Hours before the opening ceremony of the Olympic games in Rio, the International Olympics Committee announced that 271 Russian athletes were cleared to compete after a doping scandal disqualified nearly one-third of the country’s team.

The committee denied 118 athletes that Russia hoped to send after a report from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) last year revealed some of the team members’ involvement in a government-sanctioned doping system.

Russia’s depleted Olympic team heads for Rio De Janeiro amid doping scandal. https://t.co/dEOrdJFFLH pic.twitter.com/W6lWHa2YoZ

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

271 may sound like a lot, but the Russian Federation sent 436 athletes to the London Games in 2012, and those lucky 271 make up only about 70 percent of the 389 athletes the country hoped to send.

For many Russians, this is a preferable alternative to a blanket ban on the whole team, but Russia isn’t completely in the clear. The scandal has raised doubts about Russia’s integrity and WADA found Russian athletics to have a “deeply rooted culture of cheating at all levels.”

Integrity of Olympics in tatters as two-thirds of Russians given all-clear to compete: https://t.co/Hit2s1zPou@Rio2016_en

— Ben Rumsby (@ben_rumsby) August 4, 2016

You can find a list of which Russian athletes are and are not allowed to compete in Rio here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 271 Russian Athletes Cleared for Rio appeared first on Law Street.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has all the qualities of your favorite grandma: 83 years old, looks great in glasses, makes borderline inappropriate political comments.

The Supreme Court justice came under intense scrutiny this week after publicly criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump not once, not twice, but three times, calling him a faker, inconsistent, and chastising him for his ego, all while reaching for her passport so she could move to another country pending his inauguration.

Trump did not take it well.

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

RBG isn’t the first to let her doubts about Trump bleed out into newsfeeds, but this is different from the typical political figure because as a SCOTUS justice, she is, by definition, supposed to avoid being political. Despite common knowledge of Ginsburg’s liberal tendencies, her position as a justice calls for objectivity and removal from the political sphere when making court decisions, and many think she may have crossed the line.

Even the @NYTimes and @WashingtonPost Editorial Boards condemned Justice Ginsburg for her ethical and legal breach. What was she thinking?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016

Her comments led to a huge debate by legal ethicists and judges nationwide and there is a legitimate fear of a Bush v. Gore sequel, in which Ginsburg would have to recuse herself because she has demonstrated a clear bias against one of the parties.

But on Thursday, RBG did take a couple steps back from the fight. She said in a statement,

On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them…Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.

Still, it seems like these two won’t be fast friends if he does make it to the White House.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Recuse Me, What Did You Say?: RBG and Donald Trump Go Head-to-Head appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s emails, clap your hands.

James Comey is right there with you. The FBI Director said Tuesday that the bureau is recommending to the Department of Justice that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server during her term as secretary of state.

Some people are pretty mad.

Declining to prosecute Sec. Clinton for recklessly transmitting national security info will set a terrible precedent https://t.co/URtm1pFIIB

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 5, 2016

The Background

In 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, prompting a long string of investigations and questions about officials’ actions at the time–officials including a key player, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Part of the investigation was a look into Clinton’s email, which revealed that she had been using a personal server during her time heading up the State Department, which got more than a few people feeling uneasy. As secretary of state, she had access to a lot of classified information, which wasn’t supposed to be mixed in with her personal notes or hair appointment confirmations. This scandal has followed Clinton all throughout her campaign.

What’s Next?

 Comey said that the FBI didn’t find enough evidence to show that she intentionally mishandled the classified information, but did slide a little commentary in about how she was “extremely careless” with it. The Bureau is technically passing the case over to the Department of Justice to make a prosecutorial decision, but its recommendation essentially means there will be no prosecution.

While Hillary supporters are rejoicing, this recommendation is fuel for certain other candidates who don’t play nice with the Clintons and use “Crooked Hillary” in a good portion of their tweets.

FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

June LSAT scores are promised by the end of the week, but some LSAT experts anticipate a release earlier, sending the pre-law masses into a widespread frenzy. Shortly before LSAC releases scores, the icons in test-takers’ personal accounts go from green to grey–which is where we get the nickname “grey day.”

It’s a hard time for everyone, so with the help of some tweets (and personal experience), Law Street Media is proud to present: The Stages of Waiting for Grey Day, in increasing “obsessive-compulsion.”

8:00 a.m. If you slept at all, you’ve probably woken up and are scouring the internet for any indication of score releases so far.

10:00 a.m. You’re hoping that LSAC can make like SCOTUS and release life-altering information at 10:00. You may or may not start googling “Can I hire an intern to run my LSAT scores to me?”

#SCOTUS hit us with that good news this morning, your turn @Official_LSAT !

— Dylan Rogers Elliott (@Deelahnn) June 27, 2016

12:00 p.m. Paranoia starts to sink in as you entertain the idea that someone else might have found out their score before you.

I’m also obsessively searching “LSAT” on Twitter for that breakthrough “I got my score” tweet confirming that today is indeed the day.

— Dylan Rogers Elliott (@Deelahnn) June 27, 2016

2:00 p.m. Someone said the release would happen in the afternoon if it happened today. Someone said that this morning and yesterday, but you ignored them. Now it really, surely, it might possibly be almost time.

Patiently, I am not. #LSAT pic.twitter.com/izYojz9HD4

— KPL (@LIfeofKrystalPL) June 27, 2016

3:00 p.m. Even if scores don’t come out today, you’ve definitely strengthened some important computer skills in the process of waiting.

3:30 p.m. But you’re really hoping they come out today.

Me every time I get an email today #LSAT pic.twitter.com/uqYf4nbfzr

— Sarah Dobson (@Sadobson_87) June 27, 2016

4:00 p.m. Really, any time will do.

Brb LSAT scores come out at anytime now pic.twitter.com/6sTy1mKBzY

— Edwin ➳ (@Edlighten) June 27, 2016

4:15 p.m. Check Twitter one more time.

Ok, everyone else on Twitter is freaking out about LSAT scores today. So, I’m gonna be like this today pic.twitter.com/7rM82Vg7GP

— Nickole Durbin (@nickoledurbin10) June 27, 2016

4:30 p.m. That was all practice, really. You obviously didn’t think they would actually come out before now…

Knowing my LSAT score cold be released at any time today pic.twitter.com/6U42pz7uz6

— Jesse Hamrick (@JDH27) June 27, 2016

5:00 p.m. Once the end of the work day hits, your hope starts to sink and you might end up looking something like this:

5:20 p.m. Aggression might start setting in. Keep it together.

Waiting for my #LSAT score like… pic.twitter.com/EvCnbPYkpA

— Steven (@SteveTheScholar) June 27, 2016

6:30 p.m. Now you’re doubting every reddit thread, LSAT forum, and pre-law Twitter thread you’ve ever read.

Maybe you didn’t even take the test. Was it all a lie…?

7:00 p.m. Okay, even the experts are starting to give up on you now.

If LSAT scores were to come out now or tonight, it would be very unusual. Time to pour a tall one, and regroup for tomorrow and more torment

— Dave Killoran (@DaveKilloran) June 27, 2016

9:00 p.m. Time to sit in bed all night as if you can sleep while the weight of your future is hogging all the covers.

*Repeat it all. Until…

Good or bad, at least you know.

Good luck!

Editor’s Note: The personal journey of Alex Simone inspired this piece.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LSAT Anticipation: The Stages of Waiting for Grey Day appeared first on Law Street.

In response to inaction around gun control policy, Democratic representatives sat on their butts to encourage Republican legislators to get off theirs in what is now the longest running House sit-in on record.

The sit-in lasted more than 24 hours, extending beyond the republicans’ vote to adjourn the session until after the July 4 recess.

At 6 a.m. June 23, more than 19 hours after the sit-in began, roughly 20 democrats remained on the floor, according to the Washington Post. More than 170 democrats participated in the sit-in over the course of 26 hours, according to CNN. In case you’re wondering how they’ve made it this far, I’ve compiled some of their survival tactics below.

1. Bring in reinforcements

Senate Democrats made frequent visits and didn’t arrive empty handed.

Gifts included blankets, phone chargers, toiletries, and, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s oh-so-historical contribution: Dunkin’ Donuts.

Massachusetts knows: America — and #NoBillNoBreak — runs on @DunkinDonuts. #birthdaydonuts#holdthefloorpic.twitter.com/XG1wzU5q41

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 23, 2016

(Dunkin Donuts has not released any public statement confirming or denying the company’s use of guerrilla advertising.)

2. Don’t forget to take selfies

When C-SPAN turned its cameras off, the representatives–realizing it’s 2016–turned to Periscope and social media to stream video of all the sitting action.

Well this is historic, the feed of the House floor being broadcast by a member on Periscope https://t.co/AkP1yehu07

— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) June 22, 2016

I’m on the House floor with @repjohnlewis & Dems staging a sit-in to demand action on commonsense gun legislation pic.twitter.com/byIivby5gG

— Rep. John Yarmuth (@RepJohnYarmuth) June 22, 2016

3. Be careful what you chant for

From Wednesday into early Thursday morning, the representatives chanted, “No bill, no break,” which made for a catchy hashtag and an ambitious commitment to their seating choices.

.@SpeakerRyan, we will not leave without acting for the victims & families of reckless gun violence. #NoBillNoBreakpic.twitter.com/eTB1WMATMd

— John Lewis (@repjohnlewis) June 23, 2016

Well, the democrats ended the sit-in shortly after 1 p.m. Thursday, and no bill had been passed. An aide told CNN that they felt they had made their point, though.

Video shared by @VeraMBergen shows the crowd chanting “we’re with you” following end of #DemocraticSitInpic.twitter.com/16qaz8GbFA

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 23, 2016

4. When in doubt, bury exhaustion and failure to enact policy change under a nicely worded Terminator reference.

Rep. John Lewis, who spurred the sit in, said, “We must come back here on July 5th [when Congress returns to session] more determined than ever before.”

They’ll be back.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Sit-In “Runs on Dunkin'” appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

This case has a lot of history

This isn’t exactly a new issue–or a new case. Affirmative action has been in and out of court for years and Abigail Fisher first brought this particular suit forward in 2012. It made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2013 only to be kicked back to lower courts.

It started back in 2008 when the University of Texas at Austin declined to admit Fisher into the school. Fisher then sued the university, claiming that UT denied her admission because she is Caucasian. Yes, you read that right. Fisher felt disadvantaged for being white.

How did that happen?

UT Austin, being the state’s flagship school, automatically accepts any applicant from a Texas public school who is in the top 10 percent of his or her graduating class. That batch of 90th percentile students makes up about 75 percent of UT’s incoming freshman class. For the last 25 percent, the university combines two scores to evaluate applicants.

Alongside SAT scores and high school grades, which make up an applicant’s Academic Index, students not automatically admitted are given a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). The PAI is UT’s way of giving people credit for non-academic factors like race, economic background, and life experience.

Check out this article: to read more about the case’s background.

So what does today’s ruling mean?

The 4-3 decision upholds the use of affirmative action, to an extent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that admissions officers can’t run wild with affirmative action. He wrote:

“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”

You can put your fingers away, we did the math for you. Seven of the eight justices weighed in, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she was involved as solicitor general.

You can read the opinion here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Upholds UT Austin’s Affirmative Action Program appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a gun ban in Connecticut Monday, sidestepping the debate on gun control yet again.

The ban, enacted in 2014, applies to semi-automatic guns like the one used in Orlando last week. Despite a challenge to the constitutionality of this ban, SCOTUS decided not to weigh in.

The Connecticut ban was created in response to the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 and replaced a federal ban that expired in 2014.

Since the Supreme Court won’t hear the case, the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that “because the prohibitions are substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction, they pass constitutional muster,” will stand and the ban will remain in place.

THANK YOU SCOTUS for upholding the weapons ban, confirming that it’s not unconstitutional to ban AR-15 & other assault style #guns. #ENOUGH

— DorkPrincess (@Nu_Age_Girl) June 20, 2016

This isn’t the first time the gun debate has been turned away from the Supreme Court steps. In fact, SCOTUS has not taken up a case concerning civilian weapons since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, when the court ruled that individuals can keep guns in their homes for self protection.

@sawsharee @Hope012015 Living in California I’m handcuffed & shackled just for being a resident. #2A #Constitution

— imjustsaying Cruz (@tellthetruuuth) June 20, 2016

SCOTUS’s reluctance to get involved is nothing new, but its refusal is just one more spark in the flame for activists trying to fight firearms with fire.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Connecticut Gun Ban appeared first on Law Street.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is banning ads that promote negative body image from London public transportation.

It all started with this Protein World ad asking if passengers were “beach body ready” last spring.

As a result, 378 people filed formal complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), leading the ASA to prohibit the ad from appearing again in the London underground system. Beyond that, more than 70,000 people signed a change.org petition demanding Protein World take it down.

@SnugglingonSofa I did this earlier today: pic.twitter.com/PDjiLiPXkJ

— Booky w/t Curly Hair (@NicoleBurstein) April 23, 2015

Khan announced the ban on Monday, and it will go into effect in July.

“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said, according to a BBC report.

Research from the U.K.’s Government Equalities Office found that more than 50 percent of adults are ashamed of their appearance and one in five elementary school-aged girls has already gone on a diet in her lifetime.

Liam Preston, public affairs manager at the Be Real Campaign in the United Kingdom, said, “These negative influences out there…we don’t need them, and they will make people more anxious about how they look.”

Jessica Brown, 23, commutes in and out of London every day. Advertisements like Protein World’s poses a threat to people struggling with body image, she said, especially those who are working to overcome self harm or eating disorders.

“If you’re going to be on the tube for up to an hour, you don’t want to be looking at content that can be offensive,” Brown said. “It’s not going to help [people] on their path to recovery if they’re looking at this woman who’s been perfectly photoshopped.”

The ban will effect all transportation systems in London, including buses and the Tube. However, there is still much more that needs to be done in order to provoke global change on this issue.

“If the mayor understands it’s a big issue for Londoners…we’re hoping that the rest of the world is going to follow suit as well,” Preston said.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Mayor Wants to Keep Billboards from Body-Shaming Londoners appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of a tragic shooting in Orlando, Florida early June 12, President Barack Obama addressed the nation in a televised press conference, while presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to comment. Here’s a tweet-by-tweet look at how each candidate responded to the national tragedy.

Trump sent out the first tweet, about two hours after Orlando police tweeted that the shooter was dead.

Pulse Shooting: The shooter inside the club is dead.

— Orlando Police (@OrlandoPolice) June 12, 2016

Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton followed, expressing her concern as she awaited new information.

Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump did not tweet exclusively about the event, but tweeted more frequently than Clinton throughout the day.

Clinton made a false ad about me where I was imitating a reporter GROVELING after he changed his story. I would NEVER mock disabled. Shame!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton posted Spanish translations of select tweets.

Desperté con la devastadora noticia de FL. Mientras esperamos más información,mis pensamientos están con los afectados de este horrible acto

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Trump tweeted in anticipation of Obama’s address to the nation.

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted “Allah hu Akbar!” as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton’s account quoted her throughout her public statement.

“I join Americans in praying for the victims of the attack in Orlando.”

Hillary’s statement: https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This was an act of terror. … This was also an act of hate.” —Hillary on the attack in Orlando https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump brought the election into the conversation.

“@WandaWalls20: @realDonaldTrump Please make us safe. We cannot have Hillary as president. We will be in so much trouble.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton addressed the LGBT community and expressed her thoughts about gun control.

“To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them.” —Hillary https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.” —Hillary on the FL attack

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.” —Hillary on the attack in FL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Declaraciones de Hillary Clinton sobre el ataque en Orlando. https://t.co/onc4230GUH

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump ended the day’s tweets by commenting on what he felt the nation needed from its leadership.

What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Even though each candidate chose to address the tragedy differently, they both were united in sharing their condolences for the victims and their families.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orlando Shooting: How did Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Respond? appeared first on Law Street.

Legal counsel is expensive, but your Twitter feed is free. Check out our round-up of some of the best tweets from #BestAdviceFromMyLawyer.

Well to Start Off…

#BestAdviceFromMyLawyer
When he finally tells you the truth:
Stop Breaking the Law! pic.twitter.com/FU0OhiDPU6

— R.E.Marsh (@eREM1600) June 9, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Ten Funniest #BestAdviceFromMyLawyer Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

In an “SNL” skit that aired last November, a politically (and factually) incorrect relative at Thanksgiving dinner claimed that she “actually saw an ISIS in the A&P the other day.” While just a joke, when you consider how the FBI is acting these days, the sentiment doesn’t actually seem too crazy. The Bureau has a long history of secretive tactics, but has reached a new high with regards to terrorism-related cases, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

In investigations against Americans suspected of involvement with the Islamic terrorist group, undercover “sting” operations have played a part in two-thirds of cases, or 67 percent, since February 2015, compared to 30 percent in 2014, according to the analysis. During these sting operations, FBI employees or informants pose as Jihadists, bomb-makers, and gun dealers to connect with ISIS members.

Undercover operators have helped suspects acquire weapons and plan routes to Syria to join the Islamic State. Some have gone so far as to drive a suspect to a synagogue where he wanted to carry out a bombing, arresting the bomber as he stepped out of the car with the bomb in his hand.

Michael B. Steinbach, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch told the Times, “We’re not going to wait for the person to mobilize on his own time line.”

The FBI’s tactics, though effective, put their employees in a risky legal situation. Agents have to toe the line between allowing a crime and provoking one to avoid illegal entrapment, an issue which has surfaced in court.

In 2013, four terrorists tried to appeal their convictions by accusing officers of entrapment among other crimes, like perjury. The court found that the agents had not entrapped the criminals, even though the investigation was intense and included an FBI-manufactured fake missile that was delivered to the men.

When it comes to search and seizure issues, undercover operations are in their own category and do not require a warrant, but some still find the practices unethical.

Former undercover FBI agent Michael German told the New York Times that the FBI is “manufacturing terrorism cases…these people [working undercover] are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.” 

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Agents are Posing as Terrorists appeared first on Law Street.