a Better Bubble™
Looking to hunt for antique treasures and one-of-a-kind finds at a mile-long caravan? Cherokee Street is the spot this weekend. Want to dance the night away with DJ Nico Marie, Blvck Spvde & James Biko? We've got you. In search of circus performances, live comedy or wine with a side of live music. All can be found on Cherokee.
The post Your Memorial Day Weekend Plans appeared first on Cherokee Street.
A new journalist surveillance scandal coming out of the Department of Justice drives home the need for a strong journalist shield law, but it’s worth taking a look at how the media guidelines work under the status quo. We’ve repeatedly argued that legislation is necessary to resolve questions about when those guidelines apply and to provide accountability in case of violations. So, what kind of accountability is there now?
One only needs to look at the DOJ's own legal filings to see that journalists have little recourse if the department decides to violate its own rules against surveilling reporters. One such example is the ongoing litigation over a warrant and FBI raid of the houses of several members of the right-wing group Project Veritas.
A government raid on a group engaging in journalistic activities — even a controversial group, even one many have accused of serious misrepresentations — requires significant evidence to not constitute a press freedom violation. (We have to speak with conditionals here because the government has thus far refused to unseal its search warrant application and related materials. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press originally filed for those documents to be unsealed, and ACLU has recently joined those efforts.)
We have been arguing similarly for months: Unless and until the Department of Justice provides evidence that Project Veritas was directly involved in a crime, its raid runs up against the spirit of its own guidelines intended to protect press freedom (and the Privacy Protection Act).
So, what do those guidelines do in practice? As litigation over the warrant and the raid winds through the courts, the DOJ has offered a clear answer — not much. Earlier this month, the DOJ filed a brief citing a series of cases for the “well-settled” proposition that the media guidelines specifically and the Justice Manual more broadly are “not intended to, and [do] not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.” Moreover, the media guidelines in the Justice Manual do not “create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.”
In other words, if the DOJ decides to break its own guidelines and spy on a journalist, the journalist has no legal right under those guidelines to protest.
We raise these points not to quibble with the DOJ’s interpretation of the relevant regulations, but to underscore the need for real legislation. If the Department of Justice’s policies do not create any enforceable rights to support that position, Congress must do so. And the DOJ can follow through on its promise to support a strong federal shield law by throwing its weight behind Sen. Ron Wyden’s PRESS Act. If they don’t, their promises on press freedom are just empty rhetoric.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.
Federal authorities are expanding an investigation into Chicago-based Northshore Clinical Labs following a ProPublica story that raised questions about its COVID-19 testing operations in Nevada, according to an email obtained by ProPublica.
In a May 17 email that referenced our reporting on Northshore, an investigator with the Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicated he planned to subpoena documents from Nevada health officials.
“Myself and other law enforcement agencies have had a case opened regarding Northshore Clinical Lab for quite some time,” wrote Special Agent Peter Theiler, who is based in Chicago. “After reading the ProPublica article on Northshore Clinical Lab regarding Nevada patients, we are interested in obtaining records related to testing for COVID-19 for Northshore Clinical Lab rapid test results and PCR test results for Nevada.”
The email did not name the other law enforcement agencies or provide further details on the OIG’s open investigation.
The state of Nevada had not received a subpoena as of Tuesday but will cooperate with one if it’s received, said Nevada Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Shannon Litz.
Meghin Delaney, a spokesperson for Gov. Steve Sisolak, said the state won’t need to be compelled to aid the investigation.
“We’re not going to need a subpoena to cooperate,” she said. “Clearly complying with this federal investigation is important on our end.”
Our investigation documented Northshore’s stunning false negative rate — 96% on the University of Nevada Reno campus — and raised questions about the company’s billing practices. We also found that the company, which is managed by three Chicago men with a history of fraud allegations, used political connections to fast-track its license inspection and to win agreements with local government agencies across the state to provide testing.
The company was able to expand its testing operations in Nevada despite concerns raised by local government scientists about its erroneous results.
Northshore representatives have repeatedly declined to comment.
In a statement released last week, Sisolak’s office said Northshore’s “negligence is despicable.”
“They took advantage of states and local municipalities at a time when millions of Americans were relying on their services,” Delaney said in the written statement. “In order to hold Northshore accountable for these fraudulent practices, the State of Nevada is assessing its legal options.”
Delaney also said Sisolak is making investments in the state’s public health infrastructure to increase testing capacity.
Sisolak, a Democrat running for a second term, is fending off attacks over his response to the pandemic from Republicans vying for the nomination to oppose him. Sisolak is friends with the father of two men Northshore contracted with to expand its business in Nevada.
“Sisolak’s friends made millions and we paid the price,” said Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo, one of 10 GOP contenders in the primary for governor.
Sisolak’s office has said repeatedly that he had no discussions with Northshore’s Nevada representatives, Greg and Angelo Palivos, or their father, Peter. The Palivos brothers have said they weren’t aware of the Federal Trade Commission’s past fraud accusations against the leaders of Northshore. They also said Northshore owes them a substantial amount of money for their work in Nevada.
Sisolak also pushed back against criticism of Nevada’s role in allowing Northshore to continue operating for so long, claiming in a statement that the state “ordered them to stop their PCR testing operation, opened an investigation and worked to correct testing issues” on the day it was made aware of the problems.
Nevada’s own internal documents, however, indicate Northshore voluntarily stopped PCR testing days before the state’s regulatory agency learned of the issues. The documents contain no formal orders to stop PCR testing. The agency also waited four days to open the investigation because the complaint came in late on a Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend.
The state also opted to allow Northshore to continue providing rapid antigen tests to the public outside of its license as the investigation progressed. Nevada officials said it is standard practice to allow a health care provider under investigation to continue operations as it works to correct deficiencies.
Northshore, citing a lack of demand, pulled out of the state before the investigation could be completed. Nevada regulators closed its license and notified the State Board of Nursing, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of their findings.
stLouIST