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.

 

Obama’s Letter Introducing Offical Portraits is Optimistic & Deeply Personal

Obama.org
Today, Kehinde Wiley and Amy Sherald became the first black artists to create official, Smithsonian-commissioned portraits of a former President and First Lady.And Michelle and I joined our distinguished predecessors and thousands of our fellow Americans on the walls of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery.

Have a look at these two extraordinarily talented artists’ work.

Our official portraits

To call this experience humbling would be an understatement.

That’s because, as a former president, when you choose an artist to describe your likeness, you have the opportunity to shape, quite literally, how someone sees the office of the American presidency. And how they might see themselves in that presidency.

Kehinde Wiley and I share some things in common. Both of us had an American mother who raised us, an African father who was absent from our lives, and a search to figure out just where we fit in. I wrote a book about that journey, because I can’t paint. But I suspect a lot of Kehinde’s journey is reflected in his art. I was struck by the way his portraits challenge the way we view power and privilege; the way he endows his subjects, men and women often invisible in everyday life, with a level of dignity that not only makes them visible, but commands our attention.

The arts have always been central to the American experience. They provoke thought, challenge our assumptions, and shape how we define our narrative as a country.

Thanks to Kehinde Wiley and Amy Sherald, generations of Americans — and young people from all around the world — will visit the National Portrait Gallery and see this country through a new lens. These works upend the notion that there are worlds where African Americans belong and worlds where we don’t. And that’s something Michelle and I hope we contributed to over the eight years we were so privileged to serve you from the White House.

They’ll walk out of that museum with a better sense of the America we all love. Clear-eyed. Big-hearted. Inclusive and optimistic.

And I hope they’ll walk out more empowered to go and change their worlds.

– Barack

Obama’s Portrait Quickly Satirized by Internet Silliness: Twitter Funnies

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

News Sources to Avoid: Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

Important takeaway from this study:

These sources deliberately publish misleading, deceptive or incorrect information purporting to be real news about politics, economics or culture. This content includes various forms of propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyper-partisan, or conspiratorial news and information.

For a source to be labelled as junk news at least three of the following five characteristics must apply:

  • Professionalism: These outlets do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism. They refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers and owners. They lack transparency, accountability, and do not publish corrections on debunked information.
  • Style: These outlets use emotionally driven language with emotive expressions, hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures and mobilizing memes.
  • Credibility: These outlets rely on false information and conspiracy theories, which they often employ strategically. They report without consulting multiple sources and do not employ fact-checking methods. Their sources are often untrustworthy and their standards of news production lack credibility.
  • Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise described as hyper-partisan reporting. These outlets frequently present opinion and commentary essays as news.
  • Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and junk content is stylistically disguised as news, with references to news agencies, and credible sources, and headlines written in a news tone, with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

List of Junk News Sources

100percentfedup.com

allenbwest.com

americanthinker.com

anonews.co

barenakedislam.com

beforeitsnews.com

bipartisanreport.com

bizpacreview.com

bredred.com

breitbart.com

campusreform.org

centerforsecuritypolicy.org

clintonemail.com

cnsnews.com

commonsenseconservative.org

concealncarry.stfi.re

conservativedailypost.com

conservativeoutfitters.com

conservativeread.com

conservativereview.com

conservativetribune.com

constitution.com

crooksandliars.com

dailycaller.com

dailynewsbin.com

dangerandplay.com

dcclothesline.com

deepstatenation.com

dennismichaellynch.com

donaldtrumpnews.co

drudgereport.com

endingthefed.com

eutimes.net

floppingaces.net

freebeacon.com

frontpagemag.com

gotnews.com

hannity.com

hotair.com

hotpagenews.com

infowars.com

inquisitr.com

joeforamerica.com

judicialwatch.org

lawnews.tv

lifenews.com

magafeed.com

mediaite.com

mobile.wnd.com

mostdamagingwikileaks.com

mrctv.org

nationalreview.com

naturalnews.com

newsbusters.org

newsmax.com

nydailynews.com

occupydemocrats.com

pamelageller.com

pastebin.com

patdollard.com

patriotpost.us

politopinion.com

puppetstringnews.com

rasmussenreports.com

redstate.com

redstatewatcher.com

scooprocket.com

shareblue.com

silenceisconsent.net

stateofthenation2012.com

theamericanfirst.com

theamericanmirror.com

theblacksphere.net

theconservativetreehouse.com

thefederalist.com

thefederalistpapers.org

thegatewaypundit.com

theodysseyonline.com

thepoliticalinsider.com

therealstrategy.com

therebel.media

truepundit.com

truthfeed.com

ukok.page.tl

usalibertynews.com

vaskal.ca

weaselzippers.us

westernjournalism.com

wnd.com

youngcons.com

yournewswire.com

————————-

Summary of study along with links to supplemental information: 

Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US

Data Memo 2018.1 cover

What kinds of social media users read junk news? We examine the distribution of the most significant sources of junk news in the three months before President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union Address.

Drawing on a list of sources that consistently publish political news and information that is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, masked commentary, fake news and other forms of junk news, we find that the distribution of such content is unevenly spread across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrate that (1) on Twitter, a network of Trump supporters shares the widest range of known junk news sources and circulates more junk news than all the other groups put together; (2) on Facebook, extreme hard right pages—distinct from Republican pages—share the widest range of known junk news sources and circulate more junk news than all the other audiences put together; (3) on average, the audiences for junk news on Twitter share a wider range of known junk news sources than audiences on Facebook’s public pages.

Download here.

Online supplement (.pdf)

Seed list (.xlxs)

Vidya Narayanan, Vlad Barash, John Kelly, Bence Kollanyi, Lisa-Maria Neudert, and Philip N. Howard. “Polarization, Partisanship and Junk News Consumption over Social Media in the US.” Data Memo 2018.1. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk

The Computational Propaganda Research Project (COMPROP) investigates the interaction of algorithms, automation and politics. This work includes analysis of how tools like social media bots are used to manipulate public opinion by amplifying or repressing political content, disinformation, hate speech, and junk news.

We use perspectives from organizational sociology, human computer interaction, communication, information science, and political science to interpret and analyze the evidence we are gathering. Our project is based at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

FIRE names America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12, 2018 — Each year, colleges across the country find dubious ways to silence student and faculty expression. In the last year, administrators became embroiled in litigation for telling a student he couldn’t hand out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a free speech zone, continued a years-long effort to ban a group from campus due to its political viewpoint, and even investigated a professor for a satirical tweet — eventually driving him to resign.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has identified America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech, published today with detailed descriptions on FIRE’s website.
This year’s list includes the following institutions, in no particular order:
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (Troy, N.Y.)
  • Drexel University (Philadelphia, Pa.)
  • Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.)
  • Los Angeles Community College District (Los Angeles, Calif.)
  • Fordham University (New York, N.Y.)
  • Evergreen State College (Olympia, Wash.)
  • Albion College (Albion, Mich.)
  • Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.)
  • University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, Calif.)
  • Texas State University (San Marcos, Texas)
The institutions on FIRE’s annual list of worst colleges include one university that threatened the funding and editorial process of its independent student newspaper, another that erected fences around campus to keep peaceful student demonstrators out of sight of donors, and yet another that put a student through a months-long investigation and a four-hour hearing for a joke. (That student is still waiting to learn his fate!)
“College administrators, and sometimes even students, are going to greater and greater lengths to justify muzzling expression on campus,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “This type of censorship makes for a sterile environment where lively debate and discussion can’t thrive. The public deserves to know which colleges will defend free expression — and which ones will go to seemingly any length to silence it.”
For the first time, FIRE also awarded a Lifetime Censorship Award to one university that threatens the free speech rights of its students and faculty so often that it deserves individual infamy: DePaul University.
DePaul earned the 2018 Lifetime Censorship Award in recognition of its decade-long rap sheet of suppressing speech at every turn. From denying recognition to a student organization criticizing marijuana laws, to forcing the DePaul Socialists, Young Americans for Freedom, and College Republicans to pay for security in order to host speakers at their meetings and events, to forbidding a group from using the slogan “Gay Lives Matter,” DePaul has staked out a leadership position in stifling campus expression.
FIRE’s 2018 list includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment. Private colleges on this list are not required by the Constitution to respect student and faculty speech rights, but explicitly promise to do so.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.

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.

 

#CouldBeatTrumpin2020: Twitter Funnies

The following inanimate objects were nominated to beat President Trump in 2020:

 

Lots of folks thought their own pets could be Trump. These are some special animal suggestions:

 

Humans, both fictional and real, that might be Donald Trump:

 

Campaign materials:

 

And then there’s this:

FISA Memo: Everything You Need to Know: House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy statement and video

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy statement on the declassification of a memo prepared by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence majority:

“It is Congress’s constitutional duty and responsibility to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch.  The American people deserve to know the facts and have a transparent and open government—even when it comes to the delicate balance between security and privacy. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides our government with the ability to utilize surveillance resources to protect American citizens. Because of the sensitivity of this process, it is imperative the American people have the utmost faith that applications to obtain warrants against American citizens are based on ironclad facts that provide strong evidence of a threat to the country. In this case, the Intelligence Committee’s FISA memo makes clear that the full disclosure of facts to the court did not occur. Most notably, it was omitted that the author of an unverified political document disclosed to the court was an ardent and paid-political opponent of President Trump. Protecting against this type of politicization of the intelligence process is a primary reason why the Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives was created. As the committee prepares for the release of the minority memo, we must recommit that despite political differences, our single greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. Our law enforcement agencies do that dutifully every day and this oversight work ensures they will be able to continue to do that every day moving forward.”  

Video Transcript

REP. TREY GOWDY: You have a right to know what happened with this FISA process and whether reforms are warranted.

REP. DEVIN NUNES: The American citizens that are represented before this court, have to be protected. And the only place that can protect them is the U.S. Congress.

NEWS CLIP 1: It has been the talk of Washington for weeks and today Republicans released a memo

NEWS CLIP 2: The memo reveals partisan bias at the Justice Department.

NEWS CLIP 3: Grassley and Graham confirmed the information and went further. Revealing that information was passed from British spy Christopher Steele through an intermediary close to the Clinton’s, and then to the State Department.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: The Republican memo fairly raises questions about why certain facts were never disclosed to the FISA court.

NUNES: Political dirt was used by the FBI, and they knew it was political dirt to open a counter-intelligence investigation into the other campaign.

GOWDY: This dossier was paid for by the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton.  They hired a political opposition research firm, who hired Christopher Steele, who wrote it. See how easy and straightforward that is? It tells you the source with clarity and specificity. Now contrast that with the way it was presented to the court. For reasons the Democrats never can explain, the FISA application went to great lengths to avoid identifying a material point about the financial source behind the dossier.

NEWS CLIP 4: Neither the initial FISA application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts.

GOWDY: The Democrats claim Chris Steele was a reliable source.  But he wound up being dismissed as a source by the FBI for two different reasons. And in addition to that, Steele’s reliability isn’t really the seminal issue.  He didn’t know of the facts firsthand. He repeated what sources in Russia were telling him. So for that matter, a parrot could have been the source. If all you are going to do is repeat back what nameless, faceless people in another country are telling you, your experience and expertise aren’t nearly as important as the reliability of the people you are listening to.

RATCLIFFE: The DOJ and FBI had four opportunities to disclose these facts in the original FISA application in each of three subsequent renewal applications over a nearly year-long period—but never did. Now the Democrats on the intelligence committee, who opposed the release of our Republican memo, have since prepared their own “counter” memo.

GOWDY: Every single Republican on the House Intelligence Committee voted to release the Democrat memo. Every, single one. On the other hand, not a single, solitary Democrat voted to release the Republican memo. Not, a single one.

The lead Democrat most responsible for the drafting of the Democrat memo is Rep. Adam Schiff. Rep. Schiff didn’t have much interest in finding out how much of the dossier was used, whether it was vetted before it was used, whether it was vetted for that matter after it was used, or who paid for it. Keep in mind they went to court to keep you from finding out who paid for the dossier.

RATCLIFFE: The American people will learn that the Democrats memo attacks Republicans for questioning the integrity of DOJ lawyers like Bruce Ohr and FBI agents like Peter Strozk, who have either been demoted or removed. The Democrats memo also defends the integrity of Christopher Steele as a reliable and credible source even though the FBI and Department of Justice terminated him.

NEWS CLIP 5: In September of 2016, Christopher Steele admitted to Justice Department official Bruce Ohr his feelings against then candidate Trump. Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being President.”  

GOWDY: After all, we have FISA only because you consented to have it. With that consent comes the obligation of those entrusted with power to exercise that power judiciously and to answer legitimate questions when you have them. And asking questions of those in positions of power used to be something everyone could agree on.

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.

Kratom Warning: Salmonella Infections Linked to Kratom Products

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.