Israeli Police Publish Allegations against Netanyahu on Facebook Page

THIS IS A LESS THAN PERFECT TRANSLATION OF THE POST BY THE ISRAELI POLICE.
ORIGINAL POST IN HEBREW MAY BE FOUND HERE:

There’s been a case of the secretions.

“Case 1000″ business on suspicion, allegedly, to commit bribery charges, fraud and violation by the Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, as far as his relationship with the businessman arnon one and the Australian businessman James Packer, who gave him during The years are good for different kinds.

With the end of the investigation, the Israel th police position is that the nţgbşh in this case is a infrastructure infrastructure that provides for suspicion against Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, to commit a felony of bribery, fraud and allegiance to the system of his relationship with the businessman arnon one and a foul of fraud and loyalty in all matters His relationship with Australian businessman James Packer. Against Mr. One, the Israel police station is that the nţgbşh infrastructure is providing the suspicion of bribery of bribery.

” Case 2000 ” business on suspicion, allegedly, to commit bribery charges, fraud and violation by the prime minister and by publisher the newspaper ” latest news ” and the control of the paper, Mr. Arnon (Noni) Moses, as far as a relationship between them around containment Hţʻẕmwţw of the newspaper “Israel today” through legislation and other ways.

With the end of the investigation, the Israel police station is that the nţgbşh infrastructure is sufficient to consolidate suspicion against the Prime Minister, to commit charges of bribery and fraud and loyalty.

Mr. Arnon (Noni) Moses, police station Israel is that the nţgbşh infrastructure infrastructure provides for the suspicion of bribery of a bribe.

Expansion:

In the first half of the year 2016, materials were received from various factors and sources, which raised suspicion of deception and violation and received favors from the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu. The Attorney General’s approval to begin a test process was given in July 2016. Below, and after a sufficient infrastructure was placed in a criminal investigation, the attorney general authorized the attorney general in December 2016 to open an investigation into the business

The suspicion charged with a complex investigation, which was made by the investigation team in the national unit for fraud investigations with blade 433, accompanied by the state’s attorney and attorney general. The files contain about 180 messages from 80 witnesses; also, 6 mixed were investigated within legal aid requests transferred to foreign countries (H̱yqwry Dean outside state Israel). Some of these lawyers have been taking a long time for various difficulties that have risen to the keep, for non-dependent parties in the state

The actions of the investigation were performed in accordance with the permits given by the state’s attorney and the attorney general in accordance with the progress of

Case 1000

Case 1000 deals with the gift of the prime minister and in exchange for the kgwmlyn.

The investigation of case 1000 began on the issue of receiving goods by the prime minister when the first stage had not yet been identified as suspicions of the significant interests of these businessmen in the return they

With the progress of the investigation and a series of suspicions about the return of the goods, the investigation has gradually become more and more likely to be a long line of witnesses, including the last time. These investigations, including the investigations of many witnesses, as a lawyer abroad and more, have produced a great view of the best of all to come to the truth and expose the various hmwtybẕywţ and interests provided for the goods.

According to the findings of the investigation, for a decade, from 2007 to 2016, the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and his son, received Tobin, cigars, champagne and jewelry from both businessmen, or by whom their, in the amount of amounts to hundreds of thousands. Shekels.

The value of the goods that received the prime minister according to the suspicion adds up to the amount of 1,000,000 nis according to the following detail: the value of goods from Mr. One has reached about 750,000 nis of the goods from Mr. Packer, which was given to Mr. Netanyahu from 2014 It came to about 250,000 ₪., the bulk of the gift from Mr. Packer started as soon as the two businessmen decided to split them up on the prime minister.

With Mr. Netanyahu’s hybẖrw for the prime minister in 2009, the scope and frequency of the goods were substantially delivered.

The investigation has risen that the goods have been awarded to the Prime Minister, on his role as prime minister and media coordinator in the relevant period, and in exchange for his activity, directly or indirectly, to promote various matters that have come to good with Mr. One in his business, in his financial condition, in his position

Also, the findings of the investigation have increased that the relationship between the prime minister and Mr. One had a relationship as a criminal and not an innocent relationship between friends. It is needless to say that a relationship with a public servant or elected public is receiving favors from the loath loath (even if he is a member), and while using I, his power will be influence to promote the affairs of the person, prohibited by law.

Here’s the key to the suspicions.

“the law of one”- according to suspicion, the prime minister has acted to promote a tax-exempt extension from a repeat resident, over 10 years, a perk that has a great economic value for one. According to the suspicion, the prime minister has appealed to the issue of the treasury department, but the treasury people have given up the promotion of the subject in explaining that the benefit is not consistent with the national interest and maintaining the public register

A Visa to the United States according to suspicion the prime minister acted in order to assist Nathan and his visa visa to the United States after having discovered difficulty in the visa visa. It is a subject of economic and economic implications for one. According to the Prime Minister, the prime minister has initiated an appeal on the issue of American government officials including the U.S. Secretary of state and the United States in Israel

” Rainbow network “- according to the suspicion the prime minister acted in order to promote Mr. One’s entry as a shareholder on channel 2 ” United “, an investment in Azerbaijan. According to the suspicion, the prime minister acted on the subject of the ministry of communication as minister of communication.

“project tata”- according to suspicion, acting prime minister in favor of a commercial project şmylẕ was interested in bqydwmw as part of his co-operation with an Indian businessman (Tata). According to the suspicion the prime minister acted and tried to promote the subject to the request of one in front of factors in the Prime Minister’s office and the ministry of security, which expressed their opposition to the

“Channel 10”- according to suspicion, the prime minister acted as opposed to the law when a business within his role in channel 10 was also aware that Mr. One was his friend, he is a shareholder in the channel.

Summary Of Case 1000-as stated, with the end of the investigation, the Israel th police station is because the nţgbşh in this case is a infrastructure infrastructure that provides for suspicion against Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, to commit a felony of bribery, fraud and allegiance to the relationship with the businessman arnon one. A and a foul of deception and allegiance to the relationship with the Australian businessman James Packer. Against Mr. One, the Israel police station is that the nţgbşh infrastructure is providing the suspicion of bribery of bribery.

Case 2000:

Case 2000 is about suspicion of relationship between Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Arnon Moses. The investigation focused on a points interface between the two in the pre-election period as you were ordered below

According to the findings of the investigation, starting since 2009, and since over the years, Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Moses Dean and things among them, in personal encounters, were discussed by helping each other, as a “trade” in the promotion of business. In this framework, a spokesman for Mr. Moses lnţnyhw is based on his position as prime minister with positive coverage and a fan of the ” latest news “, this is in exchange for the Prime Minister’s prime to Mr. Moses in the promotion of the economic interests of ” recent news ” by initiative and support of the walkers and Israel today “.

The findings of the investigation were yet to be taken to the advancement of each other’s interests below the understanding that obtained between them, or at the very least presented the presentation to each other as if they were acting as

The investigation was based on two recordings made in the Prime Minister’s initiative secretly hidden on Ari Harrow’s cell phone at the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem. The Recordings and meetings between Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu to publisher media news, Mr. Noni Moses. The things that have been recorded are suspicious of this investigation.

According to the suspicions (as they came from the recordings) The Prime Minister and publisher “recent news” were in the interest of the interests and the hẕwlbym of common moves that were designed to maximize the interests of each other’s interests in a number of action between the

Prime Minister’s support in “law Israel today”.

Reduction of reach “Israel today”.

Cancellation of the weekend edition of “Israel today”.

In addition to the aforementioned actions, the prime minister was to mediate ” recent news ” and ” husband ” to the purchase of ” recent news “,

Summary Of Case 2000: as stated, with the end of the investigation, the Israel police position is that the nţgbşh infrastructure is sufficient to consolidate suspicion against the Prime Minister, to commit charges of bribery and fraud and loyalty. Mr. Arnon (Noni) Moses, police station Israel is that the nţgbşh infrastructure infrastructure provides for the suspicion of bribery of a bribe.

 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Guilty Verdicts for Baltimore Detectives Marcus Taylor & Daniel Hersl

2/12/18

LDF Statement on Guilty Verdicts for Baltimore Detectives Marcus Taylor and Daniel Hersl

Today, Baltimore Police Department (BPD) Detectives Marcus Taylor and Daniel Hersl were found guilty at trial of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, and other charges as part of a criminal conspiracy based out of the BPD’s Gun Trace Task Force. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) President and Director-Counsel Sherrilyn Ifill issued the following statement in response:

“Beyond the guilty verdict and prior guilty pleas in this case, it’s time to talk about what comes next for the city of Baltimore. This corruption went on unabated for nearly 10 years and was only brought to light as a result of a federal investigation. Neither City Hall, BPD’s Internal Affairs, nor the State’s Attorney’s Office was able to uncover and hold accountable the officers at the heart of this criminal conspiracy. Residents deserve new procedures, practices, regulations, safety valves, and training across city agencies – including the State’s Attorney’s office – to ensure that this cannot happen again.

“What we learned from this case is precisely what has been missing from the national dialogue on policing. Like with DOJ’s blistering report on the BPD, we heard testimony that affirmed the gross misconduct that communities have complained of for years. Far too often, the voices of community members are disbelieved or dismissed. Going forward, city leaders, law enforcement officials, and the media must be diligent in centering conversations about policing around residents’ lived experiences. It shouldn’t take federal investigations to recognize and trust the community.

“City leaders should also focus on taking steps to prevent police corruption, such as training officers on constitutional policing and developing an early intervention system to identify problem officers – both of which are required by the consent decree. We’re working to ensure that the consent decree process produces real results, but that can’t be all. It is critical that the community’s mistrust of law enforcement, which has been validated by these proceedings, is understood and that structural changes are made well-beyond just the BPD.”

Press:

###

Founded in 1940, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is the nation’s first civil and human rights law organization and has been completely separate from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) since 1957—although LDF was originally founded by the NAACP and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF’s Thurgood Marshall Institute is a multi-disciplinary and collaborative hub within LDF that launches targeted campaigns and undertakes innovative research to shape the civil rights narrative. In media attributions, please refer to us as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund or LDF.

With the guilty verdicts having been rendered in the case of Daniel Hersl and Marcus Taylor, the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) will move to terminate their employment with the agency upon final conviction. Since they were indicted on March 1, 2017, they have been suspended without pay. The other individuals indicted have previously pleaded guilty and none of them remain employees of the Baltimore Police Department.

We recognize that this indictment and subsequent trial uncovered some of the most egregious and despicable acts ever perpetrated in law enforcement. I am thankful for the FBI and the BPD internal affairs division for their professionalism while investigating and preparing this case.

During the course of the trial, we have had a team of people monitoring the proceedings. We have created a new Corruption Unit that will focus, specifically, on this case and the allegations that were made, but were not part of the indictment or prosecution. Let me make it clear; I have ZERO TOLERANCE for corruption.

Our job moving forward is to earn back the trust and respect of the community. It will be a process and I understand the doubt, fear, and pessimism, but I ensure you that rooting out anyone who thinks they can tarnish the badge and violate our citizen’s rights, is a top priority of mine.

I ask for your support, as well as your criticisms, as we move forward to making the Baltimore Police Department a great and well respected institution again. We owe it to you and we have no option but to succeed.

Darryl DeSousa
Police Commissioner-Designate

Grassley, Graham Uncover ‘Unusual Email’ Sent by Susan Rice to Herself on President Trump’s Inauguration Day

Photo: Senator Grassley.

Feb 12, 2018

WASHINGTON – As part of their continued efforts to conduct oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) discovered a partially unclassified email sent by President Obama’s former National Security Advisor (NSA) Susan Rice to herself on January 20, 2017 – President Trump’s inauguration day.
Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.  In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:
“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 
Grassley and Graham were struck by the context and timing of this email, and sent a follow up letter to Ambassador Rice. The letter reads in part:
“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.  In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’ substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’” 
Grassley and Graham have asked Ambassador Rice to answer a set of questions by February 22, 2018 so the committee may further assess the situation.  The full text of their letter is below.
February 8, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Susan Rice
Senior Fellow, Belfer Center
Harvard University
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
c/o
Kathryn Ruemmler, Esq.
Latham and Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Ambassador Rice:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the FBI and the broader Department of Justice.  Part of that duty involves ensuring that law enforcement efforts are conducted without improper political influence.  Accordingly, the Committee has been investigating the FBI’s relationship with Christopher Steele during the time his work was funded by Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee, as well as the FBI’s reliance on his unverified third-hand allegations in the Bureau’s representations to courts.
As part of that effort, the Committee sent a request to the National Archives for records of meetings between President Obama and then-FBI Director Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation of allegations of collusion between associates of Mr. Trump and the Russian government.  In response, the Committee received classified and unclassified versions of an email you sent to yourself on January 20, 2017 – President Trump’s inauguration day.  If the timestamp is correct, you sent this email to yourself at 12:15pm, presumably a very short time before you departed the White House for the last time.
In this email to yourself, you purport to document a meeting that had taken place more than two weeks before, on January 5, 2017.  You wrote:
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.  Vice President Biden and I were also present.
That meeting reportedly included a discussion of the Steele dossier and the FBI’s investigation of its claims.[1]  Your email continued:
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book”.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
The next part of your email remains classified.  After that, you wrote:
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team.  Comey said he would.
It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia investigation.  In addition, despite your claim that President Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed “by the book,” substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State Department, actually did proceed “by the book.”
In order for the Committee to further assess the situation, please respond to the following by February 22, 2018:
  1. Did you send the email attached to this letter to yourself?  Do you have any reason to dispute the timestamp of the email?
  1. When did you first become aware of the FBI’s investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia?
  1. When did you become aware of any surveillance activities, including FISA applications, undertaken by the FBI in conducting that investigation?  At the time you wrote this email to yourself, were you aware of either the October 2016 FISA application for surveillance of Carter Page or the January 2017 renewal?
  1. Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email memorializing President Obama’s meeting with Mr. Comey about the Trump/Russia investigation?  If so, who and why?
  1. Is the account of the January 5, 2017 meeting presented in your email accurate?  Did you omit any other portions of the conversation?
  1. Other than that email, did you document the January 5, 2017 meeting in any way, such as contemporaneous notes or a formal memo?  To the best of your knowledge, did anyone else at that meeting take notes or otherwise memorialize the meeting?
  1. During the meeting, did Mr. Comey or Ms. Yates mention potential press coverage of the Steele dossier?  If so, what did they say?
  1. During the meeting, did Mr. Comey describe the status of the FBI’s relationship with Mr. Steele, or the basis for that status?
  1. When and how did you first become aware of the allegations made by Christopher Steele?
  1. When and how did you first become aware that the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee funded Mr. Steele’s efforts?
  1. You wrote that President Obama stressed that he was “not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.”  Did President Obama ask about, initiate, or instruct anything from any other perspective relating to the FBI’s investigation?
  1. Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr. Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’s investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russia?  If so, when did these occur, who participated, and what was discussed?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.  Please contact Patrick Davis of Chairman Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225 or Lee Holmes of Chairman Graham’s staff at (202) 224-5972 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley                                                     Lindsey O. Graham
Chairman                                                                     Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary                                        Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
                                                                                    Committee on the Judiciary
Enclosure: as stated.
cc:       The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Committee on the Judiciary
-30-

[1] See Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper, Intel Chiefs Presented Trump With Claims of Russian Efforts to Compromise Him, CNN (Jan. 12, 2017) (the IC briefings of President Obama and then-President Elect Trump included the Steele dossier); Josh Lederman, Biden: Intel Officials Told Us Trump Allegations Might Leak, The Associated Press (Jan. 12, 2017) (Vice President Biden told reporters: “It surprised me in that it made it to the point where the agency, the FBI thought they had to pursue it.”)

20925

Trump Approves American Samoa Emergency Declaration

President Donald J. Trump declared that an emergency exists in the territory of American Samoa and ordered Federal assistance to supplement response efforts in the territory due to the emergency conditions resulting from Tropical Storm Gita beginning on February 7, 2018, and continuing.

The Presidents action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to coordinate all disaster relief efforts. This action will help alleviate the hardship and suffering caused by the emergency on the local population, and provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the territory of American Samoa.

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide, at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Emergency protective measures, limited to direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.

Brock Long, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Benigno Bern Ruiz as the Federal Coordinating Officer for Federal recovery operations in the affected areas.

 

Kratom: FDA Releases Latest Science on Adverse Events

Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on the agency’s scientific evidence on the presence of opioid compounds in kratom, underscoring its potential for abuse

Additional adverse events associated with kratom use identified

February 6, 2018

Summary

FDA releases adverse events and scientific analysis providing even stronger evidence of kratom compounds’ opioid properties.

Statement

Over the past several months, there have been many questions raised about the botanical substance known as kratom. Our concerns related to this product, and the actions we’ve taken, are rooted in sound science and are in the interest of protecting public health. However, we recognize that there is still much that is unknown about kratom, which is why we’ve taken some significant steps to advance the scientific understanding of this product and how it works in the body. Today, we’re providing details of some of the important scientific tools, data and research that have contributed to the FDA’s concerns about kratom’s potential for abuse, addiction, and serious health consequences; including death.

Notably, we recently conducted a novel scientific analysis using a computational model developed by agency scientists, which provided even stronger evidence of kratom compounds’ opioid properties. These kinds of models have become an advanced, common and reliable tool for understanding the behavior of drugs in the body. We also have learned more about deaths that involved kratom use, and have identified additional adverse events related to this product. This new data adds to our body of substantial scientific evidence supporting our concerns about the safety and abuse potential of kratom.

We have been especially concerned about the use of kratom to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms, as there is no reliable evidence to support the use of kratom as a treatment for opioid use disorder and significant safety issues exist. We recognize the need and desire for alternative treatments for both the treatment of opioid addiction, as well as the treatment of chronic pain. The FDA stands ready to evaluate evidence that could demonstrate a medicinal purpose for kratom. However, to date, we have received no such submissions and are not aware of any evidence that would meet the agency’s standard for approval.

The FDA’s PHASE model used to assess kratom

Federal agencies need to act quickly to evaluate the abuse potential of newly identified designer street drugs for which limited or no pharmacological data are yet available. This is why the FDA developed the Public Health Assessment via Structural Evaluation (PHASE) methodology – a tool to help us simulate, using 3-D computer technology, how the chemical constituents of a substance (such as the compounds/alkaloids found in kratom) are structured at a molecular level, how they may behave inside the body, and how they can potentially affect the brain. In effect, PHASE uses the molecular structure of a substance to predict its biological function in the body. For example, the modelling platform can simulate how a substance will affect various receptors in the brain based on a product’s chemical structure and its similarity to controlled substances for which data are already available.

Using this computational model, scientists at the FDA first analyzed the chemical structures of the 25 most prevalent compounds in kratom. From this analysis, the agency concluded that all of the compounds share the most structural similarities with controlled opioid analgesics, such as morphine derivatives.

Next, our scientists analyzed the chemical structure of these kratom compounds against the software to determine its likely biologic targets. The model predicted that 22 (including mitragynine) of the 25 compounds in kratom bind to mu-opioid receptors. This model, together with previously available experimental data, confirmed that two of the top five most prevalent compounds (including mitragynine) are known to activate opioid receptors (“opioid agonists”).

The new data provides even stronger evidence of kratom compounds’ opioid properties.

The computational model also predicted that some of the kratom compounds may bind to the receptors in the brain that may contribute to stress responses that impact neurologic and cardiovascular function. The agency has previously warned of the serious side effects associated with kratom including seizures and respiratory depression.

The third aspect of the model is the 3-D image we generate to look at not just where these compounds bind, but how strongly they bind to their biological targets. We found that kratom has a strong bind to mu-opioid receptors, comparable to scheduled opioid drugs.

So what does this body of scientific evidence mean? The FDA relies on this kind of sophisticated model and simulation to supplement its data on how patients react to drugs; often as a way to fully elucidate the biological activity of a new substance. The data from the PHASE model shows us that kratom compounds are predicted to affect the body just like opioids. Based on the scientific information in the literature and further supported by our computational modeling and the reports of its adverse effects in humans, we feel confident in calling compounds found in kratom, opioids.

Furthermore, this highlights the power of our computational model-based approach to rapidly assess any newly identified natural or synthetic opioids to respond to a public health emergency.

Learnings from reports of death associated with kratom

We’ve been carefully monitoring the use of kratom for several years, and have placed kratom products on import alert to prevent them from entering the country illegally. We have also conducted several product seizures. These actions were based, in part, on a body of academic research, as well as reports we have received, suggesting harm associated with its use. And we are not alone in our evaluation and our public health concerns. Numerous countries, states and cities have banned kratom from entering their jurisdictions. We described some of this information in a public health advisory in November 2017, in which we urged consumers not to use kratom or any compounds found in the plant.

Now, I’d like to share more information about the tragic reports we have received of additional deaths involving the use of kratom. Looking at the information we have received – including academic research, poison control data, medical examiner reports, social science research and adverse event reports – we now have 44 reported deaths associated with the use of kratom. This is an increase since our November advisory, which noted 36 deaths associated with these products. We’re continuing to review the newly received reports and will release those soon. But it’s important to note that these new reports include information consistent with the previous reports.

Today, we’re releasing the reports of the 36 deaths we referenced in November. These reports underscore the serious and sometimes deadly risks of using kratom and the potential interactions associated with this drug. Overall, many of the cases received could not be fully assessed because of limited information provided; however, one new report of death was of particular concern. This individual had no known historical or toxicologic evidence of opioid use, except for kratom. We’re continuing to investigate this report, but the information we have so far reinforces our concerns about the use of kratom. In addition, a few assessable cases with fatal outcomes raise concern that kratom is being used in combination with other drugs that affect the brain, including illicit drugs, prescription opioids, benzodiazepines and over-the-counter medications, like the anti-diarrheal medicine, loperamide. Cases of mixing kratom, other opioids, and other types of medication is extremely troubling because the activity of kratom at opioid receptors indicates there may be similar risks of combining kratom with certain drugs, just as there are with FDA-approved opioids.

However, unlike kratom, FDA-approved drugs have undergone extensive review for safety and efficacy, and the agency continuously tracks safety data for emerging safety risks that were previously unknown. So we have better information about the risks associated with these products; and can better inform the public of new safety concerns. For example, in August 2016, the FDA required a class-wide change to drug labeling to help inform health care providers and patients of the serious risks (including respiratory depression, coma and death) associated with the combined use of certain opioid medications and benzodiazepines. In June 2016, the agency also issued a warning that taking significantly high doses of loperamide, including through abuse or misuse of the product to achieve euphoria or self-treat opioid withdrawal, can cause serious heart problems that can lead to death. We also recently took steps to help reduce abuse of loperamide by requesting packaging restrictions for these products sold “over-the-counter.”

Taken in total, the scientific evidence we’ve evaluated about kratom provides a clear picture of the biologic effect of this substance. Kratom should not be used to treat medical conditions, nor should it be used as an alternative to prescription opioids. There is no evidence to indicate that kratom is safe or effective for any medical use. And claiming that kratom is benign because it’s “just a plant” is shortsighted and dangerous. After all, heroin is an illegal, dangerous, and highly-addictive substance containing the opioid morphine, derived from the seed pod of the various opium poppy plants.

Further, as the scientific data and adverse event reports have clearly revealed, compounds in kratom make it so it isn’t just a plant – it’s an opioid. And it’s an opioid that’s associated with novel risks because of the variability in how it’s being formulated, sold and used recreationally and by those who are seeking to self-medicate for pain or who use kratom to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms. We recognize that many people have unmet needs when it comes to treating pain or addiction disorders. For individuals seeking treatment for opioid addiction who are being told that kratom can be an effective treatment, I urge you to seek help from a health care provider. There are safe and effective, FDA-approved medical therapies available for the treatment of opioid addiction. Combined with psychosocial support, these treatments are effective. Importantly, there are three drugs (buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone) approved by the FDA for the treatment of opioid addiction, and the agency is committed to promoting more widespread innovation and access to these treatments to help those suffering from an opioid use disorder transition to lives of sobriety. There are also safer, non-opioid options to treat pain. We recognize that some patients have tried available therapies, and still have unmet medical needs. We’re deeply committed to these patients, and to advancing new, safe and effective options for those suffering from these conditions.

Nunes Releases Statement on Democratic Memo

Nunes Statement on Democrat Memo
Washington, February 9, 2018

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes issued the following statement today:

“Along with other Intelligence Committee Republicans, I had warned that the Democratic memo contains many sources and methods. Ranking Member Schiff pledged to seek the input of the Department of Justice and FBI regarding the memo’s public release, and it’s no surprise that these agencies recommended against publishing the memo without redactions. Intelligence Committee Republicans encourage the minority to accept the DOJ’s recommendations and make the appropriate technical changes and redactions so that no sources and methods are disclosed and their memo can be declassified as soon as possible.”

The letter sent to the Committee outlining the Intelligence Community’s concerns with the memo is here.

No Democratic Memo; Wikileaks Offers Up Another Million Dollar Reward

No Democratic Memo; Wikileaks Offers Up Another Million Dollar Reward

Nunes Releases Statement on Democratic Memo

A statement from the White House on the memo:

This afternoon, the President met with the Director of the FBI, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and the White House Counsels Office to discuss the memorandum from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and receive their input. The President is weighing his options and will respond soon. Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah

Jonathan Easley

National political reporter

The Hill

Fentanyl Analogues: Sensenbrenner Introduces Bill to Save Lives and Curb the Opioid Epidemic

February 5, 2018

Washington, D.C.Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05), introduced the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues (SOFA) Act that will save lives by fighting the spread of fentanyl analogues. Specifically, the bill adds nineteen identified fentanyl analogues to the Schedule I drug list and provides the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with the tools needed to quickly add other analogues as they are identified.

Sensenbrenner“With the opioid crisis tearing apart families across Wisconsin and the U.S., we must ramp up efforts to stop the proliferation of these drugs. This important legislation closes the loophole that allows these deadly drugs to continue pouring into our neighborhoods. It also provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to more effectively identify and schedule new fentanyl analogues. As Co-chair of the Congressional Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus, I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end this epidemic.”

Background on the SOFA Act:

Fentanyl is currently classified as a Schedule II controlled substance used to treat cancer patients. However, it is dangerous and can be lethal outside of the careful supervision of a doctor. Fentanyl abuse is one of the leading contributors to the opioid epidemic.

A new chemical compound, known as an analogue, is created by modifying one small piece of the chemical structure of fentanyl. These compounds fall into a legal loophole and contribute to the alarming rate of opioid-related deaths in the U.S. In fact, data from the Center for Disease Control (see below) indicates that synthetic opioids, which includes fentanyl and its analogues, are the leading cause of drug overdoses.

Analogue producers are likely to continue developing new variations, and law enforcement agencies must have the tools to adapt to these changes. Under current law, DEA scheduling practices are reactive in nature. Typically, fentanyl analogues are only scheduled after they have resulted in deaths across multiples states.

The SOFA Act closes the legal loophole by adding nineteen known fentanyl analogues to the Schedule I list. It also gives the DEA the authority to immediately schedule new fentanyl analogues as they are discovered, making enforcement and scheduling procedures more proactive.

The bill shares the acronym of an organization started by Oconomowoc, WI resident Lauri Badura, who lost her son Archie to an overdose in 2014. Shortly after, she founded the faith-based non-profit Saving Others for Archie, Inc. to raise awareness and fight the opioid epidemic.

Lauri recently attended President Trump’s first State of the Union address as the guest of Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who has introduced the Senate Version of SOFA.

The full text of H.R. 4922, the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues Act is available here.

MS-13 Fact Sheet Released by White House

A THREAT TO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: MS-13 has brought violence, fear, and suffering to communities across the country.   

  • MS-13, short for Mara Salvatrucha, is a violent transnational gang primarily composed of immigrants or descendants of immigrants from El Salvador.
  • MS-13’s motto is “mata, viola, controla” which means “kill, rape, control.”
    • They commit shocking acts of violence to instill fear, like machete attacks, execution-style murders, gang rape, and human trafficking
  • MS-13 has more than 30,000 members worldwide, including more than 10,000 in the United States.
    • The violent gang recruits middle- and high-school students, primarily immigrants, and uses fear of retribution to keep their recruits from leaving
  • The gang is known to regularly conduct activities in at least 40 states and the District of Columbia.
    • MS-13 primarily generates income through extortion, prostitution, membership dues, and illicit trafficking.
  • As revealed by recent investigations, MS-13 gang leaders are known to send representatives across the United States border to take control of local MS-13 “cliques,” local units, and connect the local members to gang leaders abroad.
    • MS-13 gang leaders have directed American MS-13 cliques to become more violent in order to control territory.
  • In recent years, MS-13 has taken advantage of the large flow of foreign nationals from Central America and Mexico into the U.S. by hiding in these populations.
  • MS-13 has preyed on American communities, committing horrendous acts of violence.
    • Approximately 38 percent of all murders in Suffolk County, New York, between January 2016 and June 2017, were linked to MS-13.

COMBATING MS-13: President Trump’s Administration has undertaken serious efforts to bring the violent criminals of MS-13 to justice.

  • President Trump spoke on the threat posed by MS-13 in his remarks on the State of the Union and described the bravery of our Nation’s law enforcement officers who continue to combat this violent gang.
  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions designated MS-13 as a priority for the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces in October 2017.
  • Under President Trump, DOJ has worked with partners in Central America resulting in the filing of criminal charges against more than 4,000 members of MS-13.
  • ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made 4,818 criminal arrests related to gang activity in FY 2017, as well as 892 administrative arrests that resulted from gang investigations.
    • HSI arrested 796 MS-13 gang members and associates in FY 2017, an 83 percent increase from FY 2016.
  • In FY 2017, U.S. Border Patrol Agents arrested 536 gang-affiliated illegal aliens, of whom 228, more than 40 percent, were affiliated with MS-13.

SECURING OUR BORDERS: President Donald J. Trump has released an immigration framework which includes border security measures vital to preventing the entry of criminal aliens like MS-13 members into the United States.

  • President Trump has proposed an immigration framework that includes the tools and resources required to secure our borders and close legal loopholes exploited by cartels and criminals.
  • The President has made clear that, as a part of our efforts to curb illegal immigration, we must ensure criminal aliens, gang members, violent offenders, and aggravated felons are detained and quickly removed from the United States.

White House Announces Public Vetting Center

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 6, 2018

*Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding the Creation of the National Vetting Center *

Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum to establish a National Vetting Center (NVC) to coordinate the efforts of departments and agencies to better identify individuals seeking to enter the country who present a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety.

The NVC, which will be led by the Department of Homeland Security, will help fulfill the Presidents requirement that departments and agencies improve their coordination and use of intelligence and other information in the vetting process.

The Federal Governments current vetting efforts are ad hoc, which impedes our ability to keep up with todays threats. The NVC will better coordinate these activities in a central location, enabling officials to further leverage critical intelligence and law enforcement information to identify terrorists, criminals, and other nefarious actors trying to enter and remain within our country. The NVCs operations will adhere to Americas strong protections for individuals privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The Administrations top priority is the safety and security of the public, and the NVC will empower our frontline defenders to better fulfil that obligation.

###

President’s Statement:

SUBJECT: Optimizing the Use of Federal Government Information in Support of the National Vetting Enterprise

Border and immigration security are essential to ensuring the safety, security, and prosperity of the UnitedStates. The Federal Government must improve the manner in which executive departments and agencies (agencies) coordinate and use intelligence and other information to identify individuals whopresent a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. To achieve this goal, the UnitedStates Government must develop an integrated approach to use data held across national security components. I am, therefore, directing the establishment of a National Vetting Center (Center), subject to the oversight and guidance of a National Vetting Governance Board (Board), to coordinate the management and governance of the national vetting enterprise.

_Section_ _1_. _Policy_. (a) The UnitedStates must protect its people from terrorist attacks and other public safety threats. Vetting procedures associated with determining whether individuals pose threats to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety play a critical role in meeting this obligation. It is the policy of the UnitedStates, as authorized and appropriate, to collect, store, share, disseminate, and use accurate and timely biographic, biometric, and contextual information in support of immigration enforcement and border security, including with respect to individuals

who (i) seek a visa, a visa waiver, or other immigration benefit, or a protected status; (ii) attempt to enter the UnitedStates; or (iii) are subject to an immigration removal proceeding.

(b) Where authorized and appropriate, it is also the policy of the UnitedStates to process biographic, biometric, and contextual information, including on a recurrent basis, so as to identify activities, associations with known or suspected threat actors, and other relevant indicators that inform adjudications and determinations related to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. These activities should be conducted using all relevant and appropriate Federal Government information, including both intelligence and law enforcement information.

(c) The activities described in this memorandum should always be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution; Executive Order12333 of December4, 1981 (UnitedStates Intelligence Activities), as amended; other applicable law and Presidential guidance; and policies and procedures pertaining to:

(i) the appropriate handling of information about United States persons (as defined in Executive Order12333) and other individuals protected by UnitedStates law;

(ii) the protection of sources, methods, and activities;

(iii) privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and

(iv) the protection of other sensitive information.

The coordinated efforts of agencies to conduct all of these activities in the manner described above constitute the national vetting enterprise.

_Sec_. _2_. _ Implementation_. The policy described in section1 above shall be implemented as follows:

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish the Center to support the national vetting enterprise.

(i) The Center shall coordinate agency vetting efforts to identify individuals who present a threat to national security, border security, homeland security, or public safety. Agencies may conduct any authorized border or immigration vetting activities through or with the Center. Agencies may support these additional activities, provided that such support is consistent with applicable law and the policies and procedures described in subsections(b) and (d) of this section.

(ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall designate a fulltime senior officer or employee of the Department of Homeland Security to serve as the director of the Center. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General shall detail or assign senior officials from their respective agencies to serve as deputy directors of the Center.

(iii) The director shall lead the day-to-day operations of the Center, communicate vetting needs and priorities to other agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise, and make resourcing recommendations to the Board established pursuant to subsection(e) of this section.

(iv) Agencies shall provide to the Center access to relevant biographic, biometric, and related derogatory information for its use to the extent permitted by and consistent with applicable law and policy, including the responsibility to protect sources and methods. Agencies and the Center shall, on a consensus basis, determine the most appropriate means or methods to provide access to this information to the Center.

(v) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall, on a continuing basis, work together to ensure, consistent with the authorities and available resources of each official’s respective agency, that the daily operations and functions of the Center, as determined by the Board, are supported, including through the assignment of legal and other appropriate personnel, and the provision of other necessary resources, consistent with applicable law, including the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535). To the extent permitted by law, details or assignments to the Center should be without reimbursement.

(vi) The day-to-day operations of the Center shall be executed by appropriate personnel from agencies participating in the national vetting enterprise, to the extent permitted by law, ina manner that adequately facilitates active and timely coordination and collaboration in the execution of the Center’s functions. Agencies shall participate in the Center and shall provide adequate physical presence to enable the Center to effectively accomplish its mission. To the extent appropriate, additional agency co-location may be virtual rather than physical. Each agency shall fund its participation in the Center, consistent with the agency’s mission and applicable law. There shall be no interagency financing of the Center.

(vii) The Center shall not commence operations until the President has approved the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section.

(b) The Center shall enable and facilitate the appropriate use and interagency deconfliction of all relevant information provided to it to inform the adjudication decisions of the national vetting enterprise.

(i) Databases, data sets, knowledge bases, systems, and technical architectures controlled by the Federal Government, including those established pursuant to Presidential guidance or other Federal policies, may be used to support the activities of the Center to the extent permitted by and consistent with the legal and policy frameworks governing their use.

(ii) Information provided to and used by the Center shall be managed and maintained consistent with applicable information security and cybersecurity laws, standards, practices, and procedures.

(c) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of relevant Intelligence Community (IC) elements, shall establish a support element to facilitate, guide, and coordinate all IC efforts to use classified intelligence and other relevant information within IC holdings in direct support of the Center.

(i) The Director of National Intelligence shall assign a seniorofficial from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence or from another IC element (with the concurrence of the head of that IC element), and in accordance with applicable law, to serve as the head of the support element. This official shall provide dayto-day direction and guidance for the support element’s operations in support of and in consultation with the director of the Center. The official shall report to the Director of National Intelligence through an Identity Intelligence Executive.

(ii) The support element shall provide focused, dedicated support to the Center, responding to the Center’s needs by ensuring it receives appropriate, standardized, and timely access to biographic, biometric, and related derogatory information relevant to the national vetting enterprise, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with applicable policy, including section 1 of this memorandum, and in accordance with the operational considerations of both the Center and the IC elements supporting it.

(iii) Where appropriate, the personnel and other resources of thesupport element may be virtually rather than physically colocated at the Center, with such virtual support facilitated on a day-to-day basis by assigned personnel from agencies that are physically present at the Center, as determined in the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section.

(d) Consistent with section1(c) of this memorandum, all activities of the Center and the support element shall be, atall times, conducted in a manner consistent with the Constitution; Executive Order12333, as amended; other applicable law and Presidential guidance; and policies and procedures pertaining to:

(i) the appropriate handling of information about UnitedStates persons (as defined in Executive Order 12333) and other individuals who may have rights under United States law;

(ii) the protection of sources, methods, and activities;

(iii) privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and

(iv) the protection of other sensitive information.

(e) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall establish the Board.

(i) The national vetting enterprise shall act under the guidance of the Board, which shall serve as the senior interagency forum for considering issues that affect the national vetting enterprise and the activities of the Center and its support element. The Board shall adopt appropriate guidance for agencies to enable the successful execution of the national vetting enterprise and make related resource recommendations to agencies providing direct support to the Center. The Board shall also advise the Director of National Intelligence, through the Identity Intelligence Executive, on the IC resources necessary to support the mission of the Center.

(ii) The Board shall consist of six senior executives, one designated by each of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(iii) The Board may invite other relevant agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise to participate as required to achieve the national security objectives of the national vetting enterprise.

(iv) The chair of the Board shall rotate annually among the individuals designated from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The director of the Center shall serve as an observer at Board meetings.

(v) The Board shall endeavor to reach consensus on all matters presented to it, including the scope of the Center’s activities. If issues cannot be resolved by consensus, the Board shall refer them to the staff of the National Security Council for consideration, consistent with National Security Presidential Memorandum4 of April4, 2017 (Organization of the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and Subcommittees)(NSPM-4), or any successor document.

(vi) To ensure that the activities of the Board andthe Centercomply with applicable law and appropriately protect individuals’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, the Board shall establish a standing Legal Working Group and a separate standing Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Working Group, both of which shall routinely review the activities of the Center and advise the Board. These working groups shall also review the implementation plan described in subsection(g) of this section prior to its submission to the President.

(f) The heads of agencies engaged in the national vetting enterprise shall prioritize, as a vital national security mission, the provision of necessary and appropriate resources to support the national vetting enterprise, including the Center, consistent with their agency’s respective authorities and appropriations.

(g) Within 180days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and using the NSPM4 process, jointly submit to the President for approval a plan to implement this memorandum. The implementation plan shall, at a minimum, address the following:

(i) the initial scope of the Center’s vetting activities;

(ii) the roles and responsibilities of agencies participating in the Center;

(iii) the roles and responsibilities of IC elements participating in the Center’s support element;

(iv) the initial categories of information to be used in support of the Center’s activities;

(v) a resourcing strategy for both the Center and its support element, which shall include the initial projected cost and staff required to operate the Center;

(vi) the relationship between the Center and other relevant UnitedStates Government entities and initiatives, including the National Targeting Center and Terrorist Screening Center;

(vii) the development or adoption, as appropriate, of relevant processes, procedures, and practices needed to ensure compliance with applicable law and policy and to appropriately protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, as well as sources and methods; and

(viii) a projected schedule to reach both initial and full operational capability.

(h) Within 180days of approval by the President of this implementation plan and every 180days thereafter until its execution is complete, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, theAttorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall, through the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and using the NSPM4 process, jointly submit to the President a report detailing the efforts made to execute this memorandum and the implementation plan.

_Sec_. _3_. _ General Provisions_. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent withapplicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the UnitedStates, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

###