Donald Trump obviously knows a little about federal election law. After all, he finally managed to file papers with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) to begin collecting money and run for President of the United States on June 22, 2015. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. But he was talking about running for President back in 2011. As a Republican. He even hinted back then, if he lost the Republican primary, he might run as a 3rd party candidate. Is Donald Trump Serious About a 2012 Run for President? Ultimately, he decided not to run in 2012. Or in 2000, or 1988.
Point is, if Mr. Trump is intellectually (and fiscally) competent to be our President, surely he understands the connection between filing papers with the FEC and conducting a campaign. It’s simple: in order to accept donations and turn them into campaign expenditures, including paid political advertisements; a candidate for President must first file papers with the FEC, which monitors the financial transactions. Sounds simple to me. Then, when President Obama filed his nomination papers on April 4, 2012, and began collecting and spending money for his renomination; why did Trump insist the timing of those campaign expenditures resulted from his – Trump’s – ongoing prodding, and were not just run-of-the-mill paid political advertisements? Why didn’t he take advantage of the opportunity he had, by virtue of his ‘bully pulpit,’ to educate the general public about some of the inner workings of the political process?
A few years ago, I wrote a column entitled TRUMP to LEMMINGS: DO NOT LOOK BEFORE you LEAP! (copied below, for your convenience) in which I detailed support for my opinion, Trump is just another snake-oil salesman, distinguished from Obama only by the color of his skin (and whatever is his latest party designation).
I haven’t changed my mind. Donald Trump is either too stupid to be President; or too sinister. Take your pick.
Today, in a calculated display of hubris rivaled only by a production spawned from President Obama’s re-election campaign, Donald Trump has unveiled his much touted October “bombshell“: a “deal” to entice Mr. Obama to produce both his college and passport applications and records. Trump promises that jumping through this hoop “by October 31,” and “to my satisfaction,” and “if it’s complete,” will yield a check for $5,000,000 to Obama’s designated ‘charity.’ (I put the word ‘charity’ in single quotes because in addition to listing a well known outfit like “American Cancer Society”; he lists not only the umbrella enterprise of “AIDS research”; but also the generalized category “inner city children in Chicago.”) He couches his request in terms of acting on behalf of the people, to end their “questions” and “anger.” Yes, he knows that the President will be doing a “great service for the country” by allowing them to “know something about their President.” In short, by releasing the documents Trump mentioned, the President suddenly will “become transparent.”
Of course, some of us know, no “thing” coming out of this dog-and-pony show will inform anyone where Barack Obama was born.
For starters, notice that Trump qualified his reference to Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” by adding (after an obvious pause) “or whatever it may be.” It’s the “whatever it may be” which should have been the tip-off, Trump is wearing his circus barker hat. Why do you suppose he is ‘hedging his bets’ as to the ‘document’s’ authenticity?
As I explained in SHE SAID / HE SAID: SCRIPTING the 04.27.11 LAUNCH of PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE back on April 1, 2012 (and other articles linked therein), what was released on April 27 was the political ad campaign conceived, executed, and launched by the President’s re-election campaign, the contents of which were fully protected by the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on restrictions on political speech. Featuring the image of the mock-up of a long-form birth certificate, the ads ran on internet sites such as WhiteHouse.gov/blog. (Emphasis added.)
Do you suppose that Mr. Trump, in April 2011 still a possible contender for the Presidency; doesn’t recognize a political ad campaign when he sees one?
Trump asserts he forced the President’s April 27 release of this advertising image: “I’m very honored to have gotten him to release his long-form birth certificate…” Presumably, he means, in a desperate attempt to quell doubts as to the President’s birth status which have swirled unabated for more than 3 years, since the primary in 2008; it was his – Trump’s – many references to concerns as to whether Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen, uttered as a (pseudo) Presidential candidate in the spring of 2011 which compelled the release of the document at this particular time. (Again, crediting the release of the certificate – “or whatever it may be” – to the President, as opposed to correctly attributing the release to the President’s re-election campaign, cannot have been an innocent oversight.) But, of course, Trump had no more to do with either the substance or the timing of the April 27 appearance of the long form image; than any of the other millions of Americans challenging the narrative of Obama’s birth and demanding some sort of documentation. In fact, its release was triggered by the formal announcement of the President’s re-election campaign 3 weeks earlier, on April 4, and the accompanying mandatory filing with the FEC which then allowed the solicitation of funds in his name by the newly formed re-election campaign, funds which the campaign immediately translated into expenditures on political advertising such as the long-form ad. In other words, it was the official (read, legal) kick-off of the President’s re-election campaign which provided the first opportunity to address what were ongoing eligibility issues that could jeopardize his re-election. (The formal kick-off of the President’s campaign was also accompanied by previously scheduled events associated with the re-election campaign, including a stint on Oprah and a major NY fundraiser, also on the 27th. Id.)
SHE SAID / HE SAID contains not only a lucid (albeit lengthy) explanation of the long-form image as a campaign expenditure; but also references several other articles on the “jbjd” blog, dispelling the long-form myth, including HOW to WRITE SMART CANDIDATE ELIGIBILITY LAWS in your STATE (and make applying to get on the ballot harder than applying to get into Harvard), which points to the lethal problems associated with allowing candidate ‘self-authentication.’ Indeed, did you notice that Trump’s deal for Obama’s records never specifies who must transmit these records, or to whom these records must be submitted? And while he says, the documents must be “complete” and to his “satisfaction”; he never specifies, who will determine whether these criteria are met. Because he knows better.
For example, during the recent Presidential debates; Obama verified the authenticity of some of his ‘facts’ by citing their source was “reporters.” What if these same “reporters” verify any forthcoming records? (See Pooh-poohing Pulitzer) And recall that Annenberg Political Fact Check staffers with no expertise in document authentication confirmed, the mock-up of the President’s Certification of Live Birth, and accompanying ad copy, were real. (See RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’) Assuming she is being sincere in this heated exchange with John Sununu from the Romney campaign; Reporter Soledad O’Brien is only one of millions of Americans who still wrongly believe, what APFC says must be true.
In sum, Donald Trump knows better than to contend that any ‘documents’ forthcoming through this publicity stunt will increase the knowledge of the American people about the circumstances of our President’s birth; or diminish our ire at what many of us feel is a con. On the contrary; by failing to take advantage of media opportunities like this, to educate the public that, legally, the April 11, 2011 long-form release by the Obama re-election campaign was only part of a political ad launch; and worse, by cynically encouraging the Obama campaign this opportunity to repeat that ploy; Trump only broadens the con, and exacerbates our ire.
Obviously, Mr. Trump thinks most Americans are as foolish as does President Obama.
I don’t have time to write my usual tome but, I just watched yet another ‘talking head’ make a fool of herself, unchallenged, bemoaning the fact, the judge in KY sent Clerk Kim Davis to jail for refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple; and I have to vent. The Pulitzer Prize winning pundit suggested the court’s action only engenders sympathy for Ms. Davis, when the correct move would be to fire her for not doing her job by carrying out what is now settled law.
Whatever happened to intellectual curiosity? Hasn’t anyone rationalizing the woman should be fired instead of imprisoned, stopped to ask the next question, namely, who would fire her?
NEWS FLASH: MS. DAVIS WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE OF COUNTY CLERK AND CAN ONLY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE THROUGH IMPEACHMENT.
When it comes to his ‘idea’ that one way to begin fixing current immigration problems is to re-define ‘birthright citizenship’; Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump proves, once again, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
Donald Trump said Tuesday that he doesn’t think people born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are American citizens.
“I don’t think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some will disagree — but many of them agree with me and you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship.
I am guessing that one of those “very, very good lawyers” he refers to, is Ann Coulter, who hypes the same drivel in her book Adios, America and, at least when it comes to Trump’s forays into immigration ‘policy,’ is an unabashed fan. First, a little background.
On Monday, August 17, responding to questions about talk of ending ‘birthright citizenship,’ Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina told NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell
“It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It’s part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration.”
Ms. Coulter was interviewed by syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher the next day:
“I have turned against her [Carly Fiorina) as of yesterday with the hot, hot hate of a 1000 suns.
…yesterday among the attacks I saw on the magnificent Donald Trump immigration plan was, you know, everybody wants to get rid of anchor babies.
You can read the section of my book. It’s very short. It’s not from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment, you’ll all remember, came after the Civil War, remember what the Civil War was about? That was freeing the slaves. It wasn’t about allowing illegal aliens to run across the border, drop a baby and say, “Ha ha, you missed me, I’m a citizen now.”
Do you think the framers of the 14th Amendment, that’s what they were hoping to do? She [again referencing Ms. Fiorina] said both she and Chris Christie, I saw, saying on TV yesterday, “Well, of course you’d need a Constitutional amendment to do that, that’s crazy.”
And I would bet Mr. Trump paid dearly for Ms. Coulter’s advice. But neither knows what he or she is talking about.
As I have tried to explain – see, for example, SENSE and non-SENSE, AGAIN with the 14th AMENDMENT!, jbjd’s FRENEMIES LIST – the 14th Amendment to the Constitution did not confer U.S. citizenship on anyone; under the Constitution, only Congress may define what constitutes ‘citizenship’ (Art. I, sec. 8. Clause 4). Thus, any attempt to define who is a citizen, through the Amendment process first would have to specifically modify that delineated power in Art. I
Rather, the 14th Amendment, implicitly assuming the fact that slaves, whether natural born or naturalized, were citizens of the U.S., merely re-stated that fact. For effect, it also clarified that, by definition being a citizen of the U.S. also means, being a citizen of the state in which one resides. (Prior to the 14th Amendment, some states and the District of Columbia denied the status of ‘citizenship’ to slaves.) But the sole purpose of mentioning the citizenship status of natural born and naturalized people was to serve as a preamble to the heart of the Amendment: all citizens of the U.S. (and therefore, the states and D.C.) are entitled to equal protection and due process.
In so doing, the 14th Amendment now extended the Due Process entitlement already found in the 5th Amendment, which had applied to the federal government; to the states and D.C. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv Thus, inasmuch as Congress defines all people born in the U.S. as citizens under the law; then, any newly initiated program, whether Executive or Legislative in origin, which calls for the involuntary deportation of these citizens requires due process. This means, even if the ‘plan’ floated by Mr. Trump was implemented, the Judicial branch would be inundated with and drowned to a halt by the petitions of citizens facing such deportation.
(There’s also this: Art. I, sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution already prohibit Congress from passing ex post facto laws, that is, laws which criminalize conduct after the fact. Thus, criminalizing being in this country, having been born here, would first require amending the Constitution so as to eliminate the prohibition against ex post fact laws.)
So much for taking ‘legal’ advice on immigration, from someone with a vested financial interest in selling her books.
UPDATED 08.19.15: Here is an interesting treatise on the subject, produced with our taxpayer money by the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”). http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf An interesting finding is that, the common law definition of the disputed terms, as incorporated into the 14th Amendment, prevailed until ‘codified’ in 1898, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That is, whoever is born here – with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats – and subject to the jurisdiction thereof – this excluded native Americans not ‘citizenized’ by treaties with the U.S. – is a citizen of the U.S. and the state of residence. Subsequent laws extended citizenship to all Indian tribes, regardless of treaty status. ADMINISTRATOR
On September 19, 2012 French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a series of images described by the Christian Science Monitor as “raunchy cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.” Here, in an interview with al Jazeera, Stephane Charbonnier, editorial director of Charlie Hebdo, explains he timed the images to coincide with current events, namely, press accounts of world-wide demonstrations of “radical Muslims” against the “Fascist American film” (the YouTube video, “Innocence of Muslims”).
The timing of the 2012 images was widely criticized by everyone from the French prime minister to church officials, having come only days after “about 200 (emphasis added) people” demonstrated in front of the U.S. embassy in Paris, against the “Innocence” video, on September 15 (emphasis added). Id. (France’s population is 66 million, of which 5-10% is Muslim. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html)
But, the “Innocence of Muslims” video was not a factor in world de-stabilization on September 11, 2012, when terrorists attacked us in Benghazi, Libya. No; it only became a weapon in global terror after the Benghazi attack, when President Obama conspired with Secretary Clinton to make it one. THE MOHAMMAD VIDEO SLEIGHT-of-HAND.
If the House of Representatives (“accusers”) of the U.S. Congress finds that President Obama attempted to subvert the Constitution by directing the IRS to exercise its power to stifle political speech that was otherwise protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution; or was connected in any suspicious manner with any person engaged in such conduct and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person; or made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false or designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors then, they must vote for Impeachment. And let the Senate “judge” whether to convict.
In 1974, the late great Representative Barbara Jordan, Democrat from Texas and member of the House Judiciary Committee discusses Impeachment with respect to President Nixon. (Note, the YouTube video incorrectly dates her statement as taking place in 1971.)
Of all the ‘material’ statements made by Ms. Jordan, I found this passage to be the most salient.
It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the legislature against and upon the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judgers — and the judges the same person.
(Note: I intentionally linked to the American Rhetoric site because it provides a true transcript of Ms. Jordan’s remarks. As regular readers of “jbjd” know, I usually link to C-Span for original source material. However, while C-Span lists Ms. Jordan’s video on its site; it cannot be played due to “rights restrictions.” And, while it provides a written transcript of her speech, the transcript contains errors, at least one of which is what we would call a ‘material’ error.
For example, the transcript reads,
BEGINNING SHORTLY AFTER THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN AND CONTINUING TO THE PRESENT TIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS DESIGNED TO FOR THE LAWFUL INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS.
But the speaker said,
BEGINNING SHORTLY AFTER THE WATERGATE BREAK-IN AND CONTINUING TO THE PRESENT TIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS ENGAGED IN A SERIES OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS DESIGNED TO THWART THE LAWFUL INVESTIGATION BY GOVERNMENT PROSECUTORS.
American Rhetoric got it right; I have contacted C-Span to make the corrections.)
Ms. Jordan proposed the Committee should “juxtapose” some of the activities the President (Nixon) had engaged in (with respect to events surrounding ‘Watergate,’ misuse of the IRS for political purposes, and defiance of Congressional subpoenas (contempt of Congress)), against Impeachment criteria enunciated by contemporaneous Constitutional experts including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, and participants at state ratifying conventions. She argued, therefore, the record supported a recommendation of Impeachment. And, after considerable analysis and debate; ultimately, her fellow Committee members on a bi-partisan basis approved 3 (three) articles of Impeachment. (The Congressional Quarterly Press is a member site. But you can reach the source page by searching, House Judiciary Committee Articles of Impeachment Nixon CQPress.) However, before a vote on Impeachment by the full House, President Nixon resigned. Id.
Having reviewed the applicable standards of Impeachment, let’s adapt Ms. Jordan’s exercise, to President Obama, with respect to the IRS. I’ll start.
In the category of ‘made announcements and assertions bearing on the case which the evidence shows he knew to be false’ or were designed to thwart investigation by government prosecutors: “Not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS (accompanied by derisive sneering and snickering), with accompanying evidence.
Here is the interview conducted with Bill O’Reilly from FOX News, on February 2, 2014.
“I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks at the [American Bar Association] Tax Section’s Exempt Organizations Committee Meeting, and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks,” Roady said in a statement to U.S. News and World Report. “I agreed to do so, and she then gave me the question that I asked at the meeting the next day. We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.”
On the night of Tuesday, September 11, 2012 al Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Benghazi, Libya began attacking the U.S. diplomatic compound there, and the CIA Annex nearby. By the time they cleared out the next day, they had murdered 4 (four) Americans : J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador; Sean Smith, Information Officer, U.S. Foreign Service; and Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both U.S. Navy SEALs.
In the 21 months since the attack, the meme became cemented that an internet video maligning the Islamic Prophet Mohammad had not only triggered this catastrophe, but also ignited similar conflagrations at American Embassies worldwide. But then, the Ben Rhodes email finally arrived.
Now, I think I figured out how what I believe is a false Mohammad-video-qua-villain meme got started; and I think the record establishes when, where, and why.
Time and Place
September 11, 2012 was the 11th anniversary of the bombings on the Twin Towers. Only 4 (four) days earlier, Barack Obama had bragged to delegates at the DNC Convention: “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat; and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The general election, pitting the Democrat incumbent against Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney, was just 7 (seven) weeks away. The Gallup poll had the candidates in a dead tie.
The seeds of the Mohammad-video-qua-villain meme that sprouted during the ongoing attack in Libya, were planted hours earlier, before an incident involving our Embassy in Cairo, Egypt. Cairo and Benghazi are in the same time zone. Washington, D.C. is 6 (six) hours behind, Eastern Time (ET). Thus, noon local time in Cairo/Benghazi on Tuesday, is 6:00 AM ET on Tuesday here.
Genesis
Sam Becile, aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Nicola Bacily, Robert Bacily, Erwin Salameh, Ahmad Hamdy, Kritbag Difrat and PJ Tobacco, an Egyptian Coptic Christian based in CA, pleaded no contest to federal bank fraud charges in California in 2010 and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer. But in August 2011, he decided to make a movie.
The low budget film, originally called “Desert Warrier,” was shot on location in CA under a permit obtained by a group called Media for Christ, a nonprofit organization based in Duarte, which advertises its mission as promoting Christian values. The amateur actors Nakoula had recruited off of Craigslist thought they were starring in historical fiction depicting the life of “Master George,” living in Egypt 2,000 years ago. But Nakoula, bothered at Muslim treatment of Christian Copts, had something else in mind. Through heavy-handed post-production editing, the amateur filmmaker somehow managed to convert the innocuous ‘Warrier’ into a parody called “Innocence of Muslims,” depicting the Prophet Mohammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. All references to Muslims or to the Muslim religion have been obviously re-dubbed. For example, actors could clearly be seen moving their mouths to pronounce the name “Master George” while the soundtrack had them uttering “Mohammad.” All unbeknownst to the original cast.
The 14-minute English language ‘promo’ for “Innocence” was uploaded to YouTube in June; it was translated into Arabic and uploaded several more times thereafter.
Nakoula contacted conservative U.S.-based Egyptian-American Coptic activist Maurice Sadeq and his pal Pastor Terry Jones, the Florida man who became notorious when he began burning Korans in 2010, to promote his film. Jones’ latest foray into ‘spectacle’ was “International Judge Mohammad ‘Mo’ Day,” September 11, 2012, when he planned to conduct a public trial of the Prophet Mohammad and broadcast it live on the internet. On Thursday, September 6, Sadeq emailed promos of both Nakoula’s film “Innocence” and Jones’ “‘Mo’ Day'” trial, to journalists around the world.
Controversial Cairo television host Sheikh Khaled Abdallah aired clips of the dual Mohammad films on an Islamic-focused television station on Saturday. On Sunday, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa publicly denounced “the actions undertaken by some extremist Copts who made a film offensive to the Prophet.” (About a 10th of Egypt’s 83 million people are Christians. The rest are Muslim.) Salafist leader Wesam Abdel-Wareth, also the president of Egypt’s ultra-conservative Al-Hekma television channel, called for a protest against the film ‘Mohammad’s trial’ at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, September 11, outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.
On Monday, September 10, Egypt’s Salafist Nour Party contacted the U.S. Embassy, in writing, announcing the protest planned for tomorrow. While making clear it wasn’t calling for an open-ended sit-in in front of the embassy, the party nonetheless demanded that the U.S. government ban broadcast of the film and issue an official apology for its offensive content. (Ahmed Khalil, a senior leader of the party, would later tell a reporter, the actions of “certain U.S. citizens” who produced the film served to jeopardize Washington’s relations with the entire Muslim world.)
That same day, Dr. Jones released a YouTube announcing he would screen Nakoula’s anti-Islam trailer tomorrow, September 11, as part of his campaign to turn the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America into “International Judge Mohammad ‘Mo’ Day.” (Notice, the airing is scheduled after work, at 6:00 PM our time, which is midnight over there.)
On Tuesday, September 11 Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Mahmoud Ghozlan announced the group planned to call for a million-man rally on Friday to register their opposition to the anti-Islam film. He, too, wanted the U.S. Administration to issue a formal apology for the film to the Muslim world, adding that the U.S. government should prosecute the “madmen” whose activities were harming Washington’s relations with Arab and Muslim countries. He also stressed that all demonstrations should remain peaceful in nature. “Protests should be peaceful and avoid any form of vandalism,” Ghozlan asserted. “They should be civilised demonstrations of the Egyptian people’s displeasure with this film.” He went on to warn that “any non-peaceful activity will be exploited by those who hate Islam to defame the image of Egypt and Muslims.”
By noon on September 11, approximately 5 (five) hours before the scheduled protest, Embassy staffers, responding to entreaties from both the Nour Party and the Muslim Brotherhood to disclaim any Mohammad-related offensive speech, posted this on the Embassy’s Twitter account, under the heading “US Embassy condemns religious incitement”:
The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.
Selected sentences from the statement were also tweeted out by embassy staff.
Those tweets could be seen here at 6:00 AM ET.
HuffingtonPost printed a Reuters story on Tuesday about the Cairo protests, referencing both Nakoula’s movie about Mohammad, and the one featuring the Prophet’s trial by Pastor Jones. (I took a picture so as to preserve the posting time(s), just in case. Note, these are local times.)
An Egyptian state website carried a statement by Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox church condemning what it said were moves by some Copts living abroad “to finance the production of a film insulting Prophet Mohammad.”
About a 10th of Egypt’s 83 million people are Christians.
It was not immediately clear which film angered protesters.
However, according to the website http://www.standupamerianow.org, the Christian Pastor Terry Jones, who angered Muslims by burning a copy of the Koran, was due to take part in an event on Tuesday called “International Judge Mohammad Day” in Florida in which it would symbolically put the Prophet on trial and play it out live over the Internet.)
The Cairo demonstration of protest against the Mohammad film(s) got underway as scheduled 5 hours later, at 5:00 PM local time, or 11:00 AM ET.
By this time, the promo for “Innocence” first posted on YouTube in June had been up for more than 2 months, and was now accompanied with Arabic translated versions re-posted thereafter. The joint promos of “Innocence” and “‘Mo Day Trial” sent to the press had been broadcast on Egyptian t.v. Prominent figures had called on Egyptians to protest. Yet press accounts describe that out of a total population in Egypt of 83 million, 90% of whom are Muslims; no more than “2,000” people – “Salafist activists” – were gathered in the Embassy compound. Live news feeds interspersed with pre-recorded images from the scene confirm accounts that the crowd remained peaceful, despite sporadic cries of “Obama, Obama there are still a billion Osamas,” and the occasional firecrackers, sometimes mistaken for bullets. A few flares were lit.
An Ahram Online reporter at the scene described members of the Salafist party could be seen coaxing enthusiastic protesters to come down from atop the Embassy’s walls, while many members of the Egyptian security forces who had been summoned to maintain order in advance of the gathering now sat on the sidewalk, appearing relatively relaxed.
Most of the crowd was gone by 10:00 PM local time, Tuesday, September 11; it was only 4:00 PM here. As the update to the HuffingtonPost article linked above confirms, there were no injuries, among either protesters or Embassy staff. The only property damaged was an American flag, which vandals replaced with a black flag favored by ultraconservatives and militants and labeled with the most basic Islamic profession of faith: “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.”
With the demonstration concluded, the Embassy issued more tweets. (IMPORTANT: times (and corresponding dates) in bold are ET and not local time.)
4:47 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: “As Spokesperson Nuland said, protestors breached our wall and took down flag. Thanks for your concern and kind wishes.”
5:58-59 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets in three parts: “1) Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. 2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we’re the ones actually living through this. 3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotry.”
(At 6:00 PM ET, Stand Up America Now begins a livestream of Jones’ anti-Muslim presentation online. It is midnight, local time.)
Here is the last tweet from the Embassy, sent at 12:30 AM local time, Wednesday, September 12.
6:30 p.m., 9/11/12. @USEmbassyCairo tweets: “This morning’s condemnation (issued before protests began) still stands. As does condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy.”
There have been no public statements here about events in Cairo.
Propagation
Meanwhile, all hell was breaking loose in Libya, at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 777 miles away.
The attack against the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi began at 9:30 PM local time, or 3:30 PM ET, around the time the peaceful protest in Cairo was breaking up. Here is a partial timeline of events. (IMPORTANT: times (and corresponding dates) in bold now reflect local time and not ET.)
9.40pm – CIA officials in ‘The Annex’ get a distress call from the consulate saying they are under attack.
10.05pm – Armed only with handguns, team of about six CIA security officers leave their base for the public diplomatic mission compound.
10.30pm – With bullets whistling overhead, the CIA team move into the compound after unsuccessfully trying to get heavy weapons and help from local Libyan allies.
U.S. and Libyan guards enter burning building and pull out the body of Sean Smith.
11.10pm – A Defense Department drone, which had been on an unrelated mission some distance away, arrived in Benghazi to help officials on the ground gather information.
11.30pm – U.S. personnel who had been working or staying at the mission all accounted for, except for Ambassador Stevens.
11.40pm – Driving back to the secure base, the evacuees come under further fire.
12am – The installation itself comes under fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
12am – A CIA security team based in Tripoli, which included two U.S. military officers, lands at Benghazi airport and begins plotting how to locate the missing ambassador.
1am – The patchy attacks on the base begin to die down after 90 minutes of fierce fighting.
The Ambassador, as an unidentified patient, is admitted to Benghazi Medical Center just after 1:00 AM local time (7:00 PM ET), described as unresponsive. He is declared dead 15 minutes later, at 1:15.
At sometime between 3:00-4:00 AM, Libyan security forces locate the body at the hospital. Americans at the annex describe his features. Libyans identify the body as Ambassador Stevens.
No doubt within minutes, everyone from Benghazi to Washington knows.
It is 9:00-10:00 PM, ET.
Around 10:00 PM ET, President Obama called Secretary Clinton.
The conversation is about to pivot to Cairo.
Embassy staffers in Cairo had begun posting the conciliatory yet resolute tweets on their feed 16 hours earlier. Their words had remained visible to anyone monitoring the site, without adverse reaction, all this time. Now, they were taken down.
10:10 p.m. 9/11/12Politico cites an unnamed administration official saying, “The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government.”
(The Politico link works, for now; but, just in case…)
According to FactCheck.org, Ms. Clinton issued her first public statement about Benghazi at “about 10:00 PM.” (Emphasis added.) Fortunately, her statement was also posted on MSNBC at precisely 10:32. (Emphasis added.) She mentioned one person had been killed; no doubt, it was Ambassador Stevens. (Clarification 06.22.14: This “person” could also have been Sean Smith, whose body was removed from the Embassy at around 10:30 PM local time on the 11th, which was around 4:30 PM ET (in D.C.) But parsing out blame, she didn’t specifically cite to a film about Mohammad – either Nakoula’s ‘Innocence’ or Jones’ ‘trial’ – or even to any “video.” Instead, she blamed his death on “inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” (Emphasis added.)
Clinton’s statement is linked to the SoS web site, but her words are no longer there. FactCheck provides a link to MSNBC but, it has been pulled from there, too. FactCheck went on to say, the next day, September 12, she spoke to the State Dept. That link leads to another “404.” So, I took a picture of the statements she made on both days, from the FactCheck web site, in case that disappears.
President Obama would not be heard on Benghazi, until the next day. (Statements attributed to him on the 12th can still be accessed through the FactCheck links but I used pictures, anyway.)
IMPORTANT: WHEN YOU READ THE EDITORIAL INTRODUCTIONS FACTCHECKPROVIDES, KEEP IN MIND THIS BENGHAZI TIMELINE WAS FIRST POSTED ON OCTOBER 26, 2012 .
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
These carefully chosen words in public statements from both the President and the Secretary, last night and today – “senseless violence”; “inflammatory material”; “act of terror” – not only conflated the peaceful nature of the demonstration Cairo with the brutal assault in Benghazi but accomplished much more. Almost immediately, this ‘offensive’ material piqued the interest of both national and international media, resulting in the free distribution of Nakoula’s work worldwide.
On Thursday, September 13, protesters returned to the Embassy in Egypt, throwing rocks this time. The Embassy in Yemen was attacked by violent protesters By Friday, violence had spread to India, Tunisia, Germany, Lebanon, and Sudan.
“Talking Points”
On May 16, 2013, The Swampland (Time) posted a timeline compiled from the 100 pages of e-mails the White House released to the press the previous day. Of course, this was done before Judicial Watch successfully petitioned the court in an FOIA suit to compel release of the documents subpoenas from the House Oversight Committee had thus far failed to procure, which included the now-infamous Ben Rhodes email.
The timeline begins with this entry dated September 14, 2012, both explaining why the drafting of talking points originated with the CIA, and making clear, as far as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was concerned, the issue here was not Cairo, but Benghazi. (I have been unable to locate an original written request for talking points, but I found a sort of paraphrasing of what appears to be that request, among these released documents.)
[A]t this morning HPSCI coffee with DCIA, HPSCI members eagerly sought some sort of “white paper” they could use to reply to numerous media requests asking for comments on other inflammatory press articles regarding the Benghazi attacks.
HPSCI has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media.
It’s 2 days out, and no one else but Clinton and Obama is talking publicly about Cairo, only Benghazi.
At some point, someone chooses Susan Rice, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to represent the Administration on the Sunday talk shows.
The Swampland provides a ‘clean’ version of the talking point edits annotated, in color, which is immeasurably easier to follow. These are well worth perusing. But I just want to point out a couple of prominent points in this alteration proposed by that NSC spokesman dude Tommy – that’s what the 32-year-old likes to be called – Vietor.
Notice, the emphasis is now being shifted to Cairo. But what happened since Tuesday to merit this new found attention there?
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, the comments from President Obama and Secretary Clinton were not intended to steer the conversation from Benghazi to Cairo. That is, let’s pretend on Monday the CIA learned through social media of potential demonstrations ‘tomorrow,’ and alerted the Embassy. Presumably, they – the CIA – would be closely monitoring the situation the next day. Undoubtedly, they would have read the Embassy’s twitter feed in real time. But remember, the Cairo demonstration on September 11 was quite peaceful, with nary a gun, let alone a mortar, in sight. The CIA – and anyone else monitoring the situation – would have seen this, too. This could explain why the tweets were fine before the President and the Secretary sought to link Cairo with Benghazi, requiring their removal the next day.
There’s also this fact, reflected in the email. Denis McDonough, the President’s Chief of Staff, is running this show. And he, at least, appears to be good at his job. For example, while these ‘CIA talking points’ were created so as to satisfy a request from the Hill; in his appointed ‘talking points’ oversight role, he could have just insisted that these be run by State. But such heavy-handedness could raise suspicion. Instead, he adeptly disguised the order, framing it as mere common sense consideration, in case State, like House Intelligence, had to answer questions from the media, too.
And then, there’s this.
No doubt David Petraeus, Director of the CIA was displeased with the current and final iteration of the talking points the agency had created less than 24 hours earlier. No doubt, notwithstanding the alterations imposed by several other ‘eyes’ from throughout the Executive branch, these would serve as the unclassified talking points (“UNCLAS”) requested by the Legislative branch, specifically Rep. Ruppersberger, HPSCI “Vice Chair.” And, despite Jay Carney’s recent sojourn into obfuscation; no doubt, these same edited ‘CIA talking points’ were delivered to Susan Rice on Saturday, as indicated, for use in her upcoming appearances on the Sunday talk shows the next day, with the Director’s grudging acquiescence, consistent with White House ‘requests’ to “coordinate” the talking points, with State.
At best, the link between events in Cairo and Benghazi found in the ‘CIA talking points’ is still too tenuous…
The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its annex. There are extremists participated in these violent demonstrations.
and, needed more aggressive shoring up if the “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” seed planted by both the President and the Secretary days earlier, was to flourish as the cause, and not the effect of the melees.
Cue Ben Rhodes and the magically appearing email – he has an M.F.A. in Creative Writing from NYU – he wrote on Friday, as the basis of the 4:00 PM ‘preparation’ call to Susan Rice on Saturday, in advance of her appearances on the 5 Sunday shows.
Here’s where the word “video” first appears.
The Administration’s forced integration among Cairo and Benghazi and the video was fully achieved with Ms. Rice’s stalwart appearances on those 5 Sunday shows, September 16.
ABC’s “This Week”
But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
CBS’s “Face the Nation”
The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.
NBC’s “Meet the Press”
Well, let us– let me tell you the– the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.
CNN’s “State of the Union”
There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.
That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates.
“Fox News Sunday”
The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.
Violent demonstrations break out in Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Phillippines, Sri Lanka, and Somalia, the next day.
Ever searching for reliable sources of real news, I recently began reading The Hill, after viewing its Associate Editor A. B. Stoddard, a regular panelist on the FOX News show Special Report with Brett Baier. Generally, I found the site to be both informative and well-balanced. Perhaps this is why I was so irked by this latest experience.
Press’ ‘article’ closes with this mini-bio: Press is host of “The Bill Press Show” on Free Speech TV and author of The Obama Hate Machine.
Inasmuch as The Hill has condescended to provide this forum to Mr. Press; it could mitigate the damages to its credibility by also including the fact, he is the former Chair of the California Democratic Party. PRESS BILL PRESS to EARN his PRESS CREDENTIALS.
I confess: I am an abject hypocrite when it comes to my vote, especially in the general election.
As evidenced throughout this blog; I immersed myself in the factual details of the ascendency of Barack Obama into the Oval Office. Then, based on my newfound education, I vowed not vote for any Democrats for 40 years, likening this to the proverbial desert odyssey God imposed on the Jews to kill off all those generations raised within a culture steeped in idolatry, who had disobeyed His commandment to worship only Him. But, all things being equal; this means, I cannot justify voting Republican, either, because of the conduct of President George (W.) Bush, an awareness which broadsided me during a recent exchange about references to a Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq.
Larry Johnson, Owner and Proprietor of the NoQuarter blog, posted NeoCon and Conservative Alzheimers on Iraq in which he sharply criticized Charles Krauthammer for blaming the current chaos in Iraq on President Obama’s failure to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”): “What a crock of shit!” Id. He want on to correctly point out, “The Status of Forces Agreement was negotiated by George W. Bush’s people. Not Obama’s.” Id. Here was my response.
LJ, you wrote, “I am sickened and disgusted by the craven and dishonest conduct of pundits like Krauthammer.” Having missed the segment to which you referred – I usually skip O’Reilly – I went back and listened. Then, given 1) what might on the surface have appeared to be a less-than-forthright pronouncement from Dr. K; and 2) what I have found to be his history of reliability; I began to investigate. That’s how I came to realize, we are talking about 2 SOFA’s (see my comment below). Comments by your loyal opposition, Banned, inspired me to further research the facts.
No one is perfect; we all contradict ourselves, whether due to honest evolution of opinion. But based on Dr. K’s voluminous record of well-founded punditry; he has earned my ‘benefit of the doubt.’
(Note that I hadn’t even investigated the reasons underlying the horrible news coming out of Iraq until LJ attacked one of my favored political pundits! So much for being a civic citizen…)
Then, I responded to other commenters on that blog, with more information from my newly conducted research:
“Mr. Biden also predicted that the Americans could work out a deal with a government led by Mr. Maliki. “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Mr. Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” he added, referring to the Status of Forces Agreement the Obama administration hoped to negotiate.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09…
Clearly, VP Biden (and, by extension, President Obama) not only announced the position of the Administration, a new SOFA was necessary to stabilize the situation in Iraq; he assumed one would be negotiated. Then, why wasn’t it? Because President Obama is incapable of negotiating such an agreement. Then, having failed to negotiate such an agreement, Obama took credit for living up to his campaign promise to get US troops out of Iraq. And, he didn’t bother explaining to the country, what likely would be the devastating results of his failed attempts to finalize a new SOFA.
Remember, in the lead-up to the Iraqi war, several members of Congress, from both parties, granted provisional authorization for a use of force on the basis Iraq held weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) which could pose a threat to America’s vital interests. The resolution contained this caveat: before force would be used, all other non-combative measures would be exhausted, first. Most notable: UN inspectors would complete their work, consisting of searching for these WMD’s. Here is the corresponding (controlling) section of the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 :
…
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
...
(Note that this resolution does not directly hold the “nation” of Iraq responsible for 9/11. Indeed, it could not, given that, Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and, insofar as any nation could be said to be responsible for 9/11 then, it would be that nation in closest nexus to the actual act, which both history and the US Courts have established is Saudi Arabia. Rather, the carefully parsed wording of the resolution provides an alternative rationale to attack that country, by implying it perhaps is, or is associated with an international terrorist and terrorist organization.)
Again, my purpose here is not to re-litigate the reasons we initiated the Iraq war, or even to reason whether, having sparked some of the violence which resulted from our presence in Fallujah, we should have negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement (“SOFA”) before our scheduled departure in 2011 at a time the city was experiencing relative peace; or whether such a SOFA would have forestalled the ensuing turmoil.
I only want to point out, as much as I detest Democrats in general for all things related to Barack Obama, including his failure to negotiate that new SOFA; I hate the Republicans and President Bush for getting us into that war in the first place.
I hate Vice President Cheney most of all.
At a congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed “a very simple question” about the administration’s manipulation of intelligence: “How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?” Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: “The vice president.” Id.
In a cravenly political attempt to obfuscate the palpable contempt many of us have unleashed at having been lied to by our elected officials with respect to elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), lies which many of us charge were an integral part of the fraudulent campaign to sustain President Obama’s otherwise uncertain bid for re-election; several of those lying officials and their press enablers have touted this benefit of the doomed law, scheduled to take effect in 2014: “insurers will no longer be able to deny anyone on the basis of their medical history.” (Note: I took this cite from WebMD, LLC, since my tax dollars are now supporting that private enterprise to promote the ACA. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/webmd_received_almost_5_million_bucks_for_feds_to_promote_obamacare.html)
Then, adding insult to injury, these dissemblers cite this specific provision of the ACA as evidence that Republican inhumanity informs their general opposition to the law. For example, TDB writer Michael Tomasky points to a pre-ACA Republican proposal for general improvements to health care which omitted mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions. “Oh, and get this: Under their plan, insurance companies could still have denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Ending that is the main point of reform, and ending that is why reform is so hard.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/16/blame-obama-for-passing-a-partisan-health-care-bill-what-nonsense.html
But since when did banning healthcare insurers operating in any state from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions; require federal legislation? Before the ACA, several states including Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont already prohibited such discrimination. http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/pre-existing-conditions.pdf
And since when were Republicans against such legislation?
The voters in blue Massachusetts, through the overwhelmingly Democratic General Court, endorsed legislation mandating the coverage of pre-existing conditions in 1996. And it was signed into law by Governor William Weld, Republican. This was a full 10 years before Republican Governor Mitt Romney signed “An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care” (also known as Romneycare) in 2006, and 18 years before the same mandate for coverage of pre-existing conditions is triggered in the ACA. Even though, these same blue voters overwhelmingly rejected passage of the ACA, choosing Republican Scott Brown to fill Senator Kennedy’s seat in a special election, on the basis, he promised to oppose the federal law, notwithstanding as a state senator, he had voted for the state’s reform plan! Democrats flee from ObamaCare disaster but voters will find them in 2014
Indeed, in “Why Obamacare can’t replicate Mass.,” liberal American journalist Robert Kuttner (Swarthmore, Oberlin, UC Berkeley) points out that Romneycare succeeded where Obamacare has thus far failed due in no small part to the fact that, in 1996, the state passed a law that banned insurers from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or “guaranteed issue.” Yes, with guaranteed issue, healthy people can wait to buy insurance until they get sick, becoming free riders while others dutifully pay inevitably higher premiums all along. But with the 2006 legislation, where everyone was required to buy insurance, including those who would otherwise be free riders; rates “dropped sharply.” On the other hand; Mr. Kuttner insists the failure of Obamacare ultimately rests with Republicans.
So who should get the blame for the greater confusion in Obamacare?
A ban on pre-existing conditions might have been national policy sooner, but the insurance industry and the Republicans in Congress were dead set against it.
Obama might have funded the affordable insurance policies with direct subsidies rather than tax credits, but that was also anathema to Republicans — not to mention the even simpler course of Medicare for all.
He might have had government write the software for HealthCare.gov rather than hiring dozens of contractors. But ever since Ronald Reagan, government’s core competence has been hollowed out.
In short, Republicans create conditions that make it impossible for insurance reform to be carried out efficiently — and then laugh at the political damage to Democrats. The mischief is not only in demonizing the program and trying to defund it after the fact, but encumbering it with clunky preconditions even before it comes to a vote. Id.
The moral here is that even when Democrats praise Republicans for the acknowledged good things they do, they appear pre-conditioned to contemporaneously pile on the blame.
Much of the discussion of the Oklahoma shooting death of Christopher Lane, white, centers around race. According to Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford, white, Lane’s jogging route took him past a home where the 3 suspects in that shooting, were staying. http://duncanbanner.com/local/x865757598/Formal-charges-coming-in-shooting-death-of-Australian-man That may or may not be true. Anyway, at some point, the 3 got into a car and began driving. When they saw Lane, they decided to shoot. Lane’s race could have had something to do with his being the target; maybe this was a variation of the more traditional game of ‘polar bear hunting.‘ (Click on the link in that article, to “Thug Report.”) But I don’t think the race of the alleged perpetrators is the explanation at least with respect to why the Stephen’s County DA Jason Hicks, white, filed seemingly disparate criminal charges against the accused: James Francis Edward, Jr., black, passenger, front seat, 1st degree murder; Chancey Allen Luna, black/white, passenger, back seat, shooter, 1st degree murder; and Michael Dewayne Jones, white, driver, accessory after the fact.
Greta Susteren on FOXNews hosted a panel of attorneys, black and white, trying to figure out why Jones, who she identified was white; was only charged with being an accessory after the fact and not 1st degree murder. The lawyers all agreed that, strategically, a DA charging all 3 suspects with the maximum offense would be more likely to elicit a plea agreement from one of them, offering testimony against the other two in exchange for a reduced sentence. They said that even though Jones appears to be cooperating with authorities; they still would have charged him with 1st degree murder until the trial. Greta said the only possible way it made sense to her that Jones was charged with a lesser crime; was if he tried to thwart the shooting before it happened, for example, if he tried to steer the car away, or grabbed someone’s arm. One of her guests pointed out, Jones is the one who said, the shooting arose from boredom. I got the impression he meant to imply that, if Jones and the others wanted to kill someone, anyone, from the beginning then, contrary to Greta’s hypothetical scenario; he would still be as guilty. I suppose it all depends on the way the law is written; his attempt at any time before the killing to stop it might still result in a lesser charge. But what jumped out at me is Jones’ statement, ‘we did this because we were bored.’ Because it makes sense to me that he would tell this lie so as to cover up, at least initially, the real reason they were on the road in the first place.
I think Lane ended up dead because the 3 were on their way to kill Christopher Johnson and he happened to appear, first.
I think authorities charged Jones with being an accessory after the fact because they believe he had no idea his compatriots would shoot Lane when all 3 set out to kill Johnson, using the .22. Once they shot Lane, they had to get rid of that gun. Jones helped them. Eventually, they resumed their murderous plan, now having to use alternative means to carry it out. Because since they hadn’t anticipated they would encounter Lane and spontaneously decide to use the .22 to shoot him; they hadn’t brought along another weapon. But so far, the only person who has focused publicly on the threat to Chris Johnson, is his father, who would later say, he learned his son’s name was at the ‘top of the list.’ Id. I have seen nothing in the press to indicate that Jones, who is said to be cooperating with authorities – he had better be, for the reduced sentence – has revealed the real purpose of the excursion was to kill Chris Johnson and not Chris Lane. And, for whatever reason, neither Ford nor Hicks has stated that Jones wasn’t in on the shooting of Lane from the beginning, despite I think this makes sense, given the criminal charges.
As to why Edwards, sitting up front with Jones; and Luna received the same charge when Luna supposedly pulled the trigger, well, maybe Edwards spotted Lane and encouraged his friend in the back, to shoot.
Freedom isn't free. Both the quantity of work hours I am able to dedicate to the "jbjd" blog; and the quality of the legal research required to produce a sound product; are a function of the sum of financial donations from my readers. So, please, help me help you.
jbjd on REVOLUTION RADIO with "drkate" DISCLAIMER: These radio interviews took place in 2010. And while the information contained therein is as timely now as then; they took place before drkate's on-line persona morphed into its present iteration.)
All all 5 (five) appearances are now available on podcast!
What is copyright? Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What does copyright protect? Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
When is my work protected? Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
Posted by jbjd 
jbjd 