Mueller report unable to conclude 'no criminal conduct occurred' on obstruction

After nearly two years of Mueller's Grand Jury, the report was finally released to the public today, reaching the conclusion that they were unable to determine whether or not the president had obstructed justice. One of the main points of the investigation was to explore why Trump's Campaign took such an interest in the hack DNC emails released by the Russians. Overall, they were able to determine that the Russians did conspire to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, but they did not find that Trump or his associates were involved in the scheme. In addition, Mueller was unable to say that Trump obstructed justice when he fired James Comey, the FBI Director appointed by Obama, over the investigation. In the past week, Trump has declared this a victory for himself and has claimed full exoneration from all of the charges brought upon him. "This should've never happened ... I say this in front of my friends, this should never happen to another president again. This hoax -- it should never happen again. Thank you." Although no collusion was found by the special counsel, he made it clear that Congress could still investigate Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html

Questions:
1. Has Trump earned total exoneration as he so claims?
2. Is it worth Congress's time to continue investigating Trump on their own time?
3. If Congress were to continue investigations, what should they focus on?

Notre Dame Cathedral Fire

In Paris, France at the 850-year-old church, a fire alarm rang out, interrupting mass at 6:20 p.m. local time on Monday, April 15. The cathedral was in the midst of undergoing a major restoration and part of the roof was covered in scaffolding. Around 400 firefighters were deployed to the scene but were delayed slightly by rush hour traffic. By the time the Paris Fire Department’s chaplain made his way inside of Notre-Dame, flames had already consumed most of the cathedral’s roof and its spire had smashed onto the nave. The cause of the blaze remains unclear, but officials do not suspect terrorism or arson. The full restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral will take between “10 to 15 years," according to Frédéric Létoffé, the head of the group of companies for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. So far, about a billion dollars have been pledged to help restore the landmark. 

As of April 17, French president Emanuel Macron set a controversial five-year deadline to get the work done. Macron is holding a special Cabinet meeting Wednesday dedicated to the Notre Dame disaster, which investigators believe was an accident possibly linked to renovation work. As of Wednesday, 880 million euros (USD $995 million) has been raised in just a day and a half since the fire. Some criticism has already surfaced among those in France who say the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on smaller struggling churches or workers. Macron's 5-year deadline happens to coincide with the 2024 Paris Olympics, which the government wants to make a major showcase.

1. Is it irresponsible for Macron to set a 5-year deadline for restoration given many experts predict a longer timeline?

2. Should it be up to the French government solely to fund the restoration, or is it for the public to provide donations?

3. Are the concerns about the use of the billion dollar budget valid?

Source - 1

Source - 2

Suspect with "Infatuation" of Columbine Shooting Found Dead After Large Manhunt and Shutting Down Several Colorado Schools

With the 20th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting approaching on April 20th, an 18 year old girl who held an ‘infatuation’ with the shooting threatened to to shoot students in Colorado schools. This caused over 20 schools in Denver and surrounding areas to be shut down to protect the lives of their students. Her threats to “commit an act of violence in the Denver metropolitan area” caused for a massive manhunt from the FBI and other police agencies. Fear built as she flew from her Florida home to Colorado and purchased a pump-action shotgun and ammunition after landing in the state. She had made verbal threats (though not yet released to the public) that caused concern to the police and many believe that she suffered from a mental illness. Recent sources have released that she has been found dead and locked-down districts in Colorado are no longer in direct danger. However, with the anniversary of such an event happening, officials all over are staying weary of possible copycats and those interested in the actions of the two students who killed 13 people 20 years ago.

Questions:

1. What can authorities do to prevent such infatuations and acting on wanting to be like the killers of Columbine?
2. Has the dramatically publicized stories and names of the original Columbine shooters caused more interest and desire for copycats?
3. What other factors besides mental illness could have lead to her interest in the tragedy?
4. Why are anniversaries of tragedies the most dangerous time for potential copycats?
5. Should reporters refrain from releasing the names and stories of the people who commit such acts of violence? Why or why not?

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-seeks-woman-infatuated-with-columbine-in-colorado-schools-threat-columbine_n_5cb68f96e4b0ffefe3b8bf41

Julian Assange Arrested in London as U.S. Unseals Hacking Conspiracy Indictment

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on Thursday 4/11. He is set to face a charge in the US of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on allegations that, in 2010, he agreed to help former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning break an encoded part of a password that would allow her to access a classified military network under another user’s identity. At a court hearing, he was found guilty of jumping bail, and he was detained in part because of the extradition warrant issued by the US. Assange had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, but on Thursday, Ecuador decided to withdraw his asylum after becoming increasingly frustrated with his actions -- they claim he interfered with other states’ internal affairs. Assange plans to fight the extradition.

This issue calls to attention debates over First Amendment press freedoms. Although, in this situation, prosecutors seem to be avoiding using the First Amendment in their case, even though traditional journalism does not extend to helping people gain illicit access to classified networks. The charges were for conspiracy in Pentagon computer network hacking, rather than violations of the Espionage Act.

Questions

1. What kinds of limitations do you believe should be placed on journalists, if any at all?
2. What consequences do Assange/s published archives of secret documents / information on WikiLeaks have on the country? Do you believe his actions are / should be legal?
3. Although this issue will not be resolved quickly, what do you think will happen in the long run?

The first picture of a black hole opens a new era of astrophysics

Article Link

Black holes are known for being very hard to find because of how nothing, even light, can escape it. Despite this,  scientists have managed to capture the very fist picture of a black hole that is more than 50 million light years away. The reasoning for being able to capture the image of this black hole is due to a system of telescopes and the black hole gravitating gas from space around it. The findings of this black hole are huge as it confirms Einstein's theory of General Relativity. With the confirmation of theories such as that, it also forms new theories and research surrounding physics and quantum physics. Astrophysics and other space sciences are arguably important, but the government has been debating the funding of programs and research since the Obama administration.

Questions:
1.  Do you agree with the past and current administration that funding should be cut for programs such as NASA?
2. Federal funding spent towards science programs is less than 1%, do you think that there should be more funding for science programs?
3. Do you think that this finding could be potential for programs such as NASA to receive more federal funding? 

Lori Lightfoot elected Chicago mayor, will be 1st black woman and 1st openly gay person to hold post

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/lori-lightfoot-elected-chicago-mayor-will-be-1st-black-woman-n990266

On April 2nd, Lori Lightfoot won a historic election for mayor of Chicago. Lightfoot will become the city's first black woman and first openly gay person to win the mayor's office. She defeated Toni Preckwinkle, another black woman competing for the position. Lightfoot faces a daunting challenge, however: she will inherit many issues that Rahm Emanuel, the current mayor, is struggling to deal with, including police brutality, gun violence, and financial issues. Lightfoot's campaign centered around change, with Lightfoot promising to "break the back" of Chicago's political machine and repair Chicago citizens' relationship with the police. 

Questions:

1) Lightfoot brings new perspectives to her position as mayor, some of which haven't been seen in the office before. How will Lightfoot's backgrounds and identities influence her method of tackling the problems Chicago faces, if at all? How will she differ from the current mayor, Rahm Emanuel?

2) Chicago's problems are deeply rooted, with issues such as police brutality and the political machine stretching for decades. How do you think Lightfoot will begin to take down the status quo in Chicago? Where will she even start?

Other sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/chicago-voters-set-to-make-history-with-mayoral-runoff-election/2019/04/01/af90f7f0-5230-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.1164f7f4e5a3

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709420282/chicago-mayor-elect-lori-lightfoot-says-city-has-fractured-relationship-with-pol

Britain Proposes Broad New Powers to Regulate Internet Content

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet-regulations.html

On April 7th, British regulators, backed by Prime Minister Theresa May, unveiled a
new plan to regulate web content including, but not limited to, child exploitation, false
news, terrorist activity and extreme violence. Under this plan, the government will name
regulators to issue fines and block websites and will hold executives legally liable for
harmful content spread on their platforms with the intent to target Facebook, Google,
and other large internet platforms. This legislation is largely in response to the mosque
shootings in New Zealand in March. Other countries are also considering censoring the
public from information on the internet. Mark Zuckerberg is supportive of such legislation
because it would set more clearly defined boundaries so companies don’t have to guess
about whether they need to regulate the content or not. In my opinion, although the
intentions are good, I do not think we need to regulate internet content any more. I think it
infringes upon the right to free speech, which is protected in the U.S., but not necessarily
everywhere else. Regulating internet content could lead to more government regulation
over time and could get out of control. I don’t think violence and terrorism will necessarily
decrease with internet regulation. Additionally, large companies such as Facebook and
Google have many legal resources to keep them in check and prospering, but smaller
startups can be severely hurt by such legislation. Furthermore, it isn’t fair to the British
public that American citizens have access to more information and content than they do.
What are your
opinions?

1: Do you agree that we need to regulate internet content to protect against child exploitation,
false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence?

2: What kind of economic impact does this government regulation have?

3: The U.K. Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, “The era of self-regulation for online
companies is over." Do you agree with this statement?

4: Who should be held responsible for explicit content on the internet? Should individual
executives of social media companies be held responsible as this legislation proposes or
should someone else?