Monday, October 7, 2019
Prosecutors present 'drug ledger' with notes of drug shipments that allegedly mention the president of Honduras and his brother
Prosecutors present 'drug ledger' with notes of drug shipments that allegedly mention the president of Honduras and his brother
JEFF ERNST. Univision. October 3, 2019
Federal prosecutors in the New York drug trafficking case against the brother of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, introduce evidence on Thursday from a supposed 'drug ledger' seized last year which allegedly documents part of the cocaine dealing by former congressman Juan Antonio ‘Tony’ Hernanadez.
Univision obtained a complete copy of the 350 pages of notes, the validity of which it was able to confirm with a high-level law enforcement official with knowledge of the case. Compiled from 11 notebooks, they detail numerous cocaine shipments in the hundreds of kilos that were allegedly received by Tony Hernandez and then distributed to his conspirators, including Nery Orlando Lopez Sanabria, purportedly one of the largest traffickers left in Honduras.
The notebooks also detail payments to someone identified as “JOH,” which are the initials widely associated in Honduras with Juan Orlando Hernandez, as well as his “employees.” Univision requested a comment from President Hernandez regarding the ledgers but did not receive an immediate response.
Univision was unable to verify if the references to 'Tony' and 'JOH' in the ledger referred to the Hernandez brothers.
In a stunning opening statement on Wednesday, prosecutor Jason Richman accused President Hernandez of having received millions of dollars in bribes from narcotraffickers – including $1 million personally delivered by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman to Hernandez’s brother. Richman described 'Tony' Hernandez as “a violent cocaine trafficker of epic proportions.”
Witness testimony began Thursday morning in the trial against Hernandez, who has pleaded non guilty to four counts of drug trafficking and other weapons charges.
"Alice in Wonderland"
President Hernandez's office issued a statement Wednesday night, in which it rejected the prosecutor's allegations saying it was a "100% false, absurd, ridiculous, accusation ... Alice in Wonderland crazy."
In other testimony on Thursday, confessed Honduran drug trafficker, Victor Hugo Diaz Morales, alias ‘El Rojo’, told the court he began working with Tony Hernandez in 2004, paying him $5,000 a load to protect his cocaine shipments with information on Honduran police and military operations on drug routes off the coasts and along the main roads.
Diaz Morales recalled a meeting where Hernandez assured him: " While the payments continue like this there's no risk."
140 tons and a Tommy Hilfiger-inspired logo
One of four co-defendants in the Hernandez case, Diaz Morales told the court he smuggled a total of 140 tons of cocaine with Tony Hernandez over more than a decade in western Honduras along the Guatemala border before he was arrested in 2017 in Guatemala City.
Diaz Morales said he also gave $40,000 to Juan Orlando Hernandez for a congressional campaign in 2005 when the future president’s political career was still in its early stages.
In 2008, he said he started buying cocaine directly from Tony Hernandez who began packaging his product with a TH logo modeled on the Tommy Hilfiger fashion brand. Describing a load of TH stamped cocaine he told the court; “That cocaine was sold to me by Tony Hernandez.”
The revelations are the latest in a string of bombshells that paint an increasingly shocking picture of Honduras as a narco-state, further complicating relations with the U.S. government, which has called President Hernandez a "fantastic" ally in its efforts to contain the flow of Central American migrants. It also appears to provide evidence of the Honduran government’s own complicity in the rise of violence that made Honduras one of the world’s most dangerous countries and forced countless migrants to flee north.
'Drug ledger'
The first witness on Thursday was a Honduran counter-narcotics agent who testified about the 'drug ledger' that was seized in Honduras last year during the arrest of Lopez Sanabria, which Richman said documents “a small portion of the [Tony’s] cocaine dealing.”
On June 6, 2018, a special Honduran police force unit received a tip regarding the whereabouts of Lopez Sanabria that led to his capture on a highway in the northern department of Cortes. Lopez Sanabria had faked his own death several years prior in an elaborate scheme that involved photos taken of him lying in a coffin and a falsified death report. Since then, he had been living under the assumed name of Magdaleno Meza Funez, according to police.
Inside the car in which Lopez Sanabria was travelling, the police who executed the capture found nearly $200,000 in cash stuffed in a hidden compartment under the back seat along with two grenades, guns, jewelry and several ledgers. The ledgers detail mundane activities such as the upkeep on Lopez Sanabria’s cattle ranch, but also cocaine shipments as large as 750 kilos.
Since his capture, Lopez Sanabria has been subjected to multiple attempts against his life, according to his lawyer, Carlos Chajtur, including an alleged attempted poisoning and an attempt by an inmate to smuggle a grenade into the jail where he was being held. Chajtur also confirmed to Univision that his client, who remains in jail in Honduras, was captured in possession of the notebooks and noted that “it was strange that they weren’t presented in [Honduran] court.”
Through his lawyer, Univision sent questions about the notebooks to Lopez Sanabria in jail, but received no response. Chajtur declined to discuss the contents of the noteooks.
Pages of drug shipments
The reason the notebooks weren’t presented might have to do with their content. Page after page details large-scale cocaine shipments allegedly imported to Honduras by Tony Hernandez and then distributed to downstream traffickers such as Lopez Sanabria to send on to the United States, Spain and Switzerland.
One page notes the loss of a shipment of 476 kilos of cocaine in Guatemala, which is corroborated by news reports of a seizure of an airplane carrying the same amount that was captured after it was detected on radar coming from Honduras. Another page outlines the distribution of a load, with 490 kilos of cocaine pertaining to Tony and 160 kilos to Meza. Each kilo was valued at $9,300, or one-third of the street value in the United States.
The name ‘Tony’ is mentioned repeatedly in the notebook involving cocaine shipments totaling thousands of kilos and tens of millions of dollars. The last mention is dated February 27, 2018, only six months before he was arrested in Miami and well after his October 25, 2016 voluntary meeting with the DEA in which he was presented with video evidence of a meeting with a member of the Cachiros crime family who will also be a witness in the trial.
The initials ‘JOH’ are mentioned several times in connection with payments, including a note dated May 11, 2018 and titled “JOH y su gente,” which also details $440,000 in payments to his “employees.”
Another entry, dated November 13, 2017, notes a “pago a jefes de fiscales por sacar carro de papa” for $28,500, and also in “the coded language of a drug transaction,” as the prosecutor put it, “pago a JOH por fumigacion” for $135,000.
President Hernández is widely known throughout Honduras for his initials, 'JOH'. Violent protests against his government in recent years have resulted in the appearance of street slogans and spray-painted posters with the words "Abajo JOH" (Down with JOH) or "Viva JOH" (Long live JOH).
A letter sent by the Department of Justice to its Honduran counterpart dated April 10, 2019 and titled “Request for Assistance in the matter of Juan Antonio Hernandez Alvarado,” solicits “copies of the investigative records, evidence and reports pertaining to” multiple criminal cases in Honduras, including the arrest of Lopez Sanabria.
The other two witnesses expected to testify on Thursday are DEA agents, one who interviewed ‘Tony’ Hernandez when he traveled voluntarily to Miami for an interview in 2015, and the other who took his declaration after his November 2018 arrest.
Fearful of Lula’s Exoneration, His Once-Fanatical Prosecutors Request His Release From Prison. But Lula Refuses.
Fearful of Lula’s Exoneration, His Once-Fanatical Prosecutors Request His Release From Prison. But Lula Refuses.
Glenn Greenwald. The Intercept. October 4 2019
THE SAME BRAZILIAN PROSECUTORS who for years exhibited a single-minded fixation on jailing former President Lula da Silva are now seeking his release from prison, requesting that a court allow him to serve the remainder of his 11-year sentence for corruption at home. But Lula — who believes the request is motivated by fear that prosecutorial and judicial improprieties in his case, which were revealed by the Intercept, will lead to the nullification of his conviction — is opposing these efforts, insisting that he will not leave prison until he receives full exoneration.
In seeking his release from prison, Lula’s prosecutors are almost certainly not motivated by humanitarian concerns. Quite the contrary: those prosecutors have often displayed a near-pathological hatred for the two-term ex-President. Last month, the Intercept, jointly with its reporting partner UOL, published previously secret Telegram messages in which the “Car Wash” prosecutors responsible for prosecuting Lula cruelly mocked the tragic death of his 7-year-old grandson from meningitis earlier this year, as well as the 2017 death of his wife of 43 years from a stroke at the age of 66. One of the prosecutors who participated publicly apologized, but none of the others has.
Far more likely is that the prosecutors are motivated by desperation to salvage their legacy after a series of defeats suffered by their once-untouchable, widely revered “Car Wash” investigation, ever since the Intercept, on June 9, began publishing reports based on a massive archive of secret chats between the prosecutors and Sergio Moro, the judge who oversaw most of the convictions, including Lula’s, and who now serves as President Bolsonaro’s Minister of Justice and Public Security.
The prosecutors’ cynical gambit, it appears, is that the country’s Supreme Court — which two weeks ago nullified one of Judge Moro’s anti-corruption convictions for the first time on the ground that he violated core rights of defendants — will feel less pressure to nullify Moro’s finding of guilt in Lula’s case if the ex-President is comfortably at home in São Paulo (albeit under house arrest) rather than lingering in a Curitiba prison.
But this strategy ran into a massive roadblock when Lula demanded that he not be released from prison unless and until he is fully exonerated. He wants to ensure that nobody — least of all Supreme Court judges who will rule on his appeal — feel relieved of their obligation to decide correctly by telling themselves that there is no need to take such a drastic step as nullifying Lula’s conviction given that he is no longer in jail but at home.
“I won’t trade my dignity for my freedom,” the former President proclaimed in a hand-written letter “to the Brazilian People,” explaining why he would resist efforts to swap his home for his cage as his prison. “I’ve already proven that the accusations against me are false. It is [the Car Wash prosecutors and Sergio Moro], not me, who are now prisoners of the lies they told Brazil and the world,” he added.
In response, Deltan Dallagnol, the task-force’s nominal chief and a prime subject of the Intercept’s reporting, insisted that Lula has no say in that matter: that if he is ordered to leave prison, he has no power to resist or reject the terms. So weakened is the Car Wash prosecution that, in a surreal spectacle, the prosecutors who worked for years and broke numerous rules to ensure Lula’s imprisonment are now demanding that he leave prison (albeit on their terms), while Lula categorically refuses to do so absent full acquittal of the crimes of which they accused him.
THE CAR WASH PROSECUTORS HAVE good reason to worry that the gross misconduct by them and Judge Moro could lead to a nullification of Lula’s conviction. Beyond the alarming-to-them Supreme Court ruling from two weeks ago, numerous developments reflect a newfound hostility to their work.
On Friday morning, Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha of São Paulo, reported that the Supreme Court is now moving to judicially authenticate the Intercept’s archive so that its contents can be used in judicial proceedings to review the legitimacy of the anti-corruption probe’s convictions. Meanwhile, the President of the Court, Dias Toffoli, announced this week that the Court will shortly decide several looming questions about Car Wash that could, by themselves, lead to an annulment of Lula’s conviction.
Beyond the Supreme Court, Moro’s “anti-crime” package — which is principally designed to fulfill Bolsonaro’s dream of immunizing the police and military when they kill poor, innocent favela residents — has suffered multiple defeats in Congress. Bolsonaro’s choice for Chief Prosecutor, Augusto Aras, was confirmed by the Senate in September only after he publicly condemned the “excesses” of the Car Wash prosecutors, claiming the prosecutors’ youth and lack of adult supervision made them believe they could cross all ethical lines.
Long-time defenders of the Car Wash probe — including one of the center-right leaders in the Senate of the 2016 impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff, as well as the former Chief Prosecutor in his new book — have expressed remorse about the unethical components of the prosecutors’ actions as revealed by the Intercept’s last several months of reporting. One Supreme Court minister, Gilmar Mendes, this week read from the Intercept’s published Telegram chats to accuse Moro and the prosecutors of engaging in “organized criminality” and being “torturers” (for using the tactic of “preventative imprisonment” as a means of forcing defendants to accuse others as a condition for being released).
A new bill to punish prosecutors and judges for abusing their power — aimed at least in part at the abuses of Moro and the prosecutors — easily passed both houses of Congress last month, and most of Bolsonaro’s vetoes of parts of the bill were swiftly overridden. Numerous disciplinary proceedings are pending against the chief prosecutor, Deltan Dallagnol, and at least several harsh punishments are expected. A clear anti-Car-Wash momentum is now driving many of Brazil’s key institutions.
And the erosion of Moro and Car Wash’s credibility is now global: last month, 17 leading anti-corruption scholars from around the world – including one, Yale Law School’s Susan Rose-Ackerman, repeatedly heralded by Dallagnol as the “world leading anti-corruption expert – signed a letter that, citing the Intercept’s reporting, condemned Moro’s “illegal and immoral practices” and demanded Lula’s immediate release; on Thursday, the Paris City Council, citing the Intercept’s reporting, voted to make Lula an honorary citizen of Paris; last month, members of the Democratic House caucus wrote a letter to the Justice Department which, referencing the Intercept’s reporting, proclaimed that “these reports appear to confirm that the actions of both Judge Moro and the Lava Jato prosecutors have been motivated by a political agenda that seeks to undermine the electoral prospects of Brazil’s Worker’s Party.”
To be sure, there will be significant pressure applied to, and even not-so-subtle threats against, the Supreme Court to avoid anything that would exonerate Lula. Each time Lula’s case has made its way to the highest court, members of the military, both active and retired, have warned the Court in quite explicit terms that they were being watched, and expected the Court to keep Lula where he was. Shortly prior to his father’s successful election victory, Jair Bolsonaro’s son Eduardo (who the President is currently attempting to nominate as his Ambassador to the U.S.) warned that any adverse Supreme Court decisions could be addressed by “sending a solider and a corporal” to the doors of the court.
Notwithstanding those pressures and threats, Moro and the legitimacy of the Car Wash probe are far weaker and more vulnerable than they were four months ago. The prosecutors clearly fear that the crowning jewel of their work — Lula’s head on a stake — is in jeopardy. Much of their legitimacy has already been eroded, but any reversal of what they regard as their most cherished accomplishment would be a fatal blow.
Trying to get Lula out of his jail cell and into a more palatable prison — his home — is a desperate attempt to avert that catastrophe. And Lula knows it, which is why — remarkably — he is so insistent on remaining in prison until he receives the full acquittal he believes he is due and which, with the truth about Moro and the prosecutors’ actions finally known, he believes is imminent.
As more revelations continue to be published by the Intercept and its reporting partners about the misconduct of Moro and the prosecutors, the likelihood of a full reckoning for the once-revered prosecutors and the Judge who led them increases. Lula’s calculation that he should remain in prison until he is fully cleared may prove to be erroneous, but there is certainly a solid basis in fact for his conclusion.
Jair Bolsonaro pictured with second accused in Marielle Franco murder case
Jair Bolsonaro pictured with second accused in Marielle Franco murder case
Sam Cowie. The Guardian. October 3, 2019
Brazilian opposition figures and human rights observers are seething after a photo emerged of the country’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, grinning and giving the thumbs up alongside a man arrested in connection with the murder of the Rio de Janeiro city councillor Marielle Franco.
It was the second time the president has been photographed alongside a suspect in Brazil’s most high-profile political murder in a decade.
In March, a photo of Bolsonaro with Élcio Vieira de Queiroz, a former policeman accused of driving the car used in Franco’s killing, circulated on social media.
Queiroz’s arrest appeared to support suspicion that Franco had been targeted by the paramilitary gangs known as “militias” that control large swaths of Rio and are usually made up of or commanded by active or retired police officers.
“Another [suspect] who has a photo with the president. Bolsonaro’s relations with the militias need to be urgently investigated,” tweeted Guilherme Boulos, a leftwing politician.
The journalist Glenn Greenwald, a friend of Franco, tweeted: “None of this means Bolsonaro was involved in Marielle’s assassination. That is unlikely. But it shows how intertwined, multi-pronged & close are the Bolsonaro Family’s ties to militias.”
Franco, a popular socialist councillor and rising star in Rio politics who fought against police brutality in the city’s favelas, was killed last year with her driver Anderson Gomes when a gunman sprayed the car they were driving in.
Josinaldo Lucas Freitas, a martial arts instructor, was arrested on Thursday. He is accused of disposing of the guns used in the murder by throwing them in the sea.
Soon after his arrest, two photos of him posing with Bolsonaro and one with the president’s Rio councillor son Carlos were published by the conservative-leaning weekly magazine Veja.
“This demands an answer,” said Antônio Carlos Costa, founder of the Rio NGO Rio de Paz (Rio of Peace). “The president must explain to the public what kind of relationship he had with this guy.”
Three others were also arrested on Thursday morning, including the wife of Ronnie Lessa; a former special forces police captain and alleged leader of a gang of contract killers.
Lessa is accused of firing the fatal shots and is awaiting trial in a federal prison.
But it remains unclear who ordered the assassination.
“We continue to follow the development of the investigations and, still, with great concern about the delay in discovering the intellectual authors of the crime,” Jurema Werneck, executive director of Amnesty International Brazil, wrote in a press note.
_______________________________
The primary problem with mainstream economics
October 5, 2019Lars SyllLeave a commentGo to comments
from Lars Syll
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2019/10/05/the-primary-problem-with-mainstream-economics/
Jamie Morgan: To a member of the public it must seem weird that it is possible to state, as you do, such fundamental criticism of an entire field of study. The perplexing issue from a third party point of view is how do we reconcile good intention (or at least legitimate sense of self as a scholar), and power and influence in the world with error, failure and falsity in some primary sense; given that the primary problem is methodological, the issues seem to extend in different ways from Milton Friedman to Robert Lucas Jr, from Paul Krugman to Joseph Stiglitz. Do such observations give you pause? My question (invitation) I suppose, is how does one reconcile (explain or account for) the direction of travel of mainstream economics: the degree of commonality identified in relation to its otherwise diverse parts, the glaring problems of that commonality – as identified and stated by you and many other critics?
Lars P. Syll: When politically “radical” economists like Krugman, Wren-Lewis or Stiglitz confront the critique of mainstream economics from people like me, they usually have the attitude that if the critique isn’t formulated in a well-specified mathematical model it isn’t worth taking seriously. To me that only shows that, despite all their radical rhetoric, these economists – just like Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas Jr or Greg Mankiw – are nothing but die-hard defenders of mainstream economics. The only economic analysis acceptable to these people is the one that takes place within the analytic-formalistic modelling strategy that makes up the core of mainstream economics. Models and theories that do not live up to the precepts of the mainstream methodological canon are considered “cheap talk”. If you do not follow this particular mathematical-deductive analytical formalism you’re not even considered to be doing economics …The kind of “diversity” you asked me about, is perhaps even better to get a perspective on, by considering someone like Dani Rodrik, who a couple of years ago wrote a book on economics and its modelling strategies – Economics Rules (2015) – that attracted much attention among economists in the academic world. Just like Krugman and the other politically “radical” mainstream economists, Rodrik shares the view that there is nothing basically wrong with standard theory. As long as policymakers and economists stick to standard economic analysis everything is fine. Economics is just a method that makes us “think straight” and “reach correct answers”. Similar to Krugman, Rodrik likes to present himself as a kind of pluralist anti-establishment economics iconoclast, but when it really counts, he shows what he is – a mainstream economist fanatically defending the relevance of standard economic modelling strategies. In other words – no heterodoxy where it would really count. In my view, this isn’t pluralism. It’s a methodological reductionist strait-jacket.
Real-World Economics Revi
Pelosi Wants to Prosecute Snowden But Protect Trump Whistleblower
October 4, 2019
House Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi was quick to condemn NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when he revealed
the U.S. government’s vast surveillance programs. “I think that he should be
prosecuted,” Pelosi told reporters,
just days after Snowden’s name became public in June 2013.
Later that month, speaking about
Snowden at a Netroots Nation conference, Pelosi rendered a quick summary
judgment: “He did violate the law in terms of releasing those documents.”
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” she reiterated that
Snowden “did break the law” — and added the flagrant lie that “he’s threatening
in any event to share information with Russia and China.”
Sticking to a basic script for
leaders of both major parties, Pelosi has vehemently denied the systematic
violations of the Fourth Amendment that Snowden exposed. Such denial is
routine, while sometimes going over-the-top to blame the messenger for the
accurate news. “Edward Snowden is a coward,” the Obama administration’s top
diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, said in
a TV interview one year after Snowden’s revelations. “He is a traitor. And he
has betrayed his country.”
Bottom of Form
Fast-forward to the present:
House Speaker Pelosi, now the most powerful Democrat in the U.S. government, is
suddenly voicing grave concern for the rights and safety of the whistleblower
who filed the complaint that has led to an impeachment inquiry against
President Trump. The intelligence agency insider, she declared, “must be provided
with every protection guaranteed by the law to defend the integrity of our
government and ensure accountability and trust.”
But leading Democrats and
Republicans have shown scant interest in ensuring genuine “accountability and
trust.” On many profound issues, whistleblowing is essential to fill the gap
left by powerful politicians who use soothing rhetoric to fog up their
dedicated service to corporate America and the military-industrial-surveillance
complex.
Congressional Democrats and
their Republican counterparts didn’t inform the public about a vast array of
war crimes by the U.S. military in Iraq. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning
did.
The bipartisan leadership in
Congress didn’t inform the public about the torture procedures of the George W.
Bush administration. CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou did.
Congressional leaders didn’t
inform the public about the wholesale shredding of the Fourth Amendment by the
Bush and Obama administrations. NSA whistleblowers Thomas Drake and Edward
Snowden did.
The persecution of “national
security” whistleblowers is an ongoing effort to block the flow of crucial
information. The entire concept of democracy is based on the informed consent
of the governed. Without whistleblowers like Manning, Kiriakou, Drake and Snowden,
we’re left with the uninformed “consent” of the governed, which is not
meaningful consent at all.
With few exceptions, officials
running all three branches of the U.S. government are unwilling to disrupt
systems of secrecy that hide what cannot withstand the light of day. Those
systems protect multibillion-dollar industries profiting from huge military
budgets and surveillance operations. Without unauthorized disclosures, we would
know far less about the destructive effects of what’s done with our tax dollars
in our names.
Routinely, with its
fabrications and omissions in realms of “national security,” the official story
amounts to a lie. No wonder dissembling officials in high places are so eager
to intimidate would-be whistleblowers by ferreting out and punishing those who
reveal classified information.
Meanwhile, tacitly authorized
disclosures of classified information — self-serving stories leaked by the
powerful — are routine. The methods of such leaks are among the most pernicious
open secrets in Washington: hidden in plain sight, ever-present and constantly
useful to the powerful. One of the few lawmakers to publicly point out the
glaring contradiction was Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who wrote in a
September 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton that “leaking information to
the press in order to bring pressure to bear on a policy question” had become
“a routine aspect of government life.”
Moynihan added: “An evenhanded
prosecution of leakers could imperil an entire administration.” But even-handed
prosecution is nowhere in sight. Instead, selective
prosecutions — and selective expressions of outrage, based on
nationalistic fervor and partisan calculations — are standard operating
procedures.
At the same time, while often
eager to run with information provided by brave whistleblowers, the media
establishment rarely
stands up for them. Commonly — as in the cases of Manning, Kiriakou
and Jeffrey Sterling —
journalists get prizes while whistleblowers get prison. In a relay race for
truth, reporters and editors cross the finish line to accolades, while severe
punishment awaits the whistleblowers who handed them the baton.
Hypocrisy and double
standards, of course, are nothing new in the nation’s capital or from corporate
media outlets. But the current deluge of mainstream reverence for “national
security” whistleblowing shouldn’t be taken at face value.
To a significant extent,
similar problems exist among self-described liberal and progressive groups that
are now so enthusiastic about the whistleblower who has exposed Trump’s
indefensible efforts to manipulate the Ukrainian government for his political
advantage. Organizations should look at themselves in the mirror and assess
whether they’ve imitated the expedient double standards of the Democratic
Party’s approach to whistleblowers.
When the largest online
progressive group in the country, MoveOn.org, suddenly becomes a champion of a
whistleblower who has exposed Trump — after refusing
to support courageous whistleblowers like Manning, Snowden, Kiriakou,
Drake, Sterling and others who were persecuted by the Obama administration —
the corrosive effects of mimicking the Democratic leadership should be
apparent.
None of this changes the
reality that the Trump regime must be completely opposed and removed from
power. Nor should we fall into conflating the two major parties across the
board, when it’s clear that on numerous crucial issues — such as those often
determined by Supreme Court decisions — the stark differences have huge
consequences.
But Democratic Party leaders
as champions of whistleblowers? The idea is a ridiculous fraud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)