Mediaboss Marketing

DefAllegedly Leaked Law Enforcement Information to Proud Boys Leader Enrique Tarrio

WASHINGTON A District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Lieutenant was arrested today on an indictment charging that he obstructed an investigation into the December 12, 2020 destruction of a Black Lives Matter (BLM) Banner and made false and misleading statements to federal law enforcement about having done so, including that he leaked to Enrique Tarrio, the leader of The Proud Boys, the fact thatlaw enforcement had an arrest warrant for him related to that offense.

Shane Lamond, 47, of Stafford, Va., was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of making false statements. Lamond will be arraigned today before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Special Agent in Charge Wayne A. Jacobs of the FBI Washington Field Offices Criminal and Cyber Division.

According to the indictment, Lamond worked as the supervisor of the Intelligence Branch of MPDs Homeland Security Bureau. Beginning in July 2019 and continuing to at least January 2021, Lamond and Tarrio were in regular contact regarding Proud Boys planned activities in the District of Columbia.The indictment alleges that, as early as at least July 2020, Lamond began using Telegram to provide information to Tarrio about law enforcement activity relating to Proud Boys activities in Washington, D.C.

For instance, the indictment alleges that beginning on December 18, 2020, Lamond gave Tarrio confidential law enforcement information into the investigation of the December 12, 2020 burning of a banner that read #BLACKLIVESMATTER. As set forth in the indictment, Tarrio would then pass this information along to other Proud Boys members and take action based on the sensitive information. On or about January 4, 2021, following the issuance of an arrest warrant for Tarrio in connection with the burning of the BLM banner, while Tarrio was on a flight from Miami, Florida to Arlington, Virginia, Lamond, using Telegram, sent Tarrio a notification that a warrant had been signed for his arrest in the District of Columbia. After arriving in Arlington, Virginia and driving in to the District of Columbia, Tarrio was arrested on the warrant and subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of destruction of property in connection with the burning of the banner.

As the indictment alleges, on June 2, 2021, during an interview with federal law enforcement, Lamond made false and misleading statements regarding his communications and contacts with Tarrio. These false and misleading statements related to: (1) the methods by whichLamond and Tarrio would communicate; (2) whether Lamond had provided Tarrio with sensitive law enforcement information; (3) whether Lamond had notified Tarrio about the status of the MPD investigation into the banner burning; (4) whether Lamond notified Tarrio about his pending arrest warrant; and (5) the content and extent of Lamonds discussion with Tarrio prior to and after January 6.

The obstruction of justice charge carries a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison. Each charge for making a false statement carries a statutory maximum of 5 years in prison. The maximum statutory sentence for federal offenses is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. The sentencing will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

This case is being jointly investigatedby the FBIs Washington Field Office and the United States Attorney's Office Criminal Investigations Unit. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Rothstein, of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia.

An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The rest is here:
MPD Lieutenant Charged with Obstruction of Justice and False ... - Department of Justice

Questions of guilt hovered over another couple I worked with. He had recently cheated on his wife. They were generally deeply supportive of each other, but after she found out about his transgression, she was terribly upset and also confused. Their attempts to talk about what happened were halting. #MeToo rhetoric was woven into their discussions, functioning as a superego, shaping and inhibiting what they could even think. She said that she felt that the lessons of the movement were telling her not to forgive but to leave him Especially now, if a woman is being wronged, you get out. It was hard for her to know how she actually felt about it all. Early on, he couldnt separate remorse from fear. He was terrified of getting into trouble, and guiltiness prevailed. His voice was hushed while he scrutinized me intently, worried about how he would be perceived: There are a lot of men in this business right now who have taken positions of power and use them to have sex with people.

They were both white and understood their privilege and were apologetic about it. She often undid her own complaints I levitate out by having the thought, Oh, poor cis white woman. He was uncomfortable, too. He talked about reading the news about another Black or brown person being killed. And its just like I feel a little well, I feel guilty, to be honest, to be sitting here. The lessons of the Black Lives Matter movement initially can provoke such paralyzing guilt and shame that people become defensive and stop fully thinking. Yet over time, Ive found, the ideas can inspire deep psychological work, pushing people to reckon with the harm that has been done, the question of whom should be implicated, and the difference between virtue signaling and deeper concerns. These are tough and important lessons that can carry over into intimate relationships. In this case, the husband described a new understanding about the ways he exercised power at work: Hold on. Have I been an ally? Has it just been optics? These insights extended even to his way of speaking about his transgression. He had been rationalizing his behavior by saying that his wife was not giving him the attention he needed. But moving beyond what the couple called optics, now he was asking himself for a more thorough accounting of what his cheating was really about, and how it affected his wife. He explained how lonely he was if she traveled; he felt left behind and discarded, a feeling deeply familiar to him from early childhood. Acknowledging his vulnerability was hard for him, but it opened up a series of honest conversations between them. I convinced myself she does not desire me, he said. Im not the popular guy. Im not the strong guy. He linked those feelings to insecurities he felt as a teenager, when he suffered chronic teasing from kids at school for being perceived as effeminate.

This new, nondefensive way of talking made it possible for her to understand how his transgression hit her where she felt most insecure, and he could see it, generating remorse and forgiveness between them. She described how it had become easier for both of them to check themselves for their impact on the other person, and quickly notice or apologize. In one session she said, smiling: You were a jerk to me yesterday, and then you apologized a couple hours later. You recognized that you took out your frustration there on me because I was an easy target. He realized that he stopped skimming over ways he caused others pain: I actually was just thinking therapy and the Black Lives Matter movement have made me keenly aware of the words that just came out of my mouth, and the understanding that she reacted adversely to that, instead of me just going, We move on, because thats awkward. Theres a need now to address it. He continued: Did I just upset you? What did I do to just upset you?

Couples work always goes back to the challenge of otherness. Differences can show up around philosophical questions like what is important to devote a life to, or whether it is ethical to have babies with a climate crisis looming; or it can be closer to home, like whether having a sexual fantasy about a person who is not your partner is acceptable; or even as seemingly trivial as the correct way to load a dishwasher. Whatever the issue, differences can become a point of crisis in the relationship. Immediately the question of who is right, who gets their way or who has a better handle on reality pops up. Narcissistic vulnerabilities about self-worth appear, which then trigger an impulse to devalue the other. Partners try to resolve such impasses by digging in and working hard to convince the other of their own position, becoming further polarized.

The challenge of otherness may be easiest to see when we think of racial differences. This was certainly true for James and Michelle. Michelle was a calm, gentle, somewhat reserved African American social worker, and James, at the time a police officer, was a slight, wiry white man whose face did not reveal much feeling. They came in with classic conflicts around division of labor and differing parenting styles, and then the pandemic hit. Quarantined, working remotely and home-schooling their 3-year-old son, they started fighting about Covid protocols. Michelle was aware of the way that Covid was devastating Black communities and wanted to be careful. James, along with his fellow police officers and his conservative parents, thought the concern was overblown. Discussion about how race shaped James and Michelles experiences and ideas routinely dead-ended. If Michelle tried to bring up the topic, James would insist, I dont see color, and say he didnt know what she was talking about. In our sessions, Michelle sounded hopeless: She wanted him to understand how traumatizing Covid had been for Black people. But she was frustrated by his inability to acknowledge real difference, as if everyone was the same race. Hes of the mind-set that I dont see color. She continued setting out his thinking: I dont want to hear what you have to say because thats not how I think. That point of view obviously angers me, she said. James would shrug, expressionless. Michelle was describing the infuriating experience of trying to break through a barrier: Her husband wasnt consciously aware that whiteness was a perspective that was constricting what he could imagine or comprehend.

Read more:
I'm a Couples Therapist. Something New Is Happening in ... - The New York Times

When I first came to the University in 2019, never did I imagine that I would start writing for a student newspaper. English was always my favorite subject in school, but as I settled into being an Architecture student, that love took a backseat. It was not until I failed calculus my first fall and had an ENWR class in the spring that I realized I might be meant for something more. Writing became my refuge and English became my minor. During the summer of 2020, when people across the nation were protesting in support of the Black Lives Matter movement at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown, writing became my form of protest. The second half of 2020 was a time of immense anger and confusion that not only signified the next phase in my life, but also served as the catalyst for what would become a three-year dedication to making more space for Black students at the University.

Everything shifted for me when I joined the Cavalier Daily staff in 2020. I was not particularly raised to protest and fight back against racism and inequality. I was, however, taught to always speak up for myself and do what is right. Joining the newspaper was one of many avenues I took to bring awareness to the adversities marginalized people face. This dedication also manifested itself as taking up more space in the communities in which I was already involved. I became a more active member of the School of Architecture Student Council, on which I was the only Black member until this past academic year, and my academic design projects have all focused on social justice and investing in diverse communities. I lived in Hereford Residential College for three years and led the Student Senates Social Awareness Committee, not only organizing events that raise awareness of the adversities of others but also completing two research projects one of which is an overview of race and racism at the University.

The three years I have spent as an Opinion Columnist for the Cavalier Daily have been a rollercoaster, to say the least. The first year was the most tumultuous and resulted in my columns about the Black Lives Matter protests, the 2020 presidential election and the following insurrection at the Capitol. At the beginning of my journey as a writer, I received many words of encouragement from friends and family but simultaneously found many hate comments under my columns and in The Cavalier Dailys social media comment sections. What the people leaving those comments did not know was that they made me want to write even more. Those comments let me know I was reaching my target audience people who feel extreme discomfort when Black people talk about their struggles.

Its important to highlight that, even though I was partially writing for people who could relate to me and my opinion, I was mainly writing to reach people who dont go out of their way to hear the voices of marginalized people. Though I have received much criticism for my work, I know that I opened up space for more Black students to find comfort in their presence at the University and disrupt the comfort of everyone else. Unfortunately, most people do not care about issues that do not affect them. And so, when Black Lives Matter was no longer trending on social media and on the news, I continued to write not only to keep bringing attention to the issues that harm Black students at the University, but also to encourage other marginalized students to do so as well.

I know that if I were to go back in time to the summer of 2020 and see the advertisement for The Cavalier Daily applications, I would do it all the same again. I would not change a single thing that I have done or said. My only regret is not having said more. I am proud that the Cavalier Daily now has a much more diverse staff than when I first joined. I am proud to have been the first Black student to write about my experiences with such raw vigor and vulnerability. I am proud to have spent this past semester as the longest-running staff member. And I am so proud to see the freedom with which other students of color now wield their opinions, and I can feel good knowing that they may continue when I am gone.

And so, a message to Black students you know that moment when you are walking down the street and a group of people coming in the opposite direction looks like they are unwilling to move over and make space for you? I would like to offer you a sentence of encouragement that a Black graduating student offered to a group chat of students of color during graduation weekend a few years ago. Do not move off the sidewalk. Do not waver. Do not step into the street to get out of their way. Stay on the sidewalk and take up the space you deserve. I urge all students of color not to allow the pressures of the University community to keep them from being themselves and expressing their truth. Im rooting for you.

Aliyah White was an Opinion columnist for the 131st, 132nd and 133rd terms of The Cavalier Daily.

Read this article:
PARTING SHOT: Don't move off the sidewalk. - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Ivey, and members of this distinguished subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record.1

Political violence in the United States is a grave threat not only to the lives of Americans, but also to the health of American democracy. Violence poses a threat to political leaders and to Americans who participate in politics. It polarizes our already-divided country and undermines political discourse.

Although this hearing focuses on left-wing violence and movements like Antifa, it is vital to recognize that in recent years violence linked to white supremacist, anti-government, and other causes lumped under the label right-wing have proven far more lethal and more politically consequential. Congress must use its powers to bolster law enforcement, improve our understanding of the threat, and otherwise fight the scourge of extremism. All political leaders must reject those who espouse violence and extremism, creating a clear line between legitimate politics and illegitimate extremism.

The remainder of this statement has three sections. I first provide some caveats on the labels used, as both right- and left- wing movements are divided, and the uses of terms are politicized. In the second section, I compare left-wing and right-wing political violence, noting in particular the grave danger that anti-government and white supremacist violence has posed in recent years. In the final section, I offer recommendations for reducing the threat of political violence in the United States.

Using the labels left-wing or right-wing to describe political violence invariably leads to the conflation, sometimes accidental and sometimes deliberate, of extremist activity with the actions of legitimate political activists. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who are concerned about police violence against minority communities and similar legitimate causes associated with the political left in the United States have nothing to do with the violent extreme; similarly, the overwhelming majority of the millions of Americans who favor strong gun rights, are concerned with federal government overreach, worry about the level of immigration, and otherwise share concerns associated with the political right have nothing to do with the violent extreme. We can, and should, have a robust debate with people espousing their views, even if unpopular, without the threat of violence. By using the labels left and right to describe violence extremists I am trying to separate out legitimate politics from illegitimate violence.

Making this more difficult, and in contrast to jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS), both left- and especially right-wing extremists are difficult to categorize, with few robust organizations but strong informal networks. Antifa is a label under which left-wing extremism is often lumped. Contrary to much commentary, Antifa is not a group or an organization in any traditional sense; rather, it is a set of beliefs shared by a few activists, many of whom disagree with one another considerably. Antifa is short for anti-fascist (itself a word used broadly and inconsistently), and many of its members today focus on what they consider to be anti-racist activism. They do not have a tight organization or coherent command and control, and indeed the concept of hierarchy is anathema to many local groups. In a few cities, their ranks are slightly coherent, but in most places, it is a small group of informal activists. Much of the information put out about Antifa, including by prominent figures such as President Donald Trump, has exaggerated its coherence and reach.2 Russian influence operations have also attempted to amplify disinformation linked to Antifa.3

Many Antifa adherents do not favor violence of any sort. Others argue it is necessary to be prepared for violence in self-defense. Some of these attend rallies, such as those protesting police brutality, prepared to defend protesters against groups like the Proud Boys. They are prepared, indeed at times eager, to brawl with them. Others Doxx their opponents, publishing embarrassing private information (usually on their neo-Nazi or other right-wing extremist activities) to get them fired or shamed in their communities.4 A smaller number do use violence without even the excuse of self-defense, such as the Antifa adherents who joined broad, and mostly peaceful, anti-Trump or pro-Black Lives Matter protests and smashed the windows of local businesses or threw Molotov cocktails. In a very small but still notable number of cases, Antifa activists have used more lethal forms of violence. In July 2019, one activist attacked an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Tacoma, Washington with a rifle and bombs. As this spectrum of activity related to violence suggests, using the label Antifa thus tells us little about the specifics of an adherents goals or methods.

This organizational chaos is even more pronounced among right-wing extremists. Some are anti-immigrant, some focus on the Black community, and many are anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim. Some hate all these communities. Others are strongly opposed to the federal government to the point that they see government officials as agents of tyranny. Making this more complex, many among these extremists embrace a range of conspiracy theories, and some embrace a virulent form of male supremacy. Organized groups themselves are weak: almost every major attack involving right-wing terrorism in the United States was conducted by individuals with little or no group involvement so-called Lone Wolf attacks.5 An important exception to this was the January 6, 2021, insurrection, in which violent groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers played leading roles, although even there the majority of participants were not affiliated with these extremist groups.6

There are different ways to measure the danger posed by political extremists, but one of the simplest is to look at the number of people they kill. In the post-9/11 era, on the left, the United States has seen one murder, which occurred when Michael Forest Reinoeh, a left-wing extremist, shot and killed a member of the right-wing extremist organization Patriot Prayer in Portland in 2020. The killer had previously provided security for left-wing protests. He described himself as anti-fascist, but he was not a member of any local Antifa group.

Numbers for right-wing extremist violence are far higher, with numerous high-profile terrorist attacks as well as lower-level assaults, vandalism, and other forms of violence. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, far-right extremists have killed 130 people in the United States, more than any other political cause, including jihadists.7 Notable attacks in recent years include the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue attack, the 2019 El Paso mall killings, and the 2022 Buffalo market attack. A range of far-right extremists, including organized groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as hundreds of unaffiliated conspiracy theorists, anti-government extremists, and ordinary supporters of President Trump, also stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a direct assault on American democracy. Far-right extremist violence has not abated: earlier this month, on May 6, 2023, an apparent neo-Nazi with misogynist leanings shot up a Texas mall, killing eight people.

Another concern is the role of right-wing extremism in the ranks of the military and among police officers. Although the overwhelming majority of law enforcement and military personnel reject extremism, even small numbers of extremists in uniform are of concern given the important role these entities play in American society, including their position at the frontline of the battle against violent extremism itself. Here the difference with left-wing extremism is considerable: many left-wing adherents reject authority, see the police and military as instruments of authoritarianism, and otherwise are far less likely to join their ranks. Many right-wing extremists, in contrast, glorify military and police forces in theory, though in practice they have attacked them. Violent extremist crimes among those with U.S. military backgrounds have increased significantly in the last decade, and such members have played important roles in anti-government extremist groups like the Oath Keepers and disorganized anti-government movements like the Boogaloos.8

In contrast to far-right extremists in the past, todays violent far-right often targets law enforcement. On January 6, 2021, of course, far-right extremists were responsible for the death of a Capitol police officer and the wounding of over 100 others. A right-wing extremist also threatened an FBI facility in Cincinnati in 2021.9 Anti-government extremists have regularly attacked and killed local police, questioned their authority to enforce the law, resisted arrest, and otherwise pose a grave threat to law enforcement.

Another danger of violence is that it infects and degrades politics. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans of all political beliefs came together, supporting a strong response to jihadist terrorism. Unfortunately, during its four years in office, the Trump administration increased public fears of white supremacist and anti-government violence because of its perceived toleration, and at times even encouragement, of these causes. Trumps rhetoric matched some white supremacist talking points, playing down police violence against Black people, calling Mexican immigrants rapists, declaring COVID-19 to be a Chinese virus, telling Black and other minority members of Congress to go back to their home countries, claiming a mythical deep state, and demonizing the FBI. When violence occurred, as it did during a 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia organized by white supremacists, Trump opined that their ranks included very fine people.

Political support, or at least toleration, of extremism also occurs at the state and local level: political figures have at times embraced racist and anti-government ideas, and a few even have ties to violent organizations.10 The demonization of the FBI when it carries out legitimate investigations of American politicians is another instance of how politics can degrade an effective response against extremism. At times, the effects are simply to turn good Americans off politics, with many who would otherwise engage in local politics afraid of, or simply disgusted by, the constant stream of abuse from extremists.

Extremism of one political variety encourages its opposite. Antifa, in fact, rose in both its appeal and its activism with the rise of the white nationalist alt-right early in the Trump administration.11 Similarly, many right-wing extremists claim they are acting in self-defense, often promoting outlandish conspiracy theories to prove that Antifa and others are controlling events and thus justifying their violence.

The U.S. government, including the U.S. Congress, should take several steps to fight political extremism of all stripes.

A first step is to understand the problem beyond isolated examples. Data on extremism is bad in the United States, and Congress should require and resource better reporting at the federal, state, and local levels. Despite attempts such as the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, many local jurisdictions, including many that have troubling histories, simply do not report on hate crimes, and those that do report often are inconsistent.12 Legislation that required consistent reporting and resourced local jurisdictions would improve our understanding of violent extremism and allow a better distribution of resources. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security should use this data to produce regular reports on the threat of extremism in the United States.

Ensuring the ranks of U.S. law enforcement and the U.S. military remain free from violent extremism of any sort is also vital. This requires careful screening of recruits, training that helps inoculate them against extremist recruitment, and other measures that reduce the danger to ensure that those charged with protecting America do so fairly and impartially.

Existing laws offer law enforcement many ways to disrupt violent extremist activities. On social media, many openly threaten others in specific terms and otherwise reveal their intentions. Many extremists violate state gun laws and rules against private paramilitary militias.13 Congress should encourage federal, state, and local officials to use their authorities to target those entities that have a propensity toward violence.

Both right-wing and left-wing extremists use social media to publicize their messages and to harass their enemies. Online harassment is especially common against people of color and women, making their lives far more difficult and discouraging many from engaging in political discourse. Social media companies should be strongly encouraged to crack down on such harassment.

Political leaders should also work to delegitimize violent extremists of all stripes, drawing clear lines between those engaging in politics even on contentious issues such as abortion, immigration, gun rights, and police abuse and those who favor or legitimate violence. Leaders should disavow any connections to those who espouse violence against minorities, law enforcement, and others. A model is President George H.W. Bush, who declared neo-Nazi and former KKK leader David Duke a charlatan and called for him to be rejected by voters when Duke ran as the Republican candidate for governor of Louisiana in 1991.14 Such condemnations are the right thing to do. They also discourage extremists from trying to take over the political process and ensure that U.S. law enforcement agencies know they can use the proper power of the law against violent extremists without political criticism.

Strong leadership is necessary in the fight against extremism. It is my hope that hearings such as these can both identify weaknesses that must be corrected and also educate the public on the need to stop political violence of any sort.

Read the original here:
Countering organized violence in the United States - Brookings Institution

In total, 2,830 people have been given an award in the 2023 kings birthday honours list, mainly people who are recognised for their charity or community work.

This years recipients include the first Cliniclowns, who cheer up sick children in hospital and Mitchell Esajas, one of the founders of the Kick Out Zwarte Piet protest movement and the Black Archives. He was recognised for his services to diversity and inclusion and for combating discrimination and racism.

The oldest recipient is 93-year-old Harrie Saes uit Weert who has been recognised for his volunteer work for a choir in Oudkarspel and for years of visiting dementia patients.

The youngest is Marco Peters (32) who has been on Heerlen city council for 12 years and is therefore automatically entitled to an honour.

Like last year, 64% of those given an honour are male, despite the expressed wish of the organisers to improve the balance. Just 5% of the awards are made to people in recognition of paid jobs.

Most people were made members of the Order of Oranje-Nassau which has six levels. That honour was introduced in 1892 for foreigners and the lower classes. Just 9 people were given an honour in the more exclusive Order of the Dutch Lion.

The first Dutch honour was introduced by king Willem I in 1815.

Go here to read the rest:
Black Lives Matter campaigner included in king's birthday honour list - DutchNews.nl - DutchNews.nl