CYANIDE LEAK IN FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE

Cyanide used in the infamous Nazi 'L-pill' (suicide pill) was potassium cyanide but the properties of sodium cyanide are nearly identical.

Sodium cyanide (NaCN) can be fatal at amounts as little as 5% of a teaspoon.

Sodium cyanide is used industrially across the globe, most frequently in the mining of gold.

The biggest fear is the formation of hydrogen cyanide upon exposure to water or high temperatures.

LOOK WHAT'S LEAKED IN FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE.

Koriyama, Fukushima Pref., Oct. 17, 2019

"Toxic sodium cyanide has leaked from a metal surface processing plant in the city of Koriyama in Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan, due to flooding caused by super

Typhoon Hagibis, which ravaged the country over the weekend, according to the city's announcement.

The amount of leakage is unknown.

The city's health center said no health damage has been reported, including for those engaged in restoration work at the plant.

When treated with water [flooding] or acid, sodium cyanide forms cyanide fumes.

The amount of sodium cyanide kept at the plant before the flooding is also unknown because the plant's chemicals management data set has been washed out, according to the health center and other sources." 

SO, THEY KNOW A 'SUPER-TYPHOON' IS COMING, KNEW IT FOR ALMOST A WEEK, AT LEAST, BUT MADE NO PLANS TO SAFEGUARD THIS HIGHLY TOXIC CHEMICAL WHICH RAIN AND FLOOD COULD CHANGE TO A POISON THAT'S FATAL TO ANY ORGANISM WITH BREATH?

WHAT WERE THEY KEEPING IT IN, EMPTY OATMEAL BOXES, MANILA ENVELOPES, WHAT?

IN THE NAME OF REASON, HOW COULD THEY NOT KNOW HOW MUCH IS MISSING? 
WHY DIDN'T THEY AT LEAST SAFEGUARD OR BACKUP THEIR RECORDS, REALIZING THAT THE TYPHOON WOULD LIKELY TAKE OUT THE ELECTRIC SUPPLY THERE?

IS THIS COMPANY A SUBSIDIARY OF TEPCO OR JUST RUN BY PEOPLE LIKE THOSE WHO RUN TEPCO...WITH NO REGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS OR FOR REGULATIONS? 

THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CYANIDE THEY HAD?

MAYBE WHOMEVER THEY BOUGHT IT FROM KEPT RECORDS, MAYBE?  
ANY 'MYSTERIOUS' ANIMAL DEATHS REPORTED, OR WOULD THAT BE ANOTHER THING THAT NEVER GETS REPORTED?

WHAT EXACTLY DOES GET REPORTED IN FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE BESIDES MAYBE ANNUAL PROFITS AND HOW MANY RESIDENTS THE ABE REGIME CONNED/SCARED  INTO GOING BACK THERE? 

RESIDENTS SHOULD DEMAND AUTOPSIES ON ALL RECOVERED BODIES, TO MAKE CERTAIN IT WASN'T 'DEATH BY CYANIDE', BUT THEN AGAIN, WHO WOULD HONESTLY REPORT THAT?

HOW MUCH MORE CAN THOSE RESIDENTS BE EXPECTED TO TAKE?
 
IS ANYONE IN ABE'S GOVERNMENT CONCERNED ABOUT INNOCENT CIVILIANS? 




//WW

HIGH RADIATION CONTAMINATION OF FUKUSHIMA SOIL MEASURED IN NEW STUDY. HISTORICAL DAMAGE IN FUKUSHIMA.

ABOVE: HIGH-LEVEL CESIUM CONTAMINATION OF SOIL. 2019 

ABOVE: CONTINUED HIGH-LEVEL CESIUM CONTAMINATION OF SURFACE SEA WATER IN THE BERING SEA. 2015-2017 


Abundance and distribution of radioactive cesium-rich microparticles released from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the environment.

--The distribution of Cs-rich microparticles emitted from the FDNPP is determined.•

--Cs-rich microparticles account for a significant fraction of FDNPP-deposited Cs.•

--The timing and source of the Cs-rich microparticle formation has been estimated.

Abstract

"The abundance and distribution of highly radioactive cesium-rich microparticles (CsMPs) that were released from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) during the first stage of the nuclear disaster in March 2011 are described for 20 surface soils collected around the FDNPP.

Based on the spatial distribution of the numbers (particles/g) and radioactive fraction (RF) of the CsMPs in surface soil, which is defined as the sum of the CsMP radioactivity (in Bq) divided by the total radioactivity (in Bq) of the soil sample, three regions of particular interest have been identified: i.) near-northwest (N-NW), ii.) far-northwest (F-NW), and iii.) southwest (SW). In these areas, the number and RF of CsMPs were determined to be 22.1–101 particles/g and 15.4–34.0%, 24.3–64.8 particles/g and 36.7–37.4%, and 0.869–8.00 particles/g and 27.6–80.2%, respectively.

These distributions are consistent with the plume trajectories of material released from the FDNPP on March 14, 2011, in the late afternoon through to the late afternoon of March 15, 2011, indicating that the CsMPs formed only during this short period. Unit 3 is the most plausible source of the CsMPs at the beginning of the release based on an analysis of the sequence of release events.

The lower RF values in the N-NW region indicate a larger influence from subsequent plumes that mainly consisted of soluble Cs species formed simultaneously with precipitation.

The quantitative map of the distribution of CsMPs provides an important understanding of CsMP dispersion dynamics and can be used to assess risks in inhabited regions."
WHY DIDN'T  THEY EXTEND THE STUDY TO OTHER PARTS OF JAPAN?
HOW LIKELY IS IT THAT THE 'PLUMES' WAFTED THAT CESIUM AS FAR AS CHERNOBYL'S RADIATION WAS CARRIED 33 YEARS AGO?

WE CAN TELL OURSELVES THAT, FOR 8 YEARS, ALMOST 9 NOW, NEITHER THE ABE REGIME NOR TEPCO KNEW OF THIS.
HOWEVER, HAD ANY REAL MONITORING BEEN DONE, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD REPORTS OF CONTINUED HIGHER RADIATION LEVELS IN THESE AREAS THAT CONTAIN SO MUCH CESIUM.

ABE HAS ASSURED THE WORLD THAT THEY CAN SAFELY COME TO JAPAN FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES.
SOUTH KOREA, CHINA AND OTHERS DISAGREE.
THE TEA ROOM CERTAINLY DISAGREES.

ABE INSISTS THAT THE WORLD BUY PRODUCE, ETC, GROWN/RAISED IN THE FUKUSHIMA PREFECTURE, AGAIN, ASSURING THE WORLD THAT SUCH FOOD IS SAFE.

NO, NO IT IS NOT SAFE!


IN A SIMILAR STUDY PUBLISHED IN JUNE, 2018, OTHER RESEARCHERS FOUND VERY HIGH LEVELS OF CESIUM IN COASTAL AREAS.

NEITHER ABE'S ADMINISTRATION NOR TEPCO ALERTED THE WORLD TO THIS. 

Radioactive cesium concentrations in coastal suspended matter after the Fukushima nuclear accident.

--We observed radioactive Cs concentrations of suspended matter around the FDNPP.

--The 134Cs concentrations ranged from 279 to 678 Bq kg−1.

--The 137Cs concentrations ranged from 893 to 2079 Bq kg−1.

--We discovered highly radioactive Cs particles from suspended matter.

--A contribution ratio of these particles to each samples were 36% on average

.Abstract

Radioactive cesium concentrations in the suspended matter of the coastal waters around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) were investigated between January 2014 and August 2015.

The concentrations of radioactive cesium in the suspended matter were two orders higher in magnitude than those determined in the sediment.
In addition, we discovered highly radioactive Cs particles in the suspended matter using autoradiography.
The geometrical average radioactivity of particles was estimated to be 0.6 Bq at maximum and 0.2 Bq on average. The contribution ratio of highly radioactive Cs particles to each sample ranged from 13 to 54%, and was 36% on average.

A major part of the radioactive Cs concentration in the suspended matter around the FDNPP was strongly influenced by the highly radioactive particles.

The subsequent resuspension of highly radioactive Cs particles has been suggested as a possible reason for the delay in radioactive Cs depuration from benthic biota.

AND YET ABE WANTS US TO ACCEPT THAT FISH CAUGHT OFF THOSE COASTS ARE FREE OF RADIATION, ALLOWING COMMERCIAL FISHING THERE. 

WHY HAVE WE 'FORGOTTEN' OR CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE FINDINGS OF THE 2015 TO 2017 STUDIES OF FUKUSHIMA CESIUM FOUND AT HIGH LEVELS IN THE BERING SEA?
WASN'T THAT PLAIN ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND? 

We measured dissolved radiocesium (134Cs and 137Cs) in seawater collected in the western subarctic area of the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean in 2015 and 2017.

The radiocesium released from the accident of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant (FNPP1) in March 2011 was still observed in the surface seawater of the western subarctic area and Bering Sea.

Between 2015 and 2017, the radiocesium concentration decreased and increased in the western subarctic area and the Bering Sea, respectively.

The increase in the Bering Sea was probably derived from the long-range transport of the FNPP1-derived radiocesium into the Bering Sea with the subarctic gyre circulation in the North Pacific.

The FNPP1-derived radiocesium was not detected in the Arctic Ocean in 2015 unlike that observed in 2014, which suggests a restricted transport of the FNPP1-derived radiocesium from the Bering Sea to the Arctic Ocean in 2015.

The significant elevation in the radiocesium concentration in the Bering Sea in 2017 associated with the long-range transport implies the increase in the transport of the FNPP1-derived radiocesium into the Arctic Ocean in the future.


IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP UNTIL WE STOP ALL THE RADIATION LEAKS, ALL THE OPEN-AIR BURNING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE, PROPERLY BURY ALL THOSE FLIMSY BAGS OF NUCLEAR WASTE, PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL THOSE TANKS FULL OF RADIOACTIVE WATER, AND HOPE THAT, MAYBE IN 100 YEARS, THINGS GET BETTER.

JAPAN WILL HAVE TO FIND ALL THE ESCAPED CORIUM AND FIND A WAY TO ERASE THAT NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE FROM THE FACE OF OUR PLANET! 

WOULD ANYONE OF A SOUND MIND IMAGINE THAT, WITH DESTRUCTION SUCH AS IS WITNESSED IN THE FUKUSHIMA AREA IN THIS ARTICLE, SOMEHOW THE DAI'ICHI NUCLEAR PLANT COMPLETELY ESCAPED DAMAGE? 

WE DESPERATELY NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM TO GO IN THERE AND ASSESS THINGS FOR THEMSELVES.
WE NEED PROOF THAT THAT CRIPPLED PLANT ISN'T BELCHING EVEN HIGHER LEVELS OF RADIATION SINCE THE LAST TYPHOON, AND BEFORE THE NEXT ONE STRIKES., 


Fukushima residents after Typhoon Hagibis: ‘We’ve never seen damage like this’


The highest death toll was in Fukushima prefecture north of Tokyo, where levees burst in at least 14 places along the Abukuma River, which meanders through a number of cities in the largely agricultural prefecture.

At least 25 people died in Fukushima, including a mother and child who were caught in floodwaters, NHK said. Another child of the woman remains missing.

Part of Masaharu Ishizawa’s family’s back garden had been washed away, breaking water pipes and electricity lines.
The family was using water carried from a local community center to clean up.

Two doors down, an old house had collapsed after the flood washed its foundations away.

About 133,000 households were without water while 22,000 lacked electricity, well down on the hundreds of thousands initially left without power but a cause for concern in northern areas where temperatures are falling.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a parliament committee on Tuesday (October 15) that the government is planning to classify the aftermath of Typhoon Hagibis as a “catastrophic disaster.” (Reuters)


DID DAI'ICHI LOSE POWER...AGAIN? 

DID TEPCO MAKE A NEW BLUNDER DURING A POWER OUTAGE THAT WE WON'T FIND OUT ABOUT FOR MAYBE MONTHS? 

HOW CAN WE EVER TRUST TEPCO OR THE ABE REGIME?

WE CAN'T! 








___________________________



READ MORE:  

-- Three regions of interest within 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi site.


-- Similarities and differences of 137Cs distributions in the marine environments of the Baltic and Black seas and off the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in model assessments.





//WW

RADIOACTIVE WASTE BAGS WASHED AWAY IN TYPHOON: RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS RISE AT DAI'ICHI NUKE PLANT

UPDATE OCT. 17, 2019: IT IS STILL UNKNOWN HOW MANY WASTE BAGS WASHED AWAY AND THE NEWS SOURCES THAT STATED/HINTED THAT ALMOST 2,700 HAD WASHED AWAY HAVE NOW BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION.
EVEN IF THE MILLIONS OF BAGS SPREAD ALL ACROSS JAPAN DON'T WASH AWAY, SITTING IN DEEP WATER AS MOST WILL BE NOW WILL CAUSE RADIATION FROM THEM TO LEACH INTO THE FLOOD WATERS WHERE THEY SIT.  ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS HAVE BEEN PROTESTING THESE FLIMSY CONTAINERS SINCE 2011. 

When I wrote of my concern yesterday that TEPCO might take advantage of the recent typhoon in the Fukushima Prefecture to "dispose" of radioactive water tanks, I forgot about the millions of BAGS of radioactive waste. 

Today, guess what's missing? 

Thousands of bags filled with contaminated waste from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster site were reportedly swept away by heavy rains as Typhoon Hagibis hit Japan over the weekend.

According to Japan's public broadcaster NHK, officials from Tamura city in Fukushima Prefecture said on Sunday that the bags were swept away from a storage facility into a nearby stream the previous day.

Ten bags were retrieved after a search, but it has not been confirmed how many of the approximately 27-hundred bags kept at the facility remain unaccounted for.

[2,700 bags from one small facility.]

The bags, which weigh up to one ton, reportedly contain radioactive grass, trees and other material that had been collected at the site of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which suffered a meltdown in 2011.

UPDATED LATER TODAY: 
"Experts warn the radioactive bags could have a devastating environmental impact across the entire Pacific region, reports Taiwan News.

According to Asahi Shimbun, a temporary storage facility containing 2,667 bags storing radioactive contaminants from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster were “unexpectedly inundated by floodwaters brought by Typhoon Hagibis.“

Torrential rain flooded the storage facility and released the bags into a waterway 100 meters from the site."

MEANWHILE, AT THE DAI'ICHI NUKE PLANT, RADIATION LEVELS SET OFF ALARMS: 

FROM AN ATTORNEY IN JAPAN, VIA TWITTER:

"Alarms were sounded in Fukushima Nuclear Power plants at 19:25 which means leak of radiation in a water processing structure.
It means that Tepco assess rain leaking made alarms malfunction and those buildongs [sic] and structures are not airtight. Severe situation continues..."

Fukushima nuclear plant reports irregular readings as damage emerges. 

11.45 am update [NOTE: ALL TIMES BST (eight hours behind Tokyo)]:

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) reported irregular readings from sensors monitoring water in its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Tepco spokeswoman Emi Iwasa said the typhoon triggered 11 leak alerts at the plant.
Of those, eight were confirmed as being triggered by rainwater and the rest were still being investigated.

REUTERS NEWS AGENCY has been updating the aftermath of Typhoon Hagibis and also mentioned the (assumed) radiation spikes at the Fukushima plant on October 12.

REUTERS ALSO WROTE: "More than 20 rivers in central and northeastern Japan burst their banks and dozens more overflowed although their banks,  NHK said, adding that flooding rivers could cause more damage."

NO MENTION OF FUKUSHIMA'S NUKE PLANT SINCE.  

WITH "VAST SECTIONS OF TOWNS UNDERWATER" AND REPORTS OF WATER FLOWING SO SWIFTLY AND SO HIGH THAT TWO-STORY HOMES WERE COVERED AND VEHICLES WASHED AWAY, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE MORE REPORTS OF MISSING PLASTIC BAGS... IF THE ABE REGIME ALLOWS THEM TO BE PRINTED AND IF TEPCO DARES GIVE OUT HONEST UPDATES ABOUT THE DAI'ICHI PLANT.

UNKNOWN NUMBERS OF BAGS OF WASTE WERE REPORTED WASHED AWAY IN A PREVIOUS TYPHOON IN 2015, AND HOW MANY OTHER TIMES THAT WE WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF? 

SPIKES IN RADIATION LEVELS ALSO WERE REPORTED DURING/AFTER PREVIOUS TYPHOONS. 

"Despite Tuesday’s statements asserting that the drainage system would protect the nuclear plant station and the operator company was ready to face the typhoon, today’s announcement would imply that TEPCO’s efforts weren’t enough."

SO, IN 4 YEARS TEPCO STILL HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO SAFEGUARD THE PLANT?
WHY NOT? 

BOTH THE ABE ADMINISTRATION AND TEPCO KNOW THE HAZARDS AND THE REALITY OF THIS OCCURRING DURING EVERY TYPHOON, YET THERE SIT THE CURSED BAGS, YEAR AFTER YEAR, EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS, KNOWINGLY PLACED NEAR STREAMS AND RIVERS THAT ARE BOUND TO SWELL WITH EACH TORRENTIAL DOWNPOUR, BUT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ALLOWS IT.

WHY? 

A COUPLE OF NEWS AGENCIES ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT SEEMS APPROACHING TYPHOONS CAUSE EARTHQUAKES IN THAT REGION.
THERE WAS A 5.3 QUAKE OFFSHORE THERE AS HAGIBIS APPROACHED ON OCTOBER 12.

A STUDY COMPLETED IN 2011 SHOWED THIS CORRELATION BETWEEN TYPHOONS AND QUAKES. 

SO, JAPAN'S GOVERNMENT AND TEPCO KNOW THE RISKS POSED BY ALL OF THIS AND YET DEMAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BE REOPENED, BE KEPT RUNNING THERE?

JAPAN SITS ATOP THE MOST ACTIVE FAULT LINES ON EARTH, MAJOR EARTHQUAKES GENERATE TSUNAMIS, VERY STRONG TYPHOONS ARE COMMON AND CAN GENERATE EARTHQUAKES, FLOODS CAN SWEEP AWAY EVERYTHING AND YET THERE, IN JAPAN, WE FIND 54 NUKE SITES?

THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS PURE LUNACY! 










//WW

NO SUCH THING AS HARMLESS RADIATION, STUDIES STILL PROVE HORMESIS IS A FLAWED MYTH

[LARGER IMAGE <HERE>.]


TAKE THESE THREE PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES AND SHOVE THEM UP YOUR NOSES, HORMESIS THEORISTS!

Hormesis is PROVEN to be a flawed-beyond-hope theory.

IN THESE 3 STUDIES, WE SEE THAT, NOT ONLY DOES CHRONIC LOW-DOSE RADIATION CAUSE MORE BLINDNESS BY CATARACT FORMATION , IT OBVIOUSLY 'SEEMS' TO CAUSE ANIMALS AND HUMANS TO (1) PRODUCE FEWER OFFSPRING (as many studies have shown before), (2) AGE MORE QUICKLY (but we already knew that by the effects on human aging by solar radiation) , AND (3) DEVELOP MORE CANCERS (as even the original Manhattan Project scientists have said, regretfully).

FIRST AND OLDEST STUDY OF THE THREE, OCTOBER, 2015:   
FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL       

"Ionizing radiation is an established cause of cancer, but information on radiation risk has come mainly from studies of people exposed to acute, high doses of ionizing radiation, such as Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Research into associations between exposure to moderate or low dose radiation and risk of cancer began in the 1950s.   

The results suggest a linear increase in the relative rate of cancer with increasing radiation exposure and strengthen the scientific basis for current radiation protection standards.   

The study involved 308,297 nuclear industry workers from France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The workers, most of whom were men, were monitored for external radiation exposure, and were followed-up for an average of 27 years.
Risk estimates were then calculated for deaths from all cancers excluding leukemia. Factors such as age, duration of employment, and socioeconomic status were taken into account.

The estimated rate of mortality from all cancers excluding leukemia increased with cumulative dose by 48% per gray (Gy). Similar associations were found within each country. Based on these estimates, the researchers suggest that about 209 of the 19,064 observed deaths due to cancer other than leukemia were excess deaths associated with external radiation exposure.

The risk per unit dose was similar to estimates derived from studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, note the researchers, contrary to the belief that high dose rate exposures are more dangerous than low dose rate exposures.

This study provides evidence of a linear increase in the excess relative rate of cancer mortality with increasing exposure to ionizing radiation at the low dose rates typically encountered in the nuclear industries in France, the UK, and the USA," they write. The findings can also help strengthen the foundation for radiation protection standards, they conclude.

This study "adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting associations between exposure to moderate or low dose radiation and risk of cancer," writes Mark Little from the US National Cancer Institute, in an accompanying editorial."

SECOND STUDY:
JUST PUBLISHED OCTOBER 3, 2019, BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

"High energy radiation damages DNA and causes cancer.
Even transient exposures, of the sort experienced during diagnostic radiographs, are potentially harmful.

 In a population based study of more than 12 million South Koreans aged 0 to 19, the incidence of cancer was 60% higher among those who had been exposed to diagnostic radiation than among those who hadn’t been exposed (JAMA Netw Open doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10584).

THIRD STUDY: 
FROM A 2016 PUBLISHED CHERNOBYL DISASTER STUDY 

"New research now suggests that chronic exposure to low radiation can cause damage to the eyes of wild animals. This is shown in an international study led by researchers Philipp Lehmann and Tapio Mappes from the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, which recently was published in the journal Scientific Reports.

Cataract frequency increased with age in the voles, similarly as in humans generally. In addition, the effects of aging intensified as a result of elevated radiation.

Interestingly the effect of radiation was significant only in female voles.

Also in humans there are indications for high radiosensitivity of lenses. Persons with occupational exposure to radiation, such as radiology nurses, nuclear power plant workers and airline pilots have increased risk of cataract, but potential gender differences in radiosensitivity should be further studied.

Reasons for the gender differences in wild mammals are still largely hypothetical. However, the present study suggests that increased cataract risk may be associated with reproduction, as female bank voles who had severe cataracts received fewer offspring. Whether poorer reproductive success was caused by cataracts or by radiation is still unclear, and will require further experimental studies.

Nevertheless these new results support observations of negative consequences of chronic exposure to low radiation on wild animals and whole ecosystems.

Studying effects of chronic exposure to low radiation in natural ecosystems is highly important, as it will help to prepare for new nuclear accidents and predict their consequences, which can entail widespread effects that can persist for hundreds of years in nature."


THAT THERE IS NO SAFE DOSE OF RADIATION HAS BEEN PROVEN AND RE-PROVEN FOR OVER 70 YEARS.

THE LOWEST AMOUNT, EVEN ONE TRACK , OF IONIZING RADIATION THROUGH A LIVING ORGANISM, CAN LEAD TO DAMAGE WHICH CAN THEN LEAD TO FATALITY. 

The pioneering work of Muller, Sax, and McClintock, and many others, has stood the test of time.  (PDF) 
The idea that x-rays could damage the genetic material and result in interactions that could lead to gene mutations and a range of chromosomal alterations is now interpretable in terms of induced DNA damage and errors of DNA repair.

The introduction of the concept of one- and two-track processes for the induction of genetic alterations by low LET radiations remains the foundation of the dose-response curve for such alterations and provides the explanation for the responses following fractionated and chronic exposures—namely, linearity, even at low doses.

The remarkable detail afforded by the more recent molecular biology techniques has served to confirm these foundations."  

NO RADIATION DOSE IS TOO SMALL THAT IT WILL NEVER CAUSE DAMAGE.

"The 'linear no threshold' (LNT) model is the best we can do today.
The requirement for a dose-response model to be used for risk assessment purposes is that it fits the great majority of data derived from epidemiological and experimental tumor studies. Such is the case for the LNT model as opposed to other nonlinear models.
This view is supported by data developed for radiation-induced mutations and chromosome aberrations."


Hormesis is a flawed theory.
Traditional high dose testing will miss many low dose adverse effects.
by John Peterson Myers
Environmental Health Sciences

Low doses can have impacts that can't be predicted from high dose experiments.
How can exposure to something that isn't overtly toxic be a problem? 

Altered gene expression in development changes the path taken by the developing organism.

A good example is work by Ho et al. on how exposure to bisphenol A during development causes prostate cancer in adult rats.
At birth there is nothing obviously wrong with the rat, but by adulthood it is at high risk to prostate cancer. According to Ho et al., the low dose of bisphenol A prevents a gene from shutting down, something Calabrese would regard as stimulatory because this gene is involved in promoting cell division.

Think of it this way. If you were a pilot steering a boat from New York to London, it would be toxic if someone blew up your engine.

But if they altered the compass so that it led you 3 degrees off course from the very start of the trip, by the time you reached Europe you'd be on the shores of France. Small shifts in the course of development can have profoundly adverse impacts even though they may not be overtly toxic at the time of exposure.

Welshon's et al. have presented a detailed analyses at the molecular level on how low dose impacts can't be predicted from high dose experiments.

The low dose increases in gene expression can take place at exposure levels millions of times lower than those required to cause over toxicity.  

Calabrese would look at a pattern like this and see low dose stimulation and high dose toxicity: hormesis. The problem with his interpretation is the hundred-plus studies demonstrating adverse effects of BPA at low levels of exposure. Turning on estrogen-responsive genes at times during development when they are not supposed to turn on affects many tissues adversely, and in animal experiments causes prostate cancer (in adulthood after exposure in the womb), increases the risk of breast cancer, defeminizes female brain structures, masculinizes female behavior, induces insulin resistance, etc.   

Calabrese's argument that low dose stimulation is beneficial ignores the larger biological point that stimulation that is not part of the normal program in development is likely to lead to problems.

Stimulate cell proliferation and you risk cancer.

Stimulate the immune system and you risk a hyperallergenic response.

This is especially relevant in a world in which hyper-reactive immune systems are tied to asthma, auto-immune diseases, eczema, etc.


Bottom line: the notion that widespread observations of hormetic responses justifies weakening health standards is naive and wrong. Calabrese is right that current regulations should recognize the ubiquity of non-monotonic dose response system.

But the appropriate response to this observation is not to weaken standards but to strengthen them, because the adverse impacts of low dose stimulation of gene expression can't be predicted by today's regulatory testing."  

AHHHH, LOGIC, LONG-TERM STUDIES AND FACTS, HOW WONDERFUL TO KNOW THEY STILL EXIST!  

NO RADIATION IS HARMLESS.
PERIOD, THE END.






_____________________________

MORE INFO:  


Transport. The good the bad and the ugly. How radiation infiltrates your body.

The functions of living tissue are carried out by molecules, that is, combinations of different types of atoms united by chemical bonds. The proper functioning of these molecules depends upon their composition and also their structure. Altering chemical bonds may change composition or structure. Ionizing radiation is powerful enough to do this. There are several ways that radiation physically interacts with your body.

#1: Inhalation 

As radon itself decays, it produces new radioactive elements called radon daughters or decay products. Unlike the gaseous radon itself, radon daughters are solids and stick to surfaces, such as dust particles in the air. If such contaminated dust is inhaled, these particles can stick to the airways of the lung and increase the risk of developing lung cancer.

#2: Direct action

Keep in mind that ionizing radiation emits small particles that can pass right through your body, and occasionally collide with one of the particles around an atom in your body. Ionizing radiation, by definition, "ionizes," that is, it pushes an electron out of its orbit around an atomic nucleus, causing the formation of electrical charges on atoms or molecules. If this electron comes from the DNA itself or from a neighboring molecule and directly strikes and disrupts the DNA molecule, the effect is called direct action.

#3: Indirect action

It is currently thought that most damage from radiation comes from indirect action. That is, instead of string your DNA itself, a particle hits a water molecule and ionizes it producing what is known as a free radical. A free radical reacts very strongly with other molecules as it seeks to restore a stable configuration of electrons. This in turn can damage DNA and lead to mutations and cell death.
Mutations in a cell's DNA and reproductive mechanisms are what can eventually lead to cancer.


Bioavailability

Radioactivity or the strength of radioactive source is measured in units of becquerel (Bq).

1 Bq = 1 event of radiation emission per second.

Radiation is all around us and it comes from so many sources that there really is no escaping it. We can define how much a particular radioactive source is exposing us to radiation by examining its 'absorbed dose. Absorbed dose describes the amount of radiation absorbed by an object or person (that is, the amount of energy that radioactive sources deposit in materials through which they pass). The units for absorbed dose are the radiation absorbed dose (rad) and gray (Gy). 1 Gy = 100 rads.

Equal doses of all types of ionizing radiation are not equally harmful. Alpha particles produce greater harm than do beta particles, gamma rays and x rays for a given absorbed dose.


BIOACCUMULATION BY FOOD CHAIN

EVERYTHING WE CONSUME (FOOD OR LIQUIDS), EVERYTHING WE INHALE, EVERY MINUTE WE SPEND OUTDOORS IN THE SUN, EVERY RADIATION-EMITTING OBJECT WE COME NEAR, EVEN THE ELEVATION AT WHICH WE LIVE, THE TYPE MATERIALS USED TO CONSTRUCT OUR HOMES, ALL OF IT, ADDS UP, ACCUMULATES IN OUR TISSUES.
THIS IS CALLED BIOACCUMULATION. 

PLEASE READ AN AUSTRALIAN STUDY ON BIOACCUMULATION BY ABORIGINAL PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA <HERE>.

IT APPLIES SIMILARLY TO ALL OF US. 

ALSO SEE:   
Bioaccumulation & Biomagnification   


You can ROUGHLY calculate your radiation dose per year <HERE>.




//WW

SUPER-TYPHOON IN JAPAN COULD CREATE NEW RADIATION LEAKS AT FUKUSHIMA

FROM 'JAPAN TIMES', TODAY: At least 35 killed and 17 missing after Typhoon Hagibis tears through country, flooding rivers and submerging cities.

Hagibis, the 19th named storm of the season, tore through Japan’s main island of Honshu on Saturday and early Sunday packing winds of up to 144 kph at landfall, killing 35 and leaving 17 unaccounted for as of Sunday afternoon, according to Kyodo News. NHK reported 166 people were injured.

Cities and towns across the country — including in Nagano, Niigata, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Kanagawa and Saitama prefectures — were inundated by flood waters after levees failed in the face of record rainfall,forcing many people to abandon submerged homes. The damage could worsen in the coming days as the water levels may rise along flooded rivers.

WITH THE RECORD-BREAKING FLOODING IN JAPAN ONGOING, NOW WOULD BE A "GOOD" TIME FOR TEPCO TO HAVE ITSELF AN "OOPS!" MOMENT AND ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THE UNFORTUNATE "ACCIDENT" OF A MASSIVE LEAK FROM ALL THOSE TANKS FULL OF RADIOACTIVE WATER STORED ON THE GROUND AT THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR PLANT. 
I WOULD HOPE THAT THERE WILL BE INTERNATIONAL MONITORING DURING THIS TIME AND FOR DAYS, AT LEAST, AFTERWORD. 

ANY SUDDEN RISE IN RADIATION LEVELS IN AIR OR WATER WOULD INDICATE THAT TEPCO HAD RELEASED CONTENTS OF AT LEAST SOME TANKS.
WITH LANDSLIDES PREDICTED AND EXPECTED, IT WOULD BE MOST CONVENIENT IF THE WATER RUNOFF FROM THE NEARBY MOUNTAINS BEHIND THE DAI'ICHI FACILITY CREATED MUDSLIDES OR SUCH EXTREME FLOODING THAT TEPCO COULD CLAIM THAT AS THE REASON FOR SUCH AN "ACCIDENT".

WITH BOTH LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL PROTESTS AGAINST TEPCO'S PLANS TO JUST GO AHEAD AND DUMP THAT ONE MILLION TONS OF NUCLEAR WASTE INTO THE PACIFIC, THIS NATURAL DISASTER IS A PERFECT COVER FOR TEPCO TO "LOSE" THE STORAGE TANKS IN FLOODING AND/OR LANDSLIDES.

SUCH AN ACCIDENT WOULD SAVE TEPCO MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

MAY THEY RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO USE NATURE AS A SCREEN AGAINST ILLEGALLY DUMPING THAT WASTE.

MAY THEY HAVE THE HONOR AND DECENCY TO NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ONGOING CRISIS. 


FROM 'JAPAN TIMES', YESTERDAY: 

Record-breaking rainfall, strong winds and severe flooding struck areas from central to northern Japan on Saturday as Typhoon Hagibis made landfall on Shizuoka Prefecture’s Izu Peninsula and directly hit Tokyo and its surrounding areas.

At least two people were killed, nine were missing, and 86 others were injured across 27 prefectures.

More than 100 rivers were at risk of overflowing, including the Arakawa River in Tokyo’s Edogawa Ward, the Karasawa River in Saitama Prefecture and Koito River in Chiba Prefecture.

A level 5 special warning for heavy rain, the highest issued by the Meteorological Agency, was issued at 3:30 p.m. on Saturday urging residents in Tokyo, Shizuoka, Kanagawa, Saitama, Gunma, Yamanashi and Nagano prefectures to evacuate to a secure building or move to the second floor. At just before 8 p.m., the special rain warning was extended to Ibaraki, Tochigi , Niigata, Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures.

As of early Sunday morning, the typhoon was traveling toward the Tohoku region, and as many as 340,000 residents in Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, were advised to evacuate. According to the Meteorological Agency, Hagibis was predicted to move into the Pacific Ocean off Tohoku by around 9 a.m. Sunday.

Over 6 million people across Japan were urged to evacuate earlier in the day.








//WW

CLINTON WAS 'THE CANCER OF THE DNC' SAID DNC INSIDER

Warren agrees DNC was rigged against Sanders

[NOTE: JUST FOUND THIS IN MY DRAFTS AND CAN'T IMAGINE WHY I DIDN'T POST IT WHEN I FIRST WROTE MOST OF IT, IN AUGUST...SO, DID YOU SEE THIS ON MSM?] 

TWO WELL-KNOWN DEMOCRATS (GABBARD & BRAZILE) HAVE RECENTLY MADE A FEW HEADLINES FOR REVEALING THE HILLARY CLINTON TAKEOVER OF THE DNC AND THE PARTY'S SCREWING OF OLD BERNIE SANDERS.

THREE HAVE SAID HILLARY'S FINANCIAL INFLUENCE RIGGED THE 2016 ELECTION IN HER FAVOR. (ADD ELIZABETH WARREN)

ONE OF THEM WENT SO FAR AS TO CALL HILLARY AND HER TEAM A "CANCER" INSIDE THE PARTY.

Tulsi Gabbard (born April 12, 1981) is an American politician and military combat veteran serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

Elected in 2012, Gabbard became the first Samoan American and Hindu member of Congress.
Gabbard served in the Hawaii House of Representatives from 2002 to 2004. Elected at age 21, she was the youngest woman to be elected to a state legislature. Gabbard served in a field medical unit of the Hawaii Army National Guard in a combat zone in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009.
Gabbard was a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee from 2013 to 2016, when she resigned to endorse Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. 

Gabbard privately accused Debbie Wasserman Schultz of violating the DNC's duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton. This later became public in leaked emails published by WikiLeaks.
Gabbard is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in 2020.

Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, briefly serving as the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee in spring 2011, and again from July 2016 to February 2017.

A WikiLeaks e-mail dump in 2016 revealed that Brazile had sent e-mail messages to the Clinton campaign sharing upcoming debate questions with Clinton. Brazile never apologized and said that her conscience was "very clear". She later commented: "If I had to do it all over again, I would know a hell of a lot more about cybersecurity."

On October 31, 2016, The New York Times reported: "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked e-mails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton's campaign."

Aug 28, 2019
"Dem Prez Candidate Tulsi Gabbard Accuses 'DNC And Corporate Media' Of Rigging 2020 Election: 'Trying to Hijack Entire Election Process'."   

Nov 3, 2017
Tulsi Gabbard: "DNC Rigged the Presidential Primary and Damaged the Party."
Tulsi Gabbard just guaranteed the Democratic National Committee will never allow her to become their nominee and she did so by telling the truth in a newly released 1:46 minute video (the second video above) explaining to her supporters why she may decide to "boycott" the next Democrat debate, despite the fact that she has qualified for it.

Gabbard brutally reminds voters of how the DNC and their partners in corporate media rigged the 2016 primary against Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton.

She informs supporters that they are at it again, saying that in 2020 the DNC and the corporate media are trying to "hijack the entire election process."    

From the online transcript: 

"Earlier today we heard from Donna Brazile** that what many people had

suspected for a long time has turned out to be true.

The DNC secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections

even occurred. 
This shines a light on how deeply broken our campaign finance laws

are and how they've weakened individual candidates while strengthening and

empowering political parties and special interests.

These laws essentially allowed the Clinton campaign to bypass individual

campaign contribution limits by funneling millions of dollars through

the DNC and state parties, taking control of the DNC in the process, along with the

recent retaliatory purge of Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison supporters from

the DNC's executive committee.

This is just further evidence that the DNC needs to be completely overhauled to

take our party back from the special interests of a powerful few and put it back

in the hands of the people.

We must bring about real campaign finance reform. 

We must get rid of the undemocratic system of super-delegates.

We must implement open or same-day registration in democratic primaries to

actually encourage voter engagement.

We must care more about people than protecting the status quo.

No more games, no more retaliation, no more picking of winners and losers.

We must act now to take back our party, a party that belongs to the people,

and fight for a new path forward that is open, transparent and accountable,

and that strengthens our democracy." 

SWEET, BUT HOW CAN WE BREAK IT TO GABBARD THAT AMERICA IS NOT NOW, NOR WAS IT EVER INTENDED TO BE, A "DEMOCRACY"? 
WHAT WE HAVE IS A "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC".
THE OLD FOUNDERS NEVER WANTED A DEMOCRACY BECAUSE THEY CONSIDERED THAT TO BE "MOB RULE".  

 

She also spoke out in May of 2016.  (ABOVE) 

The woman is consistent in her message...the DNC is owned by Clinton money and that money cancels all other candidates.
They are simply betrayed and kicked aside by the DNC.

She's been saying the same thing for the past three years.

HOW HAS SHE ESCAPED "SUICIDE"? 

Bernie Sanders supporter, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), who resigned her position as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse the Vermont senator, tells CBS News that while people warned her not to defy the Clintons, she doesn't fear potential retaliation.

Gabbard also discussed the state of the primary fight and stressed that Sanders still has a path to the Democratic nomination despite trailing Hillary Clinton in delegates.
Gabbard joined CBS News' Demarco Morgan to discuss the 2016 Democratic race.

She also blew a whistle on Kamala Harris' record as a prosecutor and revealed Harris' failures to seek JUSTICE, rather than a win in court, called Harris' alleged stance on prison reform to question, marking Harris as a hypocrite.

You can watch one of those videos <HERE>.

Democrat voters have not forgotten, nor forgiven the DNC for what they did to Sanders in 2016, and Gabbard just ripped the scab off the wound to make it bleed all over again.
Gabbard is also correct in calling out the "corporate media" as the propaganda arm of the DNC and of working hand-in-hand with them.

Multiple liberal outlets, like NBC News, have pushed the ludicrous but familiar Russia propaganda angle with claims that Russia is "now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020," meaning Gabbard.

Gabbard is by no means the only one to point out the behind-the-scenes manipulations that went on in the Democratic Party once Hillary came aboard as a candidate...AGAIN. 


NOVEMBER 2, 2017, POLITICO MAGAZINE

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC 
** Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee.

What follows is excerpted from her book "Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House" published November, 2017 by Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Book Group. Copyright 2017 Donna Brazile.

BRAZILE PASSES THE BUCK. "IT WASN'T ME!"    

" 'My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart. 

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words.
He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the [HILLARY] campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.” 

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to [Clinton] campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

[T]he states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady.

I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF), and Hillary for America (HFA).

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.
Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.


THE GRAND EXCUSE

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity. 

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.' ”


CANCER IS A GOOD DESCRIPTIVE WORD HERE, ISN'T IT? 

Donna Brazile Calls Clinton Fundraising a "Cancer" | Time


ALMOST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE BRAZILE DISCLOSURE, ELIZABETH WARREN AGREED WITH HER ASSESSMENT! 

AS THE WASHINGTON POST ACTUALLY  REPORTED, November 2, 2017:  Update: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who comes from the Sanders wing of the party, just told CNN in response to Brazile's op-ed that the she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was "rigged."


WHAT "THE CANCER" COST THE DEMOCRATS  

AS NEWSWEEK REPORTED APRIL 15, 2019: "Post election numbers showed that 12 percent of Sanders' voters who voted for him in the primary, voted for Donald Trump in the general election against Hillary Clinton, with some claiming those voters gave Trump the "margin of victory" in key states he needed to beat Clinton.

A 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey found fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders during the Democratic primaries followed up and voted for Clinton in the general election. At least 12 percent of Sanders supporters cast a vote for Trump that November.

"They gave him the margin of victory in three critical states that gave Donald Trump the presidency: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania," Thiessen continued. "He needs to get those voters back. So for example, in Pennsylvania, 16 percent of Sanders supporters voted for Donald Trump. That's a total of about 116,000 voters, Trump won by 44,000 votes. So in all those states it was the Sanders supporters who gave Trump the margin of victory and gave him the presidency if you just do the math."

A recent Emerson College poll indicates that up to 26 percent of "Bernie Bros" would cast their vote for Trump over Warren in 2020.

 Said one Bernie fan to the Washington Examiner, “If the DNC screws him [Sanders] again, like it's already looking like they will, I'll stay home on voting day. Hell, I may vote for Trump just to make sure their candidate loses.”
The Examiner also quoted Sanders supporter Keith Ward, a Pennsylvania resident: ""If they cheat again, I have told people I will vote for Trump.'” 

BRENNAN AND CLAPPER FEELING THE HEAT

 Back in March, 2019 John Brennan claimed that he relied on "bad information" and that he may have been misled about the extent of President Trump's connections to Russia.

“Well, I don’t know if I received bad information but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was,” Brennan said. “I am relieved that it’s been determined there was not a criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.”

WHAT?
HE ADMITTED THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY BY TRUMP?

YES, YES, HE DID.

Brennan still maintained that there were inappropriate attempts to communicate with the Kremlin but said he was “not all that surprised that the high bar of criminal conspiracy was not met.”

As for James Clapper, he recently went on CNN, where he is a paid contributor now, and basically spilled what his defense is going to be for his actions as DNI under Obama, which is "We just did what our Commander in Chief told us to do."

It is worth mentioning that the report in question was the January 2017 DNI report, issued by Clapper, titled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections."

In that report, despite Clapper saying above that they compiled information from "all the reporting that we could, that we had available," only three agencies' intelligence was considered and documented in that 2017 report which claimed they had a high level of confidence that Russia interfered in order to help Trump win the election.

Those agencies were the FBI, led by former Director James Comey, who has been found to have violated FBI policies and guidelines, the CIA, and the NSA.

Only those three agencies provided their assessments and analysis, while Clapper's office issued the final report.

Interesting that Comey, Clapper and Brennan are also having their actions reviewed as part of the Barr/Durham investigation.  
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is questioning whether these former intel agency heads used the unverified and "salacious" Steele Dossier for that intelligence assessment report, ordered by Obama.

"The dossier -- if you believe that foreign interference is wrong in our elections, then you should be upset by the fact that the Democratic National Committee hired a former British spy to investigate Trump by getting dirt on him from Russia. The Steele dossier is a bunch of political garbage, unverified to this day.
Why was it included in the intel assessment? Did Brennan have anything to do with that? Because it is salacious garbage," Graham said.

"So we're going to find out about all of this, and Barr should be going to Italy and the U.K. and Australia, trying to find out if their intelligence services were working with the CIA or the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign."

The corruption that ran rampant through multiple intelligence agencies, at the highest of levels, is being investigated, as well as the possible FISA abuses, and we are seeing the key players, Clapper and Brennan acting very nervous, defensive and/or belligerent, as they wait for the hammer to drop.

While they may not know exactly what is in the Inspector General's (IG) report, nor how much Barr and Durham already know, before they are scheduled to be questioned, the nature of the investigations mean they have some idea of what is coming, which may explain why they are trying to play victim on MSNBC and CNN.

The level of nervousness being displayed is indicative that the IG, Barr and Durham are all over the target.

STEPHEN MILLER DEFINES THE 'DEEP STATE': 

"The deep state is a collection of permanent bureaucrats enmeshed inside the federal government who can’t be fired or removed — at least historically, have not been able to be — because of misguided civil service laws. They believe they know better than you, and your listeners, and the voters how the country ought to be run. At this moment in time, the deep state has a knife aimed at the heart of American democracy, and that’s what you’re seeing playing across your TV screens and newspapers pages and online, with these so-called whistleblowers, who are, of course, in fact, angry hate-filled rage-driven bureaucrats determined to take down the President of the United States and illicitly and improperly using the Whistleblower Protection Act in order to effectuate their designs."

"Miller continued, “One of the gravest threats that we face today — and I can’t emphasize this enough — to our republican form of government is the unelected deep state, and I’ll explain what I mean by that. The Constitution of the United States, Article II, states very clearly that, and this is a quote, ‘The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.’
What that means is that the whole executive power is vested in one democratically elected person: the president. The president, who is accountable to the voters — the president, who is accountable to the American people, holds and wields the executive power. Every other person in the federal government in the executive branch is an extension of his authority, is acting as an extension of his authority delegated to them. They have no independent authority.

So when a deep state bureaucrat says, ‘I don’t want Donald Trump to be president. I don’t want to effectuate his policies. I don’t want to carry out his agenda, so I will do the opposite,’ they’re violating the Constitution and they’re taking away the power of the American people to elect who heads the executive branch and what policies they implement."

“The last point I’ll make about this is the why,” Miller said. “Why? Because this president dared to disrupt two-party betrayal of the American people over many decades: betrayal on trade, betrayal on China, betrayal on foreign policy, betrayal on our southern border, betrayal on our economy, decade after decade, year after year, administration after administration. This president dared to stand up to defy that betrayal — was elected to end that betrayal — but the people who profited like parasites off of that betrayal are now the ones trying to prevent him from executing the agenda that the American people installed him to execute. That’s the situation we find ourselves in today.” 


WHAT THE TEA ROOM SEES AS A MORE DANGEROUS CANCER THAN CLINTON IS THE WALL STREET-OWNED, OUTRAGEOUSLY BIASED MAINSTREAM MEDIA (MSM). 

JUST AS OUR ENTIRE CONGRESS ARE PROSTITUTES TO INDUSTRY, SO IS THE MEDIA.  
WE CAN WATCH THEM EACH NEW DAY SCRAMBLING AND TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER IN AN ATTEMPT TO BECOME THE 'FAVORITE WHORE' OF BOTH POLITICIANS AND INDUSTRY. 

AS I ASKED A FRIEND RECENTLY, "WHY DO YOU THINK THE U.S. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYS THOUSANDS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS, 'AD-MEN', BEHAVIORAL SCIENTISTS?" 

ANSWER?
BECAUSE IT TAKES AN ARMY OF THOSE TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE  MOST OF THE TIME. 

AS POOR OLD GEORGIE BUSH, JR, SAID, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." 







___________________________

Interesting facts about Gabbard: 
In July 2004, Gabbard was deployed for a 12-month tour in Iraq, serving as a specialist with the Medical Company, 29th Support Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, completing her tour in 2005. 
In March 2007, she graduated from the Accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy. Gabbard was the first woman to finish as the distinguished honor graduate in the Academy's 50-year history.
She was commissioned as a second lieutenant and assigned to the 29th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 29th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the Hawaii Army National Guard, this time to serve as an Army Military Police officer.
She was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. There, as a primary trainer for the Kuwait National Guard, she was among the first women ever to set foot inside a Kuwait military facility. She was also the first woman to be honored for outstanding work in its training program.   
On October 12, 2015, Gabbard was promoted from captain to major at a ceremony at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.

She continues to serve as a major in the Hawaii Army National Guard.






//WW

RECENT CATTLE MUTILATIONS IN OREGON STILL UNEXPLAINED

JUST A LINK-DROP AND A SHORT NEWS PIECE ON THIS UNTIL I CAN RESEARCH IT IN-DEPTH.

IT SO REMINDED ME OF THE HUNDREDS OF SUCH MUTILATIONS WE SAW IN TEXAS IN THE 1970s.


'Not One Drop Of Blood': Cattle Mysteriously Mutilated In Oregon

OCTOBER 8, 2019, BY NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO (NPR) 
"At Silvies Valley Ranch in remote eastern Oregon, five young purebred bulls mysteriously showed up dead on the ranch this past summer, drained of blood and with body parts precisely removed.

The ranch's vice president, Colby Marshall, drives his truck down a U.S. Forest Service road.

"Then we'll get out and take a little walk to where one of the bulls was found. And the carcass is still there," Marshall says.

Coming upon one of the dead bulls is an eerie scene. The forest is hot and still, apart from a raven's repeating caw. The bull looks like a giant, deflated plush toy. It smells. Weirdly, there are no signs of buzzards, coyotes or other scavengers. His red coat is as shiny as if he were going to the fair, but he's bloodless and his tongue and genitals have been surgically cut out.

Marshall says these young livestock were just reaching their top value as breeding bulls. The animals are worth around $6,000 each. And since these were breeding bulls, hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of future calves were lost too.

Finding these young Herefords in this remote country can sometimes take the ranch's experienced cowboys days. Ranch staff members are now required to ride in pairs and are encouraged to carry arms.

"It's rugged," Marshall says. "I mean this is the frontier. If some person, or persons, has the ability to take down a 2,000-pound range bull, you know, it's not inconceivable that they wouldn't have a lot of problems dealing with a 180-pound cowboy."

Theories abound

Harney County Sheriff's Deputy Dan Jenkins has been working the cattle cases and has gotten dozens of calls from all over offering tips and suggestions.

"A lot of people lean toward the aliens," Jenkins says. "One caller had told us to look for basically a depression under the carcass. 'Cause he said that the alien ships will kinda beam the cow up and do whatever they are going to do with it. Then they just drop them from a great height."

Jenkins says the cases have been tough, with little evidence and no credible leads.

On his whiteboard, he has a running list scrawled in green marker with the top theories. What's clear: It isn't bears, wolves, cougars or poisonous plants. Nor were the animals shot.

The FBI won't confirm or deny that it's looking into the multiple slaughters.

Two years ago and 200 miles south, near New Princeton, Ore., one of Andie Davies' cows was also found cut up and bloodless.

She and her husband drove concentric circles around the corpse, but they never found any tracks.

And in this dusty country, "everything you do leaves tracks," Davies says.

Back in the 1980s, one of Terry Anderson's mother cows was mysteriously killed overnight. Standing at his ranch near Pendleton, Ore., Anderson points to the exact spot where he found her on top of a mountain.

He remembers his cow lying dead, her udder removed with something razor sharp."And not one drop of blood anywhere," Anderson says.

He has never gotten over it.

"It's just left a really strange feeling with me since that day. You can't explain it," Anderson says. "And, you know, no one else has been able to explain it."

The Harney County Sheriff's Office continues to field calls on the killings. And Silvies Valley Ranch has put up a $25,000 reward for information that could solve the case."


IN 2009, MUTILATIONS BEGAN POPPING UP AGAIN IN COLORADO, AS THE DENVER POST REPORTED. 
"Predators ruled out. 
Colorado cow mutilations baffle ranchers, cops.   

"Four calves, all killed overnight. Their innards gone. Tongues sliced out. Udders carefully removed. Facial skin sliced and gone. Eyes cored away. Not a single track surrounding the carcasses, which were found in pastures locked behind two gates and a mile from any road. Not a drop of blood on the ground or even on the remaining skin. - Manuel Sanchez, longtime rancher.

Every rancher who has reported similar cattle deaths — and there have been at least eight such deaths in southern Colorado this year — uses the same description.

“They just stripped this one,” says Tom Miller, who in March was one of three ranchers near Trinidad who discovered mutilated cattle.

There by the trough — past the locked gate a quarter-mile from U.S. 350 east of Hoehne — was the calf. Its front legs and torso were gone. Its back legs were hanging by hide to a shattered pelvis and a meatless backbone. Miller thought a pack of coyotes had torn into the calf the night before.

Then he saw the ears: sliced off the head in circular, surgical-like cuts. He noticed that there were no tracks. And no blood anywhere.

Colorado Brand Inspector Dennis Williams came out and looked at Miller’s calf. He lives next door; the calf would be the last of three strangely mutilated cattle that he would investigate in March of this year.

“I’ve heard about it. It was weird, to say the least. Totally unexplainable. To me, it looked like that calf had been dropped from a high distance, the way its hips were dislocated and all its broken bones,” Williams says.

That same month, ranchers had called Williams to grisly scenes northeast of Aguilar and west of Weston to investigate mysteriously mangled cattle that had been seen healthy the day before.

To add to the weirdness, Sanchez, Miller and Mike Duran, who found a sliced Red Angus cow near Weston in March, have all experienced similar mutilations before. Sanchez lost cows in 2006 and 1993, Miller in 1997 and 1980, and Duran in 2000 and 1995."





//WW

CONGRESS VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION

TRY TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TRIAL DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF MEN IN DISGUISE, OR MEN COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM THE "JURY", MEN WHOSE VOICES ARE EVEN DISGUISED, MEN WITH NO REAL NAMES, UNKNOWN MEN WHO COULD BE HIRED ACTORS, ENEMIES OF THE STATE, ANYONE WHO WANTED TO SEE YOU CONVICTED BADLY ENOUGH TO LIE ON THE WITNESS STAND.

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JUDGE TO ALLOW THAT TESTIMONY TO BE HEARD?

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JURY TO ACCEPT SUCH TESTIMONY? 

Based on what Democrats have revealed so far, President Donald Trump is as likely to be impeached as he is to be a lottery pick in next year's NBA draft.

But, as Garrett Epps, University of Baltimore Law School professor, pointed out in "American Epic: Reading the U.S. Constitution," nothing can stop the House hell-bent on impeachment. They'll  seize on to ANY reason to go for it "whether for illicit sex, jaywalking, or drinking Pinot Noir with fish," as he humorously said

In 1985, the New York Daily News quoted former Chief Judge Sol Wachtler as saying that if they so desired, district attorneys could persuade a grand jury to 'indict a ham sandwich'.
A month later, the New York Times noted that Wachtler believed grand juries “operate more often as the prosecutor’s pawn than the citizen’s shield.”

The old reprobate judge was correct in both assessments.

As the Tea Room has stated often and clearly, I abhor ALL politicians, BOTH major parties were created to maintain a continuous CIVIL WAR, JUST AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS WARNED, time and time again. I have never in my life voted for "the lesser of two evils", since that would still amount to a vote for evil.

Politicians are the most vile, reprehensible, lying/oath-breaking group of freedom-robbing, scum-sucking life forms in the known universe. 

However, given the despicable 'crucifixion' of the current President by so many Capitol Hill whores and by the mainstream media since before he was elected until today, we will NEVER see "JUSTICE TRULY SERVED" when it comes to trying Trump for anything. He's a "marked man" to all Democrats and some so-called "Republicans"

We can find some small solace in the fact that getting the vermin of The House to vote for impeachment is a far simpler task than getting a conviction in the rat-infested Senate.

THEY HAVE TO PROVE IT BY MEANS OF RIGHTFUL, LAWFUL APPLICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
FEW, IF ANY, OF THOSE SERPENTS ON THE HILL RECOGNIZE OR ADMIT THE INERRANT SIMPLICITY OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS INTENDED OF THAT OLD DOCUMENT.
THEY THINK IT NEEDS INTERPRETATION.
IT DOES NOT.**
IT MERELY NEEDS ACCEPTANCE AND STRICT ADHERENCE TO ITS SIMPLICITY. 


The operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.There are essentially four schools of thought concerning their, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.

1- CONGRESSIONAL INTERPRETATION: 
"What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office..." Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).

Ford's view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.

2- AN INDICTABLE CRIME: 
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office.
This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.

There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3) provides that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury."

[WHAT IS THE SENATE IN PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT CASES BUT A JURY?
THE SENATE BECOMES BOTH THE COURT AND THE JURY.] 

Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.

Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.

[FINE. IF IT'S 'CRIMINAL' THEN THE DEFENDANT HAS A NICE PLETHORA OF RIGHTS GRANTED BY CONSTITUTION'S BILL OF RIGHTS TO ACCUSED CRIMINALS.] 

#3- MISDEMEANORS 

The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified.

This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Constitution's Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty."
This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption."
The word "corruption" was then eliminated.

On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place.
There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one.

#4- RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICIAL DUTIES
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maladministration." This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.

Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened.

(Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statute be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)

YES, YES IT WOULD.
AND CONGRESS KNOWS IT.

[SEE ALSO:

Impeachment attempt against John Tyler

Impeachment investigation against James Buchanan

Harry S Truman—Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas (TWO CHARGES AGAINST TRUMAN) 

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

A Republican congressman from Michigan wanted Franklin Roosevelt impeached, and he wasn't alone.

Perhaps more fancifully, the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti wrote a poem titled "Tentative Description of a Dinner Given To Promote the Impeachment of President Eisenhower."

Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, especially, all inspired more or less serious calls for their impeachment.

In early 1983, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said President Ronald Reagan should be impeached "for incompetence." Later that year, he called for impeaching Reagan over his military action in Grenada.

Jesse Jackson wanted Reagan impeached in 1984 for mining Nicaragua's harbors. Texas Rep. Henry Gonzalez and six other Democrats introduced a resolution to impeach Reagan in 1987 over the Iran-Contra affair.

Gonzalez pushed to have President George H.W. Bush impeached in 1991 because of the Gulf War.

Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush in 2004 that centered on the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, global warming and the 2004 elections.

Conyers filed a resolution in 2005 calling for Bush's impeachment, and was still publicly advocating it by 2007.
Kucinich kept pushing for impeachment into Bush's last months in office.

Rep. Maxine Waters first called for Trump's impeachment before he was inaugurated.
Rep. Alan Grayson was talking up Trump's impeachment before he'd even secured the Republican nomination.]     

MAKE UP NEW RULES AS YOU TRY TO IMPEACH  

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

The trial in the Senate is handled by "Managers" from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).

IF THE SENATE APPEARED TO "ACT IN A MANNER THAT CREATED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS", THE SUPREME COURT CAN, AND SOME SAY DEFINITELY SHOULD AND WILL, INTERVENE. 

In Walter Nixon v. United States, as stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:

"Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority's argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis."

This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:

"If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results...judicial interference might well be appropriate." Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.

FOUR TRUE FACTS ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT THAT FEW AMERICANS KNOW. 

#1: Presidential Impeachment is a two-step process.

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides for the removal of a president, vice president and other “civil officers” of the United States.

There are three grounds upon which removal proceedings may be commenced:
1.Bribery
2.Treason
3.Felonies and Misdemeanors

The impeachment process begins with a vote in the House of Representatives on the formal accusation or charge giving rise to the call for impeachment.

Impeachment requires a majority vote of the members of the House, but this is just the first step of a two-step process.

A successful impeachment vote by the House is a formal accusation or charge against the president or other official. It does not, however, result in the removal of the person from public office.

The second step in the process is a trial in the Senate presided over by the vice president in cases involving any public official other than the president.

Presidential impeachment trials are presided over by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the conclusion of the trial, a vote is held in much the same manner as a trial jury votes to convict or acquit following a trial in a criminal court.
Two-thirds of the members of the Senate must vote in favor of conviction for a president to be removed from office through impeachment.

#2: Only TWO Presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both Democrats), but neither were convicted.
The House has voted to impeach officials on 60 different occasions, including the two above-mentioned Presidents.
Of all of the officials impeached by a vote of the House, only eight federal judges have actually been convicted in the Senate and removed from office. 
#3: Contrary to what some people might believe, President Richard Nixon was not impeached.

The burglary at the Washington, D.C., offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Complex in 1972 drew international headlines and led to an investigation by the House of Representatives. The hearings in the House Judiciary Committee disclosed a possible link between the White House and the individuals who committed the burglary.

The congressional investigation ended with the Judiciary Committee issuing articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon alleging, among other things, perjury, bribery and obstruction of justice.

Before the accusations could be presented to the House for an impeachment vote, Nixon submitted his resignation from office in the summer of 1974.

#4: Political rivalry does not amount to grounds for impeachment.

The fact that no president has been removed from office through impeachment would appear to stand as proof that as much as partisan politics might factor into the process, the system incorporated into the Constitution has worked for more than two centuries.

The adoption of rules of evidence and procedures governing the impeachment trial in the Senate include the right of the accused to be represented by counsel, the right to cross-exam witnesses and to present witnesses and evidence in defense of the charges are designed to incorporate fairness and due process into the proceedings.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME RIGHTS ARE AFFORDED THE PRESIDENT AT THE
SENATE TRIAL AS ARE AFFORDED 'COMMON CITIZENS' IN ANY CRIMINAL COURT TRIAL.   

WHAT ARE THOSE 'INALIENABLE RIGHTS'?
THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM.

FROM 'THE LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL:   

"The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action.

 This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43).
As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses.

In Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (1895), the Supreme Court enunciated the three fundamental purposes that the Confrontation Clause was meant to serve:

1.To ensure that witnesses would testify under oath and understand the serious nature of the trial process;
2.To allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses who testify against him; and
3.To allow jurors to assess the credibility of a witness by observing that witness’s behavior.

In Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530 (1986), the Court noted that the Confrontation Clause is one of several constitutional safeguards to promote fairness in the criminal justice system.

In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), the Supreme Court left open the possibility that competing interests, such as a jurisdiction’s interest in effective law enforcement, might prevail over the right to confront opposing witnesses.

However, in Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988), the Supreme Court held that that taking other interests into account should not be interpreted as creating exceptions to “the irreducible literal meaning of the clause,” reaffirming that a defendant has the right to confront his alleged victim “face-to-face."

The admission of hearsay evidence sometimes results in depriving defendants of their right to confront opposing witnesses, as the Supreme Court observed in Delaney v. United States, 263 U.S. 586 (1924).

THE HOUSE CANNOT APPLY THE FOLLOWING 'EXCEPTION', IT JUST WON'T FIT. 

In Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968), the Court recognized a common law exception to the Confrontation Clause's requirement when a witness was unavailable and, during previous judicial proceedings, had testified against the same defendant and was subject to cross-examination by that defendant.

THE HOUSE CANNOT DENY TRUMP THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. 

In Brookhart v. Janis 384 U.S. 1 (1966), the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right had been violated when a trial court refused to let him cross-examine the witnesses who testified against him at his trial, even if his attorney tries to waive the defendant's right to do so.

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), the Supreme Court held that in order to fulfill the procedural due process inherent in the Confrontation Clause, a criminal defendant must have the opportunity to cross-examine testimony that has been made against him. In an analogy the Melendez-Diaz Court made, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."
For more on the right to confront a witness, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this St. John's Law Review article, and this Louisiana State University Law Review article."

FOR A LENGTHY SUMMARY OF WHY THE SUPREME COURT RULED AS THEY DID IN THE CRAWFORD CASE, SEE THE CORNELL LAW SCHOOL'S TAKE ON IT.

In 2004, that the Supreme Court decided that out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause when they decided, Crawford v. Washington.

This case altered the rules for prosecutors. No longer could out-of-court statements be used against a defendant without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Before Crawford, the Supreme Court had held that out-of-court statements did not violate the confrontation clause as long as they were adequately reliable.

In Crawford, the Court changed course and determined that defendants had a right to cross-examine out-of-court statements, regardless of whether or not the statements were reliable.

In his opinion in Crawford v. Washington, Justice Antonin Scalia follows a long and interesting description of the common-law history of the right to confront one's accusers with this conclusion:
"This history supports two inferences about the meaning of the Sixth Amendment.

First, the principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused. ...

The historical record also supports a second proposition: that the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. 

The text of the Sixth Amendment does not suggest any open-ended exceptions from the confrontation requirement to be developed by the courts. Rather, the “right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” Amdt. 6, is most naturally read as a reference to the right of confrontation at common law, admitting only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. ...

Where testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence, much less to amorphous notions of “reliability.” 

Before 1965, the Court had little need to address the scope of the Confrontation Clause's protections of the rights to cross-examine a witness and to do so face to face.
This was because the Bill of Rights was originally only a restriction against the Federal government, and not against the states.

Gradually, after the introduction of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War, through the use of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, nearly all of the restrictions in the Bill of Rights have also been applied to the states. You can read the 14th Amendment here.                                                                                                                                                             
Types of Protection Provided by Due Process

Though some laws in certain jurisdictions have slightly different interpretations of individual rights, they all prevent the government from harming a person without following the specified procedures of the law. This is known as “due process.”

The Due Process Clause provides four basic areas of protection, all of which are overseen by the U.S. Supreme Court:

1.Substantive due process; When determining whether the government has violated a person’s substantive due process rights, the judicial system first determines whether the issue at hand was a fundamental right.

2.Procedural due process;

~The right to an unbiased trial.
~The right to be given notice of the proposed trial and the reason for it.
~The right of the individual to be aware of evidence against him.
~The right to cross-examine witnesses for the opposition.
~The right to present evidence and call witnesses.
~The right to be represented by counsel. 
3.Prohibition against vague laws;
The Due Process Clause protects citizens against laws that are too vague for the average person to understand. If the laws are written in such a manner that an ordinary person cannot determine whether the conduct is expressly prohibited, or that a punishment can be rendered if they carry out the conduct, the court can determine the law to be “void for vagueness.” This prohibition against vague laws ensures that the laws are understandable and that ignorance cannot be used as a defense in criminal offenses.

4.As a means to incorporate the Bill of Rights; As time went on, the Supreme Court made a number of rulings that certain state laws or policies violated protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, thus “incorporating” those protections, applying them to all U.S. citizens.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
REPEAT, when the 14th Amendment was passed it made the 6th Amendment's right to confrontation applicable to state courts as well as federal courts.

In 2004, the Supreme Court decided that out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause when they decided 'Crawford v. Washington'. 

THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS GRANTED AND NONE OF THOSE ARE SIMILAR OR APPLICABLE TO THE UPCOMING "ANONYMOUS WITNESS" THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WANTS TO HIDE.

If you've been accused of a criminal offense, you have the constitutional right to confront your accusers face-to-face, period, the end.

14th AMENDMENT, Section 1  

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
THE 6th AMENDMENT
The sixth amendment, as part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees certain rights in all criminal prosecutions. 
--the right to a speedy and public trial
--the right to an impartial jury in the district in which the alleged offense occurred
--the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge or charges against him or her
--the right to confront witnesses against him or her
--the right to a compulsory process for obtaining defense witnesses
--the right to assistance of counsel
--the right to cross-examine

This fourth item, the right to confront one's accusers, is known as the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. It is this clause which was a key issue in a recent criminal appeal before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, the same federal appeals court which has jurisdiction over Oklahoma cases.

In United States v. Gutierrez de Lopez, Maria Leticia Gutierrez de Lopez was convicted of conspiring to transport undocumented aliens after being caught trying to transport an illegal immigrant from El Paso, Texas, to Denver, Colorado. She was sentenced to three years' probation, but she appealed the conviction.

A key issue in her appeal--one that could have had a significant impact on how state and federal agents use confidential informants--was the assertion that the use of anonymous witnesses in her trial violated the Confrontation Clause by denying her Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by witnesses against her.

Precedent holds that witnesses may testify anonymously if their testimony will place them in significant danger.

In her appeal, Gutierrez de Lopez argued that the lower court failed to prove that there was any need for secrecy in allowing the witnesses to testify under aliases, and that if the witnesses' safety was truly a concern, the court would have used a curtain and disguised their voices to shield their identity. 
While the government did not provide the true identities of the confidential informants, it did give information about the criminal histories of the informants and the compensation they received for assisting law enforcement.

The appeal argued that, although the defense was able to cross-examine the witnesses based on the information provided at trial, it did not receive enough information to conduct thorough pre-trial investigation of the witnesses.

The Tenth Circuit found that the lower court "failed to justify secrecy" and did not adequately demonstrate a need for anonymity for the protection of the witnesses, but called that a "harmless error."

The court ruled that the Confrontation Clause "requires the literal right to confront witnesses" and said that the defendant was given that opportunity through cross-examination. The court affirmed the conviction of Gutierrez de Lopez, despite the government's use of anonymous testimony without establishing safety concerns.

It seems a critical point that in order to allow anonymous testimony, the government would have to clearly demonstrate that revealing the true identity of the witness would place him or her in danger.

However, calling a failure to do so a "harmless error" seems to open the door for presenting anonymous testimony without any real need to do so, which would indeed be a violation of the Confrontation Clause.

This is the second recent court case in which an anonymous accuser seems to trump the defendant's Constitutional rights.

In late April, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Navarette v. Califonia that an anonymous tip was enough to merit reasonable suspicion and probable cause for a traffic stop, even if the responding law enforcement officer witnessed nothing himself or herself to verify the tip.

The Court found that an anonymous tip, in and of itself, was not necessarily credible cause for suspicion, but with "adequate indicia of reliability," the officer could rely on an anonymous caller alone without his or her own visual verification of the alleged behavior.


Constitutional Issues

There are two potential constitutional issues with allowing a witness to testify in disguise. They deal with two clauses in the Constitution:

(1) the Confrontation Clause and

(2) the Due Process Clause.

First, the Confrontation Clause, found in the Sixth Amendment, generally allows a criminal defendant to "confront" his accusers. This doesn't mean that the defendant can intimidate them, but it does mean that the defendant must generally know who his accusers are, and be able to cross-examine them. If a defendant doesn't know who a witness is, he may be able to argue that his right to confront his accusers is being denied.

Second, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment generally guarantees a criminal defendant a fair and unbiased trial. However, if even witnesses are afraid of the defendant, the jury may be swayed into believing that the defendant is so dangerous a man and surely guilty of whatever crime he is charged with.

When Is Testifying Under Disguise OK?

There are not a lot of court opinions about this subject. But at least when it comes to child victims or witnesses, the U.S. Supreme Court has held they can be blocked from the defendant's sight if testifying in the open would cause "severe emotional distress" for the child.

As for adults testifying incognito, the few courts that have ruled on it have found that such a tactic may be OK if it is supported by a strong interest, such as a legitimate fear of the witness being in danger, coupled with assurance that the disguise will not unfairly bias the jury. 

Reported in the Charlotte Observer, MARCH 8, 2018:"In an unusual ruling last month, U.S. District Judge John Adams has cleared the way for an undercover FBI agent to hide his identity by using a pseudonym and altering his appearance when he’s in the courtroom. At prosecutors’ request, Adams has also agreed to largely clear the federal courtroom when the agent takes the stand."


'Light disguise' used as two CIA security operatives detailed the deadly aftermath of the 2012 attack on U.S. Benghazi compound. Testifying under unusual secrecy measures—including wearing what the judge described as "light disguise"—the CIA officers told a federal jury at the Washington trial of a Benghazi militia leader about how they flew in from Tripoli on the night of the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi only to eventually find themselves caught up in an intense firefight at a CIA annex nearby.

[NOTE: THE TEA ROOM WONDERS IF EITHER OR BOTH WERE AMONG THOSE WHO HINTED THAT STEVENS WAS FRAGGED BY CIA MEMBERS AT THE SCENE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED?] 

The Supreme Court may eventually have to make a definitive answer on this issue, especially in matters of impeachment.
.

THE CRAWFORD RULE,  MARCH 8, 2004 

Petitioner Michael Crawford stabbed a man who allegedly tried to rape his wife, Sylvia. At his trial, the State played for the jury Sylvia’s tape-recorded statement to the police describing the stabbing, even though he had no opportunity for cross-examination. The Washington Supreme Court upheld petitioner’s conviction after determining that Sylvia’s statement was reliable. The question presented is whether this procedure complied with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

The State charged petitioner with assault and attempted murder. At trial, he claimed self-defense. Sylvia did not testify because of the state marital privilege, which generally bars a spouse from testifying without the other spouse’s consent. See Wash. Rev. Code §5.60.060(1) (1994). In Washington, this privilege does not extend to a spouse’s out-of-court statements admissible under a hearsay exception, see State v. Burden, 120 Wash. 2d 371, 377, 841 P.2d 758, 761 (1992), so the State sought to introduce Sylvia’s tape-recorded statements to the police as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense. Noting that Sylvia had admitted she led petitioner to Lee’s apartment and thus had facilitated the assault, the State invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, Wash. Rule Evid. 804(b)(3) (2003).

Petitioner countered that, state law notwithstanding, admitting the evidence would violate his federal constitutional right to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” Amdt. 6. According to our description of that right in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), it does not bar admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against a criminal defendant if the statement bears “adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Id., at 66. To meet that test, evidence must either fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bear “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ibid. The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault.

The Washington Court of Appeals was reversed.

It applied a nine-factor test to determine whether Sylvia’s statement bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, and noted several reasons why it did not: The statement contradicted one she had previously given; it was made in response to specific questions; and at one point she admitted she had shut her eyes during the stabbing. The court considered and rejected the State’s argument that Sylvia’s statement was reliable because it coincided with petitioner’s to such a degree that the two “interlocked.” The court determined that, although the two statements agreed about the events leading up to the stabbing, they differed on the issue crucial to petitioner’s self-defense claim: “[Petitioner’s] version asserts that Lee may have had something in his hand when he stabbed him; but Sylvia’s version has Lee grabbing for something only after he has been stabbed.” App. 32.

The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, unanimously concluding that, although Sylvia’s statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness: “ ‘[W]hen a co-defendant’s confession is virtually identical [to, i.e., interlocks with,] that of a defendant, it may be deemed reliable.’ ” 147 Wash. 2d 424, 437, 54 P.3d 656, 663 (2002) (quoting State v. Rice, 120 Wash. 2d 549, 570, 844 P.2d 416, 427 (1993)). The court explained:

“Although the Court of Appeals concluded that the statements were contradictory, upon closer inspection they appear to overlap… ."


THE FIFTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

SEE ALSO THE FOLLOWING LENGTHY PDF RE: THE CRAWFORD DECISION: 
http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Training/2013NewMisdemeanor/GuideToCrawford.pdf


LIKE I SAID, TRY TO IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE ACCUSED OF A CRIME AND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT TRIAL DEPENDS SOLELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF MEN IN DISGUISE, OR MEN COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM THE "JURY", MEN WHOSE VOICES ARE EVEN DISGUISED, MEN WITH NO REAL NAMES, UNKNOWN MEN WHO COULD BE HIRED ACTORS, ENEMIES OF THE STATE, ANYONE WHO WANTED TO SEE YOU CONVICTED BADLY ENOUGH TO LIE ON THE WITNESS STAND.

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JUDGE TO ALLOW THAT TESTIMONY TO BE HEARD?

WOULD YOU EXPECT ANY JURY TO ACCEPT SUCH TESTIMONY?

WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH NEVER SEEING THE FACES OF YOUR ACCUSERS OR NEVER GETTING TO CROSS-EXAMINE THEM WITH OR WITHOUT DISGUISES, OR SEE THEIR TESTIMONIES ACCEPTED 'IN ABSENTIA'?

ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD WILLINGLY ALLOW OR AGREE TO SUCH A THING, MAYBE SOMEONE WITH A DEATH WISH OR WHO WANTED TO SPEND YEARS BEHIND BARS.

IF YOU WERE NOT A LAWYER YOURSELF, WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT YOUR ATTORNEYS TO STOP SUCH MADNESS, HAVE IT THROWN OUT OF COURT?

THE DEMOCRATS SAY THESE WITNESSES ARE "IN FEAR OF THEIR LIVES".
THAT'S BULL*HIT.

THEY'RE IN FEAR OF BEING REVEALED AS CHARLATANS, LIARS, FRAUDS, WHATEVER ELSE THEY MAY BE BUT HONEST AND DEDICATED TO UPHOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

THESE 'WITNESSES' ARE IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS THOSE WHO WANT TO USE SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL MEANS AS PART OF A COUP TO UNSEAT A DULY ELECTED UNITED STATES PRESIDENT (EVEN IF HE WAS ELECTED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE).

WE'VE SEEN ATTEMPTED COUPS AGAINST MANY FORMER PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN BOTH PARTIES ACCUSED OF THE SAME THINGS, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BOTH PARTIES FOUND GUILTY OF THE SAME 'CRIMES', MAKING BOTH PARTIES LEADERS BOTH HYPOCRITES AND UNBELIEVABLE.

THESE WITNESSES SHOULD BE, AS SHOULD ALL OF CONGRESS BE, ADMINISTERED A NICE 'TRUTH SERUM', STRIPPED NAKED, HOOKED UP TO 'LIE DETECTORS', AND THE WHOLE SHEBANG TELEVISED NON-STOP ON LIVE NATIONAL TELEVISION.

THE PUNISHMENT FOR TREASONOUS ACTS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS DEATH AND DEATH BY HANGING, ONCE UPON A TIME.

PERHAPS IT'S PAST TIME WE REINSTALL THAT PUNISHMENT? 



_______________________________________

FURTHER READING:
**-- The Constitution is plainly written.  It was intended to be easy to understand. 
The Constitution is also short. 
Why do we need a process for interpreting the Constitution? 

If we have such a process for divining the meaning of the Constitution, why should that process be secret deliberations of nine judges who are effectively unaccountable to the people? 

The problem with federal judicial usurpation of the right to interpret the Constitution is that no one really knows what is "constitutional" and what is not.  If the Supreme Court upheld a congressional statute outlawing the practice of Zoroastrianism in America then the Supreme Court would have violated the Constitution.  But these justices could not even be impeached for that action because they would have just declared that the Constitution allowed Congress to do what it did.

The Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution needed to be changed, from time to time, and that it needed to be clarified as well.  So within the Constitution is Article V, which prescribes just how to change the Constitution.  Nowadays, this way of changing the Constitution is simply ignored.  Instead, federal courts "interpret" the old language of the Constitution instead of legislators either changing that language to allow the Constitution to "grow" or to clarify what the original language meant.  Now, even if the Constitution is amended, federal judges will interpret what that amendment means.

When Congress passes a law, it is constitutional.  This approach sounds scary but it is not.  When Congress passed the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, no federal judges leapt to the defense of the First Amendment.   The legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia determined the laws were unconstitutional, but even more importantly, the voters of America determined the laws were unconstitutional:  the Federalist Party was crushed in the next election and died an ignoble political death.    Americans had no choice but to vote out of Congress members who treated the Constitution so cavalierly.   If courts said nothing about the constitutionality of federal laws, then voters would have to champion the Constitution themselves. 

The Constitution would stop being the mysterious runes of judges and lawyers and become the documentary statement of our liberties defended only by the governed:  the people. 


Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Speedy Trial Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Public Trial Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Right to Trial by Jury Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Arraignment Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Compulsory Process Clause

Sixth Amendment Court Cases - Right to Counsel Clause


-- A History of Treason in The United States




//WW