Mediaboss Marketing

The New York Times published details on two decades worth of Donald Trumps tax returns, sparking outcry from many of the presidents supporters that the Timesand its reporters should be investigated for breaking the law. Its important to understand that while the financial records may have been unlawfully disclosed to the Times, legal precedent shows that it was legal for the Timesto publish reporting on confidential documents.

The reaction from Turning Point USAs Charlie Kirk was representative of the outrage:

Who leaked Trumps tax returns to The New York Times? 26 U.S. Code 7213 makes it illegal to disclose unauthorized information, including tax returns, Kirk said. If truethere should be felony charges leveled. RT if DOJ should immediately investigate the Times and their sources!

26 USC 7213 has been floating around online quite a bit ever since;so has the assumption that an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) illegally leaked the documents. This is a reasonable assumption but an assumption nonetheless. The Times own words about how it obtained the tax returns provide few clues about what went on here:

All of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it. While most of the tax data has not previously been made public, The Times was able to verify portions of it by comparing it with publicly available information and confidential records previously obtained by The Times.

Andy Grewal, a tax law scholar who has written extensively on topics related to Trumps tax returns andteaches at the University of Iowa College of Law, noted that the tax returns could have come from a few sources that arent the IRS.

From the article, I cannot tell the source(s) of the documents. The documents could be from an IRS employee, a state revenue agent, a Trump Org employee, a bank employee, or someone else, Grewal told Law&Crime.

Based on the law professors answer, it seems the list of individuals or entities who would have legal access to the presidents tax returns is not a long onebut it isnt only the IRSeither. And Kirk is correct that its possible that the source(s) violated disclosure law, but theres still too much we dont know to say for sure.

Depending on the circumstances, the leak could violate the law, an ethical rule, a disclosure agreement, or some other obligation. But one is left to speculate, Grewal said.

Kirks tweet was retweeted more than 25,000 times, so we can assume that a lot of people really do want the Times and its sources investigated. Such an investigation would implicate clear First Amendment issues. For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume this really was an IRS employee who leaked the documents.

What would happen to that person if they were found out and what would happen to the person(s) and/or entity who actually publicized the information?

Remember when then-Stormy Daniels attorney-turned-convicted felonMichael Avenatti obtained documents (Suspicious Activity Reports) pertaining to Michael Cohen from an IRS analyst? That analyst, John C. Fry, was investigated and ultimately pleaded guilty to committing a federal crime. You know who wasnt punished for this? Avenattithe third party who posted the documents.

Remember when Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards,a senior advisor at FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), unlawfully disclosed Suspicious Activity Reports to a BuzzFeed reporter? SARs that related to Russia, Paul Manafort,Rick Gatesand Maria Butina?The feds said that Edwards saved a whopping 24,000 SARs on a department-issued thumb drive. The majority of these files were saved to a folder named Debacle Operation-CF, which contained subfolders named asshat, debacle, and emails. Edwards pleaded guilty to committing a federal crime. You know who wasnt punished? The reporter.

Supreme Court precedent and New Yorks shield law for journalists also mean that Charlie Kirk et al. are S.O.L. on the prospect of exacting revenge against the Times.

Bartnicki v. Vopper is a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2001. A 6-3 SCOTUS held that the First Amendment protected the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by third parties who didnt participate in said interception (contrast this with what the U.S. government has accused WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange of doing):

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance, wrote Justice Stevens. [A] strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern. Noting that the negotiations were a matter of public interest, Justice Stevens wrote that the debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis classic opinion in Whitney v. California, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection.

Then theres New Yorks Civil Rights Law 79-h, which the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press noted provides an absolute privilege from forced disclosure of materials obtained or received in confidence by a professional journalist or newscaster, including the identity of a source. Beach, 62 N.Y.2d 241 (applying absolute privilege against disclosure of a confidential source even though the disclosure of the materials to the reporter may itself have been a crime).

The privilege applies in both criminal and civil contexts and to information passively received by a reporter, RCFP added.

New Yorks Civil Rights Law 79-h outlines special provisions relating to persons employed by, or connected with, news media.

Those provisions as applied to journalists and their confidential sourcesare defined in absolute terms [emphases ours]:

(b) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters fromcontempt: Absolute protection for confidential news. Notwithstandingthe provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, noprofessional journalist or newscaster presently or having previouslybeen employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper, magazine, newsagency, press association, wire service, radio or televisiontransmission station or network or other professional medium ofcommunicating news or information to the public shall be adjudged incontempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminalproceeding, or by the legislature or other body having contempt powers,nor shall a grand jury seek to have a journalist or newscaster held incontempt by any court, legislature or other body having contempt powersfor refusing or failing to disclose any news obtained or received inconfidence or the identity of the source of any such news coming intosuch persons possession in the course of gathering or obtaining newsfor publication or to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or forbroadcast by a radio or television transmission station or network orfor public dissemination by any other professional medium or agencywhich has as one of its main functions the dissemination of news to thepublic, by which such person is professionally employed or otherwiseassociated in a news gathering capacity notwithstanding that thematerial or identity of a source of such material or related materialgathered by a person described above performing a function describedabove is or is not highly relevant to a particular inquiry of governmentand notwithstanding that the information was not solicited by thejournalist or newscaster prior to disclosure to such person.

(c) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters fromcontempt: Qualified protection for nonconfidential news.Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to thecontrary, no professional journalist or newscaster presently or havingpreviously been employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper,magazine, news agency, press association, wire service, radio ortelevision transmission station or network or other professional mediumof communicating news to the public shall be adjudged in contempt by anycourt in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding, or by thelegislature or other body having contempt powers, nor shall a grand juryseek to have a journalist or newscaster held in contempt by any court,legislature, or other body having contempt powers for refusing orfailing to disclose any unpublished news obtained or prepared by ajournalist or newscaster in the course of gathering or obtaining news asprovided in subdivision (b) of this section, or the source of any suchnews, where such news was not obtained or received in confidence, unlessthe party seeking such news has made a clear and specific showing thatthe news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical ornecessary to the maintenance of a partys claim, defense or proof of anissue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternativesource. A court shall order disclosure only of such portion, orportions, of the news sought as to which the above-described showing hasbeen made and shall support such order with clear and specific findingsmade after a hearing. The provisions of this subdivision shall notaffect the availability, under appropriate circumstances, of sanctionsunder section thirty-one hundred twenty-six of the civil practice lawand rules.

(d) Any information obtained in violation of the provisions of thissection shall be inadmissible in any action or proceeding or hearingbefore any agency.

(e) No fine or imprisonment may be imposed against a person for anyrefusal to disclose information privileged by the provisions of thissection.

First Amendment expert and attorney Floyd Abrams told Law&Crime that its clear The New York Times was free to publish this news.

First Amendment law could hardly be clearer than that the press is protected in publishing newsworthy information, let alone information about a President in the midst of his campaign for re-election, regardless of whether its source was authorized or permitted to provide it, Abrams said. In any event, no law barred the Times from publishing its article and if there had been one it would in all likelihood be unconstitutional. (Abrams is the father of Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams.)

[Image via Spencer Platt/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more:
No, The New York Times Did Not Break the Law by Exposing President Trump's Tax Returns - Law & Crime

To the Editor:

Every citizen has a right to support local candidates for public office. Owning a business or having business dealings with candidates does not prohibit one from exercising their First Amendment rights. Campaign finance laws require full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures to allow the public to see where the money flows around campaigns a very good thing. And the public has the First Amendment right to challenge what is disclosed. Most of us share the desire for clean, honest governance and this letter is written with that goal.

While watching the Narragansett Town Council meeting on August 17, one agenda item came out of the blue. Councilor Lema sponsored a change to an Ordinance which would extend the minimum distance between liquor stores from 200 feet to one mile. The second reading for this change to the laws of Narragansett was this past Monday evening, September 21. The change was passed unanimously on a 5-0 vote.

The campaign finance reports filed by the items sponsor, Councilor Richard Lema, disclose that on August 17, the very same day that the Town Council held a first reading of the change, a $500 check from the owner of ONeils Liquor, Martin ONeil, was deposited into his campaign account. On August 25, just eight days after the first reading, another check for $500 from Mr. ONeil was deposited; this time into the campaign finance account of Councilor Jill Lawler. A tad earlier, on August 07, a $200 check made its way again into Ms. Lawlers campaign account, this time from the owner of Bonnet Liquors, Mr. Sahagian.

Whereas accepting campaign contributions from people who own businesses in Narragansett is clearly not out of the ordinary, receiving a relatively large contribution from owners of the businesses --in this case, liquor stores -- who would directly benefit from a tailored Ordinance change is questionable, at best.

At Mondays meeting, we had hoped we would have the opportunity to ask the sponsor, Mr. Lema, to withdraw his Ordinance change or that both councilors who accepted these donations recuse themselves from voting on it. We did not have that opportunity as no public comment was allowed by Council President Matthew Mannix.

After passage of the Ordinance change and during the Open Forum portion of the meeting, both of us expressed our dismay and disappointment in these elected officials. Their defense is that accepting these donations is perfectly legal. Whereas they or we are not in a position to judge the legality of these donations, we can say that these transactions raise serious questions as to the judgment of these councilors placing themselves in a situation where there may be a perception of impropriety. As we often told our children just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

The Narragansett Town Charter specifically requires that public servants should treat their office as a public trust. Sec. 16-1-2: In treating their office as a public trust, public servants should act so as to ensure the reality and perception that government is conducted according to the highest principles of democracy with honesty, integrity and a concern for justice and is, therefore, worthy of respect, trust and support.

The inability of these elected officials to acknowledge their obligation to avoid even the perception of impropriety, demonstrates that they may not have the judgement or maturity required of their positions. Respectfully, we ask our fellow resident voters to keep all this in mind and choose wisely when you select the people who will serve us in the Town Council.

Meg Rogers

Phil Cote, M.D.

Follow this link:
Choose wisely when selecting the people who will serve us - Ricentral.com

CONCORD, N.H (AP) A self-proclaimed white nationalist who rose to prominence during a deadly 2017 rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, was found guilty Monday by a federal jury of threatening to rape the wife of a man who was part of a racist group he felt was harassing and bullying him.

Christopher Cantwell, a 39-year-old New Hampshire resident and radio host, was found guilty of extortion and threatening to injure property or reputation but not guilty of cyberstalking related to a series of threats he made toward a Missouri man over the Telegram messaging app.

The jury deliberated for a few hours following the four-day trial. Cantwell faces up to 22 years in prison and will be sentenced Jan. 4. He will remain in Strafford County jail.

Were pleased that justice has been done and were glad to have been vindicated, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Davis said after the verdict.

Davis said he hoped there would be a deterrent value in the conviction that might resonate among everyone on the internet and the white nationalist world and other worlds where really abhorrent things are said.

You do have a right to free speech and there is a First Amendment, he said. But when you violate the regulate norms that apply you cant threaten someone as part of an extortion attempt it isnt going to matter even if it is in the white nationalist internet world.

Cantwell, dressed in a shirt and tie and wearing a mask, did not appear to show any visible reaction to the verdict. His defense team declined to comment.

Authorities say Cantwell used the Telegram messaging app to convey a threat last year that he would rape the mans wife if he didnt give up information about the leader of a white supremacist group of which the man was a member, authorities said. The Associated Press is not naming the man to protect the identify of his wife.

He was arrested in January on federal charges and had pleaded not guilty.

Cantwell is also accused of threatening to expose the mans identity and warning you will lose everything you have if he didnt provide the personal details about the leader of the Bowl Patrol. The groups name was inspired by the haircut of Dylann Roof, who was sentenced to death for fatally shooting nine Black church members during a Bible study session in Charleston, South Carolina.

Cantwell followed through on another threat to report the Missouri man, who has several children, to the states child division for drug use and racist views. But an agency official testified at the trial that it did not feel the complaint justified further investigation.

Cantwells attorney, Eric Wolpin, on Friday acknowledged in his closing remarks that his clients language was obscene and over the top. But he said it never rose to the level of an actual threat, nor was it tied to anything of value.

He portrayed Cantwell as angry over harassment and bullying from the Bowl Patrol. Members disrupted his radio show for months with pranks and defaced his website with pornography and violent content, Wolpin said.

Cantwell previously pleaded guilty to assault in 2018 after he was accused of using pepper spray during a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017. He didnt serve additional jail time but was barred from Virginia for five years.

This was the second federal jury trial to be held in the District of New Hampshire, since proceedings were delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. All participants wore masks and practiced social distancing and microphones were disinfected between witnesses.

Cantwell, who has hosted self-produced radio shows, also has history of posting threatening messages over social media.

Last year, attorneys who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in connection with the Charlottesville rally asked a judge to order Cantwell to stop making unlawful threats against the plaintiffs and their lead attorney.

Cantwell is one two dozen groups and individual defendants in that case that is expected to go to trial in April.

Today marks an important step toward accountability for Cantwells long history of violence and bigotry, said Amy Spitalnick, the executive director of the civil rights group Integrity First for America which is funding the lawsuit.

Read more:
Jury finds white nationalist guilty of rape threat - Associated Press

State lawmakers across the country have struggled to square ballot secrecy with the advent of smartphones and social media.

Early voting has begun in Illinois. But taking a picture of your ballot could come with a felony charge.

Snapping a photo of your filled-in ballot and posting it on Facebook or Instagram is technically a Class 4 felony in Illinois, which comes with a prison sentence of one to three years and a maximum fine of $25,000. According to the Illinois Election Code, anyone who knowingly casts his or her ballot in a way thatcan be observed by another person is breaking the law.

It appears the state has never charged an Illinois voter for taking a photo of their ballot and sharing it on social media. So why is this law still on the books?

The intent behind the law is straightforward. Its meant to deter vote-buying: showing the photo in exchange for cash. But there are other laws in Illinois that explicitly outlaw vote-buying.

And there can be First Amendment issues with outlawing this kind of political speech.

In 2016, a federal judge struck down New Hampshires ballot selfie ban, deciding in response to vote-buying concerns that the ban was burning down the house to roast the pig.

From 2015 to 2016, Utah, Nebraska, Hawaii and California all passed legislation allowing voters to photograph their ballots.

Illinois came close to overturning its ban in 2017. State Rep. Emanuel Welch, D-Hillside, filed a bill that allowed voters to take photos of their ballot as long as they didnt accept any money in exchange. The House passed it overwhelmingly. But the Senate never took a vote.

Until the law changes, Illinoisans who want to express their civic pride are better off sporting an I Voted sticker or taking a photo outside their polling place.

Read the original here:
Taking a photo of your filled-in ballot is a felony in Illinois - Illinois Policy

WeChat, the Chinese messaging app that was set to get effectively switched off for American users Sunday night, for now will still be available and operational in the U.S.

A federal judge in San Francisco issued a ruling early Sunday issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administrations order to ban the WeChat app, which is owned by China internet giant Tencent.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, said in her ruling that the plaintiffs in the case successfully argued the merits of their claim that the Commerce Departments Sept. 18 order forcing Apple and Google to remove WeChat as of Sunday night violates their First Amendment rights.

The WeChat users who filed the request for an emergency injunction have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, Beeler said in the decision, and therefore the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs favor.

The Trump administration has cited national-security concerns, postulating that Chinese government agents could demand access to data from WeChat on U.S. users. Beeler wrote that while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest.

Beeler added that the U.S. government had other options at its disposal to achieve its stated national security objectives, such as banning WeChat from use on government devices, which is a step that Australia has taken.

Meanwhile, with respect to TikTok, the Commerce Department late Saturday deferred the Sept. 20 ban on downloads of the social video app until next Sunday, Sept. 27, citing President Trumps provisional approval of ByteDances deal to sell majority control of TikTok to U.S.-based owners including Oracle and Walmart.

The WeChat case was brought by American users of the app who are not affiliated with the Chinese company. At a court conference in the WeChat case Friday, Serena Orloff, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department, argued that the order does not violate the First Amendment because WeChat users can switch to other messaging apps like Facebooks Messenger or Line. Attorney Michael Bien, representing the plaintiffs, disputed that argument. That is a deprivation of their fundamental rights, he said. Its a prior restraint.

The Commerce Department rule would have prohibited the provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S. as of Sept. 20.

Specifically relating to WeChat, as of Sunday, the now-stayed order prohibits any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

The ACLU last week blasted the Trump app bans as abridging First Amendment rights of U.S. users. Millions of people in the United States watch or post videos to TikTok and rely on WeChat for connections to family, friends, and work relationships. They are all engaging in First Amendment-protected speech, association, and expression, the civil-rights advocacy organization said in a blog post.

In the U.S., WeChat is far smaller than TikTok. For the week ended Aug. 15, TikTok had 52.1 million weekly active users in the U.S., according to analytics firm App Annie. By comparison, WeChat had 3.3 million monthly active users in August, per App Annie.

Read the original post:
Judge Blocks Trumps WeChat U.S. App Ban, Citing First Amendment - Variety