Montel Williams slams Chicago Facebook Live attack suspects on social media

  A Hate Crime

In a social media post, TV personality Montel Williams slammed the suspects accused of beating a mentally disabled man and streaming in live on Facebook.
Williams took to Facebook on Thursday to express his opinions on the brutal attack.
“Life in prison. No parole. I'm not interested in whether these kids had a tough life, whether their parents loved them enough, I don't care,” Williams said.
The TV personality called the argument of whether it was indeed a hate crime a “distraction.”
“This is the cold blooded torture of an innocent human being. That's bigger than a hate crime, it's bigger than racism,” Williams added.
Williams offered his prayers to the victim, adding, “If you can do this to another human being once, you can't be trusted to not do it again.”
The four suspects accused in the Chicago Facebook Live attack were denied bail on Friday. The Chicago judge they appeared before in court said they are accused of such "terrible actions."
The four suspects were identified as Brittany Covington and Tesfaye Cooper, both of Chicago, and Jordan Hill, of suburban Carpentersville. All are 18. A fourth suspect was identified as Covington's 24-year-old sister, Tanishia Covington, also of Chicago.
The beating was captured on cellphone video by one of the assailants and has since been viewed millions of times on social media. The graphic footage shows the suspects taunting the victim with profanities against white people and President-elect Donald Trump.
Prosecutors offered new details of the assault, explaining that one of the suspects demanded $300 from the mother of the victim, who is schizophrenic and has attention-deficit disorder. They also said the beating started in a van when the same attacker became angry that the mother had contacted him asking that her son be allowed to come home.
A prosecutor told the judge that the suspects forced the victim to drink toilet water, kiss the floor and then allegedly stuffed a sock into his mouth and taped it shut as they bound his hands with a belt.
Cook County Associate Judge Maria Kuriakos Ciesil asked the suspects "Where was your sense of decency?"
"I find each of you a danger to yourself and society," the judge said.
All four are charged with two counts of committing a hate crime — one because of the victim's race and the other because of his mental disabilities.
The uproar over the beating intensified the glare on Chicago after a bloody year of violent crime and protests against Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a police department that has been accused of using excessive force and hushing-up wrongdoing. The department has also been the subject of a long civil-rights investigation by the Justice Department, which is expected to report its findings soon.

What no one wants to tell Sally Field, Keegan-Michael Key and all the other anti-Trump celebrities (but should)

In the latest bid to derail a Trump Presidency, a group of celebrities have created a video asking anti-Trump supporters to sign a petition to be sent to members of Congress to stand up to Donald Trump. The video was created by the social media campaign Humanity for Progress, formerly known as the pro-Hillary Clinton group, Humanity for Hillary.
Unfortunately, videos like this only promote more negative discourse and separation.  They bring about more fear and scarcity when we need love, abundance and unity.  Whether you like it or not, Donald Trump will become the 45^th President of The United States on Friday, January 20, 2017.  That’s as much a fact as the sky being the color blue and the grass being green.  Similarly, you wouldn’t argue that the Denver Broncos weren’t the Super Bowl Champions or that the Chicago Cubs didn’t win the World Series, and you can’t argue that Donald Trump didn’t win the election.
Trump won and there’s nothing you nor anyone else can do to change that. Asking people to sign a petition that urges congress to stand up to Donald Trump is childish and accomplishes absolutely nothing.  Instead of trying to fight the inevitable, how about giving the guy a chance? You may not like Donald Trump, but the fact is he is going to be the next leader of the free world and it’s time to grow up emotionally, stop acting stupid, put your hate for him on the shelf and stand behind our new president.  Trump built a business empire like few others have ever done, and whether you voted for him or not or like him or not, it’s time to give him the opportunity to bring that same success to the office of Commander in Chief.    
In the video, Keegan-Michael Key and Sally Field say, “We demand that you block nominees who threaten the rights of women, the LGBT community, people of color, immigrants and the poor.”  Unfortunately, Key and Field miss the point entirely.  Nobody is saying that Donald Trump is perfect. He’s definitely not going to be the most polished or politically correct president.  Even many of his supporters strongly and publicly disagree with some of the things he has said and done in the past.  But that’s not the point!
The point is trying to stand in the way of the President of The United States is wrong and interfering with democracy. Quit your whining and instead of wasting your mental energy trying to change the unchangeable, finally accept the fact that Donald Trump is our next president and let’s adopt a spirit of unity and togetherness for the betterment of our country. We’re all stronger when we come together as one.
Finally, to Key, Field and the other celebrities in the video, I urge you to take a look in the mirror. Are you perfect? Have you ever said mean things about someone else? Should we hold that grudge against you for the rest of your life?  Should we start a petition for people to boycott your movies and television shows?  I don’t think so.
Donald Trump is our next president and that’s a fact.  Prior to November 8, 2016, it was perfectly acceptable to be pro Hilary or pro Trump. But not anymore. There’s only one right thing to do: Support President-Elect Trump and together let’s make America great again.

Intel report on Russian interference finds no documents forged

No documents related to the hacks of the Democratic National Committee emails or Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta’s emails appear to be altered or forged, according to a declassified U.S. intelligence report on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election released Friday.
While the report accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering a campaign to influence the U.S. election and hurt Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, it found that the material sent to WikiLeaks did not contain “any evident forgeries.”
The claim that the emails may have been doctored or forged was raised by DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in October, when she was criticized for an email that surfaced in hacked messages from Podesta’s account.
The report also concluded that Moscow chose WikiLeaks to distribute the information “because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity.”
While the report does not specifically mention Podesta’s emails, it does say Russian intelligence agencies relayed material to WikiLeaks “from the DNC and senior Democratic officials.” Podesta was the most prominent Democratic official to be subject to a cyberattack during the campaign.
The Brazile email passed on a question to campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri about the death penalty, under the subject line: “From time to time I get questions in advance.”
The exchange came right before a March town hall hosted by CNN and TV One, where a similar question was asked. Yet Brazile denied receiving questions from CNN, and implies that the emails released were doctored.
"I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don't even send,” she told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, adding, "I will not sit here and be persecuted, because your information is totally false.”
Brazile stood down in October as a CNN contributor over the revelation. She released a statement Friday criticizing Trump over his past statements disputing Russian involvement in the cyberattacks.
"For the first time ever, President-elect Donald Trump is not disputing the fact that Russia was behind the targeted attack on the DNC and the Clinton campaign,” she said.

DNC's 'gross' negligence led to its hacking, Trump tweets

Just hours after the U.S. declassified an intelligence report Friday that offered new details on an alleged influence campaign stemming from Moscow-- including cyber activity-- President-elect Donald Trump took aim at the Democratic National Committee for allowing its systems to be hacked.
“Gross negligence by the Democratic National Committee allowed hacking to take place.The Republican National Committee had strong defense!” the tweet read.
The intelligence report added fresh fuel to the debate over Russia’s involvement in email hacking that affected Democratic groups during the 2016 race.

Gross negligence by the Democratic National Committee allowed hacking to take place.The Republican National Committee had strong defense!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2017

Trump has publicly questioned the evidence linking Russia and, hours before his briefing on Friday, called the focus a “political witch hunt.”
However, Trump and the intelligence community seemed to find some common ground after the briefing. Both Trump and the report said the Russians did not target vote tallying.
Earlier, Trump said in a statement that “there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines.”
Still, the report lays out in new and alarming detail an alleged influence campaign stemming from Moscow, which Ryan and others condemned.
The report said that included cyber activity, as well as efforts by state-funded media and paid social media “trolls.” The report said Russian intelligence services conducted cyber operations against both major U.S. parties, and said they have “high confidence” Russian military intelligence used Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com to release “US victim data” publicly and to the media, “and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”
WikiLeaks famously published emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta last year. Founder Julian Assange, however, told Fox News this past week that Russia was not his source.
The report said:
“We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
In his written statement, Trump acknowledged that Russia, China and others “are consistently trying to break through the cyber infrastructure of our governmental institutions, businesses and organizations including the Democrat National Committee” – but said “there was absolutely no effect on the outcome.”
Trump also said the U.S. needs to fight and stop cyberattacks, and he’ll appoint a team to give him a plan within 90 days of taking office. “Two weeks from today I will take the oath of office and America’s safety and security will be my number one priority,” he said.

Clinton Email Cartoons

Wikileaks' Assange: Governments 'hate transparency. They loathe it'

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News' Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview that his organization published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman "to give the American people true information about the players that they were going to have to deal with."
"We’re in the business of publishing information about power," Assange said. "Why are we in the business of publishing information about power? Because people can do things with power, they can do very bad things with power. If they’re incompetent, they can do dangerous things. If they’re evil, they can do wicked things."
In Part III of the interview, which aired Thursday on the Fox News Channel, Assange also said that governments "hate transparency. They loathe it. Because they have to work harder."
Assange sat down with Hannity for the exclusive at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where Assange has been holed up for the past five years as he battles extradition to Sweden on sexual assault charges.
Governments are "full of incompetent people," Assange told Hannity. "And the more secretive the area is, the more incompetent it becomes because there’s no proper oversight."
However, the Australian conceded that secrecy was necessary in some areas. Assange noted that Wikileaks keeps its sources confidential, but added that secrecy "should be as small as possible [in terms of] how much it encompasses and for how long it’s encompassed."
"If you don’t know what’s happening in the world with powerful individuals, corporations and governments ... immoral actors within the state or within those big corporations prosper," Assange said at the conclusion of the interview.
"[But] if you have true information coming out about how people actually behave, what’s the result? The rest of the society goes 'You know what? I don’t want to deal with you.'"

House overwhelmingly votes to condemn UN resolution on Israel settlements

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted Thursday to rebuke the United Nations for passing a resolution criticizing Israeli settlements.
Lawmakers voted 342-80 in favor of the bipartisan non-binding resolution, which declares unwavering support for Israel and insists that the United States reject any future U.N. actions that are similarly "one-sided and anti-Israel."
A visibly angry House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. opened debate on the resolution by saying that the Obama administration "abandoned our ally Israel when she needed us the most."
"Do not be fooled," Ryan said. "This U.N. Security Council resolution ... was about one thing and one thing only. Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state.
"These types of one-sided efforts are designed to isolate and delegitimize Israel. They do not advance peace, they make it more elusive."

The House measure divided Democrats, 109 of whom joined 233 Republicans in approving the measure. However, nearly 80 more opposed the measure because they said it contained inaccuracies and distorted the complexities of the Middle East peace process. They also accused Republicans of attacking Obama unfairly in the waning days of his presidency.
"The point of the measure seems to be to bash Obama on the way out," said Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., who along with many other Democrats still voiced strong support for Israel. They said Obama deserved credit for engineering last year's new, long-term security agreement that gives Israel $38 billion in U.S. military aid, including $5 billion for missile defenses.

A similar bipartisan measure to reprimand the U.N. has been introduced in the Senate. "Israel is always the bad guy in the eyes of the United Nations," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the measure's co-sponsors.
Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said the resolution "proved once again that the US-Israel alliance is based not only on shared interests, but also on shared values ... This special relationship has endured the test of time and I have no doubt that it will continue to be strengthened in the future."
Israel and its supporters lashed out at Obama for his decision to abstain and allow the U.N. Security Council to approve in December a resolution calling Israel's settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem "a flagrant violation under international law."
Although the U.S. is opposed to the settlements, it has traditionally used its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council to scuttle resolutions that condemn Israel. Disputes between Israel and the Palestinians must be resolved through direct negotiations, according to longstanding practice and policy.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, accused Obama of a "shameful ambush" and said he was looking forward to working with Trump, whom he described as his friend.

But Secretary of State John Kerry said in a late December speech that the U.S. was standing up for a two-state solution when it abstained on the resolution. He criticized Israel for settlement building and blamed Netanyahu for dragging Israel away from democracy.

Kerry said expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem are leading to an "irreversible one-state reality."

The Palestinians seek the West Bank and east Jerusalem, territories captured by Israel in the 1967 war, for an independent state. They say that Israeli settlements in these areas, now home to about 600,000 Israelis, are threatening their plans for independence by taking in lands where they hope to establish their state.

The U.N. resolution, along with Kerry's speech, essentially endorsed the Palestinian position by calling for the pre-1967 lines to serve as the reference point for a final border.

Netanyahu, who opposes a return to the 1967 lines, has condemned the moves as "skewed" and "shameful."

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the panel's top Democrat, sponsored the House measure. The U.N. resolution "undermines the prospect for Israelis and Palestinians resuming productive, direct negotiations," according to their legislation, and should be "repealed or fundamentally altered."
Attention from the move by the U.N. last month could provide fuel for pro-Israel initiatives favored by conservatives on Capitol Hill. For example, a small group of Republican senators is proposing to withhold 50 percent of the State Department's 2017 budget until the U.S. Embassy in Israel is moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump promised to shift the embassy.
But a spokesman for Jordan's government told The Associated Press on Thursday that the embassy move would be a "red line" for Jordan and "inflame the Islamic and Arab streets." Jordan serves as custodian of a major Islamic shrine in east Jerusalem and the Palestinians seek a capital there.

Email Headache Returns: New Clinton messages show passwords, schedules flowed freely

The election’s over – but Hillary Clinton’s emails are still coming to light. And they help illustrate why the FBI declared she was “extremely careless” with the information flowing across her secret server.
A new batch of messages released by the State Department on Tuesday shows the former secretary of state and her team routinely shared her upcoming schedules, talking points and sensitive items – such as her iPad password – via the homebrewed system.
Other newly revealed emails, which were posted as the result of litigation, show Clinton’s top advisers griping about her during her time as secretary of State; an Asian ruler who later implemented Sharia law saying he considered former President Bill Clinton part of his “family”; and Clinton talking about Justin Cooper, one of the key figures who administered to her private server.
ASSANGE: RUSSIAN GOV'T NOT SOURCE OF WIKILEAKS EMAILS
Many of the 371 emails posted on the State Department website had been partially released previously, and are separate from the hacked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta posted by WikiLeaks before the election. Almost all the messages were partly or heavily redacted.
Among the items redacted -- yet still sent over email -- was Clinton's iPad password.
In an Aug. 20, 2012 conversation, Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, told her boss she had the iPad password reset. The device had previously given Clinton problems, though Abedin wrote that it’s “all good now.”
At the top of the message, Abedin typed out the entirety of the new password, which was redacted on the State Department release. Clinton responded later with even more information, noting that “I finally realized I had to add the [redacted] to the password!!!!”
During the July speech in which FBI Director James Comey termed Clinton’s server practices “extremely careless” but not criminal, he also said “hostile actors” could have hacked her communications. In at least one instance, Clinton aide Cooper logged hacking attempts on the server.
Still, Clinton and her advisers continued sending information that could be dangerous in the wrong hands, including detailed, advanced copies of her schedules and talking points for upcoming calls and meetings with foreign leaders and top U.S. officials.
On Sept. 30, 2011 – the day American-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki was killed – Abedin emailed Clinton to say then-CIA Director David Petraeus wanted to talk on a secure connection. She added: “Assume its about awlaki.”
Other emails released Tuesday shed light on Clinton’s relationships.
In advance of a September 2012 meeting with the Sultan of Brunei – who would later impose Sharia law on his country – Abedin emailed Clinton that Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah hoped to have dinner with Clinton and her family.
“They say sultan sees wjc as part of his family and thus is treating you in this ‘informal’ way,” she wrote, using Bill Clinton’s initials.
On Dec. 24, 2011, Clinton emailed Chelsea Clinton, who was using a pseudonym revealed previously by WikiLeaks, asking “Who will provide tech support after Justin leaves,” ostensibly citing Cooper, who originally helped set up Clinton’s server and was typically called for any tech issues Clinton was experiencing.
“Let’s talk about this later – he’s actually supported by someone else too as a fyi,” Chelsea replied cryptically. “I think there are a couple options.”
In an email chain from April 4, 2012 that Clinton was eventually excluded from, Abedin complained about Clinton’s obsession with an archiving project.
“This records thing is the bain of my existence with her….” she wrote.
Philippe Reines, another top Clinton aide, responded with the frustration he experienced explaining to Clinton that she had received the incorrect copy of a document.
“I emailed her that. I told her in the elevator up from videos. I told her that in the pre-brief. I told her that in the elevator up to 8. I made clear it wasn’t that Jake [Sullivan]’s timeline was ‘inadequate’ – just that the wrong version made its way to her,” Reines wrote. “But [I] think it played into whatever anxiety she has that you’re experiencing about the topic of archiving.”