The White House revealed a proposal to extend legal status and a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the country as children in exchange for $25 billion in funding for the wall, an end to chain migration across the board, and an end to the visa lottery program.
The bill’s framework would apply to the roughly 690,000 illegal immigrants who registered for the DACA program started by former President Barack Obama as well as illegal immigrants who did not apply. A senior administration official told reporters that the 1.8 million number would be restricted by minor adjustments to timeframes and dates of entry issues.
“The argument is by some people in Congress is that there is another 690,000 roughly that never got around to registering but fall into the general category, age, and all the rest of it,” the official said. “Those combined come to 1.8 million.”
The path to citizenship would require a 10-12 year period where recipients would be required to demonstrate good behavior, work and education requirements, and good moral character.
A senior White House official described the plan as an “extraordinarily generous concession” with Democrats but made several demands considered non-starters by members of Congress supporting amnesty.
The White House said that it intended to send the framework to Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, who promised Democrats a vote on the Senate floor by February 8.
The framework includes a $25 billion lump sum “trust fund” for a border security “wall system” for not only the Southern border but major security investments on the Northern border as well.
It also includes sweeping limitations for chain migration — limiting family immigration sponsorships to only spouses and minor children — not for parents or extended family members.
The new migration limitations would apply to all immigrants in the United States, not just the newly legalized 1.8 million.
“It will never, ever, ever, ever, work unless it’s universal,” the official noted. “It’s a global change to the U.S. immigration system.”
The bill framework was described as an effort to show exactly what the president wanted in a bill after open borders advocates complained that they had no idea where the president stood in their negotiations.
The proposal would also end the visa lottery program and reallocate them towards fulfilling the skills-based visa backlog.
The official noted that the current legislation was “galaxies apart” from what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer discussed with Trump over lunch before the government shutdown, but felt that it was a plan that could get 60 votes in the Senate.
Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas promised to bring his articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for a vote on the House floor next week.
Green said that his effort to impeach the president will put him on the “right side of history.
The Texas congressman, along with five other House Democrats, introduced articles of impeachment against the president in November. Green brought forth articles of impeachment on the House floor in early December, but it failed in a decidedly. House lawmakers effectively killed Green’s effort, voting 364-58 to sideline the measure.
The congressmen listed a number of charges against the president in their December articles, including: obstruction of justice, a violation of the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a violation of the Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause, undermining the federal judiciary process and undermining the press.
The articles primarily focused on Trump’s handing of the termination of former FBI Director James Comey, and potential conflicts of interest with Trump’s businesses and properties while he’s served as president.
Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews.
California lawyer Lisa Bloom’s efforts included offering to sell alleged victims’ stories to TV outlets in return for a commission for herself, arranging a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempting to secure a six-figure payment for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward after being offered as much as $750,000, the clients told The Hill.
The women’s accounts were chronicled in contemporaneous contractual documents, emails and text messages reviewed by The Hill, including an exchange of texts between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were contacted Bloom, who has assisted dozens of women in prominent harassment cases and also defended film executive Harvey Weinstein earlier this year, represented four women considering making accusations against Trump last year. Two went public, and two declined.
In a statement to The Hill, Bloom acknowledged she engaged in discussions to secure donations for women who made or considered making accusations against Trump before last year’s election.
“Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.
Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.
And while she noted she represented sexual harassment victims for free or at reduced rates, she also acknowledged a standard part of her contracts required women to pay her commissions as high as 33 percent if she sold their stories to media outlets.
“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.
“As a private law firm we have significant payroll, rent, taxes, insurance and other expenses every week, so an arrangement where we might receive some compensation to defray our costs seems reasonable to us and is agreed to by our clients,” Bloom added.
Bloom told The Hill she had no contact with Clinton or her campaign, but declined to address any contacts with super PACs that supported the Democratic presidential nominee.
Josh Schwerin, the communications director for Priorities USA Action, the largest pro-Clinton super PAC, told The Hill that the group had no relationship with Bloom and had no discussions with her about supporting Trump accusers.
One Bloom client who received financial help from Bloom was New York City makeup artist Jill Harth.
The former beauty contestant manager filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997 and then withdrew it under pressure. The news media discovered the litigation during the election, and Harth’s name became public in the summer of 2016. She asked Bloom to represent her in the fall after hearing Trump describe her allegations against him as false, and became a vocal critic of Trump.
“I consider myself lucky to have had Lisa Bloom by my side after my old lawsuit resurfaced. She advised me with great competence and compassion,” Harth told The Hill.
Harth said she did not originally ask Bloom for money, even though her cosmetics business suffered from the notoriety of the campaign stories about her.
But later, Bloom arranged a small payment from the licensing of some photos to the news media, and then set up a GoFundMe.com account to raise money for Harth in October 2016. “Jill put herself out there, facing off with Donald Trump. Let’s show her some love,” the online fundraising appeal set up by Bloom’s husband declared.
The effort raised a little over $2,300.
Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016.
Harth said the payments did not affect the merits of her allegations. She alleges that during a January 1993 meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, the future president pushed her up against a wall and groped her, trying to get his hands up her dress.
“Nothing that you’ve said to me about my mortgage or the Go Fund Me that was created to help me out financially affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault,” she told The Hill.
“Having to retell my experiences of Donald Trump’s harassment is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.”
Trump has steadfastly denied assaulting or harassing women, even after a videotape surfaced in September 2016 in which he can be heard boasting that famous men like him can grab women by the genitalia without consequence. Trump has dismissed the tape as “locker room talk.”
Harth is currently writing a memoir about her whole experience, but without Bloom’s help.
Bloom acknowledged arranging financial help for Harth, who she said had lost income because of the publicity surrounding her allegations.
“She endured a tidal wave of hate for it. It was very painful for her. And as a New York City makeup artist, Jill lost jobs after she came out publicly against Donald Trump. I believed that people wanted to donate to help her, so we set up the GoFundMe account,” she told The Hill.
The Hill does not identify the names of victims of sexual assault or harassment unless they go public on their own, like Harth.
But one woman who did not go public with allegations agreed to share her documents and talk to The Hill about her interactions with Bloom if The Hill honored its commitment to maintain her anonymity.
Both that woman and Harth, who were friends, stressed that Bloom never asked them to make any statements or allegations except what they believed to be true.
Their texts and emails indicate Bloom held a strong dislike of Trump though. Bloom is the daughter of Gloria Allred, another prominent attorney who is representing a number of women who have made accusations of sexual misconduct against Trump.
In an email to the unnamed woman, Bloom said that her story was “further evidence of what a sick predator this man is,” referring to Trump.
Documents also show Bloom’s efforts to get alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment to come out against Trump intensified as Election Day 2016 approached.
When Harth, for instance, informed Bloom she had just made a Facebook post urging other women to come forward about Trump in October 2016, the lawyer texted back: “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.”
And when a potential client abruptly backed out of a pre-election news conference in which she was supposed to allege she was sexually assaulted at age 13, Bloom turned her attention to another woman.
That woman, Harth’s friend, went back and forth for weeks with Bloom in 2016 about going public with an allegation of an unsolicited advance by Trump on the 1990s beauty contest circuit.
“Give us a clear sense of what you need and we will see if it we can get it,” Bloom texted the woman a week before Election Day.
“I’m scared Lisa. I can’t relocate. I don’t like taking other people’s money,” the woman wrote to Bloom.
“Ok let’s not do this then,” Bloom responded. “We are just about out of time anyway.”
The woman then texted back demanding to know why there was a deadline. “What does time have to do with this? Time to bury Trump??? You want my story to bury trump for what? Personal gain? See that ‘s why I have trust issues!!”
The woman told The Hill in an interview that Bloom initially approached her in early October through Harth. She said she considered coming forward with her account of an unsolicited advance by Trump solely to support her friend Harth, and not because she had any consternation with Trump, who ended the advance when she asked him to stop, she said.
The woman said Bloom initially offered a $10,000 donation to the woman’s favorite church, an account backed up by text messages the two exchanged.
“Please keep the donation offer confidential except to your pastor,” Bloom wrote the woman on Oct. 14, 2016.
When Bloom found out the woman was still a supporter of Trump and associated with lawyers, friends and associates of the future president, she texted a request that jarred the woman.
“When you have a chance I suggest you delete the August 2015 Facebook post about supporting Trump,” Bloom texted. “Otherwise the reporter will ask you how you could support him after what he did to you. Your call but it will make your life easier.”
The woman declined. “I hate to say it, but i still rather have trump in office than hillary,” the woman texted back. Bloom answered, “Ok I respect that. Then don’t change anything.”
Eventually the two decided the woman’s continued support of Trump was a benefit to her narrative if she went public with her accusations, the messages show. “I love your point about being a Trump supporter too,” Bloom texted on Oct. 14, 2016.
The text messages show the woman made escalating requests for more money.
By early November, the woman said, Bloom’s offers of money from donors had grown to $50,000 to be paid personally to her, and then even higher.
“Another donor has reached out to me offering relocation/security for any woman coming forward. I’m trying to reach him,” Bloom texted the woman on Nov. 3, 2016. Later she added, “Call me I have good news.”
The woman responded that she wasn’t impressed with the new offer of $100,000 given that she had a young daughter. “Hey after thinking about all this, I need more than $100,000.00. College money would be nice” for her daughter. “Plus relocation fees, as we discussed.”
The figured jumped to $200,000 in a series of phone calls with Bloom that week, according to the woman. The support was promised to be tax-free and also included changing her identity and relocating, according to documents and interviews.
Bloom told The Hill that the woman asked for money as high as $2 million in the conversations, an amount that was a nonstarter, but the lawyer confirmed she tried to arrange donations to the woman in the low six figures.
“She asked to be compensated, citing concerns for her safety and security and over time, increased her request for financial compensation to $2 million, which we told her was a non-starter,” Bloom told The Hill. “We did relay her security concerns to donors, but none were willing to offer more than a number in the low six figures, which they felt was more appropriate to address her security and relocation expenses.”
The woman said that when she initially talked to Bloom she simply wanted to support Harth and had no interest in being portrayed as an accuser or receiving money. But when Bloom’s mention of potential compensation became more frequent, the woman said she tried to draw out the lawyer to see how high the offer might reach and who might be behind the money.
Just a few days before the election, the woman indicated she was ready to go public with her story, then landed in the hospital and fell out of contact with Bloom.
The lawyer repeatedly texted one of the woman’s friends on Nov. 4, 2016, but the friend declined to put the woman on the phone, instead sending a picture of the client in a hospital bed.
Bloom persisted, writing in a series of texts to the friend that she needed to talk to her hospitalized client because it could have “a significant impact on her life” and a “big impact on her daughter” if she did not proceed with her public statement as she had planned.
“She is in no condition for visitors,” the friend texted Bloom back.
“If you care about her you need to leave her be until she is feeling better,” the friend added in another text.
Bloom hopped on a plane from California to come see the woman on the East Coast, according to the text messages and interviews.
The next day, the woman finally reconnected with Bloom and informed her she would not move forward with making her allegations public. Bloom reacted in a string of text messages after getting the news.
“I am confused because you sent me so many nice texts Wednesday night after my other client wasted so much of my time and canceled the press conference,” Bloom texted on Nov. 5, 2016. “That meant a lot to me. Thursday you said you wanted to do this if you could be protected/relocated. I begged you not to jerk me around after what I had just gone through.”
A little later, she added another text. “You have treated me very poorly. I have treated you with great respect as much as humanly possible. I have not made a dime off your case and I have devoted a great deal of time. It doesn’t matter. I could have done so much for you. But you can’t stick to your word even when you swear you will.”
After the woman was released from the hospital, she agreed to meet Bloom at a hotel on Nov. 6, just two days before Trump unexpectedly defeated Clinton.
The woman told The Hill in an interview that at the hotel encounter, Bloom increased the offer of donations to $750,000 but still she declined to take the money.
The woman texted Bloom that day saying she didn’t mean to let her lawyer down.
“You didn’t let me down,” Bloom texted back. “You came and spoke to me and made the decision that’s right for you. That’s all I wanted.”
Bloom confirmed to The Hill that she flew to Virginia to meet with the woman after she had changed her mind several times about whether to go public with her accusations against Trump.
“We invited her to meet with us at the hotel restaurant and she accepted. Ultimately, after another heartfelt discussion, she decided that she did not want to come forward, and we respected her decision,” Bloom told The Hill.
Bloom said the donor money was never intended “to entice women to come forward against their will.”
“Nothing can be further from the truth. Some clients asked for small photo licensing fees while others wanted more to protect their security,” she said.
Bloom declined to identify the name of any donors who would have provided money for women making accusations against Trump.
Harth and the woman who decided not to go public said they never were given any names of donors.
But Bloom told the woman who declined to come forward that she had reached out to political action committees supporting Clinton’s campaign.
“It’s my understanding that there is some Clinton Super Pack [sic] that could help out if we did move forward,” the woman wrote Bloom on Oct. 11, 2016. “If we help the Clinton campaign they in turn could help or compensate us?”
Bloom wrote back, “Let’s please do a call. I have already reached out to Clinton Super PACs and they are not paying. I can get you paid for some interviews however.”
The woman who ultimately declined to come forward with Bloom told The Hill that she stayed silent for an entire year afterward because she did not want to call attention to her family.
She said she supported Trump in 2016, and that he she held no resentment about the early 1990s advance because Trump stopped it as soon as she asked him.
She said she remains friends with many people associated with the president to this day, including one of his best personal friends and a lawyer who works for one of the firms representing Trump.
The woman said, however, no one associated with the Trump White House or the president forced her to come forward or made any offers to induce her to talk to The Hill. She said she agreed to do so only after she became disgusted to learn this past October that Bloom had agreed to work in defense of Weinstein.
“I couldn’t understand how she could say she was for people like me and then represent someone like him. And then all the money stuff I knew about. I just became frustrated,” she said.
Bloom dropped her representation of Weinstein as the accusations piled up against him, telling Buzzfeed that it had been a “colossal mistake.”
Nearly from the beginning, Bloom made clear to the woman she would have to pay her law firm a commission on any fees the attorney arranged from media outlets willing to pay for the woman’s story, according to a copy of a contract as well as a text message sent to the woman.
“Outlets with which I have good relationships that may pay for your first on camera interview, revealing your name and face: Inside Edition, Dr. Phil, LawNewz.com,” Bloom texted the woman just weeks before Election Day. “My best estimate of what I could get for you would be $10-15,000 (less our 1/3 attorney fee).”
“If you are interested I would recommend Inside Edition or Dr. Phil as they are much bigger. Dr. Phil is doing a show on Trump accusers next Tuesday in LA and would fly you here and put you up in a nice hotel, and pay for your meals as well, with your daughter if you like,” Bloom’s text added. “Media moves very quickly so you need to decide and then once confirmed, you need to stick to it.”
Representatives of “Inside Edition” and “Dr. Phil” said they did not pay any Trump accusers for appearances last year.
Bloom’s firm sent the woman a “media-related services” contract to represent her for “speaking out against Donald Trump” that laid out business terms for selling a story in the most direct terms.
“You will compensate the Firm thirty-three percent (33%) of the total fee that you collect, whether the media deal or licensing fees is for print, Internet, radio, television, film or any other medium,” Bloom’s proposed contract, dated Oct. 10, 2016, read. The woman said she signed the contract.
When Bloom found out in early November that the woman and the friend had discussions with CBS News about doing an interview on their own, the lawyer texted back: “CBS does not pay for stories.”
A little later Bloom sent another text suggesting the arrangements she was making could be impacted by the unauthorized media contacts. “You and your friends should not be shopping the story it will come back to bite you,” Bloom texted. “And this whole thing we have worked so hard to make happen will go away.”
REVEALED: La David Johnson Betrayed Fellow Soldiers in Niger Ambush
Washington, DC – The attack by Islamic militants in the central African country of Niger that left four American military members dead and triggered a public fight between President Donald Trump and Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, of Florida, is hiding a far more dark episode in our nation’s military. New evidence has emerged that reveals that Sgt. La David T. Johnson, the center of the fracas between President Trump and Rep. Wilson, had betrayed his own squad by helping to set up the ambush in Niger by Islamic militants that would ultimately lead to the death of three American soldiers as well as his own.
Where is Niger anyway?
Niger is a landlocked, west African country bordered by Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad. Since its independence from France in 1960, it has experienced military rule, countless coups and now a democratically elected government. The current president of Niger is Issoufou Mahamadou.
A map of Niger showing the precise location Niamey where the ambush of the American soldiers took place.
According to the CIA World Factbook, Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world. Food production isn’t keeping up with the population growth due to the arid climate, the lack of arable land and the high fertility rate.
Niger however is rich in natural resources and Islamic terrorists have targeted Niger in order to hurt its economy. Uranium mines, which are abundant in Niger, have been the target of recent terrorist attacks aimed at undermining the democratically elected government.
Why were U.S. troops in Niger and when did they get there?
U.S. troops started arriving in Niger in 2013. During this time, extremists were on the rise in northwest Africa. The French had intervened in Mali in 2012 when an al-Qaeda affiliated group and other tribal groups took control of the northern part of the country. In addition, Boko Haram continued its assault on Nigeria through bombings and killings.
Members of the Islamic militant group Boko Haram.
Former president Barack Obama deployed 40 U.S. military personnel to provide support to the French forces. This brought the total number of troops in Niger to 100 in 2013. However, the small troop numbers were grossly insufficient to deal with the complexity of the insurgency and Islamic terrorist activities. The number of U.S. troops in Niger has since ballooned to 800. In a letter to the House speaker at the time, Obama claimed,
“This deployment will provide support for intelligence collection and will also facilitate intelligence sharing with French forces conducting operations in Mali, and with other partners in the region.”
Currently, troops are assisting the U.S. Embassy in Niger’s capital of Niamey, while others are working on construction efforts at Air Base 201 in Agadez, according to U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).
What does the White House want to say happened on October 4 in Niger?
On October 4, four soldiers died in Niger “as a result of hostile fire while on a reconnaissance patrol,” according to the Defense Department. According to the Pentagon, twelve American soldiers were attending a routine patrol in the area when they were ambushed by up to 100 Islamic militants who engaged in a fierce firefight with the patrol. Four American soldiers died that day and the first three identified were Army Staff Sgt. Bryan C. Black, 35, Army Staff Sgt. Jeremiah W. Johnson, 39 and Army Staff Sgt. Dustin M. Wright, 29.
The fourth soldier identified was Sgt. La David T. Johnson, 25 – the soldier whose widow President Donald Trump called and the source of the controversy between President Trump and Representative Frederica Wilson.
Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., has stood by her claim that President Donald Trump made insensitive remarks to Myeshia Johnson, the widow of a slain soldier.
Although Johnson is said to have died on October 4, his body was found over a mile away from the site of the Islamic militant’s ambush and it took a whole 48 hours to retrieve his body, according to the Defense Department.
According to a New York Times report, the Pentagon has been trying to determine whether American forces involved in the deadly ambush in Niger diverted from their routine patrol to embark on an unapproved mission, according to military officials.
American and Nigerien soldiers on the patrol have given conflicting accounts about whether they were simply ambushed or were attacked after trying to chase Islamic insurgents, according to military officials from both countries.
One of the main problems with the timeline in Niger is that the area which was alleged to have been patrolled by U.S. forces was familiar to the soldiers and had not been deemed to have required additional security. The area had been patrolled numerous times with no incident.
Defense Secretary James Mattis answers reporters’ questions about the American soldiers who were killed in Niger before a lunch meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman and other officials at the Pentagon on October 19, 2017 in Arlington, Virginia.
However, according to the survivors of the ambush, Johnson’s body was found a good mile away from the point at which Islamic militants launched their ambush. In response to media queries why it took so long to recover Johnson’s body, an irate Secretary of Defense, James Mattis said to the media,
“The U.S. military does not leave its troops behind, and I would just ask that you not question the actions of the troops who were caught in the firefight and question whether or not they did everything they could in order to bring everyone out at once.”.
John Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff, said on October 19 that more was known about events than has been reported in the press but that he would not disclose it. That “more” is precisely what led to the controversy when President Trump called the widow of Johnson and said “he knew what he signed up for.”
What can’t the White House say?
According to a senior White House official who was privy to the discussions between the Pentagon and the Oval Office regarding the Niger ambush and requested anonymity, part of the reason that President Trump took four days before he could publicly comment on the death of the American soldiers is that Johnson was the one who had leaked the position of the patrol to Islamic militants who then launched the ambush, which killed three of Johnson’s fellow soldiers.
President Donald Trump speaks on the phone in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington., DC.
The White House was incredulous that a betrayal from an exemplary soldier was possible and they spent four long days trying to confirm what the Pentagon was claiming happened. The bigger question was whether to admit that Johnson had betrayed his squad – no matter how you spun this information – there would be no winners, only losers. Ultimately, the decision was taken to cover up the fact that Johnson had betrayed the position of his squad to Islamic terrorists. Understanding why Johnson, who was highly regarded by his military peers, would do such a thing was far more complex.
Who is La David Johnson?
La David T. Johnson was a husband and father to a 2-year-old son and a 6-year-old-daughter and was set to welcome his third child in January. According to MilitaryTimes.com, Johnson joined the Army in January 2014 and was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) at the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina.
A screengrab of La David Johnson’s Facebook page showing a photo of him before he shipped out.
Highly regarded by his military peers, Staff Sgt. Dennis Bohler, a close friend of Johnson’s who was also Johnson’s supervisor at Fort Bragg, said Johnson rose through the ranks rapidly – from a private to a sergeant in less than three years. According to Bohler,
“He caught on quickly. You tell him once, and it’s complete, any task.”
“He was just that one soldier that always wanted to better himself every day. Every day, he wanted to do better than he did yesterday.”
Lt. Col. David Painter, commander of 2nd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne), said in a statement that,
“The Bush Hog formation (the Battalion nickname) was made better because of Johnson’s faithful service and we are focused on caring for the Johnson family during this difficult period.”
Bohler added,
“(Johnson) had some pretty good upbringing. He didn’t do any drinking. He didn’t do any smoking. He was a family-oriented soldier.”
However something changed for Johnson when Donald Trump was elected as President in November 2016. Fellow soldiers who were deployed with him in Niger and who spoke on condition of anonymity claim that Johnson went through a period of introspection shortly after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election to Donald Trump in 2016. According to one soldier,
“There was a sense that Johnson didn’t feel like he knew what he was fighting for anymore.”
Johnson hated Donald Trump and thought that he was a white supremacist and a racist and made that clear in conversations with other soldiers. Whereas before, Johnson was more than happy to serve under former president Barrack Obama, the thought of serving under President Donald Trump was something that he had not prepared for.
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the national anthem to protest police treatment of black suspects. Kaepernick has been found to have donated significant sums to a group which glorifies violence against police officers and celebrates the life of convicted cop-killer Assanta Shakur.
Then came Charlottesville and the Colin Kaepernick controversy flared up. According to another soldier deployed in Niger with Johnson and who also requested anonymity,
“There was Charlottesville and then there was the whole Colin Kaepernick thing and that really set David off.”
“He was furious that the president would speak in defense of white supremacists and he questioned what he was still doing out here instead of being with his family.”
However, there was no way for Johnson to request to return back to the U.S. As a special forces soldier, he was torn between his duty to fight alongside his squad and his desire to give up the fight. Which is when he decided to commit the ultimate betrayal, leak the position of his squad to Islamic terrorists in the hopes they would set up an ambush and use the opportunity to flee, and cite psychological trauma as a grounds to return back to the U.S.
What really happened on October 4 in Niger?
On October 4, Johnson’s squad had heard reports that a leader of a militant group had been coming from Mali to resupply on fuel and food at Tongo Tongo, whose villagers are seen as sympathetic to the extremists. The Americans were keen to follow up with the Tongo Tongo village chief when they saw motorbikes in the horizon – a sign of likely terrorist activity. Motorbikes are the vehicle of choice of insurgent groups operating in the area, allowing them to easily navigate the harsh terrain, especially now, the end of the muddy rainy season.
Sgt. La David T. Johnson was an exemplary soldier who lost focus on his mission and his loyalty to the flag, the country and the President.
Eventually, after talking to the village chief, the troops got into their vehicles to return to their base, a two-hour drive. But less than five minutes after they drove out of the village, the convoy was ambushed by a group that outnumbered them two to one.
According to a Nigerian official, about 100 armed insurgents, many of whom were on motorbikes – two or three people a bike – as well as others in about 10 sport utility vehicles, surrounded the Americans. They were armed with heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft weaponry as well as rocket-propelled grenades, and a firefight lasting about two to three hours ensued.
During this time, two or three vehicles in Johnson’s convoy were destroyed and part of the convoy became separated when at least one of the Land Cruisers became stuck in the mud. According to the New York Times, Johnson was in the vehicle that had gotten stuck, along with Nigerian soldiers who also died.
However, American forces who survived the fight described one Land Cruiser driving away from the ambush at high speed in the opposite direction of the convoy. That Land Cruiser was driven by Johnson and was the only Land Cruiser that contained Nigerian soldiers and no other French or American soldiers. According to one survivor who spoke on condition of anonymity as investigations are still ongoing,
“As we came under heavy fire, I looked up and saw Johnson jump into one of the Land Cruisers and speed off in the other direction. That Land Cruiser was manned by the Nigerian soldiers who were with us, so I thought it was weird that he would do that instead of providing covering fire.”
Nigerian officials shared intelligence with the American forces in Niger that the meeting with the Tongo Tongo village chief had been arranged by Johnson and that he had leaked the information of the size of the squad and the convoy that would be at the village that day. This gave the Tongo Tongo village chief ample opportunity to stall for time as the Islamic militants brought down overwhelming firepower on the unsuspecting American soldiers. Johnson, who had intended to flee all along would have succeeded if not for the fact that he was shot and killed by a member of his own convoy.
Islamic militants in Niger are heavily armed and fanatical, making them an enormous threat to American forces on the ground.
Which is why the American forces in Niger were extremely reluctant to return to pick up Johnson’s body. The bodies of the Nigerian soldiers in the Land Cruiser with Johnson were picked up on the day of the deadly firefight, but it took the Americans a whole 48 hours to reconcile Johnson’s betrayal before they decided to return and pick up his body.
When Johnson’s personal effects were gathered, a letter was found to Johnson’s wife, which spoke at length about how he no longer felt that it was justifiable to put himself in harm’s way for a “racist president” and that he would “find a way out, no matter what.”
President Trump’s phone call with Johnson’s widow
President Trump was well aware of Johnson’s betrayal, but decided ultimately that in the interest of keeping the nation united, it would be best to let Johnson’s betrayal go unmentioned, after all, his death was punishment enough – no need to go any further. However, true patriot that President Trump is, he struggled in the phone call to Myeshia Johnson – La David T. Johnson’s widow.
Myeshia Johnson at the funeral of her husband Sgt. La David T. Johnson, who will be remembered as a hero, despite evidence to the contrary.
During the call, President Trump told Myeshia Johnson that her husband “must have known what he signed up for,” according to an account from Wilson, who was riding in a limousine with the soldier’s family when the President called. What Representative Wilson did not know, was that President Trump was struggling with speaking kind words for a soldier who had committed the ultimate sin, betraying his fellow soldiers. According to a senior White House communications aide who asked not to be named and was standing next to the President during the phone call,
“The President really struggled.”
“He wanted to provide comfort to Johnson’s widow, but at the same time, the knowledge that he was saying kind words about a traitor, that was too much for the President, which is why he said Johnson ‘must have known what he signed up for’.”
Ultimately, Johnson’s betrayal and death are a mere reflection of the division that is tearing up this country. An unsettling trend is sweeping across the country, where vows are no longer sacred and symbols are no longer respected and it has reached such a point where it’s even undermining the integrity of our military. Johnson may have been a deserter, but he did not need to be a traitor and it was his traitorous act which resulted in the loss of three other loyal American soldiers who were in country to do their job – defend our freedoms.
As Johnson is buried today as a hero, the true heroes are the ones who chose to let him be remembered that way, because it is better he died as a symbol of unity, then that he expose the truth about the division which plagues our democracy.
‘Cold creepiness rarely seen’: Hillary seethes when asked about Wikileaks
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton became visibly irritated during an interview with Australian TV when she was asked about Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange.
In the interview with 4corners, she appeared tired with bags under her eyes, and her bitterness over losing the election to Donald Trump clearly remained.
“I think Assange has become a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator,” Clinton said, apparently referring to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
When the interviewer noted many people in Australia view Assange as a “martyr for free speech and freedom of information.”
Clinton bristled.
“I mean, he’s a tool of Russian intelligence,” she responded. “If he’s such a martyr for free speech, why doesn’t WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?”
The interviewer pushed back on Clinton’s claims.
“Isn’t he just doing what journalists do which is publish information when they get it?” she was asked.
“I don’t think so,” Hillary snapped. “I think for number one, it’s stolen information, and number two, if all you did was publish it, that would be one thing,” she asserted, before claiming there was a “concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely, people in the United States to, as I say, weaponized that information.”
Later, Assange slammed Clinton.
“There’s something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying,” he tweeted.
“It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen.”
Dr. Pepper Butterfingers finally got one right: Trump wasn’t telling the truth. But he’s still an idiot.
Sanders: ‘Trump Did Not Tell the Truth in His Campaign in Terms of What He Would Do as President’
Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.-VT) said Trump “did not tell the truth” based on what he said during the campaign and what he has done so far as president of the United States.
“Let’s be clear. I mean, the point here is that, I think, all over grassroots America, whether they’re Democrats, independents or Republicans, people are perceiving that Trump did not tell the truth in his campaign in terms of what he would do as president of the United States,” Sanders said. “He was going to drain the swamp. Well, he’s, in fact, appointed more billionaires to his Cabinet than any president in history, etc., etc. So, what I think has happened now, in Kansas, it is true that the Democratic candidate lost. It is true that the Democratic Party should have put more resources into that election. But it is also true that he ran 20 points better than the — than the Democratic candidate for president did in Kansas.”
“So, what you’re seeing in Kansas, what you’re seeing in Georgia, I believe you’re going to see it in Montana, I believe you’re going to see it all over this country, is the many so-called red states, working people are going to wake up and say, wait a second,” he continued. “Republicans want to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and education, and they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent. No, that’s not what we elected Trump to do. Yes, climate change is real. It’s not a hoax. We got to move to sustainable energy. I think, all over this country, in red states and in blue states, people are beginning to stand up. They’re beginning to fight back. They’re demanding a government which does not just represent the billionaires, but represents the working class of this country.
