An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.
The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report turned over to prosecutors on Thursday.
Sources said the medical examiner found Gray’s catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.
Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was a result of some other action.
The medical examiner’s office declined to comment on this open investigation and said it does not release preliminary findings.
Freddie Gray, who died a week after suffering injuries while in Baltimore police custody, had a lengthy criminal record, mainly for drug-related offenses, according to state court records. Police claim he was “involved in criminal activity,” prior to his arrest.
Gray, 25, died after spending seven days in a coma as a result of injuries he suffered while in the custody of city police, the Baltimore Sun reports.
His arrest record includes at least 18 arrests:
* March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
* March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
* January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
* January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
* December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
* December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
* August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
* January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
* September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
* April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
* July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
* March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
* March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
* February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
* August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
* August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
* August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
* July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (2 counts)
Not only did the Clinton Foundation conceal the names of 1100 big foreign donors to an affiliate, it has lied about doing so. First, the concealment, via Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post:
A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.
Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.
Giustra is the billionaire who greased the skids for approval of the sale of American uranium mines to the Russians.
Now, for the Clintion Foundation lie. Helderman and Hamburger:
S foundation official this week defended the arrangement with the Giustra group, noting in a blog post that Canadian law prevents charities in that country from disclosing their donors without the donors’ permission.
The Canadian partnership has in recent days begun to reach out to its 28 largest donors, each of whom gave donations equivalent to at least $250,000 in U.S. dollars, to seek permission to release their names, said a person familiar with the foundation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist exposes the lie:
The Clinton foundation claims that it couldn’t be totally transparent about who was doing business with this Giustra Partnership because of Canadian law barring them from listing individual donors. And in this CNN story, a Giustra spokesman claims that they didn’t brief the Clinton Foundation on donations to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership:
Giuistra’s spokesperson would not detail the group’s donors, but said that no one from the Clinton Foundation was briefed on donations to The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) because that would have broken Canadian law.
But @morgenr found a few instances of the Clintons publishing this information on Canadian web sites (snip)
According to an expert on Canadian charitable organization law, however, the Clinton Foundation claim that public disclosures are barred by federal law rests on shaky ground. Adam Aptowitzer, an attorney with Drache Aptowitzer LLP, told The Federalist that Canadian federal law does not have a blanket prohibition on public disclosure of the names of charity donors.
“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Aptowitzer said. Federal privacy laws in Canada prohibit the disclosure of personal information in the course of commercial activity.
“I don’t see how the public disclosure of a donor’s name constitutes commercial activity,” Aptowitzer concluded. “There’s no transaction; there’s no consideration.”
As Aptowitzer notes, Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) discusses disclosure of personal information but it covers only commercial activities. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada specifically declares that charities are exempted:
It should be noted that PIPEDA does not apply to organizations that are not engaged in commercial activity. As such, it does not generally apply to not-for-profit and charity groups, associations or political parties, for example – unless the organization is conducting a commercial activity (fundraising is not considered a commercial activity).
The Federalist also reached out to the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the primary federal overseer of charitable organizations in Canada, and asked if the agency was aware of any blanket statutory ban on donor disclosure.
“The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is responsible for administering only those provisions of the Income Tax Act that relate to the registration and monitoring of charities and other qualified donees,” Magali Deussing, a public affairs representative for the CRA, told The Federalist. “Although the Income Tax Act regulates whether the CRA can disclose taxpayer information (including donor information), it does not regulate whether a registered charity or other qualified donee can disclose donor information.”
Either way, if the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership’s Canadian bundler somehow felt that they needed to ask for permission, they could easily do that. Just looking at other large Canadian foundations shows us that other foundations don’t hide their donors using claims it’s illegal to disclose donor information in Canada.
All the big donors to United Way in Toronto, for instance, are named on the charity’s web site, including roughly how much they gave. If donors “requested” anonymity, United Way gave it but no one who gave at the Platinum Club ($5M+), Gold Club ($2.5M-$5M) or Million Dollar Round Table ($1M-2.5M) levels did so. All the folks who made endowment and bequest gifts – with a few exceptions – were listed on the United Way Toronto’s website. None who gave at the $500K+ level requested anonymity. Or the $200K-$500K level. And so on and so forth. Why should United Way Toronto have such a higher standard for transparency than the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership? This is particularly true considering the nature of the mining deals charitable work being done by the Clinton groups.
In an update, Hemingway debunks the respone of the Clinton Foundation:
[UPDATE: After this article was initially published, the Clinton Foundation sent The Federalist two links (here and here) allegedly supporting its contention that federal law in Canada prohibits public disclosure of the names of charitable organization donors. Unfortunately for the Clinton Foundation, neither link supports the organization’s rationale for deliberately withholding donor information from the public. In fact, one of the links actually includes information that directly contradicts the Clinton Foundation’s assertion.
According to a guide for non-profit compliance that is prominently linked on the page provided by the Clinton Foundation, fundraising activities of non-profits are specifically exempt from the privacy protections in Canada’s federal privacy law. Why? Because, as the article below states, public disclosure of non-profit donors does not constitute “commercial activity” and is therefore not at all prohibited:
Most non-profits are not subject to the Act because they do not engage in commercial activities. This is typically the case with most charities, minor hockey associations, clubs, community groups and advocacy organizations. Collecting membership fees, organizing club activities, compiling a list of members’ names and addresses, and mailing out newsletters are not considered commercial activities. Similarly, fundraising is not a commercial activity.
A Treasury Department watchdog has recovered thousands of emails from Lois Lerner and turned them over to Congress, reviving the investigation into the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.
Lerner was in charge of the IRS division that targeted Tea Party and other groups with conservative-sounding names when they applied for tax-exempt status from roughly 2010 to 2012.
She has since retired, and officials have said that many of her emails are permanently lost because her computer hard drive crashed.
“This underscores that our investigation into IRS abuse is far from over,” a House Ways and Means Committee spokesman said Wednesday. “The committee will thoroughly review these new emails as part of our ongoing efforts to find out exactly what happened and provide accountability.”
The Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration announced overnight that it had recovered roughly 6,400 Lerner emails that Congress has yet to see and that it will examine them as part of Congress’ bipartisan investigation that also includes the Senate Finance Committee.
Roughly 650 of the recovered emails are from 2010 and 2011, while most of them are from 2012.
During those three years, Lerner led the IRS division that targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.
The inspector general has found about 35,000 emails in all as it sought to recover emails from backup tapes.
“We welcome the Inspector General’s recovery of these Lois Lerner emails,” the IRS said in response to the IG announcement. “This is an encouraging development that will help resolve remaining questions and dispel uncertainty surrounding the emails.
The agency also pointed out in its response that it has already produced 24,000 emails from 2010 to 2012 and that it has given Congress more than 1.3 million pages of documents related to the investigation, including more than 147,000 emails.”
In addition, the IRS also said it will continue to cooperate with the Inspector General and the congressional committees.
The agency said last year that Lerner’s computer crashed in 2011 and her emails were lost.
Lerner was placed on leave in May 2013 and retired four months later.
“I have not done anything wrong,” Lerner said to Congress in 2013. “I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations. And I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”
The IRS scandal broke in May 2013 when Lerner said at an American Bar Association gathering and during a follow-up conference call with reporters that there was a “very quick uptick” in nonprofit applications and that the vetting process was limited to the agency’s Cincinnati office.
The extent to which the Obama administration knew about the targeting, beyond Lerner’s unit in Washington, remains unclear in part because, she says, her computer crashed and emails were lost.
Lerner attorney William Taylor recently said he and his client were “gratified but not surprised” by a decision by the U.S. Attorney’s Office not to pursue contempt of court charges against her earlier this month after she refused to testify about her role at the IRS in the targeting of conservative groups. Regarding efforts in Congress to punish her for not testifying, he said: “It is unfortunate that the majority party in the House put politics before a citizen’s constitutional rights.”
The following quotes were taken from the above-embedded speech by Hillary Rotten Clinton at the 6th annual Women in the World summit. After each one, I have posted a response in the hopes that every leftist in America will take a few moments out of his or her (or its) utterly pointless day to write me some hate-mail.
“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a student or an artist, a journalist, an ambassador, maybe even a future president. We all have our stories.”
Fortunately for America, you’re none of those things.
“Some of you, I know, were with me in Beijing back in 1995 at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Representatives from 189 countries came together to declare with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”
I wonder how many Islamic countries were involved in that event. No matter, I’m sure that by now every Muslim-run nation on Earth has fully embraced women’s rights. After all, wasn’t it you who once said that Islam respects the fundamental dignity of all human beings?
“All the evidence tells us that despite the enormous obstacles that remain, there has never been a better time in history to be born female.”
Especially if you’re born in the United States, and your last name is Clinton.
“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive healthcare, and safe childbirth.”
Yes, and while the maternal mortality rate has surely been cut substantially over the decades, leftists like you have worked overtime to help dramatically increase the mortality rate of unborn infants. How proud you must be.
“All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced.”
You mean like the various Obamacare laws that you claim the president has every right to amend whenever he sees fit? And don’t even get me started on the immigration laws he habitually ignores or rewrites whenever the mood strikes him. By the way, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to express outrage over any of Barack’s numerous, impeachable offenses. If you had any genuine respect for the law, you wouldn’t have intentionally destroyed untold thousands of emails belonging to the American people from your illegally-employed, private computer server in Chappaqua.
“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seeded cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Are you referring to the deep-seeded cultural codes and religious beliefs of genuine Christians and Jews who don’t just pay lip-service to them in order to win elections, but actually live them every day? Just curious.
“As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And not just for women, but for everyone.”
Well then, it’s a good thing there’s a section of Obamacare that forces single men to pay for maternity coverage that they can’t possibly use, don’t you think?
“If we closed the gap that remains in the workforce between men and women, our economy in the United States would grow by nearly 10 percent by 2030.”
It’s too bad that leftist policies – like the ones you’ve spent your entire adult life promoting – encourage women to have children out of wedlock, and then reward them with taxpayer dollars for sitting on their asses and watching ‘The View’. That’s got to be disappointing.
“The lack of quality, affordable childcare, unequal pay, work schedules that are not only far from predictable but often simply unfair, fall disproportionately heavily on women.”
It seems to me that there are only two realistic ways to make childcare more affordable. A.) Force childcare facilities – which are mostly run by women – to charge less for their services, or B.) force women to stay home and take care of their own kids while their husbands work. Beyond that, the notion that there is any real inequality in pay between men and women who work equal numbers of hours at equally difficult jobs is just another leftist myth invented by politicians like you. By the way, what is it about unpredictable work schedules that makes them less fair to women than men?
“It is outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave to mothers of newborns.”
So, not only should companies be expected to hire an equal number of women and men – even though only women take maternity leave – but now they should be forced to pay women who’ve chosen to have kids wages for not working? How is that fair to all the other employees who still have to put in a 40-hour workweek before receiving a paycheck?
“It’s hard to believe that in 2015 so many women still pay a price for being mothers.”
What, you mean that after all this time people are still expected to incur the costs associated with the decision they make? I am fucking shocked beyond words.
“It is also hard to believe that so many women are still paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color.”
That truly is hard to believe, mostly because it isn’t so. Think about it, if such an absurdity were true, what employer in his right mind would ever hire a white man again?
“Now, when I talk to men about this – which I frequently do – I remind them, if it was your wife or your sister or your daughter or your mother getting taken advantage of at work, you would suffer, your kids would suffer, your family would suffer, and you’d want to do something about it.”
I sure would, and it’s a damned good thing that’s never happened to any woman I know.
“America moves forward when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own healthcare choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby.”
What rights or choices were taken away from women by that company, exactly? Are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby’s female employees are no longer allowed to use contraceptives? As far as I’m aware, the only thing its owners have ever asked for is that they not be forced by the government to add contraception coverage to their employees’ health insurance policies, because their religious faith does not allow them to disseminate birth control – especially the abortion-inducing drugs included in the infamous Obamacare mandate. Since when does anyone have a right to force the people they work for to provide them with contraceptives that they can easily and cheaply buy on the open market themselves? For that matter, when did products designed to prevent people from conceiving children get redefined as elements of health care?
“when we deny women access to retirement that is secure; when we continue – as we do – to discriminate against women in the Social Security system, we are leaving too many women on their own.”
How are “we” denying women access to a secure retirement? Is there some law I haven’t heard about that prevents American citizens of the female persuasion from saving money in a private account for that purpose? As for Social Security, payments from that system are based on lifetime earnings figures, so the more you make and pay into it over the years, the larger your S.S. checks will be when you retire. A person’s gender has nothing to do with that equation, and the truth of the matter is that women generally live longer than men by several years, so they actually receive a larger percentage of S.S. funds overall.
“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are.”
What exactly is a transgender woman? Do you mean a man who wears dresses and pretends to be a woman? And when was the last time you heard of someone being fired simply because they weren’t heterosexual? Just what decade are you living in, anyway?
“We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.”
That’s been going on since this nation was founded. So, unless President Obama drafted an executive order recently that prevents women from legally immigrating to the U.S. and doing what is required under the U.S. Code to become a naturalized citizen, what’s the problem?
“There are those who offer themselves as leaders who even play politics with the nomination of our nation’s chief law enforcement officer…”
Yes there are. That’s because the Attorney General of the U.S. is a political appointee, and the most recent nominee for that office will be replacing the most politically biased AG in the history of the republic. Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand partisan bickering over presidential appointments. Why, you’re as pure as the wind-driven snow when it comes to such things, right? I mean, you’ve never spoken out politically about a Republican president’s choice for – say – the federal judiciary, have you?
“Here in the United States, just last week we saw fast-food workers marching in the streets, asking for nothing more than a living wage and a chance at the American dream.”
What they were actually doing was calling for the unionization of the entire fast-food industry, and insisting that their employers pay them $15 an hour to do entry-level jobs that most well-trained chimpanzees would do for a bunch of grapes and a ripe banana. Then they went on to threaten larger protests in the future if their unreasonable demands weren’t met. But then, who cares about little things like facts when you’re committed to demonizing American businesses for purely political gain, right?
Edward L. Daley