power is really disgusting,” Sept says. “I want other women to feel comfortable to share their stories, and be believed.”
“I would hate to see anybody else go through it. This runs so far beyond just a little groping. It affects how I do business. And who I can do business with,” says Solis. So if talking “is the right thing to do, then that’s what I’m going to do.”
She wants her children to know that what their "mom did was right, that I had a sense of self and a strong character. And I want my character to be revealed to people in a positive way and in a way that is courageous to the degree that I can be.”
(This article was co-published with Portland Monthly.)
FIRED/RESIGNED NAVY SECRETARY SPENCER BLASTS DRAFT DODGER TRUMP
'Trump has very little understanding of the military': Fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer slams the president in blistering op-ed over his meddling in the case of Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher
Associated Press
November 28, 2019
Richard Spencer, who was fired as Navy secretary for his handling of a SEAL war crimes case championed by President Donald Trump, wrote that the commander in chief 'has very little understanding' of how the American military works.
The extraordinary accusation came in an opinion piece published on The Washington Post´s website Wednesday evening, three days after he was fired. Spencer called Trump´s intervention in the case of Navy Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher 'shocking' and unprecedented.
Spencer was fired Sunday by Defense Secretary Mark Esper for working a private deal with the White House to ensure that Gallagher be allowed to retire without losing his SEAL status.
In his Post article, Spencer acknowledged his mistake but also asserted that Trump´s actions were detrimental to the military.
Spencer said Trump had involved himself in the Gallagher case 'almost from the start,' by telephoning Spencer even before the SEAL´s court martial started to ask that Gallagher be moved out of confinement at a Navy brig. Spencer said he resisted Trump because the presiding judge had decided that confinement was important. Nonetheless, Trump ordered Spencer to transfer Gallagher from the brig to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks.
Spencer said he believes Trump´s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way Gallagher´s defense lawyers and others 'worked to keep it front and center in the media.'
After Gallagher was acquitted of most charges but convicted of posing with the corpse of an Islamic State extremist in Iraq, he submitted his request to retire. In Spencer´s telling, that raised three questions for the Navy, including whether Gallagher should be allowed to retire at his current rank. The military jury had said he should be demoted.
Trump, who had tweeted support for Gallagher and stated that his case had been 'handled very badly from the beginning,' short-circuited the Navy´s administrative review of Gallagher´s status by ordering Spencer to restore Gallagher´s rank.
'This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review,' Spencer wrote. 'It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.'
Last week, Trump tweeted that Gallagher must be allowed to keep his Trident pin, the medal that designates a SEAL member. The Navy had planned to let an administrative board review the question starting Monday, but eventually Esper decided to stop that process and let Gallagher retire as a SEAL, as Trump had ordered.
Earlier Wednesday, the Navy announced that it had canceled the peer-review boards for three SEAL officers who supervised Gallagher during the Iraq deployment that gave rise to the war crimes charges.
Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said the case was becoming a distraction for the commando force, known for its quiet professionalism but recently roiled with controversy.
The decision was the latest twist in the Gallagher matter. Trump has made no mention of the three SEAL officers also ordered to be reviewed. All three had overseen Gallagher during his 2017 deployment to Iraq.
But Modly said there were better ways to address any 'failures in conduct, performance, judgment, or professionalism exhibited by these officers.'
He directed the chief of naval operations to end the review process for Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, Lt. Jacob Portier and Lt. Thomas MacNeil.
'The United States Navy, and the Naval Special Warfare Community specifically, have dangerous and important work to do,' Modly said in a statement. 'In my judgment, neither deserves the continued distraction and negative attention that recent events have evoked.'
Modly said his decision should not be interpreted as loosening the standards he expects of SEALs. He said ongoing efforts will continue to address problems within the SEAL community, which has had numerous allegations of misconduct in recent months.
'Navy uniformed leaders have my full confidence that they will continue to address challenging cultural issues within the Naval Special Warfare community, instill good order and discipline, and enforce the very highest professional standards we expect from every member of that community,' he said.
Portier was Gallagher´s platoon commander and was charged with failing to report the killing of the captive. He denied the charges and they were dropped after the jury acquitted Gallagher of murder.
Portier´s attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan, said Portier was happy to learn he would be allowed to keep his trident, a pin designating SEAL status.
'Lt. Portier is extremely grateful for the unwavering support of President Trump,' Sullivan said.
Attorneys for Breisch and MacNeil did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Associated Press
November 28, 2019
Richard Spencer, who was fired as Navy secretary for his handling of a SEAL war crimes case championed by President Donald Trump, wrote that the commander in chief 'has very little understanding' of how the American military works.
The extraordinary accusation came in an opinion piece published on The Washington Post´s website Wednesday evening, three days after he was fired. Spencer called Trump´s intervention in the case of Navy Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher 'shocking' and unprecedented.
Spencer was fired Sunday by Defense Secretary Mark Esper for working a private deal with the White House to ensure that Gallagher be allowed to retire without losing his SEAL status.
In his Post article, Spencer acknowledged his mistake but also asserted that Trump´s actions were detrimental to the military.
Spencer said Trump had involved himself in the Gallagher case 'almost from the start,' by telephoning Spencer even before the SEAL´s court martial started to ask that Gallagher be moved out of confinement at a Navy brig. Spencer said he resisted Trump because the presiding judge had decided that confinement was important. Nonetheless, Trump ordered Spencer to transfer Gallagher from the brig to the equivalent of an enlisted barracks.
Spencer said he believes Trump´s interest in the case stemmed partly from the way Gallagher´s defense lawyers and others 'worked to keep it front and center in the media.'
After Gallagher was acquitted of most charges but convicted of posing with the corpse of an Islamic State extremist in Iraq, he submitted his request to retire. In Spencer´s telling, that raised three questions for the Navy, including whether Gallagher should be allowed to retire at his current rank. The military jury had said he should be demoted.
Trump, who had tweeted support for Gallagher and stated that his case had been 'handled very badly from the beginning,' short-circuited the Navy´s administrative review of Gallagher´s status by ordering Spencer to restore Gallagher´s rank.
'This was a shocking and unprecedented intervention in a low-level review,' Spencer wrote. 'It was also a reminder that the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.'
Last week, Trump tweeted that Gallagher must be allowed to keep his Trident pin, the medal that designates a SEAL member. The Navy had planned to let an administrative board review the question starting Monday, but eventually Esper decided to stop that process and let Gallagher retire as a SEAL, as Trump had ordered.
Earlier Wednesday, the Navy announced that it had canceled the peer-review boards for three SEAL officers who supervised Gallagher during the Iraq deployment that gave rise to the war crimes charges.
Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said the case was becoming a distraction for the commando force, known for its quiet professionalism but recently roiled with controversy.
The decision was the latest twist in the Gallagher matter. Trump has made no mention of the three SEAL officers also ordered to be reviewed. All three had overseen Gallagher during his 2017 deployment to Iraq.
But Modly said there were better ways to address any 'failures in conduct, performance, judgment, or professionalism exhibited by these officers.'
He directed the chief of naval operations to end the review process for Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, Lt. Jacob Portier and Lt. Thomas MacNeil.
'The United States Navy, and the Naval Special Warfare Community specifically, have dangerous and important work to do,' Modly said in a statement. 'In my judgment, neither deserves the continued distraction and negative attention that recent events have evoked.'
Modly said his decision should not be interpreted as loosening the standards he expects of SEALs. He said ongoing efforts will continue to address problems within the SEAL community, which has had numerous allegations of misconduct in recent months.
'Navy uniformed leaders have my full confidence that they will continue to address challenging cultural issues within the Naval Special Warfare community, instill good order and discipline, and enforce the very highest professional standards we expect from every member of that community,' he said.
Portier was Gallagher´s platoon commander and was charged with failing to report the killing of the captive. He denied the charges and they were dropped after the jury acquitted Gallagher of murder.
Portier´s attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan, said Portier was happy to learn he would be allowed to keep his trident, a pin designating SEAL status.
'Lt. Portier is extremely grateful for the unwavering support of President Trump,' Sullivan said.
Attorneys for Breisch and MacNeil did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF FORMER OBAMA STAFFER JONATHAN GREENBLATT, THE ADL HAS BECOME PART OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION
Who can speak for American Jews against anti-Semitism? Not the ADL
By Jonathan S. Tobin
JNS
November 28, 2019
Earlier this week, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, Britain’s chief rabbi, broke with precedent and wrote an op-ed article in The Times calling attention to the “new poison” that had taken hold of the Labour Party. Coming less than three weeks before the British people go to the polls to elect a new government on Dec. 12, it was a stark warning of the consequences for British Jewry should Labour prevail and its anti-Semitic leader Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister.
While Labour was already trailing badly in the polls, Mirvis’s powerful cri de coeur seems to have clarified the situation in Britain. Corbyn’s subsequent repeated refusals to apologize for a culture within Labour that has normalized anti-Semitic invective in its ranks, as well as for his own long history of demonizing of Israel and siding with Islamist terrorists, only reinforced the rabbi’s point.
The courageous stand provided a marvelous example of what a leader can achieve when the person filling that role is able to rise to the occasion. The ability of the titular leader of British Jewry to speak out in the defense of the community’s interests at a crucial movement also makes it just as clear that at this moment there is no single person or organization that can play the same role for American Jewry.
This is particularly true when it comes to the one group that has always been relied upon to be the principle voice speaking out against anti-Semitism: the Anti-Defamation League. Under the leadership of Jonathan Greenblatt, who took over from veteran director Abe Foxman in 2015, the ADL abandoned its former status as a respected nonpartisan agency devoted to monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. Under Greenblatt – a former Clinton and Obama administration staffer – it has become just one more liberal Jewish group with a partisan agenda. As such, it has lost the ability that it once had to be a singular and powerful voice that could galvanize the debate about anti-Semitism.
Comparisons between British and American Jewry are generally of little value. The two communities have vast differences, starting with the fact that – in keeping with the nature of American society and politics – there is no centralized leadership that can pretend to speak for all American Jews in the same way that the symbolic position of the chief rabbi or the Board of Deputies of British Jews does. Nor have American Jews ever been the outsiders in society that Jews have historically been in Britain.
But even acknowledging these great differences, there is also now a sense among most American Jews that the challenges they face are greater than anything they’ve had to deal with since the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism is growing on both the Left and the Right. Anti-Zionist invective, fueled by intersectional myths, has become widely accepted on the left-wing of the Democratic Party with open supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement being treated like rock stars rather than pariahs. Concurrent with that political trend is the fact that hatred and violence against Orthodox Jews have become normalized in places like Brooklyn, New York. On the Right, extremist alt-right trolls haven’t achieved the influence of their counterparts on the Left, though the noise they are making, along with the scattered acts of violence by lone gunmen, has rightly terrified Jews.
To its credit, the ADL has been all over the problem of anti-Semitism on the far-Right. Even on that score, however, it has staked out ground that makes it hard to be a unifying factor. Greenblatt’s unrelenting animus for President Donald Trump and his efforts to blame him for anti-Semitism have failed to properly credit the US administration as the most pro-Israel in history.
Anti-Semitic trends that couldn’t be connected to Trump by even the most rabid liberal were swept under the rug. Its belated response to the targeting of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn by African Americans has been too little and too late, and bespoke more of a group that is addicted to playing politics than a national defense organization.
Just as bad is the fact that under Greenblatt, ADL hasn’t been slow to recognize the threat from the Left as it's basically uninterested in it. That’s hardly surprising given Greenblatt’s role in an Obama administration that helped normalize anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic Party. Whereas under his predecessor one of ADL’s prime functions was to defend Israel, now it is generally found among the Jewish state’s critics on a variety of issues, often going out of its way to demonstrate solidarity with liberal foes of Israeli policy, whether or not it has anything to do with ADL’s anti-hate brief. That has helped to mute its voice when dealing with BDS advocates who target American Jewry far more than Israel.
It’s also a function of the way Greenblatt has helped transform ADL into a partisan organization – not merely supporting liberal values, but by intervening on issues like Supreme Court nominations in order to mollify left-wing donors eager to keep the organization aligned with Democratic Party priorities.
Part of the problem with confronting anti-Semitism is that partisans only see threats from their political opponents and are blind to dangers from their political allies. Rather than work against that trend, the ADL exemplifies it.
For all of its problems, the Democratic Party isn’t Labour. And the marginalization and hate that British Jews face cannot be analogized to what is going on in the United States. Still, it’s far from impossible that the Democrats could eventually go the way of Labour if its left-wing routs the centrists as they did in Britain.
No matter what the future brings, there is one thing we know for certain about the fight against anti-Semitism in the US. The ADL can’t speak up for American Jewry the way Rabbi Mirvis has just done in Britain. American Jewry’s primary defense organization has become part of the problem, not the solution.
By Jonathan S. Tobin
JNS
November 28, 2019
Earlier this week, Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, Britain’s chief rabbi, broke with precedent and wrote an op-ed article in The Times calling attention to the “new poison” that had taken hold of the Labour Party. Coming less than three weeks before the British people go to the polls to elect a new government on Dec. 12, it was a stark warning of the consequences for British Jewry should Labour prevail and its anti-Semitic leader Jeremy Corbyn become prime minister.
While Labour was already trailing badly in the polls, Mirvis’s powerful cri de coeur seems to have clarified the situation in Britain. Corbyn’s subsequent repeated refusals to apologize for a culture within Labour that has normalized anti-Semitic invective in its ranks, as well as for his own long history of demonizing of Israel and siding with Islamist terrorists, only reinforced the rabbi’s point.
The courageous stand provided a marvelous example of what a leader can achieve when the person filling that role is able to rise to the occasion. The ability of the titular leader of British Jewry to speak out in the defense of the community’s interests at a crucial movement also makes it just as clear that at this moment there is no single person or organization that can play the same role for American Jewry.
This is particularly true when it comes to the one group that has always been relied upon to be the principle voice speaking out against anti-Semitism: the Anti-Defamation League. Under the leadership of Jonathan Greenblatt, who took over from veteran director Abe Foxman in 2015, the ADL abandoned its former status as a respected nonpartisan agency devoted to monitoring and combating anti-Semitism. Under Greenblatt – a former Clinton and Obama administration staffer – it has become just one more liberal Jewish group with a partisan agenda. As such, it has lost the ability that it once had to be a singular and powerful voice that could galvanize the debate about anti-Semitism.
Comparisons between British and American Jewry are generally of little value. The two communities have vast differences, starting with the fact that – in keeping with the nature of American society and politics – there is no centralized leadership that can pretend to speak for all American Jews in the same way that the symbolic position of the chief rabbi or the Board of Deputies of British Jews does. Nor have American Jews ever been the outsiders in society that Jews have historically been in Britain.
But even acknowledging these great differences, there is also now a sense among most American Jews that the challenges they face are greater than anything they’ve had to deal with since the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism is growing on both the Left and the Right. Anti-Zionist invective, fueled by intersectional myths, has become widely accepted on the left-wing of the Democratic Party with open supporters of the anti-Semitic BDS movement being treated like rock stars rather than pariahs. Concurrent with that political trend is the fact that hatred and violence against Orthodox Jews have become normalized in places like Brooklyn, New York. On the Right, extremist alt-right trolls haven’t achieved the influence of their counterparts on the Left, though the noise they are making, along with the scattered acts of violence by lone gunmen, has rightly terrified Jews.
To its credit, the ADL has been all over the problem of anti-Semitism on the far-Right. Even on that score, however, it has staked out ground that makes it hard to be a unifying factor. Greenblatt’s unrelenting animus for President Donald Trump and his efforts to blame him for anti-Semitism have failed to properly credit the US administration as the most pro-Israel in history.
Anti-Semitic trends that couldn’t be connected to Trump by even the most rabid liberal were swept under the rug. Its belated response to the targeting of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn by African Americans has been too little and too late, and bespoke more of a group that is addicted to playing politics than a national defense organization.
Just as bad is the fact that under Greenblatt, ADL hasn’t been slow to recognize the threat from the Left as it's basically uninterested in it. That’s hardly surprising given Greenblatt’s role in an Obama administration that helped normalize anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic Party. Whereas under his predecessor one of ADL’s prime functions was to defend Israel, now it is generally found among the Jewish state’s critics on a variety of issues, often going out of its way to demonstrate solidarity with liberal foes of Israeli policy, whether or not it has anything to do with ADL’s anti-hate brief. That has helped to mute its voice when dealing with BDS advocates who target American Jewry far more than Israel.
It’s also a function of the way Greenblatt has helped transform ADL into a partisan organization – not merely supporting liberal values, but by intervening on issues like Supreme Court nominations in order to mollify left-wing donors eager to keep the organization aligned with Democratic Party priorities.
Part of the problem with confronting anti-Semitism is that partisans only see threats from their political opponents and are blind to dangers from their political allies. Rather than work against that trend, the ADL exemplifies it.
For all of its problems, the Democratic Party isn’t Labour. And the marginalization and hate that British Jews face cannot be analogized to what is going on in the United States. Still, it’s far from impossible that the Democrats could eventually go the way of Labour if its left-wing routs the centrists as they did in Britain.
No matter what the future brings, there is one thing we know for certain about the fight against anti-Semitism in the US. The ADL can’t speak up for American Jewry the way Rabbi Mirvis has just done in Britain. American Jewry’s primary defense organization has become part of the problem, not the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)