Ambassador Mansour Ayyad Al-Otaibi also criticized the Security Council for not agreeing to Kuwait ’ s request for an independent investigation of the Gaza deaths , adding that his country might instead seek an investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Office . Diplomats said that Kuwait had circulated a statement calling for an independent inquiry , which would require unanimous approval , but the United States had disagreed .\nDefending Israel , Ambassador Nikki R. Haley of the United States denounced what she called the double standard that other nations applied to Israel . “ Who among us would accept this type of activity on your border ? ” she asked . No country , she said , acted “ with more restraint than Israel . ”\nShe said that Hamas had been to blame for inciting protesters to storm the fence , and insisted that there had been no connection between the violence and celebrations on Monday for the opening of the American embassy . President Trump ’ s recognition of the Israeli position that Jerusalem is Israel ’ s capital , she said , “ makes peace more achievable , not less . ”\nAddressing the council , Nickolay Mladenov , the U.N. special coordinator for Middle East peace , found fault with both sides .\n“ Israel has a responsibility to calibrate its use of force , to not use lethal force , except as a last resort , under imminent threat of death or serious injury , ” he said . He added that Hamas “ must not use the protests as cover to attempt to place bombs at the fence and create provocations ; its operatives must not hide among the demonstrators and risk the lives of civilians . ”\nThousands of Palestinian refugees rallied in southern Lebanon on Tuesday in commemoration of the “ Nakba ” and in solidarity with the Gaza demonstrations .\nMany were bused in from the longstanding refugee camps of Lebanon .\nPalestinians have a complicated history with Lebanon . The influx of refugees in 1948 exacerbated Lebanon ’ s delicate sectarian balance and their presence is often cited as a major contributing factor to Lebanon ’ s 15-year civil war .\nNow , more than 450,000 of five million registered Palestinian refugees worldwide live in Lebanon . Legally , their rights are limited : Palestinians can not own property or attend public schools , and are banned from working in more than 30 professions .


With classes scheduled to start next week , incoming Harvard freshman Ismail B. Ajjawi , like many of his fellow students , was set to arrive on campus for the first time this week . But the 17-year-old Palestinian ’ s hard-won education at perhaps the world ’ s preeminent university is now in doubt . American immigration officials stopped Ajjawi , a Palestinian resident of Tyre , Lebanon , at Boston Logan International Airport on Friday night , the Crimson reports , where he was held in custody for eight hours and subjected to invasive questioning by a female immigration officer , who then abruptly told him his study visa was being canceled and that he was being deported .\n“ Upon arrival , Ajjawi faced questioning from immigration officials along with several other international students . While the other students were allowed to leave , Ajjawi alleges an immigration officer continued to question him about his religion and religious practices in Lebanon , ” according to the Crimson . “ The same officer then asked him to unlock his phone and laptop , and left to search them for roughly five hours , Ajjawi alleges . After the search , the officer questioned him about his friends ’ social media activity . ”\n“ When I asked every time to have my phone back so I could tell [ someone ] about the situation , the officer refused and told me to sit back in [ my ] position and not move at all , ” Ajjawi wrote in a statement . “ After the 5 hours ended , she called me into a room , and she started screaming at me . She said that she found people posting political points of view that oppose the US on my friend [ s ] list. ” University officials told the Crimson they still are trying to resolve the situation in time for Ajjawi—whose enrollment at Harvard was made possible by a scholarship from a nonprofit organization—to be in class when the semester starts Sept. 3 .\n“ I have no single post on my timeline discussing politics , ” Ajjawi wrote . “ I responded that I have no business with such posts and that I didn ’ t like , [ s ] hare or comment on them and told her that I shouldn ’ t be held responsible for what others post . ”


Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington , Monday , Nov. 18 , 2019 . Pompeo spoke about Iran , Iraq , Israeli settlements in the West Bank , protests in Hong Kong , and Bolivia , among other topics . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik )\nSecretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a news conference at the State Department in Washington , Monday , Nov. 18 , 2019 . Pompeo spoke about Iran , Iraq , Israeli settlements in the West Bank , protests in Hong Kong , and Bolivia , among other topics . ( AP Photo/Andrew Harnik )\nWASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration on Monday said it no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be a violation of international law , reversing four decades of American policy and further undermining the Palestinians ’ effort to gain statehood .\nSecretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. is repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that held that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are “ inconsistent with international law. ” Israeli leaders welcomed the decision while Palestinians and other nations warned that it undercut any chance of a broader peace deal .\nPompeo told reporters at the State Department that the Trump administration believes any legal questions about settlements should be resolved by Israeli courts and that declaring them a violation of international law distracts from larger efforts to negotiate a peace deal .\n“ Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law has not advanced the cause of peace , ” Pompeo said . “ The hard truth is that there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict , and arguments about who is right and who is wrong as a matter of international law will not bring peace . ”\nThe change reflects the administration ’ s embrace of a hard-line Israeli view at the expense of the Palestinian quest for statehood . Similar actions have included President Donald Trump ’ s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital , the movement of the U.S. Embassy to that city and the closure of the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington .\n“ The U.S. administration has lost its credibility to play any future role in the peace process , ” said Nabil Abu Rdeneh , a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas .\nThe European Union warned of the potential repercussions in a statement following the announcement that did not mention the U.S .\n“ All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace , ” said the statement from the 28-nation bloc . “ The EU calls on Israel to end all settlement activity , in line with its obligations as an occupying power . ”\nEven though the decision is largely symbolic , it could give a boost to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu , who is fighting for his political survival after failing to form a coalition government following recent elections .\nIt could also spell further trouble for the administration ’ s peace plan , which is unlikely to gather much international support by endorsing a position contrary to the global consensus .\nThe Netanyahu government was dealt a blow on settlements just last week when the European Court of Justice ruled products made in Israeli settlements must be labeled as such .\nThe 1978 legal opinion on settlements is known as the Hansell Memorandum . It had been the basis for more than 40 years of carefully worded U.S. opposition to settlement construction that had varied in its tone and strength , depending on the president ’ s position .\nThe international community overwhelmingly considers the settlements illegal based in part on the Fourth Geneva Convention , which bars an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population to occupied territory .\nIn the final days of the Obama administration , the U.S. allowed the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution declaring the settlements a “ flagrant violation ” of international law .\nPompeo said that the U.S. would not take a position on the legality of specific settlements , that the new policy would not extend beyond the West Bank and that it would not create a precedent for other territorial disputes .\nHe also said the decision did not mean the administration was prejudging the status of the West Bank in any eventual Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement .\nFor Netanyahu , the welcome boost comes at a time when he has been weakened domestically by mounting legal woes and two inconclusive elections this year .\nUnable to secure a parliamentary majority , Netanyahu is now anxiously waiting to see if his chief rival , Benny Gantz , can put together a coalition . If Gantz fails , the country could be forced into a third election , with Netanyahu facing the distraction of a trial .\nNetanyahu ’ s office released a statement saying the policy shift “ rights a historical wrong ” concerning settlements .\n“ This policy reflects an historical truth - that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judea and Samaria , ” it said , using the Israeli terms for the West Bank .\nGantz , meanwhile , applauded Pompeo ’ s “ important statement , once again demonstrating its firm stance with Israel and its commitment to the security and future of the entire Middle East . ”\nPompeo dismissed suggestions that the decision would further isolate the U.S. or Israel in the international community , though Jordan ’ s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi wrote on Twitter that the settlements hurt peace prospects . “ We warn of the seriousness of the change in the U.S. position towards the settlements and its repercussions on all efforts to achieve peace , ” he said .\nShortly after Pompeo ’ s announcement , the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem issued an advisory warning for Americans planning to travel in the West Bank , Jerusalem and Gaza , saying , “ Individuals and groups opposed to ( Pompeo ’ s ) announcement may target U.S. government facilities , U.S. private interests , and U.S. citizens. ” It called on them “ to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness in light of the current environment . ”\nIsrael captured the West Bank and east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and quickly began settling the newly conquered territory .\nToday , some 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the two areas , which are both claimed by the Palestinians for their state .\nAfter the war , it immediately annexed east Jerusalem , home to the holy city ’ s most important religious sites , in a move that is not internationally recognized .\nBut Israel has never annexed the West Bank , even as it has dotted the territory with scores of settlements and tiny settlement outposts .\nWhile claiming the fate of the settlements is a subject for negotiations , it has steadily expanded them . Some major settlements have over 30,000 residents , resembling small cities and serving as suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv .\nThe Palestinians and most of the world say the settlements undermine hopes for a two-state solution by gobbling up land sought by the Palestinians .\nIsrael ’ s settlement activities have also drawn attention to its treatment of Palestinians .\nWhile Jewish settlers can freely enter Israel and vote in Israeli elections , West Bank Palestinians are subject to Israeli military law , require permits to enter Israel and do not have the right to vote in Israeli elections .


The Palestinians on Saturday edged closer to a diplomatic standoff with the Trump administration , saying the U.S. is using “ extortion ” tactics by threatening to close their diplomatic mission in Washington .\nThe response follows the State Department saying Friday that the Palestine Liberation Organization 's office in Washington will close because the Palestinians have run afoul of a U.S. law by calling for Israelis to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court .\nPalestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki told Palestine Radio that his people wo n't cave to `` extortion '' and that they await further communication from the administration .\n“ The ball is now in the American court , '' he said .\nIn addition , Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said this weekend that the administration 's decision is `` very unfortunate and unacceptable . ''\nErekat also accused the administration of bowing to pressure from the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while the Palestinians are `` trying to cooperate to achieve the ultimate deal . ''\nErekat said the Palestinians conveyed in a letter to the administration their intention to cut off talks if the office is closed .\nNetanyahu 's office says the closure is a `` matter of U.S . law . ''\nTrump has made brokering a long-sought Middle East peace deal a top priority , with senior White House adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner taking the lead .\nThe president has also sought to strengthen relations with Netanyahu , with whom former President Barack Obama had a weak relationship .\nStill , Trump has also apparently tried to improve ties with Mahmoud Abbas , the leader of the PLO and the Palestinian National Authority .\nThe president talked to Abbas in September at a United Nations meeting in New York .\nThe State Department could not be reached Saturday for comment .\nSecretary of State Rex Tillerson has reportedly determined that the Palestinians ran afoul of an obscure provision in a U.S. law that states the PLO ’ s mission must close if the Palestinians try to get the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israelis for crimes against Palestinians .\nA State Department official said that Abbas crossed that line in September by calling on the ICC to investigate and prosecute Israelis .\nHowever , the official also said the administration is not severing relations with the PLO or the Palestinian Authority and that the closing of the mission should not be interpreted as the administration backing away from trying to reach a peace agreement .


Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D. , Mich. ) recently met with a controversial pro-Palestinian organization that has encouraged violence against Israel , justified the use of terrorism against the Jewish state , and has called for the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers , according to online postings on social media .\nTlaib , who has been under fire for her hatred of Israel and support for the anti-Semitic Boycott , Divestment , and Sanctions movement was pictured meeting with members of the Palestine Youth Movement during the Arab Texas Festival held recently in Dallas . The PYM organization is known for its vitriolic rhetoric against Israelis and Jews and has been caught in the past glorifying the leaders of anti-Semitic terrorist organizations .\nTlaib 's interaction with the group is unlikely to come as a surprise to the pro-Israel community , but is further evidence of her willingness as a member of Congress to associate with some of the most radical and fringe anti-Israel groups .\nCongresswoman Rashida Tlaib with members of the Palestine Youth Movement at the Arab Texas Festival of Dallas . [ Photo by @ PYM_USA ] pic.twitter.com/tdsy35kXSa — The IMEU ( @ theIMEU ) September 2 , 2019\nPYM has a history of anti-Israel activity that has spilled into outright hostility toward the Jewish state . This includes a 2018 event held in San Francisco in which attendees called for Israeli soldiers to be kidnapped , according to a video of that event captured by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America , or CAMERA .\nIn Facebook postings PYM has memorialized so-called Palestinian martyrs , or those killed or imprisoned while carrying out terrorist attacks on Israel . At least three of those honored by the organization were known operatives of the Hamas terror group .\nThe PYM organization also has held campus events , including one at the University of California , Los Angeles , in which attendees chanted `` long live the intifada , '' a phrase routinely employed by those advocating armed resistance against the state of Israel .\nIn July 2019 , a PYM event to be held in Toronto , Canada , was canceled after it was disclosed that the group had advocated for terrorism by hosting an event with a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine , or PFLP , a group that had committed terror attacks on Israel .\nIn response to the cancelation of the event , PYM blamed `` Zionist organizations '' for mounting a campaign against it .\nTlaib 's recent interaction with the group is just the latest in a string of meetings the lawmaker has held with leading anti-Israel groups and supporters of the BDS movement .\nTlaib and her freshman colleague Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D. , Minn. ) have further come under fire for attempting to organize a trip to Israel sponsored by an organization called Miftah , which has praised supporters of terrorism and promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories .


In an essay on political lying in the early 18th century , the writer Jonathan Swift noted that `` Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it . '' You have to hire a train to pull the truth , explained English pastor Charles Spurgeon in the 19th century , while a lie is `` light as a feather ... a breath will carry it . ''\nClearly , humans have always been susceptible to mistruths . And social networks simply provide another way to propel falsehoods .\nMIT researchers recently studied more than 10 years ' worth of data on the most shared stories on Facebook . Their study covered conspiracy theories about the Boston bombings , misleading reports on natural disasters , unfounded business rumors and incorrect scientific claims . There is an inundation of false medical advice online , for example , that encourages people to avoid life-saving treatments such as vaccines and promotes unproven therapies . ( Gwyneth Paltrow 's Goop is just one example . )\nThe researchers concluded that `` falsehood diffused significantly farther , faster , deeper , and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information . ''\nAnd it 's not necessarily the young that are more gullible either . A separate study found that those over age 65 shared nearly seven times as many fake news articles as 18- to 29-year-olds . Older is not always wiser .\nThe psychological research does , however , offer us a silver lining to this storm cloud , with various experiments demonstrating that people can learn to be better lie detectors with a little training in critical thinking .\nThese efforts are often called `` inoculations , '' since they use a real-life example in one domain to teach people about the strategies used to spread lies and therefore equipping people to spot them more easily . Educating people about the tobacco industry 's attempts to question the medical consensus on smoking , for example , led people to be more skeptical of articles denying climate change , according to one study .\nAnother project aimed to inoculate students at North Carolina State University in Raleigh , involved a course on misinformation throughout history . The class was taught about everything from the myth that aliens somehow built the Egyptian pyramids to the theories that NASA 's moon landings were faked . Along the way , the students had to identify the erroneous logic that helped create the arguments , and the motivations that may lead some people to spread those ideas .\nFollowing the course , the students were less likely to believe in a range of false beliefs that were not even covered in the course , such as the idea that 9/11 was an inside job . The inoculation appeared to be equipping them with a general skepticism that seems to escape traditional education .\nIf you would like to improve your own lie detection , a good first step is to learn the common logical fallacies -- red herrings , appeals to ignorance , straw men and `` ad populum '' appeals to the bandwagon -- that purveyors of misinformation may use to create the illusion of truth .\nThe Book of Bad Arguments is a free online resource that provides a good introduction to those terms , according to Alicia McGill , who taught the `` inoculation '' course on misinformation throughout history at North Carolina State University .\nQuestions to ask yourself when confronted with possible fake news\nWhen examining a new claim , you would do well to ask yourself the following questions :\n• Who is making the claim ? What are their credentials ? And what might be their motives to make me think this ?\n• What are the premises of the claim ? And how might they be flawed ?\n• What are my own initial assumptions ? And how might they be flawed ?\n• What is the evidence of their claim and how well do they fit with the opposing explanations ?\n• What further information do you need before you can make a judgment ?\nYou could also try basic strategies such as cross-checking different outlets and finding the original source of a claim . You might also look at independent fact-checking websites used in the MIT study such as Snopes PolitiFact and TruthOrFiction.com\nAnd pay particular attention to the way the information is presented . We tend to show more faith in a claim if it is accompanied by a photo , for instance -- even if it adds no additional evidence to the particular claim at hand . ( A headline about a celebrity death is more believable , for example , if it appears next to a generic stock image of the person . )\nIt is also important to be aware of our own partisan biases . We are more likely to believe something if it confirms our existing world view , while we will happily dismiss anything that disagrees with our pre-existing beliefs .\nGet CNN Health 's weekly newsletter Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team .\nThe psychological literature offers us one good strategy against bias , called the `` consider the opposite `` method . This involves asking yourself whether you would have been so credulous of a claim if its opinions had differed from your own . And if not , what kind of additional scrutiny might you have applied ? This should help you to identify the weaknesses in your own thinking .\nHoning these skills will not just reduce embarrassment when discussing the news with your friends or co-workers . Studies have found that someone 's critical thinking skills can protect them from flawed decisions in all areas of life , from being misled by a fad diet , to falling for scams , getting in debt and even landing in jail .\nBy appraising evidence more rationally , you will avoid being duped by others -- and yourself .\nFalsehoods may fly , but with this lie detection kit , you can better ensure your actions and beliefs remain grounded in the truth .


( CNN ) – GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan acknowledged the Republican campaign 's `` missteps '' on Sunday , calling Mitt Romney ’ s now-notorious “ 47 % ” comments “ inarticulate , ” while still defending the crux of his running mate ’ s argument .\nRyan also took the media to task for what he called bias against conservatives .\n- Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November .\nAppearing on “ Fox News Sunday , ” Ryan said his running mate ’ s controversial comments were `` an inarticulate way to describe what we ’ re trying to do to create prosperity and upward mobility , and reduce dependency by getting people off welfare , back to work . ”\n“ We 've had some missteps , '' said Ryan , also noting many conservatives ' concerns that the campaign is failing to project a clear message to voters . `` But at the end of the day , the choice is really clear , and we 're giving people a very clear choice . ''\nRomney made the candid `` 47 % '' remarks to a group of wealthy donors at a private fund-raiser caught on a secretly recorded video in May . The video was posted online by a left-leaning news organization earlier in September , sparking a firestorm of criticism from both sides of the aisle . Among other hotly contested remarks , the Republican nominee said nearly half of Americans will automatically vote for the president because they are dependent on government and consider themselves “ victims . ”\nRyan noted that Romney had conceded the lack of `` eloquence '' in his choice of words , though Ryan also picked up on the argument , blaming Obama for a sluggish economy and what the GOP campaign bills as policies that foster dependency on government .\nRyan also accused the media of having a liberal disposition .\n“ I think it kind of goes without saying that there 's definitely a media bias . We 've - look , I 'm a conservative person , I 'm used to media bias . We expected media bias going into this , ” said Ryan .\nAsked to cite a specific example of media bias , Ryan demurred , instead asserting that most people who work in the media have liberal political affiliations and , therefore , would want a president who is a Democrat to win .\n“ I 'm not going to go into a tit-for-tat or litigate this thing , ” said Ryan . “ But as a conservative , I 've long believed and long felt that there is inherent media bias . And I think anybody with objectivity would believe that that 's the case . ”


Tesla CEO Elon Musk aired his frustration with the media on Wednesday , issuing a series of tweets calling out the “ hypocrisy of big media companies ” before floating the idea of starting a website which would allow the public to rate journalists .\n“ The holier-than-thou hypocrisy of big media companies who lay claim to the truth , but publish only enough to sugarcoat the lie , is why the public no longer respects them , ” Musk started out by tweeting .\nMusk went on to claim that “ journos are under constant pressure to get max clicks & earn advertising dollars or get fired . ”\n“ Tricky situation , as Tesla doesn ’ t advertise , but fossil fuel companies & gas/diesel car companies are among world ’ s biggest advertisers , ” he said .\nELON MUSK CONFIRMS TESLA MODEL 3 HAS A BRAKING ISSUE , SAYS A FIX IS IN THE WORKS\nAnd to one Twitter user who commented on the CEO ’ s remarks , Musk replied “ the media has earned this mistrust . But maybe there is a solution . ”\nMusk also talked about creating a site , possibly called Pravda , where people “ can rate the core truth of any article ” and keep track of the credibility of a journalist or news outlet . He also created a poll , asking followers to choose whether the website was a good idea .\nPravda was the name of a Communist newspaper in the former Soviet Union .\nMusk ’ s company has been the recipient of recent backlash due to a number of crashes involving the company ’ s vehicles .\nTESLA THAT CRASHED INTO TRUCK WAS ON AUTOPILOT , DRIVER SAYS\nDuring one incident in Utah this month , the driver of a Tesla that crashed into a truck at 60 mph told police that she had the vehicle ’ s autopilot feature turned on .\nMusk reacted at the time , tweeting that it was “ super messed up that a Tesla crash resulting in a broken ankle is front page news and the ~40,000 people who died in US auto accidents alone in past year get almost no coverage . ”\nDuring Wednesday ’ s comments , Musk also responded to individual reporters , including one who retweeted Musk ’ s comment and drew a comparison to President Trump .\nIn response to a reporter who said Musk was continuing “ his slow transformation into a media-baiting Trump figure screaming irrationally about fake news , ” the Tesla CEO replied , “ Thought you ’ d say that . Anytime anyone criticizes the media , the media shrieks “ You ’ re just like Trump !\nELON MUSK SHOWS OFF INCREDIBLE SPACEX HUMAN TRANSPORT POD ON INSTAGRAM , TWITTER\n“ Why do you think he got elected in the first place ? ” Musk continued . “ Because no one believes you any more . You lost your credibility a long time ago . ”\nTo another journalist , who wrote that “ blaming the messenger is the hot new thing everyone ’ s doing , ” Musk replied , “ Oh hey another sanctimonious media person who thinks he ’ s above criticism . ”\n“ Try being truthful & the public will believe you again , ” Musk said .\nTesla did not immediately respond to ███ ’ request for comment .


A once-upon-a-time voice for journalistic respectability — the Columbia Journalism Review — has consigned to the well-known hot place the notion that respectability entails letting voters rather than reporters decide whether a president is Abe Lincoln or a dirty lying rat . The Review rather leans to the latter conclusion .\nThe Review ’ s daily , always ( to me ) absorbing look at media goings-on raises the question of how to talk about , well , a lying rat of a president : a distinction most media institutions have awarded Donald Trump . The Review highlights the New York Times ’ efforts to call Trump a liar without actually calling him one .\n“ Trump Falsely Says Times Made Up Source in Report on Korea Summit Meeting. ” That would be just one example of journalistic efforts to downplay the President ’ s commitment , such as it is , to the Truth that Makes You Free . The Journalism Review quotes Times White House Reporter Maggie Haberman ’ s disparaging Tweet the other day : “ Trump told two demonstrable falsehoods this AM . ”\nThe Review says “ the argument consumed political media conversations on Twitter for much of the weekend. ” Some Twitterists thought Haberman ’ s charge a little mild . On May 28 came the Times ’ charge that “ He Uses Conspiracy Theories to Erode Trust . ”\nHere we go again , trying , as a society , as a culture , to make heads or tails of a president who defies efforts to categorize him . Over the uproar concerning his gift for veracity or falsehood , alarm bells should sound . The anti-Trump media are nuts if they think they ’ re improving their status in 21stcentury life . They ’ re undermining it further : deepening national disarray by abandoning standards more necessary than ever before in public life .\nMay it please the court , reporters and editors have neither right nor duty to show up the president as a liar . It ’ s lousy journalism to try . But oh , such modern journalism ! Which is the problem .\nLook : The media are our eyes and ears . Our brains they aren ’ t , though our media clearly suppose the opposite . Which supposition makes them try to lead mere viewers and readers by the nose : telling them what to think . Good luck with that ! “ Speaking truth to power ” — an old Quaker ideal beloved of modern Thought Leaders — involves telling Trump voters they laid an egg . What a non-fruitful mode of argumentation and discussion .\nThe President ’ s grasp of facts is his own , certainly . But :\n1 ) He ’ s not always wrong , even when being obnoxious ; and\n2 ) a statement out of line with the truth doesn ’ t suggest the need to go at him , as per the Times , with eyes bulging ; rather , it demands bringing to view — without indignation or contempt — asseverations and facts that undermine the Trumpian account . Only you set such asseverations and facts side by side with his own : quoting responsible , preferably neutral , or neutral-ish , sources . You let the White House answer those sources . Then you stand back and let the people make up their own minds !\nStrange conceit , that — trusting votes and consumers of news to make up their minds without pointed assistance from the media . For which , if it doesn ’ t work out , maybe we need to examine the U.S. education system with more alarm . And maybe also the lack of trust that previous media forays against previous presidents have engendered .\nMedia fury at one Donald Trump is sowing worrisome consequences for the future . The lying so-and-so , as most of the media view him , is going to be gone one day : possibly with the media ’ s invaluable assistance . And will there linger , save in progressive circles , any public inclination to believe , or even listen to , a word the anti-Trump press says about anything ? Including the weather ?\nA certain… call it mutual trust , or sense of shared conviction , lies at the foundation of any free society . I can not see the anti-Trump media adding to our depleted storehouse of trust . I see , indeed , the media ’ s angry judgmentalism — its love of crying “ Liar ! ” — making things far angrier , far more divisive , than they are now . And what we have right now isn ’ t great . Just subscribe ( as I do ) to the Times . And judge .\nWilliam Murchison is writing a book about moral restoration . He most recently was Radford Distinguished Professor of Journalism at Baylor University .


A White House reporter confronted White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the top of her Tuesday press briefing , accusing her of `` inflaming '' tensions with the media and undercutting the credibility of reporters .\nSanders had been asked about whether President Trump accepts the apology from CNN regarding a recent story it retracted about alleged ties between a Trump ally and a Russian investment fund .\n`` All we are saying is I think we should take a really good look at what we are focused on , what we are covering and making sure it 's accurate and honest , '' she said .\n`` If we make the slightest mistake , the slightest word is off , it 's an absolute tirade from a lot of people in this room . But news outlets get to go on day after day and cite unnamed sources , use stories without sources . ''\nAs she continued , Brian Karem , a contributor to Playboy magazine , interrupted .\n`` You are inflaming everyone right here right now with those words . This administration has done that as well ... Any one of us are replaceable , if we do n't get it right , the audience has the opportunity to turn the channel or not read us . You have been elected to serve for four years at least , there is no option other than that , '' Karem said .\n`` We are here to ask you questions , you are here to provide answers . And what you just did is inflammatory to people all over the country who look at it and say , 'See , once again , the president is right and everybody else is just fake media . ' Everybody in this room is only trying to do their job . ”\nPlayboy drew attention to Karem 's comments on Twitter , calling it `` his 'Network ' moment . ''\nSanders pushed back , briefly addressing the accusations before moving onto questions from another reporter .\n`` I disagree completely . First of all , if anything has been inflamed , it ’ s the dishonesty that often takes place by the news media . I think it is outrageous for you to accuse me of inflaming a story when I was simply trying to respond to his question , '' she said .\nTuesday marked the first on-camera press briefing for the White House in a week . Reporters have grown critical of the administration 's decision to hold more off-camera briefings , and of officials who denounce anonymous sources while only agreeing to speak to the press on background .\nDuring the same briefing , Sanders encouraged reporters `` and frankly everybody around the country '' to watch a new video from conservative provocateur James O'Keefe the purports to show a CNN producer referring to much of his network 's Russian coverage as `` bullshit . ''\n`` If it is accurate , I think it ’ s a disgrace to all of media , to all of journalism . I think that we have gone to a place where if the media can ’ t be trusted to report the news , then that ’ s a dangerous place for America , ” Sanders said .


UPDATE : Eagle Nation Online will not be subject to prior review in the upcoming school year . Prosper High School Principal John Burdett told the new journalism adviser , Lisa Roskens , that he was changing the highly restrictive policy he put in place last year and her students would no longer have to submit their stories for his approval before publishing . The students are also planning new editorials after all student opinion pieces were banned by Principal Burdett in the spring .\n“ It ’ s honestly kind of a miracle , ” said Editor-in-Chief Neha Madhira . She said that after months of silence from the administration , the staff was ready to keep fighting , but did not expect the policy change .\n“ I think [ the administration ] decided to change it because of all the press that we got , ” said Assistant Editor Haley Stack . “ … I mean , once it reached up to the New York Times , I think they realized that they really need to change something before they started getting a really bad name for themselves . ”\nThe ███ sent a letter of concern to the Prosper superintendent of schools in May which was co-signed by 17 other national press freedom organizations . The case at Prosper also received widespread news coverage from both local and national news outlets .\nMadhira and Stack both said despite their excitement over the news , they intend to test the administration on this policy to make sure they stick to it .\nMadhira says she will continue to advocate for a New Voices law in Texas , which would give specific legal protections to student journalists and protect advisers from retaliation . “ I don ’ t think this should lessen the importance of why we need this law anyway , ” she said . “ We shouldn ’ t have to trade our adviser for the right to publish . ”\n███ Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand agreed the positive outcome does not change the need for legal protection in the state . “ I think this case just kind of demonstrates the general unfairness that exists in Texas where the standard can be changed virtually overnight on the whim of a school official , ” said Hiestand .\nPrincipal Burdett did not respond to multiple requests for comment .\nTEXAS — After censoring the Eagle Nation Online three times this academic year over concerns that stories made the school look bad , the principal of Prosper ( Texas ) High School , located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area , will not renew the contract of a nationally acclaimed newspaper and yearbook adviser .\nLori Oglesbee-Petter , a journalism teacher with 34 years of experience in three states , has been at Prosper since May 2016 . Last year alone , her journalism students racked up more than 175 state and national journalism awards .\nIn October 2017 , copy editor Isabella Abraham published an article about a senior class movie night that was cancelled due to a “ miscommunication ” between past administrators and John Burdett , who is completing his first year as principal .\nThe article was online for one day when Burdett told Oglesbee-Petter to take it down . He said that the information in the article was not uplifting or accurate . The Eagle stands by the accuracy of the story .\n“ Ms . O and her students have distinguished themselves across the state and country for their exemplary work , ” according to an online bio on the school website .\nShe declined to comment for this story , saying her teaching contract bars her from speaking with reporters .\n“ Under her guidance , the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors . And how does this principal reward such achievements ? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news . ”\nIn February 2018 , staff writer Haley Stack , in an editorial , admonished Prosper ’ s choice to remove “ A Separate Peace ” from the 10th grade curriculum . No reason was given for the decision , but Stack pointed to the novel ’ s homoerotic undertones as a possible cause . The editorial was online for over a week until Burdett asked for it to be taken down , citing grammatical errors and a lack of positivity . According to the Eagle , there were two grammatical errors : a missing apostrophe and an extra period .\nBurdett then told Eagle staff that any articles or editorials that went against “ community norms ” were to be sent to him for approval . The paper started submitting all articles by Burdett , since they felt the policy was unclear .\nOn March 23 , Eagle staff was informed Oglesbee-Petter would not return to Prosper for another school year . According to associate editor Neha Madhira , Burdett did not provide a reason to Oglesbee-Petter . The school is not required to explain the decision because she was under contract .\n“ We were extremely concerned , ” said Madhira . “ We already knew [ Burdett ] wasn ’ t on our side . ”\n“ I think that [ Burdett ] doesn ’ t like our adviser , ” Stack said . “ And I think he is taking it out on our staff . Anytime that he sees an opportunity to shut us down in any sort of way , he will take it . ”\nSPLC ’ s Senior Legal Counsel Mike Hiestand responded to the decision with “ shock . ”\n“ Prosper High School is blessed with a veteran teacher who was named the best high school journalism adviser in the entire country , ” Hiestand said in a May 18 press release . “ Under her guidance , the young journalists she has worked with have regularly taken home top honors . And how does this principal reward such achievements ? He fires her and tells the students not to cover anything but happy news . ”\nOn April 9 , Eagle staff sent a letter to Burdett , Prosper School District Superintendent Drew Watkins , and school board members , citing the importance of a student-led newspaper , criticizing the October and February instances of censorship , and asking for Oglesbee-Petter to remain at Prosper . Staff members also said they were worried about the future of the Eagle .\n“ We are not just public relations for the school . Not all news will be positive . ”\nAccording to Madhira , her staff never received a reply from any administrators . Burdett did bring up the letter with Madhira in an April 20 interview regarding an approved news article about the nationwide school walk-outs . She remembers Burdett angrily saying the April 9 letter was “ false ” and cutting her off multiple times during the conversation .\nOn May 1 , Madhira tried to publish an editorial about a team bonding activity organized by Burdett in response to instances of school shootings across the country . In the editorial , Madhira described the activity as disorganized and vague , and then offered solutions to improve it . Burdett blocked the editorial from being published online , saying it was incorrect and didn ’ t capture the voices of all Prosper students .\nBurdett then told Madhira the Eagle could not publish editorials anymore . This policy still remains in place .\n“ You have a principal that is upset that the teacher is not teaching how to produce fake news , ” Hiestand said . “ He is telling the kids , ‘ You can publish the news as long as it ’ s happy news. ’ That is the definition of fake news . ”\nProsper ’ s prior review policy allows the school ’ s principal ultimate editorial authority , including the right to block stories from being published . The policy states : “ All publications edited , printed , or distributed in the name of or within the District schools shall be under the control of the school administration and the Board . All publications approved and issued by individual schools shall be part of the instructional program , under the supervision of a faculty sponsor , and shall be carefully edited to reflect the ideals and expectations of the citizens of the District for their schools . ”\nOn May 18 , Madhira drafted a press release with the help of Hiestand and JEA Scholastic Press Rights Commission Chair Lori Keekley . It explains in detail Burdett ’ s practice of censorship and Oglesbee-Petter ’ s contract termination , as well as the importance of editorials .\n“ We are not just public relations for the school , ” Madhira said in the press release . “ Not all news will be positive . ”\nMadhira ’ s goal is to spread awareness of her paper ’ s situation . She has reached out to the Dallas Morning News , NBC5 , Prosper Magazine , and the Community Impact Newspaper . So far , no reporters have chosen to pick up the story .\nWant more stories like this ? The ███ is a legal and educational nonprofit defending the rights of student journalists . Sign up for our free News Roundup .


First she refused to testify . Now Lois Lerner , the IRS official at the center of the tax agency scandal , is refusing to resign , according to a top Republican senator .\nSources confirmed to Fox News earlier Thursday that Lerner , the head of the IRS division that oversaw the unit targeting conservative groups , had been placed on administrative leave , with pay .\nBut Sen. Charles Grassley , R-Iowa , claimed she was only put in that status after refusing to step down .\nHe said the commissioner was in his right to demand her resignation , and said taxpayers should not continue to pay her salary indefinitely .\n“ My understanding is the new acting IRS commissioner asked for Ms. Lerner ’ s resignation , and she refused to resign . She was then put on administrative leave instead , ” Grassley said in a statement . “ The IRS owes it to taxpayers to resolve her situation quickly . The agency needs to move on to fix the conditions that led to the targeting debacle . ''\nCapitol Hill sources said Lerner , the director of exempt organizations , was placed on paid leave Thursday , amid calls from some lawmakers for her to be suspended or fired . In her absence , Ken Corbin , the current deputy director of the submission processing , wage and investment division , will take over her duties , according to an internal IRS memo obtained by Fox News .\nLerner , the official who first acknowledged the controversial IRS practice earlier this month , asserted her innocence at a House hearing on Wednesday . She then refused to testify , citing her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination . The move angered many who say she should have been forced to answer why the tax agency targeted conservative groups applying for tax exempt status .\nRepublican leaders of that committee , though , now say she waived that right by giving a statement and want to haul her back to testify .\nPressure has been mounting on the administration to take tough action against Lerner , after two other IRS officials were pushed out in the wake of the scandal .\nIn a letter earlier Thursday to IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel , Sens . Carl Levin , D-Mich. , and John McCain , R-Ariz. , asked the agency to remove Lerner from office and said they had “ lost confidence in her ability to fulfill her duties . ”\nIt 's unclear whether Republicans will succeed in trying to recall her before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee . Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif. , chairman of the panel , said through an aide Thursday that her Fifth Amendment assertion is `` no longer valid , '' since she delivered remarks at the start of Wednesday 's hearing .\nThat hearing was never technically adjourned , and Republicans hope to bring her back .\nOthers , though , say she was in her right to defend herself and subsequently invoke the right to remain silent .\nThe IRS has had a series of missteps that have not only publicly marred the reputation of the IRS , but also called into question what the White House knew about the scandal and when they knew it .\nSeparately , Tea Party-related groups who claim they were targeted by the tax agency have started filing lawsuits this week against the IRS . In some cases they are asking for the IRS to admit wrongdoing . In others , they are seeking monetary claims .\n`` It 's extremely troubling that it has taken this long for Lois Lerner to removed from the top exempt position at the IRS , ” Jay Sekulow , chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice , the group suing on behalf of some Tea Party groups , said in a statement to FoxNews.com .\nSekulow said instead of putting Lerner on administrative leave , his group is calling for her to be fired .


Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll\nDo You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama 's Job Performance ? Vote Now in Urgent Poll


Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department ’ s handling of the special counsel ’ s still-secret report , saying Attorney General William Barr is “ being as forthcoming as he can ” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document .\nIn his first interview since the conclusion of the special counsel ’ s investigation , Mr. Rosenstein beat back suggestions that Mr. Barr is trying to mislead the public by releasing only a four-page summary of Robert Mueller ’ s investigation . The attorney general in that letter said the Mueller probe found President Trump and his campaign didn ’ t conspire with Russian interference in the 2016 election but reached no conclusion about whether the president obstructed justice . With the absence of a recommendation , Mr. Barr and Mr. Rosenstein determined Mr. Trump ’ s actions weren ’ t criminal .\nDemocrats have demanded access to the full report , which Mr. Barr said he would release , likely next week , after blacking out portions for sensitive information .\n“ He ’ s being as forthcoming as he can , and so this notion that he ’ s trying to mislead people , I think is just completely bizarre , ” Mr. Rosenstein said .\nMr. Barr is under intense pressure to quickly produce the edited report amid concerns from Democrats that the attorney general , a longtime advocate of executive-branch authority , is seeking to protect the president from politically damaging information the report may contain . Their worries were heightened after reports that some investigators on Mr. Mueller ’ s team had told associates in recent days that they believe the report is more critical of Mr. Trump on the obstruction issue than Mr. Barr indicated in his summary . Mr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t say why Mr. Mueller rendered no conclusion on that critical question .\n“ It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said , ‘ I ’ m not going to give you the report , ’ ” Mr. Rosenstein said . “ What he said is , ‘ Look , it ’ s going to take a while to process the report . In the meantime , people really want to know what ’ s in it . I ’ m going to give you the top-line conclusions. ’ That ’ s all he was trying to do . ”\nMr. Rosenstein , Mr. Barr , their top advisers and a member of Mr. Mueller ’ s team have been involved in reviewing the report for material related to intelligence sources , continuing investigations , grand-jury matters and the privacy of individuals not charged with crimes . Mr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t say how it was going , only that the public should have “ tremendous confidence ” in Mr. Barr .\nThe rare interview in Mr. Rosenstein ’ s fourth-floor office at the Justice Department came in his waning days on the job , with the special counsel investigation he oversaw now complete and Mr. Trump ’ s nominee to replace him , Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen , awaiting confirmation by the Senate . After nearly 30 years in the department , Mr. Rosenstein , 54 years old , said he doesn ’ t know what he will do next , only that he hopes to start a new job at the end of the summer .\nHis remarks came one day after Mr. Barr said he would form a team to examine the origins of a 2016 counterintelligence investigation that conducted what he termed as “ spying ” on people associated with the Trump campaign , a characterization Democrats and some former Justice Department officials , including fired Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey , found disturbing .\nSpeaking at a conference in San Francisco on Thursday , Mr. Comey said , “ When I hear that kind of language used , it ’ s concerning , because the FBI and Department of Justice conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance . I have never thought of that as spying . ”\nIt isn ’ t known whether Mr. Barr ’ s review will examine any of Mr. Rosenstein ’ s actions , namely that he approved an application to ask a court to grant continued surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page , who had long been on the radar of U.S. counterintelligence for his communications with Russians .\nMr. Rosenstein wouldn ’ t comment on Mr. Barr ’ s inquiry of that counterintelligence probe , but he said generally that he is open to objective scrutiny and stands by his approval of the renewal .\nMr. Rosenstein has been under an unusually intense spotlight as the No . 2 Justice Department official , largely because of his decision to appoint Mr. Mueller early in his tenure , which drew repeated swipes from Mr. Trump and concerns among some of the president ’ s advisers that he would move to fire the deputy attorney general . Mr. Rosenstein said he has stayed on the job at Mr. Barr ’ s request , adding , “ for me , it ’ s a real privilege . ”\nEarly on , at Mr. Trump ’ s request , Mr. Rosenstein wrote a memo that the White House initially cited as grounds for firing Mr. Comey . On Thursday , he said he stands by the memo and has few regrets about his time in office .\n“ If you put something in writing , put your name on it and be prepared to stand behind it , ” he said . “ That ’ s been a theme of my career . ”


The sudden withdrawal of the entire prosecution team assigned to Stone ’ s case — including two veterans of former special counsel Robert Mueller 's office — following the Justice Department ’ s decision to back away from the government ’ s original sentencing proposal seemed to embolden and energize Trump . A jubilant president took to Twitter on Tuesday night to celebrate and settle more scores .\n“ All starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation ! ” Trump wrote before retweeting a perennial favorite : “ DRAIN THE SWAMP ! ”\nThe president ’ s tweets fueled an ongoing furor among Justice Department veterans and Democrats that broke out earlier in the day after the department backed off a recommendation for a lengthy prison term for Stone , a longtime informal political adviser to Trump .\nAll starting to unravel with the ridiculous 9 year sentence recommendation ! https : //t.co/6baxv3Lvuk — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) February 12 , 2020\nJonathan Kravis , the deputy chief of the fraud and public corruption section in the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office in Washington , said in a court filing on Tuesday afternoon that he had resigned his government job . Two former prosecutors for Mueller , Aaron Zelinsky and Adam Jed , also notified the court that they were stepping off the case , as did a D.C.-based prosecutor , Michael Marando .\nThe extraordinary exit of every prosecutor who shepherded the Stone case came one day after they urged that he be sentenced to between about seven and nine years in prison on his conviction on charges of impeding congressional and FBI investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia .\nThat prompted Trump to blast federal prosecutors on Twitter just before 2 a.m. Tuesday for urging such a long prison sentence for Stone , the veteran GOP political consultant and provocateur found guilty by a jury last year on seven felony counts brought by Mueller .\n`` This is a horrible and very unfair situation , '' Trump wrote . `` The real crimes were on the other side , as nothing happens to them . Can not allow this miscarriage of justice ! ''\nTrump expanded on his view while speaking to reporters late Tuesday afternoon , but he denied that he had asked the Justice Department to change the sentence recommendation .\n“ I thought the recommendation was ridiculous . I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous , “ the president said . “ I thought it was an insult to our country and it shouldn ‘ t happen. “\nHe also indicated that he viewed the case against Stone as a vendetta that Mueller ‘ s prosecutors carried on even after his departure last May .\n“ These were the same Mueller people that put everybody through hell and I think it 's a disgrace , “ the president said . “ They ought to be ashamed of themselves. “\nLater , Trump used Twitter to take a swipe at the judge scheduled to sentence Stone , Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointee who has overseen several other Mueller-related cases .\n“ Is this the Judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT , something that not even mobster Al Capone had to endure ? How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton ? Just asking ! “ Trump wrote .\nWhile Jackson revoked Manafort ‘ s bail over allegations of witness tampering , she did not order him put in solitary confinement . U.S . Marshals personnel made a decision to isolate the former Trump adviser from the general inmate population because of concerns about his safety , the judge has said .\nAnd Trump on Tuesday afternoon escalated his vendetta against Vindman , one of the prime targets of the president 's still-emerging revenge tour .\nSpeaking to reporters at a veterans event , Trump said the military will likely look at disciplinary action against Vindman , just days after the National Security Council official was ousted from the White House after giving damaging testimony during the House impeachment hearings .\n“ That ’ s going to be up to the military , we ’ ll have to see , but if you look at what happened , they ’ re going to certainly , I would imagine , take a look at that , ” Trump said in response to a follow-up question about what he meant when he said , “ the military can handle him . ”\nTrump , without providing evidence or specific examples , accused Vindman of reporting “ very inaccurate things ” about the “ perfect ” call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .\nAround the same time Trump was speaking at the White House , the Justice Department submitted a revised sentencing filing that offered no specific recommendation for Stone ‘ s sentence , but said a term on the order of seven to nine years “ could be considered excessive and unwarranted. “\n“ The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months ’ imprisonment would be reasonable under the circumstances , “ the prosecution ‘ s new submission said . “ Ultimately , the government defers to the Court as to what specific sentence is appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. “\n“ Coupled with the president ’ s blatant retaliation against those who helped expose his wrongdoing , the Trump administration poses the gravest threat to the rule of law in America in a generation , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , chairman of the House Intelligence Committee .\nSenate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter on Tuesday to the Justice Department inspector general , Michael Horowitz , requesting an investigation into the reversal .\nA senior Justice Department official said on Tuesday afternoon that department leaders were taken by surprise by the initial recommendation contained in the prosecution ‘ s Monday evening filing . The official , who spoke on condition of anonymity , said the decision to revise the submission was unrelated to Trump 's tweet and took place prior to the president ’ s sending the message .\n“ The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the Stone case last night , “ said the official . “ That recommendation was not the recommendation that had been briefed to the department . The department found the recommendation to be extreme and excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone ’ s offenses and the department will clarify its position in court later today. “\nThe official declined to elaborate on who in the Justice Department hierarchy was aware of the actual contents of the recommendation submitted to Jackson , who is set to sentence Stone on Feb. 20 . However , the official insisted that the White House played no role in the reversal and that there was no contact between department leaders and Trump about Stone 's potential sentence prior to the decision .\nA spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney 's Office declined to address questions about whether the prosecution team was dismissed or quit in protest .\nFormer Attorney General Eric Holder praised two of the prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case .\n“ AUSA ‘ s Kravis and Zelinsky have shown more guts — and an adherence to the rule of law — than too many now serving in Washington , ” he wrote on Twitter . “ What Main DOJ is trying to do — and at whose behest ? — is unprecedented , wrong and ultimately dangerous . DOJ independence is critical . ”\nGrant Smith , an attorney for Stone , said in a statement : “ We have read with interest the new reporting on Roger Stone ’ s case . Our sentencing memo outlined our position on the recommendation made yesterday by the government . We look forward to reviewing the government ’ s supplemental filing. “\n`` Isn ’ t it lovely when the swamp drains itself ? '' Stone backer and GOP communications adviser Michael Caputo tweeted .\nIsn ’ t it lovely when the swamp drains itself ? Zelinsky is Beelzebub . 👿 https : //t.co/1doCgFWo6N — Michael R. Caputo 🇺🇸🇺🇦 ( @ MichaelRCaputo ) February 11 , 2020\nAfter the closure of Mueller ‘ s office last May , Stone ‘ s prosecution was taken over by lawyers in the U.S. Attorney ‘ s Office in Washington , who handled the weeklong jury trial last November in which Stone was convicted on five counts of making false statements to investigators , one count of obstructing Congress and one count of witness tampering .\nAt the time of the trial , the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia was Jessie Liu , but she was replaced in that post last month on an interim basis by a former top aide to Attorney General Bill Barr , Tim Shea . Shea ‘ s name appeared on Monday 's filing , although such filings are typically prepared by the line prosecutors on the case .\nLiu also appeared to become a casualty of the latest developments in the Stone case , as the White House abruptly withdrew her nomination as the Treasury Department ‘ s undersecretary for terrorism and financial crimes , according to a former Trump administration official and another person familiar with the situation .\nIt was not immediately clear why Trump pulled her nomination , but her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee had been scheduled for Thursday morning . A White House spokesman declined to comment on the move .\nA former Trump administration official said on Tuesday night : “ It was unusual to ask her to step down ahead of her confirmation. “\nEven before the new and extraordinary events in the Stone case , Liu was virtually certain to face questions at the hearing about her office ‘ s handling of various politically sensitive cases and investigations , including those of Stone , former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former the former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe .\nThe prosecution ‘ s initial proposal for a lengthy prison term for Stone was driven by the witness tampering charge and by allegations that Stone threatened violence in order to discourage an associate , Randy Credico , from cooperating with Congress and the FBI . Stone insisted that the messages — including such colorful missives as “ Prepare to die cocksucker “ — were part of outlandish banter between the two .\nCredico said in a letter to the judge last month that he didn ‘ t think Stone posed a physical threat , but acknowledged during the trial that he was concerned that Stone ‘ s language could prompt other people to act out .\nStone ‘ s statements alleged to threaten or encourage violence upped the prosecution ‘ s calculation of the sentencing guidelines in Stone ‘ s case by about four or five years , according to the government ‘ s filing Monday . Stone ‘ s defense calculates the guidelines to call for a 15- to 21-month sentence .\nTrump has the power to see that Stone serves no prison time by issuing a pardon , as many of Stone ‘ s supporters are urging . The president rebuffed a question about a pardon on Tuesday .\nJed and Kravis offered no hint of the mushrooming controversy during the more than two hours they spent in court on Tuesday handling another case that emerged from the Mueller probe : the prosecution of a Russian company accused of using social media activity and advertising to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential contest . That case is set for trial in April .\n███ NEWSLETTERS ███ Playbook Sign up today to receive the # 1-rated newsletter in politics . Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .\nZelinsky 's filing with the court said he was giving up his temporary post as a special assistant U.S. attorney in Maryland is apparently returning to his job in the state . Jed and Marando included no information about their status beyond that they were withdrawing from the Stone case .\nLate Friday afternoon , the acting chief of the criminal division in the D.C. U.S. Attorney 's Office , John Crabb , formally notified the court that he was entering the case . His and Shea ‘ s names are the only ones in the signature block of the revised sentencing recommendation .


WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker snapped back on Friday at newly emboldened Democrats in Congress who are pushing for information on the special counsel ’ s Russia probe as they try to put President Donald Trump ’ s administration under greater scrutiny .\nIn a combative congressional hearing , Whitaker said he had not talked to Trump about the probe into whether Moscow tried to tip the 2016 presidential election , or “ interfered in any way ” in the investigation since taking his role in November .\nDemocrats , who took over the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee after last year ’ s midterm elections , accused Whitaker of being evasive in front of the panel and frequently clashed with him .\nThe hearing room erupted in gasps when Whitaker pushed back strongly against a question from Chairman Jerrold Nadler , a Democrat , about whether he had ever been asked to approve any action requested by Mueller .\n“ Mr . Chairman , I see that your five minutes is up , ” Whitaker said , in a bold challenge to the head of the committee . “ I am here voluntarily . We have agreed to five-minute rounds , ” he added .\n“ How the heck did you become the head of the Department of Justice ? ” Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries later railed at Whitaker .\nTrump ’ s naming of Whitaker as acting attorney general caused controversy in part because it meant that the president ’ s appointee oversees the probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into whether Moscow meddled in the election and colluded with Trump ’ s campaign .\nRelated Coverage Whitaker says did not previously discuss Russia probe with Trump , associates\nWhitaker had publicly criticized the investigation before joining the Justice Department in 2017 but said on Friday he had not discussed it with Trump .\n“ I have not talked to the president of the United States about the special counsel ’ s investigation , ” Whitaker said .\nDemocrats repeatedly accused Whitaker of running out the clock by giving them evasive or rambling answers in the hearing .\nIn one case , he refused to answer Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee ’ s questions with a yes or no , and made a flippant remark about whether the time she had lost on the clock had been restored before he answered her questions .\n“ Mr . Attorney General , we are not joking here and your humor is not acceptable , ” she said .\nWhitaker testified he had never spoken with members of Trump ’ s inner circle about his views on the probe as a private citizen before he joined the Justice Department .\nTrump has repeatedly said there was no collusion between his campaign and Russia and has called Mueller ’ s investigation a witch hunt .\nPolitical drama erupted on Thursday when Democrats threatened to serve Whitaker a subpoena if he failed to answer certain questions at the hearing .\nNadler later agreed to drop the threat , after Whitaker said he would back out from testifying if the subpoena was served .\nActing U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington , U.S. , February 8 , 2019 . ███/Jonathan Ernst\nDuring the hearing on Friday , Nadler threatened to force Whitaker to go back in front of the committee for a deposition .\nCongressman Doug Collins , the top Republican on the committee , accused Democrats of staging political drama .\n“ Bring your popcorn , ” he said . Collins repeatedly tried to cut Democrats off from asking questions unrelated to Whitaker ’ s current role at the department .\nJustice Department ethics officials had recommended Whitaker recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation , a step he chose not to take .\n“ When career officials at the department recommended that you take steps to mitigate your apparent conflicts of interest , ... you ignored them , ” Nadler said .\n“ Ultimately , the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision . ”\nWhen pressed on whether he trusted Mueller , he told lawmakers he has respect for the former FBI Director .\n“ I have been on the record about my respect for Bob Mueller , ” Whitaker said . “ I have no reason to believe he is not honest . ”\nWhitaker also denied media reports that Trump lashed out at him after learning his former lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen was pleading guilty for lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow .\nFriday was likely the first and last time that Whitaker will testify as acting attorney general .\nTrump ’ s nominee for attorney general , William Barr , is expected to face a Senate confirmation vote next week .


• US and UK spy agencies piggyback on commercial data • Details can include age , location and sexual orientation • Documents also reveal targeted tools against individual phones\nThe National Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have been developing capabilities to take advantage of `` leaky '' smartphone apps , such as the wildly popular Angry Birds game , that transmit users ' private information across the internet , according to top secret documents .\nThe data pouring onto communication networks from the new generation of iPhone and Android apps ranges from phone model and screen size to personal details such as age , gender and location . Some apps , the documents state , can share users ' most sensitive information such as sexual orientation – and one app recorded in the material even sends specific sexual preferences such as whether or not the user may be a swinger .\nMany smartphone owners will be unaware of the full extent this information is being shared across the internet , and even the most sophisticated would be unlikely to realise that all of it is available for the spy agencies to collect .\nDozens of classified documents , provided to ███ by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in partnership with the New York Times and ProPublica , detail the NSA and GCHQ efforts to piggyback on this commercial data collection for their own purposes .\nScooping up information the apps are sending about their users allows the agencies to collect large quantities of mobile phone data from their existing mass surveillance tools – such as cable taps , or from international mobile networks – rather than solely from hacking into individual mobile handsets .\nExploiting phone information and location is a high-priority effort for the intelligence agencies , as terrorists and other intelligence targets make substantial use of phones in planning and carrying out their activities , for example by using phones as triggering devices in conflict zones . The NSA has cumulatively spent more than $ 1bn in its phone targeting efforts .\nThe disclosures also reveal how much the shift towards smartphone browsing could benefit spy agencies ' collection efforts .\nOne slide from a May 2010 NSA presentation on getting data from smartphones – breathlessly titled `` Golden Nugget ! '' – sets out the agency 's `` perfect scenario '' : `` Target uploading photo to a social media site taken with a mobile device . What can we get ? ''\nThe question is answered in the notes to the slide : from that event alone , the agency said it could obtain a `` possible image '' , email selector , phone , buddy lists , and `` a host of other social working data as well as location '' .\nIn practice , most major social media sites , such as Facebook and Twitter , strip photos of identifying location metadata ( known as EXIF data ) before publication . However , depending on when this is done during upload , such data may still , briefly , be available for collection by the agencies as it travels across the networks .\nDepending on what profile information a user had supplied , the documents suggested , the agency would be able to collect almost every key detail of a user 's life : including home country , current location ( through geolocation ) , age , gender , zip code , marital status – options included `` single '' , `` married '' , `` divorced '' , `` swinger '' and more – income , ethnicity , sexual orientation , education level , and number of children .\nThe agencies also made use of their mobile interception capabilities to collect location information in bulk , from Google and other mapping apps . One basic effort by GCHQ and the NSA was to build a database geolocating every mobile phone mast in the world – meaning that just by taking tower ID from a handset , location information could be gleaned .\nA more sophisticated effort , though , relied on intercepting Google Maps queries made on smartphones , and using them to collect large volumes of location information .\nSo successful was this effort that one 2008 document noted that `` [ i ] t effectively means that anyone using Google Maps on a smartphone is working in support of a GCHQ system . ''\nThe information generated by each app is chosen by its developers , or by the company that delivers an app 's adverts . The documents do not detail whether the agencies actually collect the potentially sensitive details some apps are capable of storing or transmitting , but any such information would likely qualify as content , rather than metadata .\nData collected from smartphone apps is subject to the same laws and minimisation procedures as all other NSA activity – procedures that the US president , Barack Obama , suggested may be subject to reform in a speech 10 days ago . But the president focused largely on the NSA 's collection of the metadata from US phone calls and made no mention in his address of the large amounts of data the agency collects from smartphone apps .\nThe latest disclosures could also add to mounting public concern about how the technology sector collects and uses information , especially for those outside the US , who enjoy fewer privacy protections than Americans . A January poll for the Washington Post showed 69 % of US adults were already concerned about how tech companies such as Google used and stored their information .\nThe documents do not make it clear how much of the information that can be taken from apps is routinely collected , stored or searched , nor how many users may be affected . The NSA says it does not target Americans and its capabilities are deployed only against `` valid foreign intelligence targets '' .\nThe documents do set out in great detail exactly how much information can be collected from widely popular apps . One document held on GCHQ 's internal Wikipedia-style guide for staff details what can be collected from different apps . Though it uses Android apps for most of its examples , it suggests much of the same data could be taken from equivalent apps on iPhone or other platforms .\nThe GCHQ documents set out examples of what information can be extracted from different ad platforms , using perhaps the most popular mobile phone game of all time , Angry Birds – which has reportedly been downloaded more than 1.7bn times – as a case study .\nFrom some app platforms , relatively limited , but identifying , information such as exact handset model , the unique ID of the handset , software version , and similar details are all that are transmitted .\nOther apps choose to transmit much more data , meaning the agency could potentially net far more . One mobile ad platform , Millennial Media , appeared to offer particularly rich information . Millennial Media 's website states it has partnered with Rovio on a special edition of Angry Birds ; with Farmville maker Zynga ; with Call of Duty developer Activision , and many other major franchises .\nRovio , the maker of Angry Birds , said it had no knowledge of any NSA or GCHQ programs looking to extract data from its apps users .\n`` Rovio does n't have any previous knowledge of this matter , and have not been aware of such activity in 3rd party advertising networks , '' said Saara Bergström , Rovio 's VP of marketing and communications . `` Nor do we have any involvement with the organizations you mentioned [ NSA and GCHQ ] . ''\nMillennial Media did not respond to a request for comment .\nIn December , the Washington Post reported on how the NSA could make use of advertising tracking files generated through normal internet browsing – known as cookies – from Google and others to get information on potential targets .\nHowever , the richer personal data available to many apps , coupled with real-time geolocation , and the uniquely identifying handset information many apps transmit give the agencies a far richer data source than conventional web-tracking cookies .\nAlmost every major website uses cookies to serve targeted advertising and content , as well as streamline the experience for the user , for example by managing logins . One GCHQ document from 2010 notes that cookie data – which generally qualifies as metadata – has become just as important to the spies . In fact , the agencies were sweeping it up in such high volumes that their were struggling to store it .\n`` They are gathered in bulk , and are currently our single largest type of events , '' the document stated .\nThe ability to obtain targeted intelligence by hacking individual handsets has been well documented , both through several years of hacker conferences and previous NSA disclosures in Der Spiegel , and both the NSA and GCHQ have extensive tools ready to deploy against iPhone , Android and other phone platforms .\nGCHQ 's targeted tools against individual smartphones are named after characters in the TV series The Smurfs . An ability to make the phone 's microphone 'hot ' , to listen in to conversations , is named `` Nosey Smurf '' . High-precision geolocation is called `` Tracker Smurf '' , power management – an ability to stealthily activate an a phone that is apparently turned off – is `` Dreamy Smurf '' , while the spyware 's self-hiding capabilities are codenamed `` Paranoid Smurf '' .\nThose capability names are set out in a much broader 2010 presentation that sheds light on spy agencies ' aspirations for mobile phone interception , and that less-documented mass-collection abilities .\nThe cover sheet of the document sets out the team 's aspirations :\nAnother slide details weak spots in where data flows from mobile phone network providers to the wider internet , where the agency attempts to intercept communications . These are locations either within a particular network , or international roaming exchanges ( known as GRXs ) , where data from travellers roaming outside their home country is routed .\nThese are particularly useful to the agency as data is often only weakly encrypted on such networks , and includes extra information such as handset ID or mobile number – much stronger target identifiers than usual IP addresses or similar information left behind when PCs and laptops browse the internet .\nThe NSA said its phone interception techniques are only used against valid targets , and are subject to stringent legal safeguards .\n`` The communications of people who are not valid foreign intelligence targets are not of interest to the National Security Agency , '' said a spokeswoman in a statement .\n`` Any implication that NSA 's foreign intelligence collection is focused on the smartphone or social media communications of everyday Americans is not true . Moreover , NSA does not profile everyday Americans as it carries out its foreign intelligence mission . We collect only those communications that we are authorized by law to collect for valid foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes – regardless of the technical means used by the targets .\n`` Because some data of US persons may at times be incidentally collected in NSA 's lawful foreign intelligence mission , privacy protections for US persons exist across the entire process concerning the use , handling , retention , and dissemination of data . In addition , NSA actively works to remove extraneous data , to include that of innocent foreign citizens , as early as possible in the process .\n`` Continuous and selective publication of specific techniques and tools lawfully used by NSA to pursue legitimate foreign intelligence targets is detrimental to the security of the United States and our allies – and places at risk those we are sworn to protect . ''\nThe NSA declined to respond to a series of queries on how routinely capabilities against apps were deployed , or on the specific minimisation procedures used to prevent US citizens ' information being stored through such measures .\nGCHQ declined to comment on any of its specific programs , but stressed all of its activities were proportional and complied with UK law .\n`` It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters , '' said a spokesman .\n`` Furthermore , all of GCHQ 's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework that ensures that our activities are authorised , necessary and proportionate , and that there is rigorous oversight , including from the Secretary of State , the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee . All our operational processes rigorously support this position . ''\n• A separate disclosure on Wednesday , published by Glenn Greenwald and NBC News , gave examples of how GCHQ was making use of its cable-tapping capabilities to monitor YouTube and social media traffic in real-time .\nGCHQ ’ s cable-tapping and internet buffering capabilities , codenamed Tempora , were disclosed by ███ in June , but the new documents published by NBC from a GCHQ presentation titled “ Psychology : A New Kind of SIGDEV '' set out a program codenamed Squeaky Dolphin which gave the British spies “ broad real-time monitoring ” of “ YouTube Video Views ” , “ URLs ‘ Liked ’ on Facebook ” and “ Blogspot/Blogger Visits ” .\nA further slide noted that “ passive ” – a term for large-scale surveillance through cable intercepts – give the agency “ scalability ” .\nThe means of interception mean GCHQ and NSA could obtain data without any knowledge or co-operation from the technology companies . Spokespeople for the NSA and GCHQ told NBC all programs were carried out in accordance with US and UK law .\n• This article was amended on 28 January 2014 . It referred to martial status , instead of marital status . This has been corrected .


NSA 's Bulk Collection Of Americans ' Phone Data Is Illegal , Appeals Court Rules\nThe National Security Agency 's practice of collecting data about Americans ' telephone calls in bulk goes beyond what Congress intended when it wrote Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act , a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday .\nThe three-judge panel was asked to consider whether the program violated the Constitution . Instead , the 2nd U.S . Circuit Court of Appeals panel punted on the constitutional claim , deciding the program was simply not authorized by federal law .\nOne of the big reasons it is hard to discern congressional intent in this case , the court wrote , is that the bulk collection program has been shrouded in secrecy . So it can not `` reasonably be said '' that Congress OK 'd `` a program of which many members of Congress — and all members of the public — were not aware . ''\nThe court concludes that it has no qualms about taking this step because if Congress wants to `` authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program , it has every opportunity to do so , and to do so unambiguously . ''\nAccording to The New York Times , this is `` the first time a higher-level court in the regular judicial system has reviewed the program , which since 2006 has repeatedly been approved in secret by a national security court . ''\nThe NSA 's collection of phone metadata came back into the spotlight after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents that shed light on the scope of the program .\nOne of the first leaked documents was a secret court ruling that ordered Verizon to hand over the telephone metadata of all its customers . Metadata does not mean the content of calls . Instead it means things like time , phone numbers and duration of calls .\nThe panel has vacated a lower court 's decision to dismiss the case and has sent it back for further review . The panel also refused to order a preliminary end to the program , saying Congress is currently debating the NSA 's bulk collection program .\n`` We deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may ( or may not ) profoundly alter the legal landscape , '' the panel wrote .\nUpdate at 11:47 a.m . ET . Obama Believes Bulk Collection Should End :\nWithout specifically commenting on the court 's ruling , Ned Price , a spokesman for the White House National Security Council , said President Obama has already expressed a preference for ending the bulk collection of metadata as it exists today .\nAs we reported back in January 2014 , Obama said he would prefer that the government not keep a massive database of Americans ' telephone data . Instead , the data could live elsewhere and the U.S. government could query the information based on each investigation .\n`` We continue to work closely with members of Congress from both parties to do just that and we have been encouraged by good progress on bipartisan , bicameral legislation that would implement these important reforms , '' Price said in a statement .\nUpdate at 11:44 a.m . ET . 'Resounding Victory For The Rule Of Law ' :\n`` This decision is a resounding victory for the rule of law , '' ACLU Staff Attorney Alex Abdo , who argued the case before the three-judge panel last September , said in a statement . `` For years , the government secretly spied on millions of innocent Americans based on a shockingly broad interpretation of its authority . The court rightly rejected the government 's theory that it may stockpile information on all of us in case that information proves useful in the future . Mass surveillance does not make us any safer , and it is fundamentally incompatible with the privacy necessary in a free society . ''\nThe ACLU also urged Congress to `` up its reform game '' to align itself with the concerns raised by the 2nd Circuit .\nThe panel argued that when Congress passed the Patriot Act , it could not have understood the sweeping nature of the program . The panel explains :\n`` Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans . Perhaps such a contraction is required by national security needs in the face of the dangers of contemporary domestic and international terrorism . But we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate , and expressed in unmistakable language . There is no evidence of such a debate in the legislative history of § 215 , and the language of the statute , on its face , is not naturally read as permitting investigative agencies , on the approval of the FISC [ the secret national security court ] , to do any more than obtain the sorts of information routinely acquired in the course of criminal investigations of 'money laundering [ and ] drug dealing . ' ``\nUpdate at 9:57 a.m . ET . Echoes Some Members Of Congress :\nNPR 's David Welna , who covers national security for the network , tells us the ruling echoes what some members of Congress have been saying . David reports :


I have been writing for years about the dangers to human freedom that come from government mass surveillance . The United States was born in a defiant reaction to government surveillance . In the decade preceding the signing of the Declaration of Independence , the villains were the Stamp Act and the Writs of Assistance Act .\nIn 1765 , when the British government was looking for creative ways to tax the colonists , Parliament enacted the Stamp Act . That law required all persons in the colonies to purchase stamps from a British government vendor and to affix them to all documents in one 's possession . These were not stamps as we use today , rather they bore the seal of the British government . The vendor would apply ink to the seal and for a fee — a tax — impress an image of the seal onto documents .\nAll documents in one 's possession — financial , legal , letters , books , newspapers , pamphlets , even posters destined to be nailed to trees — required the government stamps .\nHow did the British government , 3,000 miles away , know if one had its stamps on one 's documents ? Answer : The Writs of Assistance Act . A writ of assistance was a general warrant issued by a secret court in London . A general warrant does not specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized . It merely authorized the bearer — a civilian or military government official — to search where he wished and seize whatever he found .\nThe use of writs of assistance ostensibly to search colonial homes for stamps produced an avalanche of opposition that often turned to violence against the stamp vendors . The sheer cost of invading private homes fueled fears that the true purpose of the tax was not to generate revenue — though the king always needed cash — rather , it was to remind the colonists that the king was sovereign and his agents and soldiers could enter colonial homes on a whim .\nParliament repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 , but it had caused lasting harm to the king . Harvard Professor Bernard Bailyn has estimated that by the late 1760s , one-third of the colonists favored secession from Great Britain , either peaceful or violent .\nIn 1789 , six years after the American Revolution was won , the 13 colonies that had seceded combined into the United States of America under the Constitution . Two years later , the Bill of Rights was ratified , the Fourth Amendment of which was expressly written to prohibit general warrants — to assure that the new government would not and could not do to Americans what the British government had done to the colonists .\nThat assurance was manifested in the amendment 's requirements that only judges can issue search warrants , which must be based on probable cause of crime and which must specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized .\nThe history of the United States is the history of the growth of government and the loss of personal liberty . Thankfully , we eradicated slavery and recognized the equality of all people , irrespective of race or gender . Yet , in times of crisis , we have supinely permitted the federal government to invade our privacy on a scale never approached by the folks who brought the Stamp Act to our ancestors .\nAfter 9/11 , the George W. Bush administration offered the Patriot Act to Congress .\nIt was crafted in secrecy and enacted in infidelity to the Constitution . Members of the House of Representatives had 15 minutes to read is 300 plus pages and no time for serious floor debate . The one senator who spoke out against it was driven from office .\nSection 505 of the Patriot Act permits federal agents to bypass the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and to issue their own search warrants . Those agent-written warrants are not based on probable cause of crime but rather on a representation by one agent to another of governmental needs — the same lame standard used by the secret London courts that issued writs of assistance .\nSince 2001 , federal agents have issued more than 300,000 of these search warrants — which they call National Security Letters — to custodians of financial records . In 2004 alone , 56,507 agent-written search warrants were issued . Those custodians include financial institutions , telecom providers , computer service providers , supermarkets , credit card issuers , health care insurers and providers , legal service providers , local and state governments , and even the Post Office .\nThe very concept of one federal agent authorizing another to seize records is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment and repugnant to the American Revolution .\nI am writing about this now because a section of the Patriot Act will expire on March 15 , and many congressional liberals and libertarians — even a few conservatives still bruised at the governmental surveillance of candidate Donald Trump in 2016 — have been contemplating structural changes to this pernicious law .\nSection 215 — which is about to expire — is as fatal to freedom as is section 505 . It permits designated federal judges to issue general warrants based on the old writs of assistance standard of governmental need . One of those judges signed a search warrant for the telephone records of all Verizon customers in the U.S. — at the time , 115 million of them .\nBoth 215 and 505 are weapons of mass surveillance and should be repealed . They are instruments of a totalitarian government , not of free people . They defy the Constitution . They presume that our rights are not natural but come from a government that can take them back . Mass surveillance produces a state that knows more about us than we do about it — one that will slowly consume our freedoms in the name of governmental needs . It already has .\nJudge Andrew P. Napolitano was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey . He is Fox News ’ senior judicial analyst . Napolitano has been published in The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and numerous other publications . He is the author of the best-seller , `` Lies the Government Told You : Myth , Power , and Deception in American History . '' For more of Judge Napolitano 's reports , Go Here Now .