Navy judge: Obama exerted “unlawful command influence” on military sexual assault sentencing


Stars and Stripes reports on an interesting ruling coming out of a Hawaii military court this week involving two defendants in separate sexual assault cases:

Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference.

“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

The judge’s pretrial ruling means that if either defendant is found guilty, whether by a jury or a military judge, they cannot receive a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sailors found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s Article 120, which covers several sexual crimes including assault and rape, generally receive punitive discharges.

“A member of the public would not hear the President’s statement to be a simple admonition to hold members accountable,” Fulton stated. “A member of the public would draw the connection between the ‘dishonorable discharge’ required by the President and a punitive discharge approved by the convening authority.

“The strain on the system created by asking a convening authority to disregard [Obama’s] statement in this environment would be too much to sustain public confidence.”

The ruling sets the stage for defense attorneys to use the same arguments in sexual assault cases throughout the military.

Should other judges accept the same line of reasoning, commands would have to consider issuing lesser administrative discharges to servicemembers found guilty of sexual assault. In some cases, this could allow servicemembers found guilty of sex crimes to retain veterans benefits, according to Defense Department regulations.

Wow. This is a big deal, especially when you consider the context of today’s raging debate regarding the alleged high number of sexual assaults in the military and an unwritten system of reporting that supposedly punishes the accusers.  I’m sure this was not the intent of President Obama when he made his comments back in May, but nevertheless this is the result.  One would think that someone as well-versed in law as our “Constitutional scholar President” supposedly is would understand that he needs to be very cautious as Commander in Chief in making comments about the punishment defendants in military trials should receive, but apparently not:

As soon as Obama made his off-the-cuff comment, military lawyers began to voice concern that his comments might be detrimental. “I thought of the unlawful command influence issue as soon as he spoke,” said James Mackler, a private attorney and Army reserve lawyer who was involved in sexual assault cases while on active duty.

“The principle behind it is a sound principle, which is that in the military there is a lot of pressure to follow the directives of your commanders, including the president,” he said. “It’s a legitimate problem.”

As a lawyer, Obama knows to be cautious in speaking about specific cases — as he has been for the past week in not speaking out on Edward Snowden — but may not be as familiar with the military justice system, Mackler said, where unlawful command influence creates problems, as it has in these cases and likely many more to come.

PJ Tatler’s Rick Moran chided the President for putting attempts to solidify his appeal to “women’s groups” over the rule of military law:

The president used the press conference to try and score political points with women’s groups who have been agitating for harsher treatment of sexual assault cases. The disposition of sexual assault cases is not at issue here. This is a question of knowledge and competence. In Obama’s eagerness to show women’s groups how tough he is going to be on military personnel convicted of sexual assault crimes, he stupidly handed defense lawyers a gift — and tied the hands of military judges.


Those convicted of serious sexual assault charges will still go to prison. But being unable to dishonorably discharge the felons means it’s possible one could be convicted of sexual assault and still be eligible for veterans’ benefits.

A president more respectful of military traditions would not have made such a stupid gaffe.

Let’s take a moment and think about how “feminists” and other left wing activists would react to this judge’s ruling if it’s something that happened during the Bush administration … as it stands, their reaction in this case will be quite muted, I assure you. Why? Because Obama is the pro-abortion President they’ve always dreamed of, even more so than Bubba Clinton, and really – when all is said and done with this administration when it comes to left wing women, that is -sadly – all that matters.

President Obama golfing

”Shh” indeed, Mr. President. In the words of the great President Abraham Lincoln, ”Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
(Photo via Reuters)

Bill Ayers: Weather Underground terrorism, Boston bombings, aren’t remotely comparable


Why? Because one type of terrorism was supposedly the ‘good, patriotic’ kind.  Via Fox News:

Bill Ayers, the 1960s radical who went on to become a college professor and associate of President Obama, said Saturday the bombings he helped the Weather Underground carry out to protest the Vietnam War bear no resemblance to the deadly Boston Marathon attack – and glossed over the fact that his group’s bombs killed three fellow terrorists and have been linked to the murder of a San Francisco police officer.

“How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers told a reporter who asked him to compare the incidents after Ayers spoke at a commemoration of the 1970 incident at Kent State University, where Ohio National Guard members killed four students during a protest. “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.”

Ayers went on to accuse Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who spent five years in a POW camp, of murdering civilians in the war, lament the deaths of two fellow Weather Underground members – skipping over the fact that they blew themselves up while trying to make bombs – and painted his actions as a heroic bid to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Ayers was the keynote speaker at the event, which drew an estimated 350 people on the university’s Commons, according to the Akron Beacon Journal. But it was after Ayers made his prepared remarks that he bristled over a possible comparison of terrorist acts separated by more than four decades.

“To conflate a group of fundamentalist people [in Boston] who are nihilistic in some way with a group of people who spent their lives trying to oppose the murder of 6,000 people a week … and still the killing went on. And still the killing went on. What would you have done?” Ayers said. “There’s no equivalence [with Boston]. Property damage. That’s what we did.”

Because being an admitted domestic terrorist means never having to say you’re sorry. o=>

The haunting image from #BostonMarathon bombings that will stay w/ me forever (UPDATE: THEY GOT HIM)


I weep – literally – at seeing this picture:

RIP, little Martin Richard.

RIP, little Martin Richard.

The story, via The Smoking Gun:

In a chilling image obtained by the FBI, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects can be seen standing behind the young boy who was killed by one of Monday’s terror blasts, The Smoking Gun has learned.


The photo, reproduced below, shows suspect #2 lurking several feet away from the metal barricade (and behind a trio of young women). Immediately to the left of the women is Martin Richard, the eight-year-old Dorchester boy who was killed by the explosion. To the child’s right is his seven-year-old sister Jane, who lost a leg in the blast.

The children were at the race cheering on their father, who ran in the marathon. According to the Boston Globe, the Richard family had watched most of the race from a spot several blocks away from the Copley Square finish line. However, after an ice cream break, they moved closer to the end of the course, ending up against the barrier in front of the apartment building at 775 Boylston Street.

There are other images, too – of the man being wheeled away from the scene in a wheelchair, legs horribly mangled by the blast to the point he lost both of them below the knee. His name is Jeff Bauman, and though badly injured he turned out to be a huge help to investigators in trying to crack this case by being able to describe “Suspect 2”, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19 – the one of the two brothers still “at large.” Suspect 1 – the older brother Tamerlan – was killed overnight in a gun battle with police. Sean Collier, 26 and an MIT police officer, was also killed. Incidentally, his brother Andrew Collier works as a machinist with Hendrick Motorsports here in Charlotte. Please pray for his family, and that of MBTA Officer Richard Donohue, 33, who was seriously wounded from the overnight violence.

But the picture of little Martin standing there with his little sister, anxiously and excitedly waiting for his dad to cross the finish line, while his killer lurks in the background and the instrument of the young boy’s murder sits just a few feet away will haunt me and many others for years to come. It’s a agonizingly heartbreaking reminder of how life can change literally in a split second. This innocent young boy, enjoying a beautiful Boston day with his family – including having most children’s favorite snack ice cream – one second he’s alive, the next he’s gone. No chance at a full life of happiness and contentment and excitement. The pain his family must be going through as a result of not just of the loss of little Martin, but the devastating injuries to his mother and sister has to be unbearable. I know I can’t even write about it without choking up. What must they be going through?

Pray for his family, for all the victims and their families, and for the law enforcement at all levels of government putting their lives on the line to bring the other suspect in this vicious terror attack to justice. And hug your family members and friends VERY tight, let them know you love them. Because life is too fragile, too precious to take for granted.

Update – 11:30 PM: “Suspect 2” is now in custody — in a Jewish hospital.

BREAKING: Images of suspects in #BostonMarathon bombings released


Have you seen these men?

Suspects from Boston Marathon bombings.

Suspects from Boston Marathon bombings.

(Click link above for bigger image)

Here is surveillance video from the Boston marathon:

More photos here. The site is crashing now due to the volume of visitors, but keep checking.

Please contact the Boston police or the FBI if you’ve seen them!

Humor Break: Man who stole Obama’s teleprompter gets 7 years prison time


Pausing in the middle of helping to (successfully) get Kermit Gosnell’s name trending on Twitter –  so as to shame the national MSM into devoting more attention to it –  to bring you this story (hat tip):

A career criminal who stole a truck containing President Obama’s audio equipment was sentenced Thursday to seven years in federal prison.

Sentencing guidelines called for a term of about three years, but Eric Brown of Richmond, Va., agreed to the longer sentence to avoid prosecution for 14 similar truck thefts in three localities. However, he could still face charges in Stafford County, which did not join Chesterfield, Hanover and Henrico counties in the agreement.

Brown pleaded guilty in January to theft of government property.

“The theft of government property is a serious offense,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Roderick Young said in court. “It’s all the more serious when the property belongs to the White House Communications Agency.”

My theory was that TOTUS might have tried to escape on his own.  Can’t blame itit isn’t treated well, after all. No benefits, no vacation time, no “free health care” – nothing.

Doug Powers quips:

Let this stand as a lesson to anyone who might even consider stealing the mojo of the greatest orator the world has ever known.

Indeed. You can steal many things from the government (time, things, taxpayer money, etc) and not face that much jail time (in the case of stealing taxpayer money, sometimes you are even “rewarded” with re-election!) but don’t you DARE steal President Obama’s teleprompter aka “TOTUS”!  #LineInTheSand ;)

Headline of the Day: “New York proposes new laws against public corruption”


And the story, via Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York state Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed three new laws on Tuesday aimed at stopping government corruption, after federal prosecutors brought two criminal cases against elected officials in the state last week.

Decrying a culture of political corruption in New York and describing the two recent cases as “especially brazen and arrogant behavior,” Cuomo promised to introduce the so-called Public Trust Act to the state legislature.

The act would create laws to punish bribery, scheming to corrupt the government, and failure to report corruption, he told a joint news conference with several chief prosecutors from the New York City area. It would also increase penalties for violations of existing laws.

New York state has gained a special reputation for political corruption.

Since 1999, 20 state legislators in New York have been ousted because of criminal or ethical issues, according to the good government group Citizens Union. The New York Public Interest Research Group found that, since 2007, state senators have been more likely to be arrested than to lose their seats in a general election.

“There have been too many incidents for too many years,” Cuomo said. “They paint a truly ugly picture of our political landscape.”

Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, brought the two cases last week. Cuomo thanked him, adding that he wanted to empower the state’s 62 district attorneys to more easily prosecute public corruption.

As attorney general, before becoming governor, Cuomo sometimes passed corruption cases over to federal authorities because the U.S. laws were more stringent, he said.

Under the Public Trust Act, anyone convicted of a felony would be permanently barred from holding elected or civil office, serving as a lobbyist or doing business with the state.

Ummm, this may seem like an obvious question – but if  these proposed “corruption laws” in NY are really as strong as the article describes them, and they pass, wouldn’t that mean very few NY politicos would be left in office in the aftermath?

Just wonderin’ – and thinking this might not be such a bad thing, especially for corrupt cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, DC ….

“Response to Steubenville rapists” vid misses the most important point for women


The New York Daily News reports on one University of Oregon student’s response to the Steubenville rape case:

A film student was disgusted with the Steubenville, Ohio, rape case coverage, so she directed a short video to spread a message she felt was glaringly absent: Real men do not rape.

Samantha Stendal, a sophomore film student at the University of Oregon, gathered a few friends to act in her anti-rape public service announcement, “A Needed Response,” after the high-profile trial of Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond, who were convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl.

“I just wanted something positive out there,” Stendal told the Daily News, “especially after there had been so many negative responses and people going directly to victim blaming.”

The video shows a man stumble upon a sleeping woman.

“Hey bros, check who passed out on the couch. Guess what I’m gonna do to her,” the man says, before he places a pillow under her head, tucks her in with a blanket and places a mug of water beside her for when she wakes up.

“We all need to treat one another like decent human beings,” Stendal said. “My video was a direct response to the Steubenville rape case. But even though my video is of a guy and girl, I want it to relate to anyone. No matter what your gender, you should treat one another with respect.”

You can watch the video, which has gotten over a million views, here.

I don’t want this post to be construed as a criticism of the video or video maker herself. She had good intentions behind the message of treating each other with respect no matter what condition we happen to be in, but it misses a larger one that we as a society have been conditioned to ignore and that is that it shouldn’t just be men who respect women, but women should also have respect for THEMSELVES and try to avoid situations that could potentially lead to this type of life-altering trouble in the first place.

If more women would heed the following three simple words, they’d have to worry less about finding themselves in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong guy – and would not have to deal with the agony of living their whole lives with the memory of rape:


Sounds pretty simple, right? Unfortunately, a lot of women don’t listen. 60s era “feminism” in the modern era has taught women that “liberation” equals being able to do what you want to – no matter how dangerous, and to ignore the potential consequences. That if you get pregnant, it’s the guy’s fault, that if you are attacked, nothing you could have done could have prevented it in any instance.

Neither are necessarily true, and I wish this point had been emphasized in the video. Something like: yeah, guys, don’t take advantage of a woman who gets slobbery drunk. But ladies, avoid getting that drunk in the first place. You can still have a good time!

I get in trouble sometimes for making this argument because some people think I’m “blaming the victim.” Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a difference in saying something might have been preventable versus blaming the victim for what happened. No victim of rape deserves to be raped. Period. Full stop. My point is that I want there to be less victims of crime, not more, and the best way to reduce your chances of being a victim is to start by being responsible for where you are and the condition you are in and who you are with. Why is this so controversial to say? Parents tell their kids not to play too close to the street. Husbands remind their wives not to drive or walk in a bad neighborhood at all, especially at night and especially not alone. Mothers strongly urge a buddy system for their teenage daughters when a group of them get together for a beach trip. Why not encourage women, especially young high school and college women, to avoid getting drunk? Doesn’t mean you can’t drink, but it also means to not have so much to drink you forget who you are, where you are, and who you are with —- and what you’re doing. This applies to guys as well, of course, but fortunately for them they don’t have to deal with being date raped very often. Ladies – don’t put it all on the guy to be responsible. You need to be responsible, too, just in case.

These are common sense suggestions that aid in keeping people safe. They aren’t fool-proof, of course – you could take every single precaution possible and still find yourself in a situation you’d rather not be in – but you lessen your chances of being a victim of crime just by following simple advice on how to protect yourself.

Yes, we should be able to go where we want to go, and do what we want to do without fear that we’re going to be attacked – and that goes for men, too. We have the “right” of free will. But having “the right” to do something in our society doesn’t always = being ok to exercise it. With freedom comes responsibility, and we must be responsible for ourselves, and in our decision making, because our society is not perfect. And that is the reality of it – we don’t live in a perfect world, and there are people out there who will always be up to no good, so we must guard ourselves against such people. Amazingly enough, I’ve been able to do this for years and still – gasp – have managed to have fun!

It wasn’t always like this, however- when I was younger I DID find myself in situations that could have gotten me in a lot of trouble. I was VERY fortunate that ultimately they did not. I’ve done a lot of maturing since then, and my hope is that anyone reading this who has the mentality that they are invincible, please do a little soul-searching …. and growing up, too. Most men don’t rape (newsflash for “feminists”!) but there are bad people in the world, and taking precautionary measures to try and prevent yourself from being hurt could save you a lot of pain and grief and agony.

Isn’t it worth it to at least try?

(Video) Police: In an emergency, “you’re on your own”


**Posted by Phineas

One of the arguments anti-Second Amendment forces have been using to argue for stricter firearms regulations is that you don’t need to own personal weapons for self-defense. After all, we have alternatives. If whistles and call boxes and puking on yourself (1) don’t work, never fear, the police have guns, and that’s all the deadly force society needs (2).

Well… That all depends on how fast the police can get there, doesn’t it? As this video from James O’Keefe’s “Project Veritas” shows, help can take so long to arrive, you’re essentially on your own:

This should be eye-opening for anyone who thinks the police will arrive in the nick of time, and I don’t blame them at all for their answers. A lot of factors can influence response time, from staffing to being deployed on other calls to miscommunication on the 911 call, itself. Here in Los Angeles, we have an excellent, dedicated police force, but this is also one of the lower-policed big cities in America, on a per capita basis. They simply cannot be everywhere at once.

Which means you’re on your own.

While I have to admit some of the cops’ answers to “what to do if someone breaks in” sounded as pathetic as the items linked above, let me join the chorus singing the praises of Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke, shown at the end, whose plain-spoken advice to his community was “get a gun and learn how to defend yourself.” This isn’t just a necessary adjustment to times of budgetary difficulties, but sound advice that’s as true now as it was in 1776: Nothing dangerous may ever happen to you, but, if it does, you are your own first line of defense.

Or, as I’ve said before, “When seconds count, help via 911 is minutes away.”

via Katie Pavlich

RELATED: More at Hot Air.

(1) No, I’m not kidding on that last one. The “if all else fails” tips to prevent rape have since been removed by UC Colorado Springs, which claims they were, of course, taken “out of context.”
(2) Given what happened to these two women, that assurance for some reason doesn’t reassure me.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Disturbing: Murderer/cop-killer Christopher #Dorner’s “fan club” going “mainstream”?


According to BuzzFeed, sickeningly enough – yes:

On Wednesday, CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill seemed to defend the actions of cop killer and fugitive Christopher Dorner, who has since been killed by police after gunning down four victims.

“This has been an important public conversation that we’ve had, about police brutality, about police corruption, about state violence,” Hill said during a CNN segment about the burgeoning online support for Dorner. “As far as Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real life superhero to many people,” Hill said. “Now don’t get me wrong, what he did is awful, killing innocent people is bad…Many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people, they’re rooting for somebody who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watchingDjango Unchained in real life, it’s kind of exciting.”

The clip was immediately put on YouTube by conservative site Townhall, earning widespread derision, but Hill is certainly not the only one to hold these kinds of views.

Online support for Dorner in the days since his rampage has crept out of the internet’s more extreme corners — where such perverse boosterism is commonplace — and into more mainstream venues. Dorner is now hailed as a kind of folk hero by some on the Chomsky-esque left and the Ron Paul right, who view the killer’s manifesto as an articulate indictment of the “police state” they have always opposed.


Groups dedicated to Dorner on Facebook range from “We Support Christopher Dorner” to “We Are All Chris Dorner” to “Teamdorner” and others. The #DornerGang hashtag is alive and well on Twitter, as are multiple fever-swamp conspiracy theories about the circumstances of Dorner’s crimes and death.

And while many of the usual suspects — Alex Jones’ websites, for one — are trading in these, the pro-Dorner sentiment is leaking into slightly more well-respected venues.

Alternet, the leftist online magazine, ran a story by Chauncey DeVega arguing that Dorner could “be transformed through popular culture and storytelling into a figure talked about for decades and centuries to come, with multiple versions of his tales and exploits, shaped by the griots and bards for their respective audiences.”

Sigh.  I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.  What is wrong with people??


Related: The Twitchy Team archives on the emerging Dorner “fan club.”

Media scrubs left-wing manifesto of fugitive cop-killer — Updated


**Posted by Phineas

You may have heard there’s a manhunt underway in California and Nevada for Christopher Dorner, a former LAPD officer who’s gone on a rampage that’s left at least three dead:

As authorities scoured Southern California for an ex-Los Angeles police officer suspected of shooting three officers, killing one, officials broadened the alert to include the entire state Thursday morning, and authorities in Nevada were warned.

The California Highway Patrol originally issued a “blue alert” for nine Southern California counties, warning that suspect Christoper Jordan Dorner, 33, was considered “armed and extremely dangerous,” early Thursday. Shortly after 9 a.m. that alert was broadened to the include the entire state.

A statewide “high alert” was sent out about 8:30 a.m. across Nevada for Dorner, authorities with the Nevada Highway Patrol said.

Arizona authorities were aware of the situation but had not issued any formal alerts, said Officer Carrick Cook with the state’s Department of Public Safety.

Local, state and federal authorities are involved in the search for Dorner, who threatened “unconventional and asymmetrical warfare” against police in an online manifesto. Dorner is also wanted in connection with a double homicide Sunday in Irvine, where the daughter of a retired LAPD captain and her fiance were killed.

The search intensified early Thursday after three police officers were shot in Riverside County and Dorner was identified as a possible suspect.

This is terrible news, and I hope they catch this mad dog before he kills anyone else. If he should be killed in the process, I’ll not mourn.

What’s scandalous, though, is the media’ scrubbing of a killer’s online “manifesto” leaving out significant portions that announce a left wing, pro-Obama, pro-gun control belief system. Multiple TV, radio, and newpaper outlets have suppressed this information. Ostensibly, it’s to protect other potential targets named in the manifesto, but the information about his agenda could be given out without releasing the names. But that wouldn’t serve The Narrative.

Read Sooper Mexican‘s post for the full story, but here’s an example:

Pro Gun Control:

Who in there right mind needs a […] silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family.

Loves Obama:

You disrespect the office of the POTUS/Presidency and Commander in Chief. You call him Kenyan, mongroid, halfrican, muslim, and FBHO when in essence you are to address him as simply, President. The same as you did to President George W. Bush and all those in the highest ranking position of our land before him. Just as I always have. You question his birth certificate, his educational and professional accomplishments, and his judeo-christian beliefs. You make disparaging remarks about his dead parents. You never questioned the fact that his former opponent, the honorable Senator John McCain, was not born in the CONUS or that Bush had a C average in his undergrad. Electoral Candidates children (Romney) state they want to punch the president in the face during debates with no formal repercussions. No one even questioned the fact that the son just made a criminal threat toward the President. You call his wife a Wookie. Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama.

The guy is obviously a lunatic, just as was Jared Loughner, the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords. If we apply the same standards in Dorner’s case that the Left applied to Loughner’s, then it would make as much sense to say all the people he praises are as to blame for Dorner’s rampage as Sarah Palin was for the shooting of Giffords.

Which, of course, would be nuts to do, something we leave to progressives.

But, again, the real scandal here is the MSM’s apparent suppression of genuine news in what can only be described as agenda journalism: in this case, hiding anything that might harm or confuse the effort to a) press for needless new restrictions on the right to bear arms, and b) the narrative about dangerous right-wing extremists.

Thought experiment: If Dorner had been a populist conservative, a second amendment supporter, or an Obama-hater, would any of those ten pages cut from his manifesto been left out, other than the names of his targets?

No, I don’t think so, either.

Good work by Sooper Mexican for bringing this to public attention!

UPDATE: The LA Times is now hosting 18 pages of the 21 page document, including much of the ranting that had earlier been excised.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)