Cohen, Manafort Developments Don’t Reveal Any Illegal Conduct or Collusion by Trump, His Campaign

Amid the media hysteria over Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and discussions between the lawyers representing Paul Manafort and President Donald Trump, it’s important to understand from a legal standpoint what this means—and what it does not.

We don’t know what other evidence special counsel Robert Mueller may have that hasn’t yet been disclosed. But the evidence disclosed to date—including in Cohen’s plea deal—still doesn’t reveal any illegal conduct by Trump or his campaign or any collusion with the Russian government to change the outcome of the 2016 election. There is nothing illegal or unethical about discussions and sharing of information between lawyers representing individuals who may be the focus of the same prosecutor.

Cohen pleaded guilty to one count of lying to Congress. What was he lying about? For the past 30 years, the Trump real estate organization has been trying to negotiate a deal to build a marquee property in Moscow. There is certainly nothing unusual or untoward about that.

The criminal information filed by the special counsel describes the false statements that Cohen now admits he made. Cohen originally told Congress that the negotiations he was involved in over that deal ended in January 2016 and that they did not involve Trump himself. He now admits that the negotiations didn’t end until June 2016 (the deal was never consummated), and that he did brief individuals within the Trump Organization, including Trump, about the negotiations.

Cohen also stated that he never planned to travel to Russia for the hotel deal, nor did he ask Trump to travel there. He also swore to Congress that he had reached out to the press secretary for the Russian president, but that he did “not recall” whether he received a response. These statements were also false, thus constituting a federal crime of lying to Congress.

No one should minimize the seriousness of lying under oath to Congress. During the guilty plea before the district court judge, Cohen said, “I made these statements to be consistent with Individual-1’s political messaging and to be loyal to Individual 1.”

So Cohen lied to be loyal to Trump (Individual 1 presumably). But it’s important to understand that the underlying conduct that Cohen was lying about—negotiating a real estate deal—is not illegal or unlawful in and of itself, whether you’re working to get something built in New York City or Moscow.

Furthermore, there is no federal law that tells individuals who own a business and run for federal office, whether it is the presidency or Congress, that they have to stop running their business, negotiating deals, or taking part in the other myriad details involved in being a business owner the moment they decide to run for office.

Yes, they have to avoid conflicts of interest, and cannot enrich themselves unlawfully once in office. But those laws kick in after someone is elected.

All of Cohen’s entreaties to get the real estate deal appear to have been perfectly legal, at least so far as we know.

If we assume that Cohen pleaded guilty this time because he really did lie to Congress, then the underlying conduct—talking to Russian officials about a possible real estate deal in Moscow and briefing individuals within the Trump Organization—is all lawful conduct. Does Cohen secretly have some other testimony that shows illegal activity? We don’t know, and there is nothing in the plea agreement that indicates one way or another.

We also don’t know what Cohen told Mueller during his seven proffer sessions that took place between August 2018 and Nov. 20, 2018, as noted in the plea agreement. We do know that Trump submitted his written responses to Mueller on Nov. 20, and the Cohen guilty plea took place after that, leading one to conclude that Mueller was waiting for the president’s written answers before unveiling Cohen’s latest guilty plea. Where this leads is difficult to tell.

By the way, it should be noted that Cohen faced a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000; the plea agreement with Mueller says that the special prosecutor is recommending no more than six months in prison and a maximum fine of only $9,500.

The media has also been full of stories claiming the special counsel is upset that the lawyers representing Manafort have apparently been briefing the lawyers representing Trump about their discussions with Mueller and implying that there is something nefarious in such sharing of information. There is nothing illegal or unethical about lawyers with different clients sharing such information.

The extensive, 17-page plea agreement that Manafort entered into with Mueller on Sept. 14 has no provision of any kind barring Manafort or his lawyers from briefing the president’s lawyers on their discussions with Mueller. There is an entire page and a half detailing the cooperation that Manafort has to provide to the special counsel, but nowhere does it say that Manafort is prohibited from sharing information about that cooperation.

In fact, Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, says he has joint defense agreements with 32 potential witnesses in the special counsel’s investigation, including Manafort. Some legal experts say that agreement should have ended when Manafort pleaded guilty, but as long as Manafort’s lawyer is simply providing information to Giuliani and there is no effort to tamper with a witness or obstruct justice, there is no unlawful behavior in such sharing of information (although it is unusual).

Of course, Manafort, who was convicted for criminal violations of the law related to his consulting business that had nothing to do with his brief participation in the Trump campaign, has more serious problems.

On Nov. 26, Mueller filed a pleading with the federal court in the District of Columbia claiming that Manafort has breached his plea deal by “lying” to the FBI and the special counsel “on a variety of subject matters.” Those “subject matters” are not detailed in the filing; instead, the special counsel says he will outline what those “lies” are when he files a “detailed sentencing” report to the court.

So far, after a year and a half of the special counsel investigation, we’ve had multiple indictments of Russians for trying—with no coordination with any Americans—to use social media and the internet to encourage social unrest in America in 2016. We had various indictments for criminal activity unrelated to the Trump campaign and for lying to Congress and federal investigators over conduct that was itself lawful.

But we still have had no indictments that have revealed any evidence about the issue the special counsel was supposed to investigate—whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The latest developments with Cohen and Manafort add very little to answering that ultimate question. We’re still waiting.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Go Nakamura/ZUMA Press/Newscom.

Six Months After Asking – Eye hears from Duval Schools about Sex with Students. Yep it’s happening.

On the day before Thanksgiving, Eye got a gift for which we are thankful.

The public school system answered a question we asked last May. In August, they told us we could have the info for $107.60, which we paid.

As it turns out, they gave us more than we asked for, so it was almost a Black Friday deal.

Our question was, have any local schoolteachers been accused of improper conduct with students?

The answer: yes.

Since two such accusations have been made since we asked, we were fairly confident the answer would be yes.

We expected only statistics but we got the actual reports, with details (some redacted for privacy).

The reason for our inquiry is that this has become a serious problem nationwide in the past 10 years, but we had seen little notice of it here.

A book titled The Corrupt Classroom claims that “sex crimes by teachers have reached shocking levels.” In 2014 there were 781 sex crimes reported, according to author Lance Izumi.

In Florida, a 14-year-old student wrote down his cell phone number on a chalkboard – and got a call from his 32-year-old teacher, who initiated a sexual relationship. A 31-year-old Florida teacher was accused of soliciting sex from at least four students.

There have been at least 50 cases in Florida public schools this year alone, but the liberal media shrugs them off while focusing on a few incidents in private schools.

Earlier this year, USA Today wrote: “schoolchildren across the nation continue to be beaten, raped and harassed by their teachers while government officials at every level stand by and do nothing. The investigation uncovered more than 100 teachers who lost their licenses but are still working with children or young adults today.”

Cases have been uncovered in Florida of a teacher leaving one district under a cloud and being hired in another district, apparently having escaped scrutiny.

Local School Superintendent Diane Greene told Eye on Jacksonville her career has been dedicated to the well-being of children. “…. I will not be tolerant of adults who do them harm,” she said.

That’s refreshing when, in some school districts, more emphasis is on protecting the teachers.

In Jacksonville, it appears that incidents are investigated thoroughly and teachers are cleared when accusations are unfounded. Of the 16 cases we were given, nine were substantiated.

A fifth-grade teacher in an elementary school was accused by students of touching them improperly. Investigators interviewed students and the teacher (who had no previous record) and concluded there was not evidence of improper conduct. There were several other such cases.

In April 2017, school officials were told by one student that a teacher was involved in “sexual conduct’ with a sixth grade student. The report said the matter was turned over to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. No further information was provided.

A high school teacher was accused of improper language, flirting and groping girls in 2016. Investigators interviewed numerous students and found the charges were substantiated. The teacher resigned.

One high school teacher was found to have had students in her home using marijuana and alcohol, and sleeping over. She was not rehired the following year.

In 2016 a homosexual high school band teacher was found to have made improper remarks and advances toward students, and he resigned.

This year a teacher at Fletcher High School was found to have had sex with two students under the age of 18, at times in a classroom, after his wife found out and notified school officials. He resigned and was arrested.

Another high school teacher resigned after reports from students and another teacher that he was having sex with a student in a classroom, even though the students said they didn’t actually “do it” because they were afraid of being seen.

In another incident this year, a teacher was tutoring an underage student and allowed him to live in her home with him. They had moonlight walks on the beach and professed love for each other, but both said they did not have sex, although she told him that as soon as he was 18 she would show him how a teacher “took care” of a student. The report said the teacher violated professional conduct but did not indicate whether the teacher was punished.

In another case this year, a teacher who already had been reprimanded for remarks to young girls was accused of using his cell phone to take a picture of a girl in a short dress sitting with her legs crossed. He was not re-hired.

Another teacher who sent text messages and photos to young girls resigned in April after they reported his actions to school officials.

The dean of a middle school resigned after investigators concluded he had received intimate photos of students on his phone and talked of having sex with one “after she graduated.”

Clearly, the investigative reports from just two years indicate there are problems with interactions between some teachers and students. What is remarkable is the extent that some teachers use their phones for such conduct, an indication of how technology can facilitate bad behavior as well as benefit users. Fortunately, it can also provide evidence for investigators.

COLUMN BY

Lloyd Brown

Lloyd was born in Jacksonville. Graduated from the University of North Florida. He spent nearly 50 years of his life in the newspaper business …beginning as a copy boy and retiring as editorial page editor for Florida Times Union. He has also been published in a number of national newspapers and magazines, as well as Internet sites. Married with children. Military Vet. Retired. Man of few words but the words are researched well, deeply considered and thoughtfully written.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

No End in Sight: Cohen, Manafort Developments Seen as Keeping Mueller Probe Going Into 2019

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation isn’t likely to wrap up anytime soon, as once expected, based on events this week, former federal prosecutors say.

President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to the Mueller team to lying to Congress about the timing of a proposed Trump building project in Moscow.

Mueller is also considering additional charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for allegedly violating an earlier plea deal.

“Mueller’s charge was to uncover crimes and indict people, not write a report,” former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told The Daily Signal, expressing skepticism of reports the probe would wrap up before the end of 2018.

For weeks, pundits and news reports asserted that Mueller was close to wrapping up the probe—possibly even by the end of the year—with a report detailing his legal team’s findings.

The Cohen plea also comes after Trump’s legal team provided written responses to prosecutors’ questions.

“This week’s events have given Mueller a better vehicle to continue his investigation at a time when some in the public were feeling investigation fatigue,” Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, told The Daily Signal.

A Trump Tower in Moscow was never built, but the negotiation—which Cohen now says continued to June 2016—seems more significant than a meeting at the Trump Tower in New York that same month between a Russian lawyer and Trump campaign officials, Coffey added.

“Mueller benefits from a personal lawyer for Trump trying to make a deal in Russia in 2016,” said Akerman, who served on the teams of special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski during the Watergate investigation in the early 1970s. “That is more suggestive of a direct connection than a isolated meeting to look at suggested opposition research.”

Still, aside from the probe’s capacity to generate headlines, former prosecutors differ on how serious the new developments are on a legal spectrum.

Of Cohen’s guilty plea, Akerman—now in private practice in New York—said, “On a scale of one to 10, this is a 20.”

“Why would he plead guilty to additional charges after he’s already pleaded guilty in the campaign finance violation?” he continued. “Prosecutors prefer to get guilty pleas lined up with what they’re investigating, and Cohen is a major witness to the American side of the conspiracy with Russians.”

Akerman anticipates that Cohen holds what has been the elusive information linking Trump’s business dealings with the timeline of Russians hacking the Democratic National Committee computers. He laid out his theory in an op-ed in the New York Daily News.

Cohen told Congress that negotiations for a Trump Tower in Moscow wound down in January 2016. He now tells prosecutors negotiations were going on until June 2016, well into the presidential campaign.

Hacked DNC emails were leaked online in June and July of 2016, most notably to WikiLeaks. Also, Trump campaign officials met with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York in June.

Thus far, Mueller has released no public evidence of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russians. The president, who has repeatedly denied collusion, called Cohen “a weak person” on Thursday and accused him of trying to get a reduced sentence.

Trump administration and campaign officials have also denied collusion with Russians.

Meanwhile, Trump on Thursday canceled a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, citing recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Cohen previously pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws for paying off two women before the election who claim to have had affairs with Trump. Prosecutors counted the payment to the two women as an in-kind contribution to the Trump campaign.

While a June 2016 timeline may seem to connect several events, there is still scant known evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, said Coffey, the former federal prosecutor from Florida.

“This puts a sizable dose of Russian dressing on the overall picture, but legally, this is not a game-changer,” Coffey said.

Many of Mueller’s prosecutions have been for lying to investigators or lying on official forms, Coffey noted, which he called “process crimes.”

“The special counsel has continued bringing process crimes, but has not established an underlying crime that separate charges against the Russian operatives involved with the Google ads, Facebook ads, and hacking were connected to the Trump campaign.”

Coffey stressed there’s still much the special counsel’s office knows that the public doesn’t know yet.

However, he noted the email between Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and their meeting in the Trump Tower in New York mentioned nothing about the Moscow development. Further, Coffey said, Cohen didn’t attend the meeting.

“It’s hard to conclude Cohen’s very preliminary exploration of a Moscow development resulted in a systematic hacking of the DNC,” Coffey said. “Also, there is no connection of Cohen with the Trump Tower meeting in New York. It seems almost certain that if these things were connected, he would be there.”

Regarding the Trump Tower meeting, Donald Trump Jr. said Veselnitskaya promised opposition research on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, but only talked about Russian adoption policy and the 2012 Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law in response to Russian corruption.

The Mueller investigation is another example of a federal prosecutor piling up charges to present as damaging an assessment as possible, said Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor who was chief of the appellate divisions in the Western and Northern districts of Texas.

“This is standard operating procedure for prosecutorial terrorist tactics,” Powell told The Daily Signal.

Powell, now a defense appeals lawyer, became skeptical of federal prosecutions during her time with the Justice Department and wrote the 2014 book “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Justice Department.”

She anticipates Mueller will drag the case out to show that he can, but doubts the Cohen case will amount to much.

“I can’t see anything in Cohen’s guilty plea that he would have actually been convicted of if he had not pleaded,” Powell said. “He’s trying to make this easy on himself. He’s under massive pressure.”

A 2007 Quinnipiac University Law Review study found only six convictions for lying to Congress since the 1940s.

Akerman called it “an irrelevant fact” that few people are charged with lying to Congress, noting that in the Watergate and Iran-Contra cases, people were prosecuted for lying to Congress.

Powell said high-level federal officials, such as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former FBI Director James Comey, have also made highly questionable statements under oath to Congress on various matters as well, but were not prosecuted.

“I don’t have a problem with seeing this applied,” Powell said. “But this should be equally applied.”


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter:@FredLucasWH.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Erik Thomas/NY Post/MEGA/Newscom.

Relax Trump Has the Goods

I will keep this commentary and analysis brief and I encourage you to embark upon perhaps some additional research and sources on your own. Many people I meet with as I presently speak throughout  the state of Florida to Republican groups and patriot groups supportive of President Trump, seem to feel we are not winning. Well we are. Besides the obvious incredible accomplishments by our amazing President, we  must come to understand that the many criminal democrats, the shadow government and the deep state, are in fact shaking in their shorts. They are on the run as Trump narrows in on them laying cheese in mouse traps planted all over the place and soon, very soon, they shall be caught. Trump’s 3 D chess will eventually lead to the ultimate check mate. The deep state is on the run, relax, Trump has the goods. Can you say FISA docs?

Relax Trump Has the Goods

Some believe that Q (QANON) is a conspiracy. I for one do not believe that President Trump would have called attention to Q at the Tampa rally (of which I attended), if it were conspiracy. And the fact that the very next day CNN and the rest of the MSM controlled purveyors of propaganda and lies, claimed Q to be a conspiracy, which tells you it probably isn’t.  So I encourage you to go to YouTube and explore the world of Q, QANON. And if Q is not “your thing”, then tune into former high lever CIA officer, Kevin Shipp. Listen to what former CIA intel officer Robert David Steele has to say about the arrests and indictments that are taking place as I write.

You see my friends, there are well over 63,000 sealed indictments ready to go against the Deep State and its many operatives that span across this globe. There is a plan. Come to know it, as it is unfolding before our very eyes its just that perhaps you may be looking in the wrong direction. Explore the many articles on this website and the scores of links I have provided. You too will begin to connect the dots. Read this post please which is based upon two executive orders  titled, “Martial Law and Military Tribunals – Trump Takes on the Deep State”.  Then listen to this spot on analysis by Mike Adams. Stay safe. Spread the word. Fight the fight. Stay the course, and God Bless.

RELATED ARTICLE: Special Counsel Mueller is building a report, not a case.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Anti-Gun Researchers Undermine the Anti-Gun Narrative

We have good news from a joint effort between the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis School of Medicine and the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins University.

Comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors had no effect on homicide rates in California.

The latest study published by the highly-credentialed researchers in these well-funded programs, “California’s comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies and firearm mortality,” was designed to evaluate the effect of California’s 1991 comprehensive background check and prohibiting those convicted of violent misdemeanors policies on firearm homicide and suicide. The study period was 1981-2000, with secondary analysis up to 2005.

Using a synthetic control methodology, the researchers found that the comprehensive background check and violent misdemeanor prohibitions were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.

In conversational language, the two policies had no effect.

We credit the researchers for publishing these findings that run contrary to their own established opinions regarding firearms. There are, naturally, some methodological questions. For instance, the violent crime index only had a low predictive value and so was not included in the final model. The variables that did make the cut included specific age groups, race, gender, poverty level, veteran population, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and the proxy for gun ownership rates. Violent crime is often associated with homicide rates in other studies, yet was not included here.

The general design of the synthetic control model also raises questions. In this methodology, other states were combined and weighted to match California before the new policies were implemented. Eleven states were used to create this “synthetic” California but the contributions each of these states made to the synthetic California are not presented in the paper. The donor pool of states was limited to those that did not have policies similar to the comprehensive background check or prohibiting violent misdemeanor at the start of the study period and did not enact major firearm policy changes during that period, but…the differences between California and Alaska, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin are not limited to the social and demographic variables included in the model.

But back to the findings. You will recall, from just a few short paragraphs ago, that the notable anti-gun researchers – at least one of whom joined the anti-gun march on Washington this past March – found the comprehensive background check and prohibiting violent misdemeanor policies had no effect on firearm homicides or suicides in California.

The article about the study on the UC Davis website presents that finding with some spin: “Study does not find population-level changes in firearm homicide or suicide rates…” Maybe our understanding of the anti-gun bias driving this research colors our perception, but “does not find” and “were not associated with” seem like two sides of two different coins.

The discussion section of the study itself is dedicated to explanations for the lack of an association.  The authors suggest that the problem may have been limited records in the background check system, a lack of enforcement, or maybe that there were just too few purchase denials.

Their first explanation is not enough gun control. The authors note their findings conflict with some of their own prior research on other states. They claim the difference is that the other states’ comprehensive background check policies included a permit to purchase component. That must be the key difference, right?

Ignore the fact that all three studies to which they point were reviewed by the Rand Corporation for The Science of Gun Policy. In fact, two of these three studies were the only studies considered in the section for the effect of licensing and permitting requirements on violent crime. Rand found, based on these two studies alone, that licensing and permitting requirements have uncertain effects on total homicides and firearms homicides because the evidence is inconclusive. The third study was focused exclusively on suicide rates, and was one of two studies included in that section in the Rand review. Rand also found that licensing and permitting requirement have uncertain effects on total suicides and firearm suicides, due to inconclusive evidence.

So, yes, ignore that and let’s get back to the point the authors make about permit to purchase. They fail to consider that California enacted a permit-to-purchase system, the Basic Firearms Safety Certificate, in 1994 – right in the middle of their study’s postintervention period.

Still, we credit the researchers for sharing these results and we look forward to sharing their evidence when anti-gun organizations demand further obstacles to law-abiding gun owners.

We’d like to thank the Joyce Foundation and, perhaps unwittingly, California taxpayers for making this study possible.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Retired Anti-Gun Justice Reveals Attempts to Thwart Landmark Heller Decision

Engineering Professor Shares Thoughts on Constitutional Law, Calls for Handgun Ban

House Democrats Outline Gun Control Agenda for 116th Congress

Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Court Documents Suggest A Personal Vendetta Between Two Lawyers Might Be Fueling Climate Crusade

  • Two of the law firms suing Exxon Mobil sued each other over four years ago over disagreements about attorneys’ fees from a previous lawsuit targeting the oil company.
  • Court filings appear to suggest much of the anti-Exxon lawsuits is being fueled by a personal vendetta between two of the biggest law firms engaged in the climate crusade.
  • The trial attorneys behind the climate crusade have a long history of back-biting and bickering over attorneys’ fees from previous Exxon lawsuits.

Two of the attorneys representing various cities in climate litigation against oil companies have a history of suing and counter-suing each other over personal squabbles, according to documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Environmental attorneys Vic Sher and Matt Pawa got into a multi-million-dollar legal dispute in 2014 stemming from a lawsuit they both worked on against ExxonMobil. Sher, who was with Sher Leff at the time, alleged Pawa’s group, Pawa Law Group, failed to distribute money from a settlement in the case. Pawa, in turn, argued in a lawsuit that Sher was the one cheating him out of millions of dollars.

Sher, who is now with Sher Edling, eventually paid Pawa about $6 million for the retributions, court documents show. The disagreement stems from a lawsuit New Hampshire filed in 2013 alleging Exxon negligently contaminated the state’s water ways with 2 billion gallons of MTBE, a gas additive experts believe poisons drinking water. The intrigue comes amid growing bad blood between the two sides.

The state initially sued 26 oil companies in 2003 over the contamination. New Hampshire previously collected over $130 million for MTBE cleanup from the other defendants. The jury eventually awarded the state damages of $816 million. Exxon was made to pay roughly 29 percent of market share, which equaled roughly $236,372,664 at the time of the lawsuit.

New Hampshire’s Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2015 after Exxon appealed the ruling to the top court.

People take part in protests ahead of the upcoming G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany July 2, 2017. Placard reads “Global Warming is NOT a Myth”. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke

A dispute arose between Pawa and Sher in 2012 relating to the division of attorneys’ fees between them under a contract with New Hampshire, which retained both to represent the state in the Exxon contamination case. A panel eventually awarded Pawa nearly $6 million for breaching the agreement.

Sher Leff refused to comply with the final award, including payment of the amounts awarded to Pawa’s law firm, even while Sher Leff pocketed more than $27 million in attorneys’ fees from the Exxon case. Sher countersued in 2014, arguing Pawa entered into a secondary oral agreement that the legal fees associated with the case would be delivered proportionally. Sher’s case was dismissed.

Neither Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a California-based law firm that now employs Pawa, nor Sher Edling responded to TheDCNF’s request for comment about how the nearly five-year-old lawsuit is affecting their current legal pursuits of Exxon.

Both law firms — Sher Edling and Hagens Berman — are barnstorming the country, convincing cities to sue energy companies for allegedly contributing to damage caused by climate change. The rivalry between the two attorneys heated up Nov. 26 after San Francisco and Oakland fired Hagens Berman and hired Sher Edling to represent the cities as they appeal a court’s decision to dismiss their lawsuits against Exxon.

Hagens Berman is handling King County, Washington’s lawsuit against five major oil companies. The California-based firm was also behind a now-dismissed climate lawsuit brought by New York City.

A logo of the Exxon Mobil Corp is seen at the Rio Oil and Gas Expo and Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil September 24, 2018. REUTERS/Sergio Moraes

Hagens Berman’s fee would have been 23.5 percent of any winnings from its cases with San Francisco and Oakland. Hagens Berman stood to earn possibly billions of dollars in contingency fees depending on the total winnings, had San Francisco, Oakland or New York City won their global warming suits.

Sher Edling, for its part, is handling climate lawsuits for six California cities and counties. Local governments suing fossil fuel interests argue state nuisance and trespassing laws, which have sometimes been applied to pollution, also apply to global warming. They also accuse energy companies of trying to downplay the harms their products allegedly cause.

Hagens Berman and Sher Edling’s drama comes after New York filed a lawsuit in October against Exxon for allegedly downplaying for decades the risk the company’s oil products pose on the climate.

The lawsuit follows over three years of investigation first orchestrated by former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who resigned in April over abuse allegations from former romantic partners. The probe took many twists and turns and seemed to come to a halt shortly after his resignation.

Exxon engaged in a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” to deceive investors, analysts and underwriters “concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change regulation,” the lawsuit notes.

COLUMN BY

Chris White | Energy Reporter

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Anti-Exxon Attorneys Suffer Setback Amid Rash Of Legal Defeats

SEC Investigators Decide Not To Punish Exxon For Alleged Climate Heresy

In Brazil, new foreign minister thinks climate change a plot by cultural Marxists

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission from The Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

EXCLUSIVE: Google Employees Debated Burying Conservative Media In Search

  • Google employees debated whether to bury The Daily Caller and other conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election
  • “Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years,” one engineer wrote in a thread that included a Google vice president
  • Google employees similarly sought to manipulate search results to combat Trump’s travel ban

Google employees debated whether to bury conservative media outlets in the company’s search function as a response to President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, internal Google communications obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation reveal.

The Daily Caller and Breitbart were specifically singled out as outlets to potentially bury, the communications reveal.

Trump’s election in 2016 shocked many Google employees, who had been counting on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to win.

Communications obtained by TheDCNF show that internal Google discussions went beyond expressing remorse over Clinton’s loss to actually discussing ways Google could prevent Trump from winning again.

“This was an election of false equivalencies, and Google, sadly, had a hand in it,” Google engineer Scott Byer wrote in a Nov. 9, 2016, post reviewed by TheDCNF.

Byer falsely labeled The Daily Caller and Breitbart as “opinion blogs” and urged his coworkers to reduce their visibility in search results.

“How many times did you see the Election now card with items from opinion blogs (Breitbart, Daily Caller) elevated next to legitimate news organizations? That’s something that can and should be fixed,” Byer wrote.

“I think we have a responsibility to expose the quality and truthfulness of sources – because not doing so hides real information under loud noises,” he continued.

“Beyond that, let’s concentrate on teaching critical thinking. A little bit of that would go a long way. Let’s make sure that we reverse things in four years – demographics will be on our side.”

Some of Byer’s colleagues expressed concern that manipulating search results could backfire and suggested alternative measures.

(Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)

Sundar Pichai, C.E.O., Google Inc. speaks onstage during the 2018 New York Times Dealbook on November 1, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images for The New York Times)

One Google engineer, Uri Dekel, identified himself as a Clinton supporter but argued that manipulating search results was the wrong route to take.

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote in a reply to Byer.

“I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off. By ranking ‘legitimacy’ you’ll just introduce more conspiracy theories,” Dekel added.

“Too many times, Breitbart is just echoing a demonstrably made up story,” Byer wrote in a reply to his original post. He did not cite any examples.

“That happens at MSNBC, too. I don’t want a political judgement. The desire is to break the myth feedback loop, the false equivalency, instead of the current amplification of it,” Byer added.

“What I believe we can do, technically, that avoids the accusations of conspiracy or bias from people who ultimately have a right and obligation to decide what they want to believe, is to get better at displaying the ‘ripples’ and copy-pasta, to trace information to its source, to link to critiques of those sources, and let people decide what sources they believe,” another Google engineer, Mike Brauwerman, suggested.

“Give people a comprehensive but effectively summarized view of the information, not context-free rage-inducing sound-bytes,” he added.

“We’re working on providing users with context around stories so that they can know the bigger picture,” chimed in David Besbris, vice president of engineering at Google.

“We can play a role in providing the full story and educate them about all sides. This doesn’t have to be filtering and can be useful to everyone,” he wrote.

Other employees similarly advocated providing contextual information about media sources in search results, and the company later did so with a short-lived fact check at the end of 2017.

Not only did the fact-check feature target conservative outlets almost exclusively, it was also blatantly wrong. Google’s fact check repeatedly attributed false claims to those outlets, even though they demonstrably never made those claims.

Google pulled the faulty fact-check program in January, crediting TheDCNF’s investigation for the decision.

A Google spokeswoman said that the conversation did not lead to manipulation of search results for political purposes.

“This post shows that far from suppressing Breitbart and Daily Caller, we surfaced these sites regularly in our products. Furthermore, it shows that we value providing people with the full view on stories from a variety of sources,” the spokeswoman told TheDCNF in an email.

“Google has never manipulated its search results or modified any of its products to promote a particular political ideology. Our processes and policies do not allow for any manipulation of search results to promote political ideologies.”

The discussion about whether to bury conservative media outlets isn’t the first evidence that some Google employees have sought to manipulate search results for political ends.

After Trump announced his initial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways to manipulate search results in order to push back against the president’s order.

A group of employees brainstormed ways to counter “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam’, ‘Muslim’, ‘Iran’, etc,” as well as “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico’, ‘Hispanic’, ‘Latino’, etc.”

WATCH:

Trump speculated to The Daily Caller in September that Google and Facebook are trying to affect election outcomes.

“I think they already have,” Trump said, responding to questions about potential election interference by Google and Facebook.

“I mean the true interference in the last election was that — if you look at all, virtually all of those companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Maybe I did a better job because I’m good with the Twitter and I’m good at social media, but the truth is they were all on Hillary Clinton’s side, and if you look at what was going on with Facebook and with Google and all of it, they were very much on her side,” Trump continued.

Google this month corrected a “knowledge panel” about a Republican women’s group that labeled them “enablers.”

Google cited Wikipedia for the disparaging description, though a similar change made to Wikipedia’s page for the women’s group was corrected almost immediately. Google left up the digital vandalism for three weeks.

Google apologized in May after search results for the California Republican Party falsely listed “Nazism” as one of the state party’s ideologies.

Then, too, Google blamed manipulation of the party’s Wikipedia page for the inaccurate and disparaging description.

COLUMN BY

Peter Hasson | Reporter

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

RELATED ARTICLE: Google Search Labels Republican Women ‘Enablers’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission from The Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

African-American Conservatives Lobby Senators In Favor Of ‘First Step Act’

Reporters from The Daily Caller spent some time with a group of African-American conservatives Wednesday, following them as they visited Senate offices lobbying for a bill that aims to take the “first step” toward overhauling America’s criminal justice system.

The “First Step Act,” which passed easily in the House of Representatives last summer, would roll back some of the initiatives of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act —also known as the “Clinton Crime Bill.” Most importantly for its supporters, the bill intends to combat recidivism, which is the rate at which released prisoners return to criminal behavior.

If passed, the bill would allow some people in federal prisons to earn “good-time credit,” which would set them up for early release if they participate in programs which allow them to demonstrate improved behavior and preparation for life on the outside. The bill would lead to the release of an additional 3,900 prisoners in the first year of its implementation, according to estimates.

The group of mostly black conservatives met with Republican Sens. Steve Daines of Montana, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Tim Scott of South Carolina and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. They also found their way into the offices of a few other senators, not all of whom were available to meet with them.

Candace Owens leads a group of African-American conservatives in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, Nov. 28

Candace Owens and Gianno Caldwell lead a group of African-American conservatives in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday, Nov. 28, as they lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

Among them were prominent young conservatives like Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk and Gianno Caldwell, each of whom spoke to The Daily Caller about why they are so passionate about ensuring the bill’s passage.

“It’s worked in Texas, it’s worked in Louisiana, it’s worked in other states,” Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA, said of the proposed reforms in the bill. “It’s in some ways an atypical issue for conservatives to be taking on, but that’s what I love most about [President Donald Trump], is that he’s willing to take on issues that are traditionally not always being taken on.”

“I don’t think anyone can make the argument that our prison system works, that somehow the prison system is working exactly how it should,” Kirk continued. “Once people leave prison, they’re much more likely to commit crimes after that. We as conservatives are worried about the financial burden that has on our society. We’re worried about societal burden. Obviously, we care a lot about freedom and we care a lot about justice and things like that, but it doesn’t help anyone when prisoners have the high recidivism rates that they have.”

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office Wednesday, Nov. 28 to lobby in favor of the "First Step Act"

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

Candace Owens, who is also a part of Turning Point USA, has advocated prominently for conservative principles in the black community. She was often at the head of the group Wednesday, as they went from office to office in various Senate buildings. (RELATED: Twitter Suspends Candace Owens — Then Says It Was An Error After Backlash)

“[Criminal justice reform] is one of the biggest issues in the black community, without question,” Owens said. “Every single one of us [in this group] has a family member that has served prison sentences. I know I certainly have. I have multiple family members that have served prison sentences. And we’ve all been outspoken black conservatives.”

“We’ve taken a lot of heat because of that,” Owens claimed.

“I personally spent time speaking to inmates down in the correctional facility in Tallahassee, Florida,” she continued. “They all say the same thing: If the system was not punitive, and instead was rehabilitative, we would see a difference in our recidivism rates.”

When asked what impact she believes passing bills like this will have on attracting minorities to the Republican Party, Owens said, “This is it. I think what we’re realizing is that Republicans don’t know how to approach the black community. They don’t know how. For so long they have handed the reins over to the Left and the Republicans have been falsely accused of racism. They don’t even know how to enter into the black community. This is it. This would be a major win if it passed, and it would allow them to knock on doors and broker conversations with our community.”

“And Republicans have all the power right now to deliver it,” Owens maintained. “So it’s something that hits close to home. And it’s something that feels like it’s within our control to actually implement.”

Gianno Caldwell, a political consultant and analyst, has been working for half a decade on issues of criminal justice reform. “This is something that is very impactful for me because it statistically impacts literally every member of the black community,” he said.

“In 2014, there were 6.8 million people within the prison system — and when I say ‘prison system,’ I’m talking about federal prisons, state prisons, jails and on parole. And of those 6.8 million — which, as you know, is the largest population in the world under the corrections system — 34 percent of those folks are African-American, or 2.3 million.”

“So statistically, it impacts every African-American in this country. So certainly, knowing what happened with the effects of the ’94 crime bill, I think that we absolutely have to take opportunities like these with the First Step Act — the literal first step, in terms of reversing those very draconian effects from that bill.”

“I think we can do more, but even changes like this — which some people are saying are modest— I think have a very large effect and impact on not just the black community, but those who want second chances across the country. So this is a great opportunity to start the work and hopefully, at some point after, continue the work.”

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski's office on Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the "First Step Act".

African-American conservatives gather in Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s office on Wednesday, Nov. 28, to lobby in favor of the “First Step Act” (TheDC/Jon Brown)

This bill would also allow judges to insert their own discretion into certain cases in order to circumvent mandatory minimums. Since having passed in the House, it has stalled in the Senate — but recently picked up steam after receiving the president’s endorsement. 

Despite widespread bipartisan support, the bill still faces opposition from both liberals and conservatives. Referring to it as the “jailbreak bill,” critics on the Right worry that the bill would release dangerous criminals into the general population. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton made such a case in a column for National Review, saying that it “goes against core conservative principles,” and allows for the early release of “violent felons.”

Critics on the Left argue that the law doesn’t go far enough, because it only affects the federal prison population. The number of inmates in federal prisons comprise only 183,000 of the nation’s 1.5 million inmates.

The First Step Act is currently not set for a vote, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is under pressure to bring it to the floor. Supporters believe they have the 60 votes necessary to send the bill to the president’s desk.

COLUMN BY

Jon Brown and William Davis | Contributor

Follow Jon Brown on TwitterFollow William Davis on Twitter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Opinion: Prison Reform Is A Major Achievement For President Trump

Pro-Trump Pastor Calls On Republican Senators To Pass Criminal Justice Bill, This Is Why

Diamond & Silk Say Democrats Are ‘The Real Racists,’ Talk About Their New ‘Dummycrats’ Documentary In Exclusive Interview

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission from The Daily Caller.

Honduran President’s Brother Charged for Trafficking Tons of Drugs with Help of National Police & Politicians

As the migrant caravan that originated in Honduras treks north, the brother of that country’s president—a former lawmaker in the Central American nation—has been arrested and indicted in the U.S. on drug and weapons charges. His name is Juan Antonio Hernandez and he is the younger brother of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who has blamed leftist interests for manipulating migrants to destabilize the country.

The younger Hernandez is a former member of the National Congress of Honduras and the feds say he’s a bigtime drug trafficker who has moved tons of cocaine through the region in the last decade with the help of Honduran politicians and law enforcement officials.

A few days ago, Hernandez was arrested in Miami, Florida and this week he was charged in federal court with conspiring to import cocaine into the United States, weapons offenses involving the use and possession of machine guns and destructive devices and making false statements to federal agents.

The case is being tried in a Manhattan, New York federal court and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, a George W. Bush appointee, according to a statement issued by the Justice Department. Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor says Hernandez was involved in all stages of trafficking multi tons of U.S.-bound cocaine through Honduras. The president’s younger sibling also arranged machine gun toting security for cocaine shipments, bribed law enforcement officials for sensitive information to protect drug shipments and solicited large bribes from major drug traffickers.

The former Honduran legislator and his criminal associates teamed up with some of the world’s deadliest transitional criminal networks in Mexico and Colombia, according to federal authorities, to flood American streets with illicit drugs.

“From at least in or about 2004, up to and including in or about 2016, multiple drug-trafficking organizations in Honduras and elsewhere worked together, and with support from certain prominent public and private individuals, including Honduran politicians and law enforcement officials, to receive multi-ton loads of cocaine sent to Honduras from, among other places, Colombia via air and maritime routes, and to transport the drugs westward in Honduras toward the border with Guatemala and eventually to the United States,” according to the federal indictment. “For protection from official interference, and in order to facilitate the safe passage through Honduras of multi-hundred-kilogram loads of cocaine, drug traffickers paid bribes to public officials, including certain members of the National Congress of Honduras.”

Not only did Hernandez work with large-scale drug traffickers in Colombia, Honduras and Mexico to import cocaine into the U.S., he was also involved in processing, receiving, transporting, and distributing multi-ton loads of cocaine that arrived in Honduras via planes, go-fast vessels and a submarine. He also had access to cocaine laboratories in Honduras and Colombia, where some of the drug was stamped with his initials.

“Hernandez also coordinated and, at times, participated in providing heavily armed security for cocaine shipments transported within Honduras, including by members of the Honduran National Police and drug traffickers armed with, among other weapons, machineguns,” the indictment states. The feds include a specific incident in which Hernandez and his drug trafficking cohorts collaborated with Honduran law enforcement and government entities.

This case helps illustrates the dire security issues created by crime infestation and rampant drug trafficking in Central America at a time when thousands of migrants from that region are demanding asylum in the U.S. Judicial Watch traveled to the Guatemalan-Honduran border to cover the caravan when it first left the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. Besides gang members and mobs of young angry men, the caravan consisted of Africans, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and Indians.

Guatemalan officials confirmed that the “elaborately planned” movement is benefiting human smugglers and bringing disturbing numbers of violent gang members and other criminal elements through the country, into Mexico and possibly the U.S. One high-level Guatemalan government operative told Judicial Watch “MS-13 gang members have been detained and coyotes (human smugglers) are joining the march with clients who pay to get smuggled into the United States.”

With evidence from federal authorities that Honduran government and law enforcement officials are complicit in a major drug trafficking operation run by the president’s own brother, there’s no telling the level of criminals making their way north in the caravan.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Kirstie_J on Pixabay.

Frequent 5-4 Supreme Court Rulings Belie Chief Justice Roberts’ Argument Justices Are Unbiased

Chief Justice John Roberts has been drawn into President Donald Trump’s web.

Last week the president criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, calling it “a lawless disgrace.”

The New York Times writes, “Trump’s remarks came after a federal trial judge ordered the administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States.”

The judge issuing the ruling was Jon S. Tigar, of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, whom Trump quickly singled out as an “Obama judge.”

This prompted a rare pushback from Roberts, who said in a statement:

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.

The problem, as the president correctly sees it, is that the judiciary in too many cases appears to have become independent of the Constitution, making laws and reading liberal policies into the document that are not there.

If all judges thought the same, as Roberts seems to suggest, why are there so many 5-4 rulings by the high court?

Conservatives have long complained that liberal judges advance policies that would never get through Congress. Besides, if there are no Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton judges, then why the battle over every candidate nominated by a Republican president? Have we already forgotten the recent all-out war mounted by the left against Justice Brett Kavanaugh?

In a Thanksgiving Day tweet, the president claimed:

…the 9th circuit has a horrible reputation. It is overturned more than any circuit in the country, 79 percent, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result…Judges must not legislate security and safety at the border or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our country unsafe. Our great law enforcement professionals must be allowed to do their job! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written.

In fact, the 9th Circuit’s rulings are not the most overturned. According to data compiled by the U.S. Supreme Court blog, that particular distinction goes to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which is in Ohio.

But that last sentence is at the heart of a debate that has been going on at least since the 1960s, and centers on what standard should be used to interpret the Constitution. Does the Constitution speak for itself, or does it say only what judges say it says, as the late Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes contended a century ago?

The president is on solid footing when he argues to preserve the prerogatives of his office. In 1950, the Supreme Court said, “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power.”

Congress increased that power in 1952, passing legislation declaring the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants whenever he thinks it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

President Harry Truman vetoed the measure, but Congress overrode him. It is the standard that ought to be employed today.

This debate is more than a legal squabble between politicians and judges with differing points of view. It is about the character and makeup of our country and whether we who are now living will bequeath to our descendants something resembling what our predecessors passed to us.

Most immigrants in the past wanted to learn English, embrace the culture, and become fully American, not hyphenated Americans with agendas and policies brought from their homelands.

The back and forth between Trump and Roberts has brought the real issue to the forefront again where it is likely to remain through the next election and, depending on the outcome, for elections after that until it is resolved either to the benefit or detriment of the nation.

(c) 2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist, author, broadcaster, and speaker with access to world leaders, U.S. presidents, celebrities, educators, and countless other notables. He has authored 12 books, including his latest, “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America.” Readers can email him at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom.

#CatholicMeToo: A Survivor Tells His Story [Video]

Former Oklahoma seminarian discloses abuse for the first time.

By M.H.

I am a 68-year-old university lecturer and administrator who has been away from the Church for half a century. But once, I was a 16-year-old Roman Catholic, fervent in the Faith.

My #CatholicMeToo story comes from that time. In the spring of 1966, I was a student at the now-defunct seminary of St. Francis de Sales in what was then the diocese of Oklahoma City and Tulsa. In late April, while home on break after my sophomore year in the seminary’s high school program, I was introduced to Fr. Francis Albert Mantica, the predator whose self-indulgence shattered my innocence and flatlined my faith.

An unconventional priest in his late 30s, Fr. Mantica hailed from the diocese of Albany, New York, but had moved around through incardination in other dioceses before his assignment to my home parish, St. Patrick’s, as assistant pastor.

He first marked me for prey inside the confessional.

I had confessed I was struggling with a lustful hankering for the next-door neighbor girl. But Mantica made light of my sin by joking about it — the first and only time I recall a humorous comment inside the confessional. He then asked me my name — also a singular moment in my confessional life.

It was then he first employed his recurring thematic phrase of “You wanted me to ask you that, didn’t you?” In the conversation that followed, I revealed that I was a minor seminarian of the parish, and he convinced me that we should meet later to discuss whether I would consider working with him on his pet project.

Father Mantica was in the process of establishing “Youth Village,” a (short-lived) halfway house of sorts for troubled young men. After meeting with him, I agreed to help out over the summer break before beginning my third year at St. Francis de Sales. Once work began, I quickly came to know the predator behind the collar; over the next few months, Fr. Mantica repeatedly propositioned me, exposed himself and badgered me to fondle him. In short, he was relentless.

The harassment began in May after I had joined in efforts to start up the Youth Village project (at that time located in a house at S.W. 29th and Portland in Oklahoma City). His overtures ranged from attempts to “French kiss” me to groping to demands I touch his genitals. An especially traumatic incident occurred in midsummer.

While driving to a location southwest of Oklahoma City, Fr. Mantica exposed himself and pressured me to perform oral sex on him as he drove. When I refused, he insisted I grasp his exposed penis firmly (because it wasn’t masturbation, he said). I regret to say that I complied, and he quickly ejaculated. He tried to normalize the act, saying that when he was in the military, he had engaged in both oral and anal sex many times. As horrific as that instance was, the worst moment, by far, was still to come.

In August, my father died. In his final moments at St. Anthony Hospital in Oklahoma City, Fr. Mantica arrived to administer the sacrament of extreme unction. After my father died, I was overcome by grief, and at that moment, Mantica lunged. He sought to “console” me by attempting to kiss me, to fondle me — to assault me. Pawing at me just steps away from my father’s body, he urged me to reciprocate. But I challenged him, asking if his homosexual behavior was morally right. Without batting an eye, he responded, “It’s not as right as it should be,” and went on to speak of Christ’s love for St. John, “the apostle who Jesus loved.”
Image

Mantica with boys at his New York “Youth Village”

Though annihilated psychologically, emotionally and spiritually, I resisted him. That was the last incident of abuse.

Still, I had been gravely wounded by all that had happened to me since May. Shortly after my father died, the high school department of St. Francis de Sales abruptly closed; reeling from the loss of both my innocence and my father, I decided to take a “leave of absence” from seminary and stay with my mother rather than accepting a transfer out of state.

I enrolled in a public high school, and, for two months, I stewed over what Mantica had done to me. Finally, I resolved to act. I decided to report the whole sequence of abuse to Fr. James Kastner, who had been my spiritual advisor at the seminary. To his credit, he took extensive and accurate notes of my disclosure and took them to Bp. Victor J. Reed.

In October, I accompanied Fr. Kastner to the chancery in Oklahoma City where I met with the diocesan chancellor, Fr. William Garthoeffner. Also in attendance was a St. Patrick’s parishioner who had assisted Mantica in founding Youth Village.

Father Kastner accurately read from his notes, and I answered his questions clearly. I concluded by saying I had no personal animosity toward Fr. Mantica nor a desire for vengeance, but in conscience, I felt that if he was plagued with this particular challenge, he should not be assigned to deal with young men.

After that meeting, I was never informed of any result. Several months later, I asked Fr. Kastner about what happened. His response was vague — something like, “Well, you know, the Church has its own ways of dealing with these things.” And that was the last of it.

Meanwhile, word of my allegations got out, and I became a pariah among many St. Patrick’s parishioners — injury heaped upon injury. I was devastated by the shunning of my fellow parishioners, who refused to believe a priest would do such a thing. It was my first experience with real opprobrium.

Though my pastor and other clergy were very decent to me and ready for me to be transferred to another seminary, within a year, I drifted away from attending Mass. I had already felt like a relic of the past, owing to my love of the Tridentine liturgy, and my rejection by fellow laity proved to be too much. Of course, it would be simplistic of me to blame all my character and behavioral flaws on the events of that summer and the ensuing contempt my disclosure elicited, but somewhere in the stewpot which is me, it is an ingredient.

As for Fr. Mantica, he refused to affirm or deny my charges against him. Apparently, behind a curtain of ecclesiastical silence, the matter was dealt with in a sadly typical fashion. In 1967, Mantica quietly “disappeared” from Oklahoma City. Soon after, he resurfaced in his native diocese of Albany, which in the coming years would develop a reputation as a haven for homosexual clergy under Bps. Edwin Broderick and Howard Hubbard.

Back in New York, Fr. Mantica was allowed to continue working among minors. In May 1968, he launched another “Youth Village” project. Within months, a dozen young men ranging in age from 11 to 23 were living in close quarters with him at a former horse-riding academy in Duanesburg, just outside Schenectady. Some were fatherless; others were from broken homes. All were vulnerable.

In an interview with The Schenectady Gazette in October of that year, Fr. Mantica declared: “I’m concerned about the youth. I always have been.”

“I’m communicating with them,” he added, “trying to have them understand the meaning of brotherly love. These boys are so sensitive, but they’re so beautiful underneath.”

Image

Mantica in later years.

Like its Oklahoma City forerunner, Duanesburg’s Youth Village was short-lived; it closed the next year.

After returning to New York, Fr. Mantica soon developed a reputation for “difference of opinion” with the local hierarchy. By 1968, he had been granted a leave of absence by the Albany diocese.

In the ensuing years, Mantica’s sabbatical became permanent. He wandered away from his priesthood, deeper into darkness; though details are scarce, what is known points to a continuing devolution of his character.

At some point, Mantica embraced New Age/occultic thought. He immersed himself in the work of former Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a New Age pioneer silenced for his heretical teaching that man is evolving spiritually toward godhood. Mantica became a member of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, an organization focusing on the “intersection” of religion and parapsychology.

Additionally, he eventually involved himself with the Kundalini Research Foundation, a diabolical vehicle for New Age thinking. Reportedly, he went on to author a book titled Corology: The Phenomenon and Evolution of Love as well as other works on human sexuality.

It seems apparent that Mantica must have adopted his own syncretic approach, employing some tortured logic and demented theology to absolve his disordered sexuality — to fulfill his wish to make it “as right as it should be.”

Mantica died in 1997 at the age of 69.

It is no easy task to sort the effects of those months of 1966 in a man closing in on 70. I recall a brief emergency hospital stay when I was diagnosed with gastroenteritis at 18. The doctor suggested I needed to learn to not keep things in, but become more assertive; otherwise, I could likely be subject to other medical issues.

In failing to find a “golden mean,” I became more self-absorbed, more explosive, more judgmental. I took up the martial arts and, despite not being naturally adept, persisted through some tough years to earn a black belt. A failed marriage of five years, a stretch of more beer-drinking than was reasonable and foolishly fortified by my relationships with women, I eventually settled in to a sort of modus vivendi with myself.

In those early, rather unfortunate efforts to define “manhood,” I took some wrong paths in the labyrinth; somehow the remnant of faith has served as Ariadne’s thread to see me back to the light of day.

I have been away from practicing my faith for a half century. But in the past three years, I have spent a good deal of time following Church Militant, LifeSiteNews and other faithful Catholic websites. In spite of the appalling treachery and duplicity of the hierarchy and the mistreatment of faithful clergy and laity, I have the growing conviction I will again be in communion with the authentic Catholic faith which has remained dormant within me for so long.

I have tried not to make this a story of “poor me,” but rather, despite the scars, to add my account to a growing compilation of testimonies that will carry significant weight in the “house cleaning” which is in order. I am grateful for the opportunity to join with others in the #CatholicMeToo movement. For me, it is a moment when I can once again feel a part of Catholicism, experience a sense of healing and offer this as a prayer for the repose of my father’s soul after 52 years.

Church Militant contacted the archdiocese of Oklahoma City for comment on M.H.’s allegations. An archdiocesan spokesperson responded with the following statement:

Fr. Francis A. Mantica was a priest for the Diocese of Albany, N.Y. He worked briefly in the then-Diocese of Oklahoma City and Tulsa from June 1965 to March 1967. In late 1966, the diocese received an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor. After investigation and substantiation of the allegations, Bishop Victor Reed revoked his facilities to serve as a priest in the diocese and asked him to leave the diocese. By letter, Bishop Reed informed Bishop [Edward] Maginn, Auxiliary Bishop of Albany, of the action taken to terminate Mantica’s faculties.

We encourage any victim of past abuse while a minor by clergy or church personnel in the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City to contact the victim assistance coordinator at (405) 720-9878.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Santa Fe archdiocese to file for bankruptcy

Mom Dresses Six-Year-Old Son As Girl, Threatens Dad With Losing His Son For Disagreeing

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video by Church Militant is republished with permission.

Landowners Hail Property Rights Victory At Supreme Court In Frog Habitat Dispute

  • The Supreme Court sided with landowners Tuesday in a dispute over the reach of the Endangered Species Act.
  • A large parcel of private land was designated as “critical habitat” for an endangered frog, though the species has not lived in the area for decades.
  • The justices said that designation was incorrect, but sent two questions back to the lower court. 

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong to designate a 1,500 acre tract of land in Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the endangered dusky gopher frog, even though the species has not lived there for decades.

“I am really overjoyed that an eight to nothing court agreed with me that the service’s decision was absurd and nightmarish for property rights in the United States,” landowner Edward Poitevent told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a Tuesday interview.

“We all actually thought something like this would happen, but what’s really stunning is this is an eight to nothing decision,” Poitevent said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service told Poitevent in 2011 his land, which has been in his family for generations, would be listed as backup critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, which hasn’t been seen there since 1965. The only known domain of the frogs was a single pond in southern Mississippi as of 2001, but the government said the Louisiana zone was the only other possible habitat it could identify.

The government conceded drastic alteration to the land would be needed in order for the gopher frog to survive, including replacing thousands of trees and conducting controlled burns to kill off underbrush.

The government also said designating Poitevent’s land as critical habitat could cost his family as much as $34 million, which doesn’t include the cost to alter the landscape.

Poitevent and others sued, arguing the government could not designate land the frogs do not inhabit as “critical habitat.” They also said the service wrongly ignored the significant economic costs its decision imposed on them.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the federal agency, finding the government was entitled to deference on both points. An appeal to the Supreme Court followed.

Federal officials listed the dusky gopher frog as endangered in 2001 in response to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an environmental group. The group also worked with the government to oppose Poitevent’s lawsuit.

The Trump administration supported the agency before the high court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen as the court nears the end of its term in Washington, June 11, 2018. REUTERS/Erin Schaff

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen as the court nears the end of its term in Washington, June 11, 2018. REUTERS/Erin Schaff

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote Tuesday’s unanimous decision, which largely sides with the landowners.

“Only the ‘habitat’ of the endangered species is eligible for designation as ‘critical habitat,’” Roberts wrote. However, he noted the 5th Circuit did not define the term “habitat” in its decision, and sent the case back to the appeals court with instructions to do so.

As such, the crux of Tuesday’s ruling provides that only land that qualifies as “habitat” may be designated “critical habitat,” but the exact definition of “habitat” remains unresolved.

The high court also agreed that the 5th Circuit should consider whether the Fish and Wildlife Service properly evaluated the burdens imposed on the landowners before marking the area “critical habitat.”

“The message here is that the unanimous Supreme Court considered the lower court decisions to be incorrect, though they don’t ever say that,” Poitevent told TheDCNF. “The whole tone and tenor of the decision is there’s something very wrong with [the 5th Circuit] decisions.”

Poitevent is confident he and his attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation will prevail on remand in the 5th Circuit.

“While we’re disappointed, the ruling doesn’t weaken the mandate to protect habitat for endangered wildlife,” Collette Adkins, a CBD attorney who defended the frog’s protections before the Supreme Court, said in a statement. “The dusky gopher frog’s habitat protections remain in place for now, and we’re hopeful the 5th Circuit will recognize the importance of protecting and restoring habitats for endangered wildlife to live.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in the case because it was argued prior to his Oct. 6 confirmation.

COLUMN BY

Michael Bastasch and Kevin Daley

Follow Kevin on TwitterSend tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

VIDEO: The Media Is Omitting The Reason Why Border Officials Decided To Use Tear Gas Against The Caravan

WATCH:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials were forced to use tear gas against the migrants in response to their attempt to storm the border, but many outlets focused more heavily on the U.S.’s response and less on what prompted it.

Many outlets including the New York Times and Associated Press chose to focus on the agents’ decision to use tear gas instead of explaining why they felt that they had to resort to such tactics.

“The truth is, the majority of the people that are in this caravan, especially outside — if we can make our way all the way over there, we’ll show you the majority of them are men,” MSNBC’s Gadi Schwartz stated earlier on Monday. “From what we’ve seen, the majority are actually men and some of these men have not articulated that need for asylum.”

Schwartz’s reporting goes against the narrative that the caravan is filled mostly with women and children.

“Unfake the News” is a Daily Caller program dedicated to debunking the mainstream media narratives that dominate our news cycle.

That’s where TheDC’s Vince Coglianese steps in to cut through the PC bull. Each week, Vince takes a closer look at how cable news outlets are telling the top story and then gives you his own unadulterated take.

This is “Unfake the News.”

SUBSCRIBE HERE!

NOW CHECK OUT this “Unfake The News” video — WATCH: Should The FBI Investigate Kavanaugh’s 36 Year-Old Sexual Misconduct Allegation

NOW CHECK OUT another “Unfake The News” video — WATCH: Unfake The News: Media Ridiculously Spins Trump Meeting With Kim Jong Un

COLUMN BY

Mike Brest

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Brest

Reporter

Follow Mike on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES: 

I Was Tear-Gassed, Along With 60 Of My Closest Friends, In An Enclosed Space

Democratic Rep Jim Himes Bashes Fox News For Covering Migrant Caravan

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Unfake The News.

3 Upcoming Supreme Court Cases to Watch

After a two-week break, the Supreme Court has returned to hear its final round of cases for 2018.

Among the issues that the court will address are whether half of Oklahoma is an Indian reservation, excessive fines, and double jeopardy.

The following are three cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s last sitting of the year:

1. Carpenter v. Murphy

Is half of Oklahoma an Indian reservation? That’s the argument Dwayne Murphy is pressing to challenge his conviction in state court for mutilating and murdering his romantic rival in Henryetta, Oklahoma.

Murphy is a member of the Creek Nation, and he claims that the crimes took place within the boundaries of the Creek Nation and, as such, the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him.

The only problem for Murphy is that Congress disestablished the Creek Nation, along with several other Indian tribes, when it created the state of Oklahoma in the early 1900s. Oklahoma was granted statehood in November 1907.

But applying a three-part test established in Solem v. Bartlett (1984), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed with Murphy, finding that no federal statute “expressly terminated the Creek Reservation”—despite a series of laws that dismantled the Indian territories in Oklahoma and stripped the tribal governments of any meaningful authority.

Now at the Supreme Court, Oklahoma argues that affirming the lower court’s ruling would transform 19 million acres of Oklahoma into Indian country and “plunge eastern Oklahoma into civil, criminal, and regulatory turmoil and overturn 111 years of Oklahoma history.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Nov. 27.

2. Timbs v. Indiana

Most people would probably be surprised to learn that not all the guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply against state governments.

Though the Supreme Court made clear in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that these rights restricted only the federal government, subsequent Supreme Court decisions starting in the 1920s incorporated many of these guarantees against state governments.

Today, like the federal government, states may not abridge free speech, establish official religions, or engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

There are a few provisions of the Bill of Rights that have not been applied against the states, and one of those is the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines.

In a case upholding Indiana’s forfeiture of Tyson Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover in connection with his arrest for dealing heroin, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the states are not bound by the Excessive Fines Clause.

At the U.S. Supreme Court, Timbs argues that his car is worth four times the potential monetary fine he faced, and such a forfeiture is “grossly disproportionate” in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause.

He maintains that this prohibition should apply to the states because, like the Eighth Amendment’s prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail, a ban on excessive fines is deeply rooted in our nation’s legal history.

The court will hear arguments on Nov. 28.

3. Gamble v. United States

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause provides that people may not be prosecuted more than once for the same crime—but the Supreme Court carved out an exception in the 1950s, allowing prosecutions in state and federal courts for the same conduct.

In Abbate v. United States and Bartkus v. Illinois, the court determined that the Constitution does not prohibit dual prosecution by separate sovereigns, reasoning that conduct violating each sovereign’s law does not count as the same offense for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

In 1959, there were relatively few federal crimes, and successive prosecutions in state and federal court were rare. But today, there are approximately 5,000 federal crimes and countless federal regulatory offenses—many of which overlap with state crimes.

Terance Gamble, a felon, was prosecuted in Alabama state court for violating the state’s law barring felons from possessing firearms and was sentenced to one year in prison.

Then, he was charged in federal court for violating the federal ban on felon in possession. He was sentenced to almost four years in prison and three years of supervised release. Gamble challenged the federal conviction as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas have noted concerns about the “harassment of multiple prosecutions” in state and federal court. Thus, if the court overrules the separate-sovereign exception, it might be with an unusual coalition of justices.

Arguments for this case will be held on Dec. 5.

These are just a few of the important cases coming up at the Supreme Court. In the first part of 2019, the justices also will hear cases involving the Trump administration’s inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census form, an Establishment Clause challenge to a nearly century-old World War I memorial, and whether the 21st Amendment authorizes states to place residency requirements on retailers seeking a license to sell alcohol.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: @EHSlattery.

Ashley Vaughan

Ashley Vaughan is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED: Listen to “SCOTUS 101,” a podcast with Elizabeth Slattery and friends bringing you up to speed on what’s happening at the Supreme Court.


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: World History Archive/Newscom.

Military Clash Causes Massive Power Outage

When the framers drafted the Constitution, they didn’t put a committee in charge of the military. They wanted a civilian leader who could make quick decisions with the trust of the people. After some debate, they settled on the president. And for 228 years, that was just fine with liberals. Now suddenly, things have changed. With the election of Donald Trump, the Left doesn’t want the commander-in-chief running the military. They want the courts to.

In a world that was made even more dangerous and volatile by the failed foreign policy of the Obama administration, the worst thing we could do as a nation is make it harder for the military to do its job. And yet, that’s exactly what some people are attempting in this attack on the president’s authority as commander-in-chief. As the head of our armed forces, the president has to be able to act and lead on the information he has. Imagine the absurdity of telling this president — or any president — that he can’t respond to a threat or solve a defense problem without checking with the courts first.

That’s what this commander-in-chief tried to do more than a year ago by rolling back transgender extremism in the ranks. After eight years of social experimentation, President Trump saw that damage Barack Obama’s policies were doing to the military. Political correctness, he knew, couldn’t win wars. Only a unified force — free from distractions like this one — would. So, in July of 2017, President Trump announced that, after consulting military leaders, he was reverting the military’s policy back to what it had always been.

It should have been a simple, straight-forward decision. After all, the same executive power that gave Obama the authority to change the policy gives President Trump the ability to change it back. People could disagree – and some did – about the wisdom of keeping people who identify as transgender from the ranks. But in the end, the buck (including the $3.7 billion bucks Obama’s agenda would have cost) stopped with Trump. Precedent was on Trump’s side, along with research and active-duty troop support. Most importantly, the Constitution was on his side.

LGBT activists disagreed and filed suit. Now, a full year and a half later, the policy still hasn’t taken effect — which, as anyone with a basic knowledge of Article II will tell you, is inexcusable. The president doesn’t need a permission slip from the courts to command the military — a point the Justice Department made quite clear last Friday. Frustrated by judges who think they have more of a say in our military than the president leading it, Solicitor General Noel Francisco is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to do something quite rare: intervene. Instead of waiting on appellate judges (which could take years), the DOJ is hoping the justices will agree to bypass the circuit courts and decide the issue themselves.

Breitbart’s Ken Klukowski explains that the request is unusual but not unprecedented. “Federal law and Supreme Court rule 11 give the justices jurisdiction over a case at any point after it is first docketed with the appellate court.” At this point, the other side has already spent more months fighting Trump’s policy than Obama’s was officially in effect. Why waste more taxpayer time and money on an issue of presidential power that’s been settled since 1789? In DOJ’s petition, Francisco points out, “‘the military has been forced to maintain that prior policy for nearly a year’ despite a determination by Mattis and a panel of experts that the ‘prior policy, adopted by [Defense Secretary Ash Carter], posed too great a risk to military effectiveness and lethality.'”

“To assemble a military of qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons, the Department of Defense [DOD] has traditionally set demanding standards for military service,” the DOJ explains. “Given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service, a history of most mental health conditions and disorders is automatically disqualifying.”

The situation is even more frustrating, Ken points out, since liberal judges have been unusually harsh with their injunctions. “Historically,” he writes, “district courts would render relief only for the parties in the case before them, or at minimum would often stay broad decisions while the government takes the case up on appeal.” Instead, the courts’ activists are using this as an excuse to put the brakes on entire federal policies, nationwide.

House Speaker-hopeful Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), meanwhile, called the president’s decision to try to fast-track the case “cowardly.” As usual, she’s wrong. Few things take more guts than standing up to liberal extremists and doing what’s in the best interest of America’s security and our men and women in uniform. We should all applaud the Trump administration for pursuing the kind of justice that keeps our military strong and our country safe.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Yes, Virginia, There Is a War on Christmas

‘Tis the Season for #GivingTuesday

EDITORS NOTE: This Family Research Council column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by geralt on Pixabay.