25 Burst results for "Jim Baker"
Televangelist seeks dismissal of suit claiming he touted false virus cure
"Televangelist Jim Bakker once a lawsuit over his claims to sell coronavirus cure dismissed TV pastor Jim Baker is asking a judge to dismiss a Missouri lawsuit accusing him of falsely claiming that a health supplement could cure the coronavirus U. S. regulators warned Baker's company and six others to stop selling items using what the government called false claims that they could treat the virus or keep people from catching it Missouri's Attorney General sued Baker and Morningside church production and to have them stop selling silver solution as a treatment on a streaming video program the lawyer representing Baker is former governor Jay Nixon he said the lawsuit violated Baker's constitutional right to free speech as well as the Missouri constitution and the state's religious freedom restoration act I Walter Ratliff
Jim Bakker seeks suit dismissal; ex-governor is his lawyer
"TV pastor Jim Baker is asking a judge to dismiss a Missouri lawsuit accusing him of falsely claiming that a health supplement could cure the coronavirus U. S. regulators warn Baker's company and six others to stop selling items using what the government called false claims that they could treat the virus or keep people from catching it Missouri's Attorney General sued Baker and Morningside church productions to have them stop selling silver solution as a treatment on a streaming video program the lawyer representing Baker is former governor Jay Nixon he said the lawsuit violated Baker's constitutional right to free speech as well as the Missouri constitution and the state's religious freedom restoration act I Walter Ratliff
Jim Bakker seeks suit dismissal; ex-governor is his lawyer
"Jim Baker once a lawsuit over claims of a coronavirus cure to be dismissed TV pastor Jim Baker is asking a judge to dismiss a Missouri lawsuit accusing him of falsely claiming that a health supplement could cure the coronavirus U. S. regulators warned Baker's company and six others to stop selling items using what the government called false claims that they could treat the virus or keep people from catching it Missouri's Attorney General sued Baker and Morningside church productions to have them stop selling silver solution as a treatment on a streaming video program the lawyer representing Baker is former governor Jay Nixon he said the lawsuit violated Baker's constitutional right to free speech as well as the Missouri constitution and the state's religious freedom restoration act I Walter Ratliff
Ross and Carrie Meet Isis: Age of Aquarius Edition
"We got a hold of Isis aquarian via phone. She's in Hawaii. We had seen her at the source family reunion dinner but but we didn't talk to her there but she heard our show and she agreed to come on and talk to us and then she did it and it sounded like this high isis. How're you ewing doing Okay well thank you so much for doing this with us. Sure so isis want you tell us about how you got involved in the source family family to begin with I was living in. La Actually engaged to a famous rock and roll photographer. Rondo Shelly loved La. Look everything we were you were you originally from La. I grew up in the air force. My Dad was a military man so we lived in California before. But you know I basically basically lived Oregon California Hawaii okay. A real coastal girl. Oh actually we were living in Florida. My devastation it takes canaveral on. When was this that you are working with your photographer? Slash boyfriend in L. A. Mid Sixties. Okay actually hit meant what Jim Baker when he had three famous restaurants on sunset boulevard breath aware in the world and then the source and he was actually known as Food Goo. Jim Baker was an iconic Hollywood legend. Before he was even bother you owed. Oh Oh okay. That's news to me. In what way his restaurants were all very famous okay. Everybody went to his restaurants. They were shot as a curve. Her and he was you know he was La Player. He was very good looking and he was very inland with no one. BEADY and Steve Allen and it was the in crowd and and he was very well-known. Interesting Steve Allen of our ears so those those two people seem like unlikely. Unlikely friends because Steve Allen was sort of not very into the spiritual side of things. Do you know anything about that friendship while Jim Baker wasn't he didn't it really started his spiritual trip until he sold you old world kind of went on his journey and devise on each other before then. The way I described him Baker's he was the ultimate animal man. He's a man's man that he was lazy. And then now the women loved Kim Piazza Array of friends from Jack Lang to Paul Breaks. So well connected. When did you make the connection with him? Well when I hit lose UCLA. Before I met lawn I had gone to the old world. I was actually introduced to him and his wife. At the time I actually became very good friends with his wife. The store was kind of a whole put on us. Never really kindness connected we did we. Didn't you thought maybe a relationship or something might arise sooner than it did. It was a playboy and then I just Kinda moved onto another crowd and Net ron and then you know we were doing our studio. I haven't seen Jim in in a year or two. I heard that he opened. This restaurant called the source. It was the beginning beginning of this. That you chain restaurant that he opened up and we were looking for models for Jesus Christ superstar Mhm Booster we were doing and I love that I need some Jesus type looking people and I said well. I've heard that my old friend. Jim has him at this restaurant. There's a collection of Jesus wearing roads. I stepped onto the source doors patio. He came out looking like Moses. You know so close he wanted. Jesus and Moses. Yeah so you know is is women following him and beautiful young people at the stores and it was just like something happened I just I clicked. uh-huh never looked back. Did you have to go home and think about it and then return the next day just immediately a member it was immediately. I was Aw something happened. I would if it was if I knew this is what I was there for. I instantly blue that we had made agreements before incriminating and he confirmed that just like my destiny was that was it it was assets. What was the confirmation to just kind of agree with you or did he have some kind of evidence of that now? He looked at me and he said I. I've been waiting for you. It was like a cosmic snick download. And then he's voiced it. Okay yeah so I went back home and I told you on that. I was playing to join the first family way and I thought he would actually come with. Yeah I remember in the documentary. He was saying that that wasn't for him. Come with me. And he thought I was stark raving me now and he let me go thinking that you know in a couple of weeks I would be back but I didn't. That was that that next day you were having having Frist Bruce as a family and the sunflower and Solomon. Yeah that was the proof of Solomon and that to the studio and I got some cameras and I just started documenting. Because that's what I was used to doing. That started my path of being a family. Historian all starring in our guys keep her which is so cool and I think what really makes the source standout from so many other groups that you have so much documentation. How much of that is yours? And how did you kind of make sure that you yourself were included in the in the documentation. Well it was all mine. Basically I started it and then I was just with him all the time following him around and I became like one of the family administrators and Kinda hands the camera off to a Swiss. This brother only and by that time. He likes the whole thing being you know recording and he said this will end up saving the legacy and who has all that now. Does it take a good chunk of your house. How many photos yard? I you know she'll onto the art guys through forty some years of being here Hawaii. They started getting started deteriorating because the climate and just one day I well well you know I gotta figure this out. I gotTa do something and that was about fifteen years ago when I decided I was going to write the book. I never never intended to be the one that wrote the book but I couldn't get anybody else to do it. Some people were families didn't even know they were in the source family. They didn't Walker kids to know about the story. Okay so so how. Many of the former members G. think are still open about how they were in the source family versus what percentage would you say. Just kind of. Don't talk about it. It's buried deep in the past for them. Well since the documentaries a book and all the publicity the city and and we've had a couple of family reunions. I think everybody's pretty open to you. Know some people that that are negative negative to it and realization that we all came to and it was quite a shock to me when I think it was. We didn't all have the same. Mainly -ality is added censure thought through the Lens of our own being our own karmic experience that we had. y'All were on a different different paths with it so if we different people will get different stories everybody else. I'll have the same experience That's a really nuanced onced. Lovely view that you know we all have these different experiences and we might see them you know totally subjectively. I feel like that's A A little contrasting with some of the the ways that was presented in documentary where it felt more like father yoed is the embodiment of God and everyone in the source kind of saw him that way and he really was. What was the word? It was like your your earthly master. Something like that. So how do we do. Yes we you went through those phases through all phases from the beginning of the family we went to so many incarnations experience. The American Indian Chips the Hebrews. He took assuming everything he was on his path. Also listen incredible me but you know yes it got messy at times you know we were all all trying to figure it out including him he had to figure it out too. There was bends in the road. Yes you know. I think we all got a passing grade. We were a mystery school. We were just hippie. We were into the spiritual pursuit and it was new territory for him for all of us. Who is God? He was God to us. It's not uncommon to talk that way not uncommon to talk about being in our God goddess. Okay so what's he got in the same way that I'm God. Yeah Yeah so you know forty years ago that was just like new territory. We we saw each other gods. We saw each other spiritual beings
Apple Declines DOJ Request To Unlock Pensacola Gunman's Phones
"The FBI wants apple to unlock iphones. That belong to the shooter at a Naval Base. In Pensacola Florida last month. Apple is resisting this and now the attorney general's complaining that Apple's not doing enough to help law enforcement in its investigation. This is just the latest in an ongoing fight between the US government and tech companies over how to Balance Privacy Privacy with public safety we've NPR's technology correspondent Shannon bond with US Shannon. Hey David what exactly is the government asking apple to do here well the the FBI has to iphones belong to the gunman in Pensacola who is the Saudi Air Force. Cadet and law enforcement has a court order to see who he was communicating with before the attack but the phones are locked and their contents are encrypted. So the government's asking apple for help but apple has said for a long time it won't unlock devices and break encryption. And that's frustrated frustrated the attorney general. Here's what embar said on Monday. So far apple has not given any substantive assistance. This situation perfectly illustrates straight why it is critical that the public be able to get access to digital evidence once it has obtained a court order based on probable. Cause so so. What exactly is apple's argument for? Not Helping here. Well Apple First of all is rejecting bars characterization in a statement it put out on Monday. said it's already turned over for Gigabytes of information to the government things like I cloud backups and transactional data saying they are helping right the the FBI wants the communications on the phones and Apple says to do that would require building back door. That would compromise the security of all iphones I spoke with Susan Landau a professor of Cybersecurity and policy at Tufts and she says that kind of back door would make it easier for criminals to access personal financial and health information. The risks are that it becomes easier to open anybody. Anybody else's phone. The whole reason apple went to the model of making the data on the phone. More secure. Is that Hackers were taking data off the phone own and then using it for identity theft. And that's pretty much. What apple said on Monday? It said quote. There's no such thing as a back door just for the good guys. This I have to say sounds familiar. I mean aren't these the very issues that came up back in two thousand fifteen after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino California. That's right this is pretty much much very similar conflict and play in the San Bernardino case the people might remember. The government actually sued apple to force it to unlock the phone apple resisted and there was a really tense standoff with the Obama Administration but the government wound up working with a third party contractor to get into the phone and since then apple has reportedly improved encryption and software to make it suffices even more secure and harder to get into now than they used to be then. So how do these larger questions get resolved if they do all right. So first of all experts say that really. We need Congress to weigh in on the law. I spoke with Jim Baker. He was general counsel at the FBI during in the San Bernardino case. And he says there's no easy solution to balance these questions. So what you have then is a situation where the country through its elected so representatives in Congress needs to make a choice. Does it want to give law enforcement more access and create more cybersecurity risk. Or does it want to do you. Something different places could end up is back in court. And if the government gets a court order then the question becomes will apple comply with it. NPR's Shannon Bondra covers technology for US. Thanks much thanks David.
"jim baker" Discussed on Risky Business
"Patrick grade this podcast was supposed to be up last week late last week. But it was delayed long story short. I had a flu shot last week, and it actually really knocked me about for a day. So I I wasn't able to finish this off. I'm all fine. Now, the and by the time you hear this, I will be on leave so. Yes. See you in a couple of weeks. Anyway, this is the first edition of new series of podcast. We're doing here at risky biz that will focus on cyber policy issues. The Hewlett foundation approached us a while back to see if we'd be interested in doing the series and yeah, I jumped at the opportunity, the foundation funds, a lot of interesting people and work in the cybersecurity space. So the idea behind these podcasts is pretty simple. We can talk to some of its grant recipients or experts. Im- Hewlett's network about pressing policy issues and turn those conversations into podcasts. And the whole idea is to get some policy perspectives out there among the risky is audience, which finally enough includes a lot of policy people, and I have off the rank in this new series. Is this interview with Jim Baker, he joined the department of Justice in nineteen ninety and rose through the ranks to become the FBI general counsel in January twenty fourteen a position he held until December twenty seventeen. So of course, he was running all things legal for the FBI during the apple FBI disputes over that locked by phone, five c recovered from the gunman responsible for the San Bernardino, shooting in California, Bica was the US government's pointman on all things encryption taking stances that outraged technologists, and reinvigorated policy debate that had at least to a degree stagnated for years. These days. Jim Baker serves as director of the street, think tanks, national security and cyber security program now before we get going. I wanna talk a little bit of background here and actually share an opinion on what this debate has looked like to me, as an observer of it over the years. And it hasn't looked good really in my view. Many people on either side on one side, we have various government screaming that the sky is falling because into ending Christian and robust at resting krypton on mobile devices coming to eat your children, and on the other side, we have technologists climbing that any laws compelling cooperation from technology providers, is you like evidence of the rise of the fourth Reich, but, you know, it's possible that there is a center to this debate, and that useful conversations can actually be had here and I'll give you an example of that astrologers assistance, and access Bill has been the source of a lot of controversy here in a strategy and indeed around the world. And I've been on record. Saying in my view that it's a bad law, and I still believe it is. But if we're going to have a real discussion about this Bill. It is my view that people should at least understand what it's trying to accomplish. What it scope is. And it's not about putting a back door and every device, it's not anti encryption legislation per se. So, like, you know all the protections in the Bill against back during insufficient. Yes, is the crime seriousness threshold for the Bill to lar- offenses carrying three years of imprisonment, or more. Again, I would say, yes, other other problems with it. Absolutely. Yes..
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan says Mueller report shows no collusion
"President Trump down in Florida yesterday about to head to the golf course. Couple thumbs up mostly quiet though this weekend. But we're joined now by one of his top defenders in the house, the top Republican on the house oversight committee. Jim Jordan, congressman. Thank you for joining us your best morning, you're you're championships. Right there. He says the fact that there are no new indictments is not necessarily vindication for the president. You agree. Well, we got to read the report, but what I do know is to date not one bit of evidence to show any type of coordination collusion conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, and that was the charge George when this thing started almost two years ago. The Democrats were all saying that the president of the United States work with a hostile foreign country to steal the election. And again, there's not been one bit of evidence to suggest that any of that happened. Well, there's been a fair amount of evidence that fourteen fourteen associates of Trump had over one hundred contacts with the Russians even though you're quite right. There was no charge of conspiracy. Does any of the information that's been revealed? About those contexts are about the fact that so many in the Trump world lied about those contexts concern, you well, I mean, look the central charge of of the special counsel was to see if there was conspiracy coordination or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to impact the election as I've said that was the focus of the of the entire special counsel investigation. We've not seen any of that. And again, remember, this is Bob Muller. This was the guy the Democrats and the Repub everyone in town said this is the guy we need for the job. He is the best person we can pick. He is. He is right next to Jesus he can almost walk on water. This is the guy and he will have the definitive statement on that fundamental question. We'll see the report, but all indications are that there's not gonna be any finding of any collusion whatsoever. How about the other concern that one of the other concerns the chairmanship raise right there? The fact that President Trump might be compromised because he was pursuing that Trump Tower in Moscow during the campaign, not telling the truth about it may still be pursuing it today. Come on. I mean, look, here's what's happened. They they don't think this Muller reports going to be the bombshell, they all anticipated. It was going to be. So now, they're launching all kinds of other charges all kinds of other investigation. They bring in Michael Cohen a few weeks ago. This was their first big hearing their first star witness there. First witness of the one hundred sixteenth congress a guy who's going to prison in six weeks for lying to congress. They bring him in. And what does he do he lies again, we think at least seven times under oath in front of the congress again? So that didn't that didn't work for him. Now, what's chairman, neither do Eighty-one different letters to sixty some different individuals starting a whole new fishing expedition, this is how they operate. So if it's not the bombshell, they wanted they bring in Cullen that doesn't work that hearing is a flop then they go with chairman Nadler Eighty-one different letters sent out there. This is how the Democrats are going to operate. We just got to be used to it and understand that that's where they're gonna go. Do you stand by your vote that the country should see congress? The entire Muller report the turning Jenner was clear in his letter. A short letter Friday. There was a lot of important things. He said in there. He said he's going to consult with rod Rosenstein, he's going to consult with the special counsel, Bob Muller, and he's going to release as much as he possibly can consistent with the law. I think the Democrats should be that should be what we all want an attorney general who operates according to the law. So I'm I'm for airing on the side of transparency the whole thing released. You didn't have those qualifications in the vote. Yes, we did consistent with the law. That's what we want. And and I think the Democrats would want the same thing. But I'll tell you this, George if he's got a release all the information that I want all of it released. I want those three, oh, I want the conversations between Bruce or and Christopher Steele the guy who wrote the dossier. Glenn simpson. The guy that Clinton campaign hired to put the dossier together. I want all those conversations that Bruce or had with Glenn Simpson. Christopher Steele, those recorded those notes from the FBI I want all that. Application to be made public when they use. They use that dossier took it to a secret court didn't tell the court the Clinton campaign paid for that document didn't tell the court a foreigner. Who was who was desperate to stop Trump from being elected, president wrote, the document I wanted that information released to the breeze thing. Let's let's release it all let's be clear on that. Then. So you agree with the Democrats all the underlying documents should be released top to bottom. The Muller report should be released. We've just gone through the special counsel regulations. There's nothing in the law that precludes the attorney general from release that I'm saying that the attorney general said follow the statute. And that's what he's indicated. He's going to do in consultation with rod Rosenstein and Bob Muller. I think the Democrats should be happy with that. They said Bob Mueller was the guy that they wanted to do this investigation. Billboards Bill bars going to consult with him and decide what he can release. But if they do release everything then by golly release, it all show is application show us two three. Oh to show us the information. They gave the gang of eight the gang of eight with Adam. Mm ship was a part of that the gang of eight when they talk to them way back with about this dossier about what took place at the a court and about the start of this counterintelligence investigation show us all that information to the American people deserve we've asked for that information to be made public a long time ago because that goes to what these top people this cabal top of the FBI what they did when they launched this thing. Clear back in the summer and fall of twenty sixteen before the election, the president could order all this released on his own all of the declassified on his own. We urge him to do that. I've urged him to do to release this stuff. I just described. I sure have the stuff that Jim call me Andy McCabe. Jim Baker Lisa page. Peter Struck all this stuff that they had started with the dossier and all this stuff that they'd started initially with this investigation prior to the election. We urge him to order the release of the mullahs report is well again, that's the attorney general's call. And he's gonna do that consistent with the law saying is if the Democrats if the Democrats are gonna call for all that to be released, then they should call for everything to be asking you a different question. Now, the president has this authority. Are you asking the president to order the release of the Miller report, that's the that's the president's call? He said he wanted to be made public. He said that the other day when he was walking. I think out in front of the press. I think last Wednesday he said that. So that's that's the White House has called you mentioned the here. Michael Cohen a couple of weeks back as we know from the southern district of New York. They concluded that President Trump was individual one who directed. Michael Cohen to make those hush money payments to influence the election, essentially, directed a felony. Does that concern you, look, I I like I said Michael Cohen came in front of our committee, and he lied, we think at least seven times, that's why congressman meadows an ice in a criminal referral letter to the Justice department. We know he lied about his when he said he didn't want a job in the White House. We know that was a lie. Every every media outlet in the country had reported that is the conclusion of the southern district. Prosecutors they're the ones who said that individual one President Trump directed Michael Cohen to do this. Well, I mean, there's they have their investigation that they're doing in the southern district of New York. What I choose to focus on is the fundamental the charge of the of the special counsel was to look at collusion. We have not seen any of that. What I also know is Michael Cohen cannot be trusted any prove that when he was when he came back in front of the committee and several times lied under oath. I think the real question years will chairman Cummings. Join us in demanding that Michael Cohen be charged for perjury by the Justice department. I think he should do that. He was very clear at the start of the hearing. He said, Mr. Cohen, if you don't tell the truth, I'm going to hold you accountable, and we've seen nothing from chairman Cummings to do any of that any kind of holding him accountable at all so just to be clear the president's involvement of those payments doesn't concern you the president has had an amazing two years. He was in. He was in Ohio last Wednesday. And what I saw was people lining the street is he wrote. From the airport to the tank plant where we build the best tanks in the world. I saw people cheering him because they understand that this presence committed to fighting for the American people and getting accomplish the things he told the American people he was gonna do it was an amazing reception. He received from all kinds of folks here in the fourth district of Ohio just last
"jim baker" Discussed on WINT 1330 AM
"Did I was watching Jim Baker do an interview over the weekend, Lauren? You're exactly right. Regula Jonah's way to the nomination. He you know, Bush is down and out. Everybody thinks that Reagan was gonna pick Gerald Ford. And and and come up with some sort of unique co presidency thing, which is probably a violation of the constitution. Anyway. But my personal choice would have been Senator dick Schweiker AFA of Pennsylvania. Reagan does at the very last minute. Now Reagan didn't wanna take George Bush. Mrs Reagan really didn't want George Bush, but they've run out of options. There are no options left. So at the eleventh hour on Wednesday night of the Detroit convention. He reluctantly calls. George Bush embassador Bush and asked him to join the ticket, but he's got to support the ticket of the platform across the board which meant he had to support the pro-life plank and the tax cutting plying to issues which she had disagreed with Reagan on the primer. So right, there Bush changes positions to to basically pay trip. To emperor Reagan. So, but he he agrees, but Baker says is that had Reagan not called Bush that evening. There would be no Bush forty one presidency and probably never a Bush forty three presidency. That's incredible. Oh my gosh. Just one little phone. Call changes the ark of that. I mean that in and of itself is just fascinating. Interesting book would be Craig. I mean, you can't do it now. So look like bad, bad, bad, Mojo. But just just one that phone call went the other way. Then what what what would have happened though? And that'd be an interesting novel. Well, I wrote I wrote an op Ed several years ago that kind of touched on that point alka picking picking Senator Richard Schweiker fact, I think it root for life side, you, okay? I don't remember this excuse me, picking Senator Richard Schweiker actually made more sense for Reagan. Because Reagan is you remember I'd already picked Schweiker seventy six convention, and and by eighty you know, he was still. Who's a conservative on cultural issues conservative on on so many issues? He was a World War Two veteran who is a Pennsylvania. Senator he was popular with the suburban Republicans bother Republicans, blue collar Democrats in Pennsylvania, he'd already been vetted by the national media. Reagan really liked the Schweiker and soda MRs Reagan, and it made perfect sense Reagan to go back to that. Well, and draw one more time and pick Senator Richard Schweiker instead of instead of George Bush because you know, the bushes took the party off in a different direction won the base, really you. And I find ourselves on the opposite side, let's face it. We're your Reaganite. I'm we're both children are the Reagan revolution. And and and and Bush's represented the the the war traditional establishment who.
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"I to my mind just means not trust me. It's really important, but it means that the AI system is not biased in some unacceptable way. For example, based on race, gender, ethnicity, something like that they can systems can be biased intentionally or unintentionally. And in this area in the United States, probably talking about unintentional bias. The could come from the programmers themselves or more likely comes from the data that is fed to a system, for example, and the data self is biased in some way that people don't really understand it and perceive it. So those are the dangers there. There's a couple things that I'm worried about in this area. One is. I do worry about if in the United States and another democrat countries, I think we will want to insist on explainable AI and ethically. I not some type of black box that nobody can really understand or explain. Right. I just don't think for a lot of societal reasons that we could have a long conversation about. We don't want that kind of. So we don't wanna for several reasons. We don't want it because it could produce injustice and that would be obviously bad, but also could be big waste of money because the thing doesn't actually do if you can't explain what it's doing, it may not do what you're paying for. And so then it's just a waste of money. And to my mind, I think of it is junk AI that that just it's not really I, it's just kind of a system that was sold to somebody with some type of expectation that would work in a real operational environment and doesn't and is a waste of scarce resources, or it sends, let's say, counterintelligence officials or counterterrorism officials chasing the wrong person, which is again a waste of resources and will result in some type of injustice to that person. Having the government come down with the full weight of its investigative authorities on somebody's head or and improperly so or scooping up data about lots of people that it shouldn't have and that it shouldn't be analyzing. It shouldn't be storing. And so on some worried about it quite a. In that way. And then I'm worried about the adversaries who may not care about wasting money and they may not care about the injustices that might result from the use of unethical. They might just get a good result in certain circumstances and they like it. And so they go ahead and use it. And I'm a bit concerned that that might work in some instances and that might put pressure on us in a crisis to just adopt some type of system to just accept some unexplainable and unethical a. or you can't tell whether it's ethical or not. And so I think it's at least I, I guess I'm putting this on the on people's radar screens. We're trying to to just say that pressure is going to be there at some point. Let's just figure out how to deal with it, like, let's plan for it and have some type, give some type of thought to that for the folks who are. There's a lot of people thinking about the implications of ethical and explainable AI. So this is just one more thing. I would add to their list of issues that they should think about at some point time. People will be pressured to use this. If in fact they do, how do we think about that? What oversight mechanisms do we have in place and how do we deal with that? It's a lot to chew on Jim Baker. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. Put the law. Fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Thanks this week to gym bag or for coming on the show. Please take a second to share the law. Fair podcast and give us a rating and review wherever you found us. The podcast is edited by gen potty hall, and our music is performed by Sophia Yan and as always thanks for listening..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"And I didn't say I knew had stolen the OPM data, but just whoever did could use it in that way with a. It has been publicly reported that China was behind the opium hack and whoever stole it given that it is large and and a large data set would want to go through it as officially as possible that whoever did it, yes, I'm not confirming denying anything. So I guess I'm trying to figure out how much of the problem here is an arms race. We want it before. Other people get it and we want to protect that of it, which we have and how much of it is, you know, more like the sort of classic cyber-security problem where you know or IP problem where you know we're a market leader recreate and then countries that are not as productive in the generation department steal stuff. And so it simply. More simply a problem of protecting the assets and the and the intellectual property that you create. Is it fundamentally more like the IP problem? Or is it fundamentally more of an arms race problem? We're both. That's a challenging question to answer. It's probably both at some levels, but it is. It's probably more like the at least I'm thinking about right now. I think it's more like the has elements about. It's more like the IP problem in this to me at least off the top of my head, the arms race model. If he will presumes that both sides can have the resources to escalate that they have the technology and the economic resources to build complicated weapon systems in larger and larger amounts. That's how I would think about that here again, based on what I've heard based on the folks that I've talked to things that I've read. There's not that many countries that actually can do this. It's limited. It's probably the US and its allies and and not all of those allies can can probably do this. It's China and then the European Union to some degree, probably lesser than those two and then and then drops to some degree. And I'm not sure how far it drops, but so therefore I don't think every other country is going to be able to on their own, keep up in some types of some type of arms race scenario. So therefore they're probably going to want to exploit it. So it'll be an ace ace metric challenge in that sense, right? Where countries that could not produce this on their own in any way, shape or form are going to try to steal or compromise steal our our system, steal our technology, steal our intellectual property in the area or compromise it in some way because they can't. They cannot simply do it. On their own. So that's that's how I would think about that problem. One of the things you talk about in your posts is the difference between explainable AI and what you call ethical. I and this is a distinction that I won't even try to flesh out here, but that strikes me as important in this larger conversation because we're reading all these stories about the way different countries, deploy surveillance technologies and and also the way different countries therefore could be expected to use technologies in interactions with citizens once they have have access to these technologies. And so I'm, I'm just interested for your reflections on that. Is there you know, in a world in which China is assigning soc. Sial credit scores to people based on their compliance with rules, and we are afraid of making adverse judgments about People's Credit scores based on, you know, behavioral patterns that may correlate with say race or ethnicity or or whatever. I'm Ben, I'm not advocating that. We not be concerned about that. You know, you are describing a very symmetric mode of deployment of these possible technologies, and I'm just curious how that interacts with the counterintelligence concerns that you have about the technologies. So I'm working on a supple. Another piece that addresses this in in much more detail, but basically explain what AI is basically that it's, you can explain what's going on that that somebody person or the system itself can explain in a way that I human being can understand why the system did what it. Did. That's pretty much what explainable is ethical..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"And then I think, you know, it's hard to tell, but I think autonomous vehicles, whether they're on the ground in the air and the see, I think that technology it's tough to do as I understand. Those are hard things are hard systems to actually build and make effective, but that to me seems to be a guess, call it maybe a leap ahead type of technology that is hard for me to predict how transformative it will be, but I think it will be in all those different domains if it can be brought into widespread use. So that's those are the kind of off the top of my head, three things that I would worry about. But again, I just I'm quite worried that it's hard to understand. Get your head around all this, especially when you talk about the potential for significant economic dislocation people lose jobs in a righty different ways. And perhaps very quickly is what a lot of people who sort of again, focus on the economic implications of this, and I don't know what that means for society's just generally middle. I think it'll be transformative. Oh, yeah. You've been out of government now for six months. How on this is. The US intelligence community. I mean is the something that you know counterintelligence people sit around and scratch their heads and say, we got a big problem in this area, or is this something that you kinda came out of government and said, people aren't talking about this enough 'em. We need to sort of do some of the groundwork because I have the sense that this is a bigger deal than it's than its being given credit for. So I don't wanna get into big trouble through this podcast, so it will be a little Trump. I don't want to get into any kind of trouble. So be careful how I answer that. And I think just go by the public information that's available available publicly. I mean, look, I think from the from the public information, the department of defense is all over. I mean, it's clear they are quite focused on it. They're quite, I think, aggressive and thinking about how it can be used in the military. Environment, but also in a way that's consistent with long standing DOD policy that the United States is going to adhere to the laws of armed conflict and that kind of thing. Right. I think so. I think it strikes me that DOD is trying to do this in a in an aggressive, but thoughtful way. That's my impression. It's a little bit harder to unpack from the public record. What exactly the intelligence community is doing. So I can't really comment on that, but I am, I guess, I, I would just say, I'm thinking about these issues and I'm writing about this stuff because I do think it has to be a priority. And you know, we're still a post nine eleven world and the FBI and other government agencies are rightly focused on terrorism. It's terrorism hasn't gone away something we should be worried about. But as a result, sometimes counterintelligence takes a back seat to counter terrorism and okay, fine. I get that. I understand that. I don't think that's necessarily the right choice all the time. And what I'm trying to say is that from a counterintelligence perspective, from a national security perspective, we need to pay attention to what's going on in the world, and we need to think deeply about the threats because they're quite significant. They're potentially quite significant, and it is worth investing the time effort, energy money to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to protect those assets. I wanna come back one more time to the parameters of the problem before we wrap up, you've described at least two and maybe three or four at one level separate. But at another level, interlocking problems, I wanna try to both aggregate and disaggregated them on the one hand you described, you know, the US being a leader in this area that presenting threats to other countries. Driving threat perception and other countries, and so them trying seeing opportunities and trying to deprive the use of the leadership role by stealing assets, or you know, busting systems or whatever. On the other hand, you also described a applications being used against US interests. For example, China using a pro driven processing systems to go through a stolen OPM data, right?.
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"So if you could identify one, two or three things that you would have to do. I mean any of these broad based distributed counterintelligence challenges. I'm thinking about the defense contractors, for example, you have to start by denting your priorities, right? You can't protect everything about Lockheed Martin, right? You can't protect everything about Raytheon. So you're not protecting their logo, you're not protecting their website. You're protecting their classified material. Right. What. Are the aspect here that are high priority to protect and you would say, okay, if we can identify and protect the following things will make a big difference. So I'll answer that. But I would put a big caveat at the start, which is I would really not want to be overconfident in my building to answer that question effectively because I think this is such a dynamic area that it's hard to predict what is really going to be transformative in the next couple of years. So having said that, yes, I mean, I think because start with the military applications of AI systems and again the system, so it's not only the programming. It's everything else that goes along with that, the sensing, the robotics and all that stuff, and the high high speed computing systems that are gonna make some, I think, significant advances over the next couple of years as I understand it. So I would. Be worried about that. I would be worried about the critical infrastructure of the United States and thinking about applications of AI that might go into that, especially especially women touch on this. The use of AI in the cyber security domain. In the cyber domain, I guess, is a better way to say it where adversaries are using AI to more effectively find exploit vulnerabilities in systems and just they can just do it faster. They can do it better. Now AI can also be used to thwart that kind of thing. So there's going to be a bit of the seems to me, there's going to be a bit of a battle in the cyber two main with these AI systems kind of fighting each other to protect the systems and to and to attack them. So there's that..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"It's a gazillion companies that are basically not apparatus in the classified sector. Some of them are, I suppose, but your average per. Persons working in in in a is not an intelligence professional by any means you've described highly sought after algorithms data humans, knowledge, and it's dispersed across a gazillion companies, universities, government agencies, in some instances that are not exactly well positioned to protect either the people that are high value in foreign intelligence agencies are really good at corrupting people or sometimes not corrupting them just, you know, flying them to give a talk somewhere and stealing their stuff. So you've described what seems to me like a basically hopeless challenge? And I'm, I'm, let's start with, is it as daunting as all of that, or is there reason to say, well, wait a minute, the problems a little bit more constrained than. In that. It's a daunting problem. I don't think it's hopeless, but I don't think it is very well. I don't think that's constrained. I guess I'm worried about it not being constrained. I think it is a, I think it is a pity pretty big problem to tackle. And so in the first instance, I guess, officials who have to deal with this problem and who should be thinking about this needed to simply number one understand what is what we're talking about, just what is it mean and to gain some sufficient level of that number two. Once you have some understanding of that and it's going to it's going to be intertwined with with the second part, then you have to go out and figure out what is what it is that you need to protect like who's doing what and where are they. What companies are actually working on this stuff? Where are they located? How many companies here are we talking? I have no idea. I literally have no idea. I literally have no idea, but I think that it's tractive and I think a lot of companies are going to be trying to figure out how to make use of it, especially as their competitors do so. And the competitors are think going to gain some significant. Look the way it seems that people I talked to the economists that I've, I've read about her have read their work and so on, people analyze the workforce and that kind of thing. If you can use a effectively, you're going to be able to significantly cut your costs, which means jobs will disappear. That's what that means for human beings. The jobs are going to disappear. So human cost to this. So that's one thing. And then you'll be able to more effectively target. For example, your advertising in your sales, and you're probably going to have more profits. And so I think people are going to try to do this even if they don't really get. But right now they're going to be forced into it by their competitors. I would. I would assess. So any event, I don't know how big the universe is of people working on this. There's the US has an incredibly dynamic economic sector, and people are very creative and they're gonna be trying to. They're going to be entrepreneurial and try to use this material this these types of systems wherever they possibly can. So anyway. So getting your I, I don't think is an easy problem to get your head around who's actually working on this stuff in part because companies are gonna wanna keep the secret also a secret in the sense that they're not gonna really want their competitors. Know what they're doing and teams of people developing some type of AI product that they wanna market or internal companies or companies that are developing AI internally you're using internally. I don't think they're gonna want us early advertise that all the time. Certainly there are companies out there doing that and explaining how they're using it and making everybody making buddy aware of it. But I think it's. Hard thing to get your hands around that which it is you need to protect, but then you gotta protect it. You gotta go out and be pre at proactive with these companies and develop those relationships governmental entities like the FBI we're gonna have to develop those relationships proactively and build partnerships in some way that's affected..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Which computers have known how to do down since I was in college at a more profound level. You know, people talk about a degree of processing speed and pace of of innovation that you're really talking about. You know something like general purpose, human level, or greater level general intelligence. I assume that the degree of. Counterintelligence interest is to some degree calibrated to how generalize -able the I function is right that that if we're talking about a a that or a set of AIG and principles and strategies that can do certain discrete things very well, that's one level of problem. But if you're talking about really kind of high end game, changing data processing that kind of a protest human thought. You're really talking about a totally different level of problem. In terms of the amount of energy that countries will exert to be the market leader or or leader in in that space. Is that fair? I think so, look, it's again, I go back to what I said earlier. It's kind of hard. Keep in mind. I'm a lawyer policy guy, and so I'm not a technologist. I'm not a computer scientist. I'm not a mathematician. On engineer, not all that stuff. And so I find it challenging to really grasp and understand what it is we're talking about here, but based on what I've read and some of the feedback I've gotten from some of the of the post that I put out a couple of things, it's hard to really describe what is. And I put out in a one of the initial posts this phrase that a is a machine that thinks and that is probably what AI well, that is potentially not probably potentially what AI could be in the future sometime. But I think the way to think about it is that it's an evolving field that has been in existence for while that has different. It's gone through different periods of time. DARPA recently put out some. They have a construct of three waves of AI which I can talk about in a second, but it's a, it's a field like any other technological field that is progressing over time and in. Some instances, yes. What you say is right? There's there's certain times when AI has been used. Well, a program has been used, whether it's actually artificial and actually intelligence, right? It may not be either one of those, but as they system that people developed that was able to do one thing, let's say play chess really, really well because it could play a lot of different games against itself to a degree that no human ever could during their lifetime. Right? So it has that processing type of power and can and can do that. But that's a very narrow application of AI and that is hard to do. A lot of work went into that kind of thing, a lot of trial and error, and that it's important, but it's not necessarily transferable to other areas. More recently were in a phase now where we're going through DARPA talks about statistical learning. You might think about machine learning where machines that are using algorithms developed by people are take. Taking in data, assessing it, analyzing it, and trying to learn from it in some statistically valid way. And so that's sort of where we are now. That's very powerful. It transfers more to different areas. It's more transferable than the sort of the chess example. Again, as I understand the question is, will what comes next and how far can the field progress and how quickly and can it move more to an area?.
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Code into a system like that. And. Messing with our artificial intelligence systems. So how is this different from the general cyber security problem? I mean, you've described a lot of vectors of attack, but a lot of that is sort of generically true of cybersecurity when you think of the. Counter intelligence problem. How does it differ from the broader problem of, you know, countries that want to bribe our people steal our stuff, you know, attack our critical infrastructure, right? So I thinking of this as a counter intelligence problem, not just a cyber security problem, but cyber security is part of this issue and part of this problem break that down what makes what makes it different from the from either the broader, broader or narrower, cyber-security set of problems. Because as you alluded to, for example, if you are in the business of if you have a as part of your business, you're doing something that we will call a that, therefore, attracts interests of threat actors of adversaries. They're gonna be interested if you proclaim yourself as a. Let's say, and you're in the eye business in some way than one vector to compromise what it is that you have is through cyber security. But there are other vectors to, and I again, I go back to the sort of the people, the people who know how to do this are few in number very valuable. They command high salaries if they can actually effectively work on a. And so a good intelligence official on the other side is going to focus on the people and try to understand who's involved in this work, what do they do? And then let's focus on them and try to exploit them in some fashion, either wittingly or unwittingly. In addition, they I would expect trot would try to introduce employees into the company under some false identification of some sort that would try to get them to transform transform what's happening from an external threat to an internal threat and have that intern. Threat feed the information back out to them. So that's just another avenue. So yeah, that's that's what I'm trying to say. And then in addition, they would be ways I would think too, as I understand it as I'm learning about this as I'm digging into it. It's not just all about stealing the AI technology. You can if you're an adversary achieve your by compromising in some way, the system you can compromise, especially the data that is fed into the system in some way, you can manipulate it. You can also save just compromise it generally, and that can distort the the AI results. It can make the system that the US or one of our allies is trying to develop it can make effective to significant degree and then it won't work when we really needed to, especially you start to think about military applications of this. All right. So you alluded earlier to if a I is kind of all that we think it may be and throughout all this, the subsequent conversation, there's this premise and everything that you're saying that these are particularly valuable assets as you understand it. What is it about a. I systems that make them sort of particularly vulnerable or attractive as targets. Why should we care more about that than for example, the president is obsessed with steel, right? And you know, kind of like basic manufacturing economy doesn't seem that worried about AI systems like, why should we be focused on? You know, the integrity of this somewhat hypothetical set of fields rather than all the other areas of life that that foreign actors may get a gleam in their eye about that question is is complicated to answer, and I'm trying to think about it on a number of different levels will let me start. I guess here as I understand it, what people are thinking, who are steeped in in a and it's applicastions is that it has the potential to be..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"I do think it has to be a priority and you know, we're still in a post nine eleven world and the FBI and other government agencies are rightly focused on terrorism. It's terrorism hasn't gone away, something we should be worried about. But as a result, sometimes intelligence takes a back seat to counter terrorism and okay, fine. I get that. I understand that. I don't think that's necessarily the right choice all the time. And what I'm trying to say is that from a counterintelligence perspective, from a national security perspective, we need to pay attention to what's going on in the world, and we need to think deeply about the threats because they're quite significant, potentially quite significant, and it is worth investing the time effort, energy money to make sure that we're doing what we need to do to protect those assets. I'm Michaela Fogel and this is the law, fair podcast. September twenty. With two thousand eighteen. The US has become the global leader in both defense and private-sector artificial intelligence. Inevitably, this led to environment in which adversary and governments alike may seek to identify in steal a information. In other words, AI has become intelligence and those who work in a have become potential sources and assets and with intelligence comes counterintelligence. Jim Baker, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FBI general counsel is partway through a series of essays for law fair on the links between counterintelligence day. I two parts of the series have already been published on our website on Monday. Jim sat down with Ben witness to discuss his work on the subject. They talked about how to understand as an intelligence asset, how we might protect this valuable asset against a range of threats from hostile foreign actors and how we might protect ourselves against the threat of AI in the hands of adversaries. It's the law, fair podcast episode, three hundred fifty. Jim Baker on a I. Encounter intelligence. Let's start with the relationship between the two subjects at hand. Everybody wants to talk about AI. Why think about a in the context of counter intelligence? Because if AI is really what people say it is and has the potential to be what people say. It might have then as a nation, we should really worry about protecting it. And at the end of the day, counter intelligence is protective in nature. It's it's intended to protect the people, the assets, the interests of the United States or any other country that you're trying to defend through intelligence means. There are so many threats. There are so many vulnerabilities. There are so many assets that you really have to try to prioritize them. And what I've been worried about is that I think I'm concerned that folks who worry about these kind of things from a counterintelligence perspective. Don't really have a grasp yet of what artificial intelligence is, and I'm still struggling to try to figure out exactly what the heck it is and what it really can do. But I'm concerned that folks responsible in this area. Don't have enough of an understanding of what needs to be done to protect the assets of the country in part because I think it's a challenging field to get your head around and it's changing constantly and it's hard to figure out. And is it fair to say that the the obverse of that is also true that people who are in the AI field don't understand the counter intelligence risks that they are subject to and that that the technologies that they are developing are subject to. I think it's mixed. I think some people understand it..
"jim baker" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Agencies needed search to acquire the history of cellphone's location from wireless provider chief justice john roberts wrote for the five justice majority that doing so amount to a fourth amendment search a decision that will have far reaching implications for law enforcement activities moving folk to understand what to make of the decision benjamin wittes got on the phone on thursday with jim baker the former general counsel vsbn and or incur the fourth amendment gouverneur who's writing was cited in every dissent they talk about what the decision said what a warrant for selsej data might look like and the ruling's implications for other areas of fourth amendment law it's the law fair podcast episode three hundred twentyfive jim baker an orin kerr on the carpenter ruling foreign let's start with just an overview of the decision this is already a case that people just refer to it by the word carpenter as though that's most to convey everything about what the case is about but what is the case about and what the court hold the cases about the government collecting records that were kept by some cellular phone providers about what general location a person's phone was in its sometime in the past when it was thought that the person who sold it was was in the area of some cell phone robberies ironically case about cellphones evolving cellphone robberies basically the government use these records which are kept in the ordinary course of business by cell phone providers to show that the suspect carpenter was in the neighborhood of these robberies with coconspirators helping to show that yet it was actually carpenter who who was committing these crimes in the physical a world and so the government collects these records and the records look are locations of the cell phone sites that is the towers or the places that are routing the calls on the provider's network at the time that any phone calls were made and received or the beginnings in the end of the phone calls and so that ends up it turns out carpet or made a lot of phone calls and so he had about a hundred of these day and that gave rough location information sort of within a mile or two of where carpenter was likely to be located at the time those calls were made so those are the facts in the question is is this the fourth amendment search and the supreme court divides five to four and says it is a search and the reasoning why is really the the interesting important part in it's pretty new the court starts from the premise that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of your physical movements and so this is an idea that you you have fourth amendment rights in public as to the government learning this body of information which is the whole of your physical movements and that the.
Two top FBI officials who worked with Comey leave the bureau, report says
"And the ad council to people involved in the events surrounding the russia investigation as well as other recent controversies of the fbi of left the bureau lisa page served as a legal advisor to both james comey and his deputy andrew mccabe and was also a member of special counsel robert muller's team until justice department investigators uncovered text messages between her and top fbi agent peter struck which were highly critical vin presidential candidate donald trump jim baker is the other top official whose left the bureau baker was one of jim commes closest aides and served as the fbi's top lawyer he was reassigned late last year after the justice department investigated him for allegedly leaking classified information to a reporter about the socalled trump dossier garrett tenny demonstrators and russia protested the impending inauguration vladimir putin's fourth presidential term protest took place in moscow and petersburg and several other key russian cities and towns the atmosphere was heated with demonstrators shouting shame and waving anti corruption placards this moscow protests wasn't authorized by the government police in riot gear were quick to crack down and cleared the demonstrators in a matter of hours hundreds of activists were arrested around the country sometimes with force amongst those detained was opposition leader aleksei nevada who organized rallies in london kitty logan fox news new york city mayor rudy giuliani suggesting three americans being held in north korea will soon be released there is a good chance that three on time hostages in north korea will be released over the next several days i pray i pray that that happens but that didn't happen accidentally giuliani speaking of the iran freedom convention for democracy and human rights in washington dc.
Two top FBI officials who worked with Comey leave the bureau, report says
"People involved in the events surrounding the russia investigation as well as other recent controversies the fbi have left the bureau lisa page served as a legal advisor to both james comey and his deputy andrew mccabe and was also a member of special counsel robert muller's team until justice department investigators uncovered text messages between her and top fbi agent peter struck which were highly critical vin presidential candidate donald trump jim baker is the other top official whose left the bureau baker was one of jim combs closest aides and served as the fbi's top lawyer he was reassigned late last year after the justice department investigated him for allegedly leaking classified information to a reporter about the socalled trump dossier fox's jared tenny thousands of protesters opposing the upcoming inauguration of russian president vladimir putin took to the streets across russia today putin won reelection to a fourth term in march he'll be inaugurated on monday moscow police detained opposition leader alexei navalny during a protest in pushkin square carrying him away by his arms and legs the focus shifts back to the eastern conference per playoff action today in the nba eastern conference semifinal sets change locations for game three.
"jim baker" Discussed on MSNBC Rachel Maddow (audio)
"Resignations tonight so i've talked to people close to both lisa page and jim baker and what i'm told is that indeed these were voluntary resignations and there was there were coincidental coincidental i'm not even sure that they each knew that the other was leaving today and i believe that however they both were reassigned as you noted in recent months lisa was moved into procurement jim baker i'm told was put into special projects and these are two of the most kind of accomplished national security lawyers at the fbi now doing positions where they basically couldn't exercise their talents to the fullest i'm not surprised that they would leave you know so i don't think they were directly pushed out but they were put in positions that were basically untenable for them and the question you have to ask the there's this cloud that hangs over every decision like this by the justice department because of the president's constant attacks tech both of these people by name on multiple occasions you have to ask you know our decisions to fire people like andy mccabe or decisions to reassign people like jim baker and lisa you know are they decisions made fully on the merits or does the president putting his pressure on the on the bureau just tip the scale little bit in a direction it shouldn't and in terms of the we've been talking a lot tonight about the the separation of powers and the independence of the justice department the freedom of the fbi to pursue investigations including into high ranking political figures without pressure talking about rod rosenstein public comments on those matters this week which i think are important do you have any sense within the justice department or within the fbi what the feeling is about the treatment of people like baker and page and mccabe and komi these people who have both been both been pushed out or or sort of lead to resign by being reassigned and taken away from their the work that they were doing before or overtly fired while at the same time the president's really been mounting an attack.
"jim baker" Discussed on Alice @97.3
"At one two emmys the following may and returned on nbc's late night schedule in february of 1982 that's one letterman took over at night i love them yeah as young i was aware the show and i don't think i watched it but i've just always love letter is any coming back to netflixing she report that yeah he's doing like one on one interviewed pieces like longform interviews things he's got a big old beard now cute he's violent at beard that gap is still there did you did you ever watch when he interviewed pera salt in on his latenight show you so mean to her as normal seasoning back yeah enemy he can be that's one of his things he can be kinda cutting in mean me twenty years ago today in 1989 jim baker reverend jim baker was cents to forty five years in prison and fined half a million bucks for his conviction on twenty four counts of fraud and conspiracy stemming from the praise the lord ministry seized on jail he's not he got out yet tea at 24 letsie fortyfive years in prison any served about five of them i now he's got a whole new show he's all back and business oh yeah he was confronted about the missing hundred and fifty eight million dollars he claimed the satan had gotten into his ministry's computers to make the money lost he symond said could prove it and he said can you proof he didn't anyway he has yet the new jim baker show that's what tees up to these days jim jim baker show dot com the new guide right since you have cancer timothy did die i don't remember which he died of that yeah she definitely she died ari behn look at that we didn't even get to we talked about harassment assmebly didn't get any of the stories is fantastic let's come enough superstitions and the worst taste in the world he there he.
"jim baker" Discussed on True Crime Garage
"And we're back cheers everybody out there crystal jim baker aged thirteen she lived with her grandmother and on march fifth 1990 six this is after an argument with her grandmother crystal left the house she went off walking to a tire store where she asked to use the phone now the people working there they letter use the phone but uh she kind of abuse the favour uh she was there for a considerable amount of time and she called several people it's believed that she was looking for a ride to a friend's house and buy you vista which is a short distance from where she was well then the workers at the store they told her that she couldn't tie up the phone line all day long you know she needed to move on they have a business to run from there she went walking down the street uh this is texas avenue in texas city this is where she would be last seen five hours later her body was found under the eye 10 bridge over trinity river in chambers county she had been beaten sexually assaulted and killed by lake at your strangulation now her face was badly beaten uh the closest highway to where she was last seen is the eye fortyfive they were able to collect some dna from the body now dna at this point is still pretty primitive of course but at this point they made all of the proper precautions to collect dna and preserve it for later.
"jim baker" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Work well the never has there are two kinds of weeks really right we're talking about on the one hand sort of the inside baseball almost dasa p kind of informational leaks that different parts of government or individuals he government used to we joe policy battle against each other people can actually be admired for their skill and weakening jim baker who was ronald reagan chief of staff wizard expert a putting out the right information at the right time that would help the administration's position hand know reagan when it was other kinds of leaks hated them he said famously but he had had it up to his sister with leaks and he tried to impose a polygraph test flight detector tests on a big chunk of executive frank so there there are the kind of more like social gossipy leaks and then what other kinds of lisa there right well the other part of course is national security leaks and these are sometimes which serious of lee can course theoretically endanger military operations they can put in jeopardy intelligence sources this last week we had the bleak of transcripts of conversations between president trump and other world leaders you know vac kind of transcript when i find it my scholarly work as a researcher who's pretty exciting it gives insight into how a positive thing so the way the decisions were made but when the released in real time the can certainly constrain the ability of the president to enact policy confidentiality helps with candor and we want candor both in the advisory processed to the president and we want world leaders feel the discussions frankly with the president without worrying of their discussions were gonna wind up publicized well before history might be able to to that what about the idea of going after leakers of criminal prosecution it happened rarely now there's a big gap between the possibilities in law of going after leakers and the reality of would over time but the fbi nausea which was the strongest tool.
"jim baker" Discussed on The Dan Le Batard Show with Stugotz
"While the details about the escort thing that's all out their own this has been on in the news it's been getting pretty hot around the rebel program but it even dates back to the houston not administration open i mean specifically i know all of that i'm saying specifically reporters asking him about the dialing of an escort number how did that did that end up because of all of the little gatien right now because that's probably where it ended up because of all of the litigator should not and the lawsuit is probably why he was asked about the telephone number that ended up in the trans i guess they were aware of one uh one phone call and you know he said what he said as an excuse for making that phone call and then they really dug into his phone records and saw that he was consistently dialing this number the wrong number at jim baker zain good prostitution scandal outside of sports jim baker the televangelist a ghirma put that on the poll dino jim baker urged you know what the jim baker scandalous freeze himself was charged with failure to monitor and not promoting an atmosphere of compliance believe a selfimposed a bold ban skin really hotter owned the program that one 2013 recruiting they said it only lasted a minute the loncle caller on call the vocal and colors patino situation not necessarily prostitution scandal although he was acquitted of one prostitution scandal french international soccer player in reality druid striker karim benz emma you one stride we it was alleged he was trying to blackmail a teammate on the french national team with sex tape.
"jim baker" Discussed on KFI AM 640
"Be here while we're just go ahead and start at back in detroit meanwhile a guy with why do i have to be your from that in and go oh you know i think you can tell your story better than me ben okay i yet detroit it started in detroit and on but you know charles randolph ride incredible partner in this journey he said it best there's no way we could tell the whole story in one setting so we start this story when ccni left detroit and she was fifteen and i was seventeen and we left detroit and we went to sharded north of that young when he did pti yes yes i forgot i meet you spit look for five years or years yeah and and my brothers my you know i'm the youngest boy of my dad in on at seven boys straight and then three girls i the last boy so my older brothers were angry at my father for allowing us to move two chard north going to cause the my father wouldn't allow us to spend the night over cousin's house across the street side rings string you know and so when this happened they were like you ccc fifteen and you have you lost soumaa eighty parental guidance chaperon i'm just nieto's sister ill was me in my sister and i had to look after my sister when you're singing for the ptl club yossi jim baker fame was that experience like what are you remember most from it well the fact is and the the the story the the musical tells the story a lot of people don't even know that if it wasn't for german tammy faith baker the there will be no bbn see as a duet because we work a duet until jim baker put together to seeing this song together lord if this up we belong so for wasn't for here on we wouldn't be duet and so that that story is being told an and i i say that i because i i didn't get chosen we went to audition you know they said and they said the will pass on the board awhile well.