DOV 17
12/01/14
UNC-CH SERIOUS DEPARTMENT
DAVIS LIBRARY CB# 393S
20S RALEIGH STREET
CHAPEL HILL NC
27599-0001
a Cimes
OLUME 93 - NUMBER 44
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA - SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2014
TELEPHONE (919) 682-2913 PRICE:
NCCU GETS READY FOR HOMECOMING - NCCU will celebrate with Homecoming Nov. 8. Miss
“CU is Tania Irwin and Mr. NCCU is Demarre Richmond. (NCCU Photo)
New emails show White House
role in Sherrod ouster
By Mary Clare Jalonick
WASHINGTON (AP) - A 2010 email from Agriculture
sretary Tom Vilsack says his department was “waiting
rthe go-ahead” from the White House before accepting
eresignation of employee Shirley Sherrod, according to
wly released documents, despite Obama administration
sertions that her ouster was Vilsack’s decision alone.
The email, which was made public Friday in an ongo-
g federal court case over the matter, shed more light
ithe evening of July 19, 2010, when the USDA hastily
Led Sherrod to resign after a video showing her mak-
g supposed-racist remarks surfaced on a conservative
ebsite. Her dismissal turned into a racial firestorm after
became clear that the video had been edited and her re-
arks were meant to tell a story of reconciliation.
Both the White House and Vilsack have repeatedly
id the agriculture secretary made the decision to ask
r Sherrod’s resignation without White House input. The
nails, along with earlier emails obtained by The Associ-
ed Press under the Freedom of Information Act in 2010
id 2012, make it apparent that Vilsack wanted Sherrod
leave the department and ordered her resignation. But
newly-released email sent by Vilsack himself suggests
: was awaiting a decision from White House officials on
>w to proceed.
“She has offered her resignation which is appropriate,”
ads an email from the initials “T.TV” to Dallas Tonsager,
en the USDA undersecretary of rural development and
lerrod’s boss. “The WH is involved and we are waiting
rthe go-ahead to accept her resignation. I suspect some
rection from WH soon.”
The USDA would not comment on the email and a
lokesman, when asked, did not dispute that Vilsack
rote it. The email, sent at 5:37 p.m. on July 19, is in
ply to an earlier email from Tonsager addressed to “Mr.
icretary.” Vilsack’s middle name is James.
The correspondence is evidence in a federal defama-
Jn case that Sherrod filed in 2011 against the late blog-
r Andrew Breitbart, who posted the video, and his col-
ague Larry O’Connor. The Justice Department has been
ishing to keep the emails sealed, but lost Friday after-
>on when U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled they
d not have to be kept private.
Vilsack’s email was brought up at a court status hear-
g earlier last week. According to a transcript, a lawyer
T Breitbart’s wife, who was substituted as defendant af-
1'the blogger died unexpectedly in 2012, said the email
as “extremely telling” and “contains a statement that is
MRS.SHIRLEY SHERROD
arguably inconsistent with the public statements.”
Justice Department lawyer David Glass replied to the
judge that “when there is a reference to the White House
was involved, what it means is the White House liaison
was involved.”
USDA’s White House liaison, Kevin Washo, was in
touch with the White House through the night, accord
ing to the documents. In another newly released email,
a White House aide writes to Valerie Green of the White
House presidential personnel office, saying “USDA is
looking for direction - can someone contact Washo?”
Green replies that she is “reaching out now.”
Green writes Washo asking him to loop her in, “Please.
Please. Please.” (Continued On Page 3)
Exclusive: Ferguson
no-fly zone aimed at
media reporting
By Jack Gillum and Joan Lowy
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. government agreed to a police
request to restrict more than 37 square miles (96 square kilometers)
of airspace surrounding Ferguson, Missouri, for 12 days in August
for safety, but audio recordings show that local authorities privately
acknowledged the purpose was to keep away news helicopters dur
ing street protests over the shooting of an unarmed black man by a
white police officer.
On Aug. 12, the morning after the Federal Aviation Administra
tion imposed the first flight restriction, FAA air traffic managers
struggled to redefine the flight ban to let commercial flights operate
at nearby Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and police heli
copters fly through the area - but ban others.
“They finally admitted it really was to keep the media out,” said
one FAA manager about the St. Louis County Police in a series' of
recorded telephone conversations obtained by The Associated Press.
“But they were a little concerned of, obviously, anything else that
could be going on.
At another point, a manager at the FAA’s Kansas City center said
police “did not care if you ran commercial traffic through this TFR
(temporary flight restriction) all day long. They didn’t want media
in there.”
FAA procedures for defining a no-fly area did not have an option
that would accommodate that.
“There is really ... no option for a TFR that says, you know,
'OK, everybody but the media is OK,’” he said. The managers then
worked out wording they felt would keep news helicopters out of
the controlled zone but not impede other air traffic.
The conversations contradict claims by the St. Louis County Po
lice Department, which responded to demonstrations following the
shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, that the restriction
was solely for safety and had nothing to do with preventing media
from witnessing the violence or the police response.
Police said at the time, and again as recently as late Friday to
the AP, that they requested the flight restriction in response to. shots
fired at apolice helicopter.
But police officials confirmed there was no damage to their
helicopter and were unable to provide an incident report on the
shooting. On the tapes, an FAA manager described the helicopter
shooting as unconfirmed “rumors.”
The AP obtained the recordings under the U.S. Freedom of
Information Act. They raise serious questions about whether police
were trying to suppress aerial images of the demonstrations and the
police response by violating the constitutional rights ofjoumalists
with tacit assistance by federal officials.
Such images would have offered an unvarnished view of one of
the most serious episodes of civil violence in recent memory.
“Any evidence that a no-fly zone was put in place as a pretext to
exclude the media from covering events in Ferguson is extraordi
narily troubling and a blatant violation of the press’s First Amend
ment rights,” said Lee Rowland, an American Civil Liberties Union
staff attorney specializing in First Amendment issues. The first
amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees such basic rights as
freedom of the press.
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said in a statement Sunday
his agency will always err on the side of safety. “FAA cannot and
will never exclusively ban media from covering an event ofnational
significance, and media was never banned from covering the ongo
ing events in Ferguson in this case.”
Huerta also said that, to the best of the FAA’s knowledge, “no
media outlets objected to any of the restrictions” during the time
they were in effect.
In the recordings, an FAA manager urged modifying the flight
restriction so that planes landing at Lambert still could enter the
airspace around Ferguson. .
The less-restrictive change practically served the authorities’
intended goal, an FAA official said: “A lot ofthe time the (lesser re
striction) just keeps the press out, anyways. They don’t understand
the difference.”
The Kansas City FAA manager then asked a St. Louis County
police official if the restrictions could be lessened so nearby com
mercial flights wouldn’t be affected. The new order allows “aircraft
on final (approach) there at St. Louis. It will still keep news people
out. ... The only way people will get in there is if they give them
permission in there anyway so they, with the (lesser restriction), it
still keeps all of them out.”
“Yeah,” replied the police official. “I have no problem with that
whatsoever.”
KMOV-TV News Director Brian Thouvenot told the AP that his
station was prepared at first to legally challenge the flight restric
tions, but was later advised that its pilot could fly over the area as
long as the helicopter stayed above 3,000 feet (900 meters). That
kept the helicopter and its mounted camera outside the restricted
zone, although filming from such a distance, he said, was “less than
ideal.”
None of the St. Louis stations was advised that media helicopters
could enter the airspace even under the lesser restrictions, which
under federal rules should not have applied to aircraft “carrying
properly accredited news representatives.” The FAA’s no-fly notice
indicated the area was closed to all aircraft except police and planes
coming to and from the airport.
“Only relief aircraft operations under direction of St. Louis
County Police Department are authorized in the airspace,” it said.
“Aircraft landing and departing St. Louis Lambert Airport are
exempt.”
The same day that notice was issued, a county police spokesman
publicly denied the no-fly zone was to prevent news helicopters
from covering the events. “We understand that that’s the perception
that’s out there, but it truly is for the safety of pilots,” Sgt. Brian
Schellman told NBC News.
Ferguson police were widely criticized for their response fol
lowing the death of Brown, who was shot by a city police officer,
Darren Wilson, on Aug. 9. Later, under county police command,
several reporters were arrested, a TV news crew was tear gassed and
some demonstrators were told they weren’t allowed to film officers.
In early October, a federal judge said the police violated demonstra
tors’ and news crews’ constitutional rights.