Seattle cracks down on renters, free speech – and common sense. Good luck trying to rent an apartment

The Seattle City Council seems to think the right to speak is a privilege it can grant or withhold at its pleasure. It has slapped a year-long ban on the use of certain housing websites that allow renters to place bids on advertised rental housing, while it reviews the sites.
Officials say they fear the sites might violate local housing laws or inflate housing costs, so the City Council wants to study the sites while forbidding their use in the meantime. While city leaders try to figure things out, landlords are barred from posting ads on the sites, and renters can’t even do a simple search for Seattle housing on the sites.
This is a clear restriction of speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Pacific Legal Foundation, representing a website called Rentberry and a small-time landlord, recently filed a lawsuit to raise this claim.

The City Council will likely try to portray the website ban as modest and temporary, as if it is just pressing the “pause” button. But in fact, the City Council has resurrected a frightening government power – the power to censor speech until the government has decided to approve it.
In First Amendment parlance, a law that forces speakers to receive government approval in advance of speaking (including publishing) is called a prior restraint – the most insidious form of government speech restriction.
In 17th century England, for instance, anyone who wanted to publish a book or a pamphlet had to get the government’s permission from the royal Stationers’ Company. John Milton famously broke that rule in 1643 by publishing a pamphlet without asking for permission that called for the legalization of divorce.
When scandalized officials called for the pamphlet to be censored and burned, Milton published another unapproved pamphlet called the “Areopagitica,” one of the greatest defenses of free speech ever written. Milton conceded that cultivating virtue was vital, “yet God commits the managing so great a trust, without particular Law or prescription, wholly to the demeanour of every grown man.”
In other words, we’re all adults here – we’re just as wise or virtuous as the clucking politicians who would censor us for our own good.
Our own Supreme Court has long frowned on prior restraints, and the prior restraints it has struck down share much in common with the website ban.
In one case, an anti-Semitic tabloid lambasted a public official, who then sued to have the tabloid declared a “public nuisance.” The trial court issued a temporary restraining order to bar the tabloid from publishing until the court decided whether it was a nuisance or not.
And in the famous Pentagon Papers case, the government sought to put a temporary halt on publishing secret Defense Department documents because the publication might endanger national interests.
In both these cases, the government wanted to place a temporary hold on speech while it determined whether the speech was harmful. The Supreme Court’s position was firm – government couldn’t just hold speech hostage “predicated upon surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences may result.”
The Seattle City Council dallies with the same unconstitutional pattern here; it wants to place a hold on use of websites – based on nothing but speculation and suspicion that these sites might be bad.
We’ve been here before.

The government’s behavior toward Milton or the Pentagon Papers may seem more oppressive than requiring pre-approval for a commercial website. But we enter dangerous territory when we let government decide what speech is worthy of protection and what speech isn’t.
Certainly, Milton’s controversial pamphlet advocating legal divorce carries more gravity than a landlord posting an ad for a townhouse in Seattle. But speech is speech. And no one needs the government’s permission to speak.
The message behind this website ban – whether the Seattle City Council realizes it or not – is that the Council members believe people are not free to speak until the City Council says they can.
This is a distressing revival of ghosts that we long ago thought vanquished. The City Council’s conceit might be cured by a healthy dose of modesty. And perhaps a lesson in constitutional history.
Ethan Blevins is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates nationwide to achieve court victories enforcing the Constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty.

US plan to release alleged American ISIS fighter in Syria draws ACLU legal challenge

A member loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) waves an ISIL flag in Raqqa June 29, 2014  (Reuters)

The Trump administration’s plan to release a suspected American ISIS fighter caught in Syria back to Syria is facing a legal challenge from a civil rights group that decried the move as the “death sentence.”

An unidentified man, who holds a dual Saudi-U.S. citizenship, has been held in Iraq by the U.S. military for about nine months. The U.S. government’s attempt to transfer the American into Iraq or Saudi Arabia failed in April after a U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan blocked the release. Last month, a federal appeals court panel upheld the ruling.

The Pentagon is now seeking to release the detained American near where he was captured by Syrian Democratic Forces and turned over to the U.S. military, according to a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis was named in the ACLU's lawsuit against the Pentagon's plan to release the American citizen in Syria.  (AP)

“Upon his release, the Petitioner will be given $4,210 in cash, the same amount he had in his possession when was captured,” the Pentagon official, Mark Mitchell, said in the documents, Politico reported.
“He will also be provided a new cellular phone (in its original sealed packaging), which he can activate and use if he desires to do so. He will be provided sufficient food and water to last for several days,” he added.
The official said the planned release is considered to be “safe” and that it complied with “traditional military practice.”
But the plan is facing a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the unnamed man. The group opposes his release into Syria and sued Secretary of Defense James Mattis and the Department of Defense.

The Trump administration has effectively admitted it has no reason to detain our client and he doesn’t pose a threat. But instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of a road in a war-torn country without protection or identification.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 7, 2018

“Instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of the road in a war-torn country without any assurances of protection and no identification,” Jonathan Hafetz, an ACLU attorney, said in a statement on Wednesday.
“The Trump administration has effectively admitted it has no reason to detain our client and he doesn’t pose a threat. But instead of offering a safe release, they want to dump an American citizen onto the side of a road in a war-torn country without protection or identification,” the group added.
The release of the man into the war-ravaged country should happen this week, but the ACLU lawsuit is expected to delay the action. The alleged ISIS fighter reportedly declined the two release options – either be in a town or near an Internally Displaced Person camp.
The unnamed man denies he went to Syria to fight for ISIS and says he wanted to document the violence there.

James A. Wolfe, former Senate Intel panel security director, indicted for allegedly lying to FBI

Justice Department announces that a former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee has been indicted and accused of making false statements to FBI agents while they were investigating leaks of classified information.
A former security director for the Senate Intelligence Committee -- who was in charge of maintaining all classified information from the Executive Office to the panel -- was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to FBI agents looking into possible leaks to reporters, the Justice Department announced Thursday night.
James A. Wolfe, 58, served as the panel's security director for 29 years, according to the feds.
Wolfe lied to the FBI in December 2017 about contacts he had with three reporters, the indictment read. He also allegedly lied about giving two reporters non-public information about committee matters.

The New York Times revealed federal investigators had seized years' worth of email and phone records relating to reporter Ali Watkins.

Earlier Thursday, the New York Times revealed that federal investigators had seized years' worth of email and phone records relating to one of its reporters, Ali Watkins. She previously had a three-year romantic relationship with Wolfe, the Times reported, adding that the records covered a period of time before she joined the paper.
Wolfe allegedly admitted to FBI agents in 2017 that he lied to them about his relationship with a reporter identified in court papers as "REPORTER #2" after he was shown photos of the two of them together. But he maintained that he did not share any classified information or news leads.
Wolfe is not charged with disclosing classified information.
Wolfe was allegedly in contact with "REPORTER #2" and exchanged tens of thousands of electronic communications and often daily phone calls. He would also meet at the reporter’s apartment, court papers alleged.
Wolfe had extensive contact with reporters about "MALE-1," who was reportedly identified as Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser.
Wolfe received classified information about "MALE-1" on the same day he exchanged 82 text messages with "REPORTER #2," according to the indictment. A few weeks later, "REPORTER #2" published an online article that revealed the identity of "MALE-1."
On April 3, 2017, Watkins’ byline appeared on a BuzzFeed article that revealed that Page had met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2013.
Wolfe allegedly called "REPORTER #2" nearly a half-hour after the story went live and had a phone conversation for about seven minutes.
In December 2017, Wolfe allegedly messaged "REPORTER #2."
“I’ve watched your career take off even before you ever had a career in journalism. ... I always tried to give you as much Information (sic) that I could and to do the right thing with it so you could get that scoop before anyone else. ... I always enjoyed the way that you would pursue a story,like nobody else was doing in my hal1way (sic). I felt like I was part of your excitement and was always very supportive of your career and the tenacity that you exhibited to chase down a good story," the message read, according to the indictment.
Watkins worked previously for BuzzFeed, Politico and McClatchy.
The Wall Street Journal, citing an unnamed source, reported that Watkins disclosed the relationship when she joined The Times.
Mark MacDougall, Watkins’ attorney, said: "It's always disconcerting when a journalist's telephone records are obtained by the Justice Department — through a grand jury subpoena or other legal process. Whether it was really necessary here will depend on the nature of the investigation and the scope of any charges."
It is alleged that Wolfe used several means to contact reporters, including Signal and WhatsApp. He also met “clandestinely in person,” in secluded areas of the Hart Senate Office Building, the indictment charges.
Wolfe is expected to make his first court appearance Friday. It wasn't immediately clear if he had a lawyer. Each false statement count is punishable by up to five years in prison, though if convicted, Wolfe would almost certainly face only a fraction of that time.

Samantha Bee Cartoons

Lawsuit challenging US immigration policy on family separation may proceed, judge rules

A lawsuit challenging a U.S. immigration policy that allows parents to be separated from their children may proceed, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. Southern District of California said he would decide later whether to order a nationwide halt to the policy.
Sabaw said the lawsuit -- involving a 7-year-old girl who was separated from her Congolese mother and a 14-year-old boy who was separated from his Brazilian mother -- could proceed on a claim that their constitutional rights to a fair hearing were denied.
Sabraw also said he would issue separate rulings on the American Civil Liberties Union’s request for a nationwide injunction and to expand the lawsuit to apply to all parents and children who are split up by border authorities.
“Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency,” wrote Sabraw, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
The judge, whose court is based in San Diego, Calif., said the allegations “describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child.”
Sabraw said the ACLU’s claims were “particular troubling,” because the plaintiffs had allegedly come to the U.S. seeking asylum from their home countries, Bloomberg reported.
“The government actors responsible for the ‘care and custody’ of migrant children have, in fact, become their persecutors," the judge said.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump said the family separation policy was the work of his political opponents.
"Separating families at the Border is the fault of bad legislation passed by the Democrats," the president tweeted. "Border Security laws should be changed but the Dems can’t get their act together! Started the Wall."
In early May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a “zero tolerance” policy at the border.

“We believe every person that enters the country illegally .. should be prosecuted. And you can’t be giving immunity to people who bring children with them recklessly and improperly and illegally.”

“We want to send a message to the world that if you want to come to America, make your application and wait your turn,” Sessions told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in a Tuesday interview, according to the transcript.
“We believe every person that enters the country illegally like that should be prosecuted,” Sessions said. “And you can’t be giving immunity to people who bring children with them recklessly and improperly and illegally.”
However, the policy reportedly targets people with few or no previous offenses for illegally entering the country.
"Today’s ruling could not be stronger, and squarely rejects the Trump administration’s claim that these families lack the constitutional right to remain together," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in an email obtained by Bloomberg.
First-time offenders face up to six months in prison, though they often spend only a few days in custody after pleading guilty and exposing themselves to more serious charges if they are caught again.
Sessions told Hewitt he has not visited the more than 100 facilities that have detained around 10,000 children.
“Those are within the ambit of the Homeland Security and the Health and Human Services. But I believe for the most part they’re well taken care of,” Sessions said.
Homeland Security declined to comment on pending litigation, according to Bloomberg’s report.

Soros push to elect progressive DAs in California fails to attract voters

New York billionaire George Soros’ multimillion-dollar effort to reshape California's criminal justice system by propping up progressive district attorney candidates backfired Tuesday, with most of his candidates suffering major defeats.
Soros, together with other wealthy liberal donors and groups, spent millions on would-be prosecutors who favor lower incarceration rates, crackdowns on police misconduct and changes in a bail system that they argue discriminates against the poor.
But most of the money went to waste as their candidates lost to more traditional law-and-order prosecutors who didn’t share progressive views or have hostile attitudes toward police.

District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert defeated Soros-backed candidate Noah Phillips by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, getting 65 percent of the vote in Sacramento County.  (Schubert for DA)

In Sacramento County, District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert defeated Noah Phillips by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, getting 65 percent of the vote. Phillips led an insurgent campaign, attacking Schubert for failing to prosecute a police officer who shot a civilian.
He reportedly received around $400,000 from Soros and admitted Soros' team scripted and paid for a TV ad during the campaign, the Los Angeles Times reported. His fundraising efforts received help from Cari Tuna, wife of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, who contributed more than $650,000 to a political action committee led by Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King.
"This is a good day for the people," Schubert told to a crowd of about 100 supporters after she won the election, the Sacramento Bee reported. "You can't buy an election in the county of Sacramento. Here's to four more years."

"This is a good day for the people. You can't buy an election in the county of Sacramento. Here's to four more years."

Geneviéve Jones-Wright, the Soros-favored candidate in San Diego County, also suffered a major defeat Tuesday. She got only 36 percent of the vote while her opponent, District Attorney Summer Stephan, received more than 60 percent.
Soros spent more than $1.5 million in the race, funneling the money to a political action committee that propped up Jones-Wright’s candidacy as she pledged to form a police-misconduct unit and supported progressive reform of the criminal justice system.
Stephan fought back against the influence of outside money in the race, declaring Soros’ backing a public safety threat. Jones-Wright, meanwhile, insisted the money merely gave a voice to minorities and poor people.
In Alameda County, in the San Francisco Bay Area, District Attorney Nancy O'Malley fended off a challenge from Pamela Price, reportedly receiving more than 60 percent of the vote.

District Attorney Summer Stephan received over 60 percent of the vote on Tuesday, defeating Soros-favored Geneviéve Jones-Wright in San Diego County.

O'Malley said she was surprised the outside donors tried to oust her, given that she’s a registered Democrat and was endorsed by U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., organized labor and other Democratic groups.
Soros’ PAC accused O’Malley during the campaign of implementing “racist” stop-and-frisk policies and Price criticized her for being cozy with law enforcement groups.
But there was one victory for the wealthy liberals Tuesday. Progressive DA candidate Diana Becton received a majority of the votes in Contra Costa County, also in the Bay Area, though not enough to secure an outright victory.
She will now face off against Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves – who came second – in a run-off election. Graves criticized the influence of wealthy outsiders, describing them as “billionaires who apparently think Contra Costa's public safety is for sale.”
In other counties – such as Yolo County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County – where wealthy donors also spent money, albeit on a significantly smaller scale, most progressives candidates suffered defeats. One exception: reform-minded defense attorney Jason Anderson, who managed to win in San Bernardino County against four-term DA Michael Ramos.

Samantha Bee 'sorry' in first 'Full Frontal' since calling Ivanka Trump c-word

Samantha Bee opened Wednesday night’s episode of her TBS show, “Full Frontal,” by addressing the firestorm that erupted after last week’s show, in which she referred to Ivanka Trump as "a feckless c---" during a segment on immigration policy.
It was the late-night comedian’s first show since drawing the ire of advertisers, viewers and President Donald Trump -- and she told viewers that her insult directed at the first daughter “crossed a line.”
"It is a word I have used on the show many times, hoping to reclaim it,” Bee said. “This time, I used it as an insult. I crossed a line. I regret it and I do apologize."
The former member of comedian Jon Stewart's "Daily Show" troupe on Comedy Central acknowledged that some women “don’t want that word reclaimed” and she didn’t want “to inflict more pain on them.”
But Bee, 48, mixed in some humor with her apology, saying that while her goal was to produce a “challenging” and “honest” show, “I never intended it to hurt anyone — except Ted Cruz.”
Bee also joked that, “Many men were also offended by my use of the word — I do not care about that.”
Last week’s profane insult sparked outrage from many, leading sponsors like AutoTrader and State Farm to pull their ads from the show. Both Bee and TBS issued apologies the following day, with the network tweeting the “vile” comment was “our mistake too, and we regret it.”
Bee’s words also fired up accusations of a politically based double standard, with critics comparing TBS’s “non-reaction” to the Bee controversy with ABC’s firing of Roseanne Barr from her namesake sitcom over a racist tweet. Barr is well known as a Trump supporter, while Bee, a liberal, has been critical of the administration.
The same day as her apology, Bee received a “social change” honor from the Television Academy. The press was blocked from attending the event’s reception and Bee avoided the red carpet interviews before the event amid the surrounding controversy.
In her reception speech that night, Bee again apologized, acknowledging the “one bad word” she used distracted from the immigration issues she intended to shed light on.
“We spent the day wrestling with the repercussions of one bad word, when we all should have spent the day incensed that as a nation we are wrenching children from their parents and treating people legally seeking asylum as criminals,” Bee said in her speech, obtained by IndieWire.
The host hit on this issue again in Wednesday’s monologue, ultimately conceding her words “distracted” viewers from the children affected by the administration’s juvenile immigration policy. Bee apologized to the kids, too.
Bee concluded Wednesday night's third apology by giving those who worried about “the death of civility” this past week something to think about.
"I'm really sorry that I said that word, but you know what? Civility is just nice words," she said. "Maybe we should all worry a little bit more about the niceness of our actions."
Even after Bee’s many apologies, TBS -- part of the Turner Broadcasting System conglomerate that includes CNN, TNT and other stations -- will reportedly step up its oversight of the late-night show to prevent further incidents that could scare away advertisers and draw public condemnation, a source close to the matter told the Hollywood Reporter Wednesday.

Media report of DOJ watchdog chastising Comey puts fired FBI boss' leadership style under the microscope

The inspector general examines whether James Comey went beyond his authorities in 2016 when he publicly discussed the Clinton email investigation and recommended against criminal charges; chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reports from Washington.
A media report that the Justice Department's watchdog has prepared a draft assessment that chastises James Comey for defying authority is putting the former FBI boss' leadership style under the microscope.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been exploring the DOJ's and FBI's actions during the 2016 presidential campaign, including whether Comey exceeded his authority in July 2016 when he publicly discussed the Hillary Clinton email investigation and recommended against charges.
That decision angered Democrats because the responsibility for the criminal case ultimately rested with his boss at the time, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Comey has since explained that Lynch's infamous June 2016 Phoenix tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton during the probe, as well as other non-public and unconfirmed intelligence that may have suggested Lynch would short-circuit the investigation, led him to go public with the FBI's findings that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless."
A source cited by ABC News claimed the report by the DOJ watchdog specifically called Comey "insubordinate," with much of the criticism centering on the way he handled the reopening of the Clinton email probe in the days leading up to Election Day in 2016. Fox News has not confirmed the ABC report.
Horowitz's report also takes aim at Lynch, according to ABC News. Comey has testified before Congress that Lynch advised him to call the criminal probe of Clinton a "matter," rather than an investigation. Comey said that language concerned him.
The DOJ IG's reported rebuke of Comey, whom President Trump has called an "untruthful slime ball" after firing him last year, contradicts the by-the-book, responsible image Comey has carefully cultivated since leaving office.
On Oct. 28, 2016, Comey publicly notified Congress that the investigation would be reopened because new emails had been discovered that might contain classified information.
Comey was said to have ignored at least one superior in the Justice Department who said that commenting publicly on the ongoing investigation would violate policy, in addition to impermissibly interfering with the presidential campaign so close to Election Day, sources told ABC News.
The reported criticisms in the draft DOJ assessment would echo the scathing critique laid out against Comey in a memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last year, before Trump decided to fire him.
In the memo to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Rosenstein was particularly critical of Comey's unilateral decision to hold a press conference in July 2016, in which he announced that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless" in handling classified information but that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue the case.
“It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement,” Rosenstein wrote, saying that Comey should have simply referred the case to prosecutors without staging a dramatic, analysis-filled press conference.
Rosenstein also faulted Comey for publicly reopening the Clinton email probe in October, citing several DOJ officials who called the move "inappropriate."
In his recently released book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey called for "ethical leadership" in Washington, even as several commentators questioned whether he had lived up to that standard.
Horowitz's final report is expected to be released soon. The watchdog's review had broad bipartisan support when it began in January 2017.