blazzando

quote:

---

Good. The rule of law needs to be enforced.

---

quote:

---

When the federal government insists on conducting immigration arrests in courthouses and taking away that central space for justice, it is harder for prosecutors, police, defenders, and judges to do their job. This tactic, by instilling fear and essentially excluding noncitizens and their relatives from the courts, threatens constitutional rights, like equal protection and due process, as well as the safety of the broader community.

---

quote:

---

After receiving the Complainant? disclosure, the ICIG was required within 14 calendar days to determine whether the information alleged by the Complainant with respect to an urgent concern appeared credible.3 During that 14-day time period, the ICIG conducted a preliminary review of the disclosure. As a result of that preliminary review, I determined that the Complainant?s disclosure met the definition of an urgent concern, 119., a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classi?ed information.?4 I also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible.-

---

quote:

---

Dear Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member unes: On August 12, 2019, the Of?ce of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community received a disclosure from an individual (hereinafter ?the Complainant") regarding an alleged ?urgent concern." pursuant to 50 U.S.C. The term ?urgent concern? is de?ned, in relevant part, as: (U) A serious or ?agrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or de?ciency relating to the funding, administration. or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classi?ed information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.2

After receiving the Complainant? disclosure, the ICIG was required within 14
calendar days to determine whether the information alleged by the Complainant with respect to an
urgent concern appeared credible.3 During that 14-day time period, the ICIG conducted a
preliminary review of the disclosure. As a result of that preliminary review, I determined that the
Complainant?s disclosure met the definition of an urgent concern, 119., a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding,
administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of
the Director of National Intelligence involving classi?ed information.?4 I also determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared
credible.-

---

quote:

---

It is my understanding that the Acting DNI has determined that he is not required to transmit my determination of a credible urgent concern or any of the Complainant?s information to the congressional intelligence committees because the allegations do not meet the de?nition of an ?urgent concern? under the statute, and has not made the transmission as of today?s date. Although I believe and appreciate that the Acting DNI is acting in good faith, the Acting treatment of the Complainant?s alleged ?urgent concern? does not appear to be consistent with past practice. As you know, the ICIG has on occasion in the past determined that, for a variety of reasons, disclosures submitted to the ICIG under the urgent concern statute did not constitute an urgent concern. In those cases, even though the ICIG determined that those disclosures did not meet the de?nition of an urgent concern, the DN I nevertheless provided direction to the ICIG to transmit the determination and the COmplainants? information to the congressional intelligence committees. In each of thoSe cases, the ICIG followed the direction and transmitted the determination along with the complainants? information to the congressional intelligence committees. That past practice permitted complainants in the Intelligence Community to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly, in an authorized and protected manner, as intended by the urgent concern statute. I am continuing my efforts to obtain direction from the Acting DNI regarding how the Complainant may bring the Complainant?s concerns to the congressional intelligence

---

quote:

---

White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[5] White nationalists say they seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states. They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost.[4] Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race,[6] and some believe these things are being promoted as part of an attempted white genocide.[6]

Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism.[7][4][6][8][9][10] White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism, and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts.[8][11] White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state"; supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them,[6][8][9] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[12] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.[13][14]

Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" is simply a "rebranding" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence.[15]

---

quote:

---

In August, then-49ers backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick re-entered the public consciousness for reasons that had nothing to do with his job performance.

Kaepernick was spotted taking a seat on the bench during the national anthem prior to a preseason game, and he explained afterward that he had been sitting during the anthem prior to the team's previous games, as well, as a protest against the way people of color are treated -- specifically, but not exclusively, by police -- in this country.

Kaepernick's decision to sit during the anthem sparked a national debate that is still being waged to some extent. At the height of the debate, Kaepernick met with ex-Green Beret and former Seahawk Nate Boyer, who had previously written Kaepernick an open letter in which Boyer expressed that while he was initially angry with Kaepernick's protest, he was going to keep an open mind. The two came away from their meeting saying they had a "good talk" about "issues that are taking place in this country and how to prompt change" as well as "great freedoms and luxuries we have in America."

Boyer then stood on the 49ers' sideline for their preseason game that night, and he convinced Kaepernick to kneel during the anthem rather than sit on the bench. He stated that Kaepernick "took a big step by getting up off the bench and taking a knee. He gave a little so I gave a little respect."

Months later, Boyer was reached by the Washington Post for an end-of-year story on sports figures of the year, of which Kaepernick was one. Within that story, Boyer revealed that he and Kaepernick have not spoken in months and that he now wonders whether their meeting was a political stunt meant to quell opposition to his protest.

Boyer, who communicated with Kaepernick throughout most of the autumn, paid attention. He winced at Kaepernick's missteps and questioned whether the quarterback remained as open-minded as he had been during their meeting. Boyer wondered whether, in fact, their discussion had been nothing more than a political stunt.

"At the time I didn't feel like that," Boyer said. "I felt like that was real."

But now?

"I haven't seen a bridge built," he said. "And the only way we're going to get anywhere, we have to build bridges. You can't just shout and complain and expect everyone else to fix the problem. That doesn't fix the problem. It hasn't ever."

Boyer also revealed his disappointment that Kaepernick did not vote this year, noting that he did so himself for the first time. "If policy is what you want to see changed, the first way to be a part of that is to vote on them," Boyer said.

Of course, this is just Boyer's side of the story. The 49ers declined the Post's request for an interview with Kaepernick, so whatever his thoughts on the apparent deterioration of his relationship with Boyer are, we don't know them.

---