TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
apr 26, 2018
real news today
apr 26, 2018
*Democratic senators scrutinize Koch brothers' 'infiltration' of Trump team
(Demo Politics)
*GOP Rep. Calls For Imprisonment of Clinton, Comey, McCabe, Loretta Lynch: ‘Lock Them Up!’(GOP Politics)
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
Trump Distances Himself From Cohen Probe: ‘I Don’t Know His Business’
By Caitlin MacNeal - tpm
April 26, 2018 9:12 am
Pr*sident Donald Trump on Thursday morning distanced himself from the federal investigation into the business dealings of his longtime lawyer Michael Cohen, claiming that he knows “nothing” about Cohen’s business practices and that Cohen represented him in only a “fraction” of his legal matters.
“I don’t know his business, but this doesn’t have to do with me. Michael is a businessman. He’s got a business. He also practices law. I would say probably the big thing is his business, and they’re looking at something having to do with his business,” Trump said during a lengthy phone interview with “Fox and Friends.” “I have nothing to do with his business, I can tell you.”
Asked about Cohen’s work representing him, Trump claimed that Cohen only handled “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work.
“I have many attorneys,” Trump said.
“He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me,” the President continued, referencing Cohen’s payment to Daniels and work negotiating a hush agreement with the porn actress. “You know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong. There were no campaign funds going into this, which would have been a problem.”
Trump also shrugged off Cohen’s decision to plead the Fifth Amendment in the civil case filed by Daniels against him. During the campaign, Trump criticized Hillary Clinton staffers who pleaded the Fifth Amendment in the email probe.
“Because he has got other things. He has businesses,” Trump answered on “Fox and Friends” when asked why Cohen is pleading the Fifth. “I hope he’s in great shape. But he has got businesses, and his lawyers probably told him to do that. But I’m not involved.”
“I don’t know his business, but this doesn’t have to do with me. Michael is a businessman. He’s got a business. He also practices law. I would say probably the big thing is his business, and they’re looking at something having to do with his business,” Trump said during a lengthy phone interview with “Fox and Friends.” “I have nothing to do with his business, I can tell you.”
Asked about Cohen’s work representing him, Trump claimed that Cohen only handled “a tiny, tiny little fraction” of his legal work.
“I have many attorneys,” Trump said.
“He represents me like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me,” the President continued, referencing Cohen’s payment to Daniels and work negotiating a hush agreement with the porn actress. “You know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong. There were no campaign funds going into this, which would have been a problem.”
Trump also shrugged off Cohen’s decision to plead the Fifth Amendment in the civil case filed by Daniels against him. During the campaign, Trump criticized Hillary Clinton staffers who pleaded the Fifth Amendment in the email probe.
“Because he has got other things. He has businesses,” Trump answered on “Fox and Friends” when asked why Cohen is pleading the Fifth. “I hope he’s in great shape. But he has got businesses, and his lawyers probably told him to do that. But I’m not involved.”
another putin lover!!!
JILL STEIN DEFIES SENATE INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT REQUEST, CALLING IT “OVERBROAD”
Zaid Jilani - the intercept
April 26 2018, 3:44 a.m.
THE JILL STEIN campaign is refusing to comply fully with a Senate intelligence committee request for documents and other correspondence, made as part of the committee’s probe into Russian activities in the 2016 election, according to a letter to be delivered Thursday to the panel by an attorney for the campaign.
The Green Party campaign will agree to turn over some documents, but raised constitutional objections to the breadth of the inquiry, which was first made in November 2017, arguing that elements of it infringe on basic political rights enshrined in the First Amendment.
In the letter responding to committee chair Richard Burr, R-N.C., and ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., Stein’s campaign has now said it will refuse some of the requests, calling them “so overbroad in reach as to demand constitutionally protected materials.”
The campaign provided that letter to The Intercept and it is posted below.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Washington-based Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, authored the letter and responded to each of the six requests from the committee, saying the campaign would comply with some and not others.
For instance, the committee asked for all communications between the campaign and “Russian media organizations, their employees, or associates” between February 6, 2015, and the present.
Stein’s campaign is willingly providing these.
The committee also asked for communications from the “campaign’s policy discussions regarding Russia” during the same time frame.
Verheyden-Hilliard wrote that the campaign will decline to produce these materials “on the basis of constitutional privilege arising from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” She also wrote that internal campaign communications of this nature are “not pertinent to the subject of Russian interference” in the elections.
The letter says that if the investigators are interested in the campaign’s foreign policy plans, the Stein campaign is providing material related to those and there is also additional material available publicly on the internet.
Stein, who was also the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, traveled to Russia in 2015 and attended a dinner marking the 10th anniversary of the Russian-backed news service RT. Russian President Vladmir Putin made an appearance at the event.
The committee also asked for communications related to any trips to Russia, including any discussion with Russian government officials, and the Stein campaign is willing to provide those.
What they aren’t willing to do is provide “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”
In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.
The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson also attended that RT event in Moscow, and told the Salt Lake Tribune that he believes the investigation into Stein’s campaign is “shameful.”
“Somebody could have picked up the phone and asked her, ‘Did you have your way paid?’” he said. “’Did you get anything of value out of this? Did they give you any instructions? Did they try to enlist you?’”
Jeremy Scahill did ask her, last June, on the podcast Intercepted. “They did not offer to pay me. They did offer to pay my way, and I said, ‘No, thank you,'” said Stein. “I would not accept money for transportation. They did not pay my hotel fare, either, at a Russian state hotel.”
The famous photograph, Stein said, tells more of a story than there was.
Stein: Let me just start with the mythology that this was an intimate roundtable. There were like 11 people at the table. I think only eight are shown in the picture because of the angle it’s taken from. And actually, if you look closely, if you blow up the picture, you’ll see there’s a chair between Michael Flynn and Putin, which was occupied by the head of RT. She happened to be introducing Putin at that moment. Putin and, I think, three rather strapping men kind of stormed in just before Putin was to give a speech, so they really weren’t at the table for very long. Maybe five minutes, maybe 20, tops. Nobody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.
There was a guy sitting next to Flynn named Cyril Svoboda who was the deputy prime minister of the Czech Republic way back, and also the foreign minister, etc. He spoke both languages. And what I read afterwards was that he had briefly translated between Flynn and Putin, and it amounted to, “Hi, how you doing?” “Okay.” That was it. So, that was the great conversation. Nobody else talked to anybody across language barriers that I could see.
I assumed these were [Putin’s] bodyguards who came in with him. Turns out they weren’t his bodyguards. They were like his chief of staff and communications. But nobody cared to make introductions. This wasn’t intended to be a discussion of any sort. I spent just about the whole evening talking to the German former foreign minister sitting next to me, Willy Wimmer, and we had a very interesting conversation. But I think that was the only substantive conversation that took place around that table.
Scahill: And then Putin gets up to give his speech.
Stein: Yup.
Scahill: And then does he return to the table?
Stein: No. Then they walk out. He was basically there to give a speech. This was not some kind of a dinner meeting. Nobody even met anybody. There were — I didn’t hear any words exchanged between English speakers and Russians.[...]
The Green Party campaign will agree to turn over some documents, but raised constitutional objections to the breadth of the inquiry, which was first made in November 2017, arguing that elements of it infringe on basic political rights enshrined in the First Amendment.
In the letter responding to committee chair Richard Burr, R-N.C., and ranking member Mark Warner, D-Va., Stein’s campaign has now said it will refuse some of the requests, calling them “so overbroad in reach as to demand constitutionally protected materials.”
The campaign provided that letter to The Intercept and it is posted below.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, of the Washington-based Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, authored the letter and responded to each of the six requests from the committee, saying the campaign would comply with some and not others.
For instance, the committee asked for all communications between the campaign and “Russian media organizations, their employees, or associates” between February 6, 2015, and the present.
Stein’s campaign is willingly providing these.
The committee also asked for communications from the “campaign’s policy discussions regarding Russia” during the same time frame.
Verheyden-Hilliard wrote that the campaign will decline to produce these materials “on the basis of constitutional privilege arising from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” She also wrote that internal campaign communications of this nature are “not pertinent to the subject of Russian interference” in the elections.
The letter says that if the investigators are interested in the campaign’s foreign policy plans, the Stein campaign is providing material related to those and there is also additional material available publicly on the internet.
Stein, who was also the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, traveled to Russia in 2015 and attended a dinner marking the 10th anniversary of the Russian-backed news service RT. Russian President Vladmir Putin made an appearance at the event.
The committee also asked for communications related to any trips to Russia, including any discussion with Russian government officials, and the Stein campaign is willing to provide those.
What they aren’t willing to do is provide “all communications with Russian persons, or representatives of Russian government, media, or business interests, including but not limited to any communications, discussions, or offers related to opposition research, from February 6, 2015 to the present.”
In the view of the Stein campaign, this is a request that unfairly puts all people of Russian descent under suspicion.
The campaign is adamant that it will “not be disclosing names of persons with whom they have ever communicated, including American political supporters, targeted because they happen to be Russian immigrants or of Russian descent. We reiterate here that the responding parties will not participate in a hunt for identification of persons based on nationality or descent.”
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson also attended that RT event in Moscow, and told the Salt Lake Tribune that he believes the investigation into Stein’s campaign is “shameful.”
“Somebody could have picked up the phone and asked her, ‘Did you have your way paid?’” he said. “’Did you get anything of value out of this? Did they give you any instructions? Did they try to enlist you?’”
Jeremy Scahill did ask her, last June, on the podcast Intercepted. “They did not offer to pay me. They did offer to pay my way, and I said, ‘No, thank you,'” said Stein. “I would not accept money for transportation. They did not pay my hotel fare, either, at a Russian state hotel.”
The famous photograph, Stein said, tells more of a story than there was.
Stein: Let me just start with the mythology that this was an intimate roundtable. There were like 11 people at the table. I think only eight are shown in the picture because of the angle it’s taken from. And actually, if you look closely, if you blow up the picture, you’ll see there’s a chair between Michael Flynn and Putin, which was occupied by the head of RT. She happened to be introducing Putin at that moment. Putin and, I think, three rather strapping men kind of stormed in just before Putin was to give a speech, so they really weren’t at the table for very long. Maybe five minutes, maybe 20, tops. Nobody introduced anybody to anybody. There was no translator. The Russians spoke Russian. The four people who spoke English spoke English.
There was a guy sitting next to Flynn named Cyril Svoboda who was the deputy prime minister of the Czech Republic way back, and also the foreign minister, etc. He spoke both languages. And what I read afterwards was that he had briefly translated between Flynn and Putin, and it amounted to, “Hi, how you doing?” “Okay.” That was it. So, that was the great conversation. Nobody else talked to anybody across language barriers that I could see.
I assumed these were [Putin’s] bodyguards who came in with him. Turns out they weren’t his bodyguards. They were like his chief of staff and communications. But nobody cared to make introductions. This wasn’t intended to be a discussion of any sort. I spent just about the whole evening talking to the German former foreign minister sitting next to me, Willy Wimmer, and we had a very interesting conversation. But I think that was the only substantive conversation that took place around that table.
Scahill: And then Putin gets up to give his speech.
Stein: Yup.
Scahill: And then does he return to the table?
Stein: No. Then they walk out. He was basically there to give a speech. This was not some kind of a dinner meeting. Nobody even met anybody. There were — I didn’t hear any words exchanged between English speakers and Russians.[...]
racism begins at home!!!
WATCH: Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools
Brad Reed
25 APR 2018 AT 11:51 ET
A new effort to diversify schools in the Upper West Side of Manhattan — one of the richest neighborhoods in the city — has drawn an angry reaction from many parents.
Local news station Spectrum News NY 1 has posted a video that shows white parents furiously attacking a plan to require all local middle schools to reserve 25 percent of their seats for students who score below grade level on state English and Math exams.
The plan is an effort to make schools on the Upper West Side more diverse to reflect the demographics of New York as a whole, as the schools in the area now are predominantly white.
“You’re talking about an 11-year-old, you worked your butt off, and you didn’t get that, what you needed or wanted,” one angry woman said during the meeting. “You’re telling them that you’re not going to go to a school that’s going to educate them the same way you’ve been educated. Life sucks!”
Kristen Burger, an elected member of the Upper West Side Parent Council, tells NY 1 that the plan is intended to address diversity problems in the area’s middle schools, which she describes as “very segregated.”
And NY-1’s video shows middle school principal Henry Zymeck telling many of the parents that he feels hurt by some of their comments.
“There are kids that are tremendously disadvatnaged,” he said. “And to compare these students and say, ‘My already advantaged kid needs more advantage, they need to be kept away from those kids,’ is tremendously offensive to me.” (video)
Local news station Spectrum News NY 1 has posted a video that shows white parents furiously attacking a plan to require all local middle schools to reserve 25 percent of their seats for students who score below grade level on state English and Math exams.
The plan is an effort to make schools on the Upper West Side more diverse to reflect the demographics of New York as a whole, as the schools in the area now are predominantly white.
“You’re talking about an 11-year-old, you worked your butt off, and you didn’t get that, what you needed or wanted,” one angry woman said during the meeting. “You’re telling them that you’re not going to go to a school that’s going to educate them the same way you’ve been educated. Life sucks!”
Kristen Burger, an elected member of the Upper West Side Parent Council, tells NY 1 that the plan is intended to address diversity problems in the area’s middle schools, which she describes as “very segregated.”
And NY-1’s video shows middle school principal Henry Zymeck telling many of the parents that he feels hurt by some of their comments.
“There are kids that are tremendously disadvatnaged,” he said. “And to compare these students and say, ‘My already advantaged kid needs more advantage, they need to be kept away from those kids,’ is tremendously offensive to me.” (video)
President Macron delivers stunning rebuke of Trumpism — bashes ‘the illusion of
nationalism’ to standing ovation from US Congress
Martin Cizmar -raw story
25 APR 2018 AT 11:27 ET
French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a rousing speech to US congress Wednesday, throwing not-so-subtle shade at his host while defending globalism, liberty, and science.
Macron began his speech by discussing the shared history of the United States and France and then moved into a full-throated defense of globalism and freedom.
Macron said the solution is “the opposite of deregulation and extreme nationalism.”
Throughout, he received warm applause from the assembly, including a standing ovation when he said that “the illusion of nationalism” should not be allowed to force the Western world back into the Dark Ages.
He got specific, too.
“I believe we can build the right answers,” he said, “by negotiating through the World Trade Organization… We wrote these rules, we should follow them.”
Macron began his speech by discussing the shared history of the United States and France and then moved into a full-throated defense of globalism and freedom.
Macron said the solution is “the opposite of deregulation and extreme nationalism.”
Throughout, he received warm applause from the assembly, including a standing ovation when he said that “the illusion of nationalism” should not be allowed to force the Western world back into the Dark Ages.
He got specific, too.
“I believe we can build the right answers,” he said, “by negotiating through the World Trade Organization… We wrote these rules, we should follow them.”
Nation's Richest -- Including Trump -- About to Enjoy $17 Billion Windfall Thanks to Huge Tax Loophole
Tuesday, April 24, 2018
By Jake Johnson, Common Dreams | News Analysis
truthout
As the US's largest Wall Street banks continue to count the billions they've already raked in thanks to the Trump-GOP tax law, a government report published Monday shows that America's millionaires -- as well as many rich lawmakers and President Donald Trump himself -- are getting ready to share a $17 billion windfall thanks to a last-minute loophole tucked into the Republican plan.
Marketed as relief for "small businesses," the GOP tax law's 20 percent deduction for owners of "pass-through" entities like law firms and hedge funds will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans, according to an analysist by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
"In 2018, the lion's share of the benefit -- $17.4 billion, or 44.3 percent of the total -- will go to roughly 200,000 Americans making $1 million or more who claim the pass-through deduction, the committee said. Another $3.6 billion, or 8.9 percent, will go to a similar number of taxpayers who earn $500,000 to $1 million," NBC News noted on Monday, summarizing JCT's findings. "By 2024, the tax deductions will amount to $60.3 billion, and those making $1 million or more will account for $31.6 billion (52.4 percent) of that."
The GOP's special "pass-through" provision became the source of tremendous controversy and outrage last year after the International Business Times ran a series of reports showing that the tax cut would personally enrich Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and several congressional leaders -- including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who dropped his opposition to the $1.5 trillion tax bill after the provision was included in the final version.
Because the Trump Organization oversees "at least 500" pass-through businesses, "Trump could get an annual tax cut worth $23 million," and Kushner "could see a cut of up to $17 million," ThinkProgress noted on Monday.
JCT's new analysis comes as Republicans are struggling to sell their plan to the majority of Americans who -- unlike massive Wall Street firms and ultra-wealthy corporate executives -- have reported seeing little to no benefit from the new tax law.
"At this point, it's just brazen," wrote Sen. Tammy Baldin (D-Wis.) of the tax law's massive rewards for the rich.
Marketed as relief for "small businesses," the GOP tax law's 20 percent deduction for owners of "pass-through" entities like law firms and hedge funds will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans, according to an analysist by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
"In 2018, the lion's share of the benefit -- $17.4 billion, or 44.3 percent of the total -- will go to roughly 200,000 Americans making $1 million or more who claim the pass-through deduction, the committee said. Another $3.6 billion, or 8.9 percent, will go to a similar number of taxpayers who earn $500,000 to $1 million," NBC News noted on Monday, summarizing JCT's findings. "By 2024, the tax deductions will amount to $60.3 billion, and those making $1 million or more will account for $31.6 billion (52.4 percent) of that."
The GOP's special "pass-through" provision became the source of tremendous controversy and outrage last year after the International Business Times ran a series of reports showing that the tax cut would personally enrich Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and several congressional leaders -- including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who dropped his opposition to the $1.5 trillion tax bill after the provision was included in the final version.
Because the Trump Organization oversees "at least 500" pass-through businesses, "Trump could get an annual tax cut worth $23 million," and Kushner "could see a cut of up to $17 million," ThinkProgress noted on Monday.
JCT's new analysis comes as Republicans are struggling to sell their plan to the majority of Americans who -- unlike massive Wall Street firms and ultra-wealthy corporate executives -- have reported seeing little to no benefit from the new tax law.
"At this point, it's just brazen," wrote Sen. Tammy Baldin (D-Wis.) of the tax law's massive rewards for the rich.
fox guarding the chickens!!!
Exclusive: Trump's bank watchdog bought financial stocks up until taking office
Michelle Price, Patrick Rucker - reuters
APRIL 25, 2018 / 8:09 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump’s nominee for Wall Street regulator Comptroller of the Currency bought financial stocks until he took office in November, according to financial disclosure documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
While not illegal, the trading activity by Joseph Otting’s money manager could violate the spirit of ethics rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest, five experts in U.S. government ethics standards said. Nominees are required by law to disclose all assets to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and divest any deemed a conflict of interest, or having the appearance of one, once they are confirmed. Otting gave the OGE a tally of his investments in March 2017 and agreed upon his June nomination to unwind millions of dollars in financial stocks within 90 days of being confirmed.
However, following his nomination Otting bought hundreds more financial shares, according to a Reuters analysis of OGE filings which list some of the stocks along with the number of shares Otting was required to divest upon taking office.
The shares in the newly purchased stocks were together worth at least $160,000 around the time Otting sold them and others in January, based on prices from the date of the Jan. 19 paperwork.
“Mr. Otting divested holdings and has met all other ethical obligations of the office and remains committed to the highest ethical standard,” Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) spokesman Bryan Hubbard said last week.
As Comptroller of the Currency, Otting is the day-to-day regulator for national banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America Corp, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Hubbard said Otting’s money manager purchased the shares on his behalf and that Otting is not involved in investment decisions. He said Otting’s manager would continue to trade permitted shares.
---
A former career banker and close associate of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Otting is one of several Trump appointees whose ties to industries they regulate have raised questions about their ability to be impartial when enforcing rules. Otting also sits on the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), another banking regulator, and is a voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The FSOC, which is led by the U.S. Treasury, monitors a number of non-bank financial companies in order to identify risks to U.S. financial stability.
Since holding stock in companies regulated by the OCC and FDIC-insured companies posed a conflict of interest once Otting took office, he recused himself from general policy and enforcement matters until late January when he sold those and other shares.
The FDIC declined to comment on Friday.
Among Otting’s purchases were 366 shares of KeyCorp (KEY.N), one of the country’s largest lenders directly regulated by the OCC, and 24 shares in Brighthouse Financial Inc (BHF.O), an insurance provider spun off from MetLife Inc (MET.N).
The bulk of the $160,000 came from the sale of two German stocks, 441 shares of insurer Allianz SE (ALVG.DE) and 394 shares of stock exchange operator Deutsche Boerse (DB1Gn.DE). The shares in KeyCorp, Brighthouse, Allianz and Deutsche Boerse were not disclosed in Otting’s March filing, or listed as necessary divestments in his June 23 OGE ethics agreement. FSOC does not oversee Brighthouse, Allianz or Deutsche Boerse but it regulates some of their competitors, according to its website, and helps drive policies that affect sectors in which they operate.
“The Treasury’s ethics office required Otting to divest in stocks that could create a potential conflict of interest with his role on FSOC,” a spokesperson for the Treasury, which also represents the FSOC chair, said on Monday.
KeyCorp, Brighthouse, Deutsche Boerse and Allianz declined to comment on Otting’s share purchases.
While not illegal, the trading activity by Joseph Otting’s money manager could violate the spirit of ethics rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest, five experts in U.S. government ethics standards said. Nominees are required by law to disclose all assets to the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and divest any deemed a conflict of interest, or having the appearance of one, once they are confirmed. Otting gave the OGE a tally of his investments in March 2017 and agreed upon his June nomination to unwind millions of dollars in financial stocks within 90 days of being confirmed.
However, following his nomination Otting bought hundreds more financial shares, according to a Reuters analysis of OGE filings which list some of the stocks along with the number of shares Otting was required to divest upon taking office.
The shares in the newly purchased stocks were together worth at least $160,000 around the time Otting sold them and others in January, based on prices from the date of the Jan. 19 paperwork.
“Mr. Otting divested holdings and has met all other ethical obligations of the office and remains committed to the highest ethical standard,” Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) spokesman Bryan Hubbard said last week.
As Comptroller of the Currency, Otting is the day-to-day regulator for national banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America Corp, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. Hubbard said Otting’s money manager purchased the shares on his behalf and that Otting is not involved in investment decisions. He said Otting’s manager would continue to trade permitted shares.
---
A former career banker and close associate of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Otting is one of several Trump appointees whose ties to industries they regulate have raised questions about their ability to be impartial when enforcing rules. Otting also sits on the board of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), another banking regulator, and is a voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The FSOC, which is led by the U.S. Treasury, monitors a number of non-bank financial companies in order to identify risks to U.S. financial stability.
Since holding stock in companies regulated by the OCC and FDIC-insured companies posed a conflict of interest once Otting took office, he recused himself from general policy and enforcement matters until late January when he sold those and other shares.
The FDIC declined to comment on Friday.
Among Otting’s purchases were 366 shares of KeyCorp (KEY.N), one of the country’s largest lenders directly regulated by the OCC, and 24 shares in Brighthouse Financial Inc (BHF.O), an insurance provider spun off from MetLife Inc (MET.N).
The bulk of the $160,000 came from the sale of two German stocks, 441 shares of insurer Allianz SE (ALVG.DE) and 394 shares of stock exchange operator Deutsche Boerse (DB1Gn.DE). The shares in KeyCorp, Brighthouse, Allianz and Deutsche Boerse were not disclosed in Otting’s March filing, or listed as necessary divestments in his June 23 OGE ethics agreement. FSOC does not oversee Brighthouse, Allianz or Deutsche Boerse but it regulates some of their competitors, according to its website, and helps drive policies that affect sectors in which they operate.
“The Treasury’s ethics office required Otting to divest in stocks that could create a potential conflict of interest with his role on FSOC,” a spokesperson for the Treasury, which also represents the FSOC chair, said on Monday.
KeyCorp, Brighthouse, Deutsche Boerse and Allianz declined to comment on Otting’s share purchases.
|
|
Second federal judge rules against Trump’s attempt to cut funding to Planned Parenthood
The Trump administration has attempted to eliminate a teen pregnancy prevention program to push abstinence-only
CHARLIE MAY
APRIL 25, 2018 6:24PM (UTC)
In yet another notable judicial smackdown for President Donald Trump, a federal judge in Spokane, Washington blocked the Trump administration's efforts to cut grants to Planned Parenthood that pay for a teen pregnancy prevention program.
The permanent injunction was delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice on Wednesday, who wrote in his decision that the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services "arbitrarily and capriciously terminated the TPP Program."
"The Court determines that the public interest weighs in favor of (Planned Parenthood), as it would prevent harm to the community … and prevent loss of data regarding the effectiveness of teen pregnancy prevention," the decision read, according to the Spokesman-Review.
The suit was filed on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho on Feb. 15, and was joined by several other Planned Parenthood chapters across eight other states, the Spokesman-Review reported. The suit pointed out that "since its [Planned Parenthood's] inception in 2010 through 2016, the teen birth rate in the United States has dropped by 41 percent."
The lawsuit continued that getting rid of the teen pregnancy prevention program "is likely to harm some of the country’s most vulnerable youth by denying them high-quality information and education that will help them make healthy decisions about their futures."
The decision came less than a week after a D.C. federal judge ruled the Trump administration's cuts to the program to be unlawful. The Trump administration's budget puts $277 million towards extending abstinence education.
"The courts confirmed that the Trump-Pence administration’s attempt to impose its ideological agenda on young people is unlawful," Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, according to Reuters.
Both cases highlight the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate programs that have helped 1.2 million youths across 39 states as well as the Marshall Islands. "HHS cut the funding to the 81 programs a month after Trump appointed Valerie Huber as chief of staff for the Office of Assistant Secretary of Health," the Spokesman-Review reported. Huber is a well-known advocate for abstinence education programs.
Trump has suffered several judiciary defeats as of late, including a ruling on Tuesday that determined the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), must remain in place and accept new applicants.
The permanent injunction was delivered by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Rice on Wednesday, who wrote in his decision that the U.S. Department for Health and Human Services "arbitrarily and capriciously terminated the TPP Program."
"The Court determines that the public interest weighs in favor of (Planned Parenthood), as it would prevent harm to the community … and prevent loss of data regarding the effectiveness of teen pregnancy prevention," the decision read, according to the Spokesman-Review.
The suit was filed on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho on Feb. 15, and was joined by several other Planned Parenthood chapters across eight other states, the Spokesman-Review reported. The suit pointed out that "since its [Planned Parenthood's] inception in 2010 through 2016, the teen birth rate in the United States has dropped by 41 percent."
The lawsuit continued that getting rid of the teen pregnancy prevention program "is likely to harm some of the country’s most vulnerable youth by denying them high-quality information and education that will help them make healthy decisions about their futures."
The decision came less than a week after a D.C. federal judge ruled the Trump administration's cuts to the program to be unlawful. The Trump administration's budget puts $277 million towards extending abstinence education.
"The courts confirmed that the Trump-Pence administration’s attempt to impose its ideological agenda on young people is unlawful," Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, according to Reuters.
Both cases highlight the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate programs that have helped 1.2 million youths across 39 states as well as the Marshall Islands. "HHS cut the funding to the 81 programs a month after Trump appointed Valerie Huber as chief of staff for the Office of Assistant Secretary of Health," the Spokesman-Review reported. Huber is a well-known advocate for abstinence education programs.
Trump has suffered several judiciary defeats as of late, including a ruling on Tuesday that determined the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), must remain in place and accept new applicants.
|
|
How white Americans used lynchings to terrorize and control black people
The Guardian is in Montgomery, Alabama, to cover the opening of America’s first memorial to lynching victims. The legacy of such brutal, racist murders is still largely ignored
by Jamiles Lartey and Sam Morris
Thu 26 Apr 2018 02.00 EDT
What were lynchings?
Historians broadly agree that lynchings were a method of social and racial control meant to terrorize black Americans into submission, and into an inferior racial caste position. They became widely practiced in the US south from roughly 1877, the end of post-civil war reconstruction, through 1950.
A typical lynching would involve criminal accusations, often dubious, against a black American, an arrest, and the assembly of a “lynch mob” intent on subverting the normal constitutional judicial process.
Victims would be seized and subjected to every imaginable manner of physical torment, with the torture usually ending with being hung from a tree and set on fire. More often than not, victims would be dismembered and mob members would take pieces of their flesh and bone as souvenirs.
In a great many cases, the mobs were aided and abetted by law enforcement (indeed, they often were the same people). Officers would routinely leave a black inmate’s jail cell unguarded after rumors of a lynching began to circulate to allow for a mob to kill them before any trial or legal defense could take place.
What would trigger a lynching?
One chief among the trespasses (occasionally real, but usually imagined) was any claim of sexual contact between black men and white women. The trope of the hypersexual and lascivious black male, especially vis-a-vis the inviolable chastity of white women, was and remains one of the most durable tropes of white supremacy.
According to the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), nearly 25% of lynching victims were accused of sexual assault. Nearly 30% were accused of murder.
“The mob wanted the lynching to carry a significance that transcended the specific act of punishment,” wrote the historian Howard Smead in Blood Justice: The Lynching of Mack Charles Parker. The mob “turned the act into a symbolic rite in which the black victim became the representative of his race and, as such, was being disciplined for more than a single crime … The deadly act was [a] warning [to] the black population not to challenge the supremacy of the white race.”
How many took place in America?Because of the nature of lynchings – summary executions that occurred outside the constraints of court documentation – there was no formal, centralized tracking of the phenomenon. Most historians believe this has left the true number of lynchings dramatically underreported.
For decades, the most comprehensive total belonged to the archives at the Tuskegee Institute, which tabulated 4,743 people who died at the hands of US lynch mobs between 1881 and 1968. According to the Tuskegee numbers, 3,446 (nearly three-quarters) of those lynched were black Americans.
The EJI, which relied on the Tuskegee numbers in building its own count, integrated other sources, such as newspaper archives and other historical records, to arrive at a total of 4,084 racial terror lynchings in 12 southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950, and another 300 in other states.
Unlike the Tuskegee data, EJI’s numbers attempt to exclude incidents it considered acts of “mob violence” that followed a legitimate criminal trial process or that “were committed against non-minorities without the threat of terror”.
Where did most lynchings take place?
Unsurprisingly, lynching wereas most concentrated in the former Confederate states, and especially in those with large black populations.
According to EJI’s data, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana had the highest statewide rates of lynching in the United States. Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana had the highest number of lynchings. (Read more)
Historians broadly agree that lynchings were a method of social and racial control meant to terrorize black Americans into submission, and into an inferior racial caste position. They became widely practiced in the US south from roughly 1877, the end of post-civil war reconstruction, through 1950.
A typical lynching would involve criminal accusations, often dubious, against a black American, an arrest, and the assembly of a “lynch mob” intent on subverting the normal constitutional judicial process.
Victims would be seized and subjected to every imaginable manner of physical torment, with the torture usually ending with being hung from a tree and set on fire. More often than not, victims would be dismembered and mob members would take pieces of their flesh and bone as souvenirs.
In a great many cases, the mobs were aided and abetted by law enforcement (indeed, they often were the same people). Officers would routinely leave a black inmate’s jail cell unguarded after rumors of a lynching began to circulate to allow for a mob to kill them before any trial or legal defense could take place.
What would trigger a lynching?
One chief among the trespasses (occasionally real, but usually imagined) was any claim of sexual contact between black men and white women. The trope of the hypersexual and lascivious black male, especially vis-a-vis the inviolable chastity of white women, was and remains one of the most durable tropes of white supremacy.
According to the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), nearly 25% of lynching victims were accused of sexual assault. Nearly 30% were accused of murder.
“The mob wanted the lynching to carry a significance that transcended the specific act of punishment,” wrote the historian Howard Smead in Blood Justice: The Lynching of Mack Charles Parker. The mob “turned the act into a symbolic rite in which the black victim became the representative of his race and, as such, was being disciplined for more than a single crime … The deadly act was [a] warning [to] the black population not to challenge the supremacy of the white race.”
How many took place in America?Because of the nature of lynchings – summary executions that occurred outside the constraints of court documentation – there was no formal, centralized tracking of the phenomenon. Most historians believe this has left the true number of lynchings dramatically underreported.
For decades, the most comprehensive total belonged to the archives at the Tuskegee Institute, which tabulated 4,743 people who died at the hands of US lynch mobs between 1881 and 1968. According to the Tuskegee numbers, 3,446 (nearly three-quarters) of those lynched were black Americans.
The EJI, which relied on the Tuskegee numbers in building its own count, integrated other sources, such as newspaper archives and other historical records, to arrive at a total of 4,084 racial terror lynchings in 12 southern states between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and 1950, and another 300 in other states.
Unlike the Tuskegee data, EJI’s numbers attempt to exclude incidents it considered acts of “mob violence” that followed a legitimate criminal trial process or that “were committed against non-minorities without the threat of terror”.
Where did most lynchings take place?
Unsurprisingly, lynching wereas most concentrated in the former Confederate states, and especially in those with large black populations.
According to EJI’s data, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas and Louisiana had the highest statewide rates of lynching in the United States. Mississippi, Georgia and Louisiana had the highest number of lynchings. (Read more)
*bites from real news - 4/26/2018*
*Emmanuel Macron: Trump likely to scrap Iran deal amid 'insane' changes of stance, says French leader
*Trump administration: White House doctor Ronny Jackson withdraws as VA secretary nominee
Nominee accused of mishandling drugs and crashing car while drunk but Jackson says: ‘These false allegations have become a distraction’
*Lynchings How white Americans used them to terrorize and control black people Personal historyI investigated my own family for their history of lynching
*Iran's Khamenei urges Muslim nations to unite against U.S.: state TV
Reuters Staff ANKARA (Reuters) - Irans supreme leader called on Muslim nations to unite against the United States, saying Tehran would never yield to bullying, state television reported on Thursday. ... (Reuters)
Pruitt's New EPA Rule Would Make Some Science Off-Limits
EPA head says he's pushing for transparency in decision-making
By Newser Editors, Newser Staff
Posted Apr 25, 2018 7:56 AM CDT
(NEWSER) – There's a contentious new issue surrounding Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, and this one has nothing to do with security. Pruitt on Tuesday suggested a new rule that would allow the EPA to only make use of scientific studies whose data has been made publicly available in full. He called it a way to bring transparency to the EPA's decision-making process; the Washington Post reports it's a change conservatives have been hankering after for some time. To understand why many scientists aren't pleased with the proposal, know these two words: epidemiological studies. A rep for the American Association for the Advancement of Science tells NPR that these studies, which can look at the effects of things like pesticides or pollutants, often don't adhere to Pruitt's standard for good reason.
"Those studies involve people like you and me, signing confidentiality agreements that the scientists doing the studies won't reveal my personal health information," Sean Gallagher explains. "It involves private data." The Post reports that a letter sent to Pruitt on Monday in advance of his announcement was signed by 985 scientists who called the move a "restricting" one that would lead to "policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American." As far as risks go, others have taken issue with Pruitt's assertion that the move would put an emphasis on science that is "reproducible." As a rep for the Union of Concerned Scientists says to the Los Angeles Times, "You can't ethically go back and redo studies on the impact of lead in drinking water on kids."
"Those studies involve people like you and me, signing confidentiality agreements that the scientists doing the studies won't reveal my personal health information," Sean Gallagher explains. "It involves private data." The Post reports that a letter sent to Pruitt on Monday in advance of his announcement was signed by 985 scientists who called the move a "restricting" one that would lead to "policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American." As far as risks go, others have taken issue with Pruitt's assertion that the move would put an emphasis on science that is "reproducible." As a rep for the Union of Concerned Scientists says to the Los Angeles Times, "You can't ethically go back and redo studies on the impact of lead in drinking water on kids."
real stand-up BILLIONAIRES!!!
Secret recording reveals NFL owners feared Trump would attack them for giving Kaepernick a job
Travis Gettys - raw story
25 APR 2018 AT 13:19 ET
NFL owners all but agreed they were blackballing Colin Kaepernick to appease President Donald Trump, according to newly released audio recordings.
About 30 owners, players and NFL executives met for nearly three hours in October to discuss the president’s public attacks on the league and its players over silent racism protests during the national anthem, reported the New York Times.
“Let’s make sure that we keep this confidential,” said commissioner Roger Goodell at the start of the meeting.
According to the leaked audio, players wanted to know why Kaepernick remained unsigned, despite leading the San Francisco 49ers to the 2013 Super Bowl and 2014 NFC Championship game.
“If he was on a roster right now, all this negativeness and divisiveness could be turned into a positive,” said Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman Chris Long at the meeting, adding that he wouldn’t “lecture” teams on which quarterback to sign. “We all agree in this room as players that he should be on a roster.”
Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie told Long that fighting for social justice was not “about one person,” and New England Patriots owner Robert Craft — a longtime Trump supporter — complained “this kneeling” was another “elephant in the room.”
“The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don’t feel is in the best interests of America,” Kraft said. “It’s divisive and it’s horrible.”
Owners were deeply concerned about the president’s criticism, saying his Twitter attacks had turned many fans against the NFL.
“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” said Lurie, who called Trump’s presidency “disastrous.” “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”
Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula was terrified that Trump would keep up the attacks.
“All Donald needs to do is to start to do this again,” Pegula said. “We need some kind of immediate plan because of what’s going on in society. All of us now, we need to put a Band-Aid on what’s going on in the country.”
Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan assured other owners that the worst from Trump was behind them, but Houston Texans owner Bob McNair took a shot at protesting players.
“You fellas need to ask your compadres, fellas, stop that other business, let’s go out and do something that really produces positive results, and we’ll help you,” McNair said.
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross suggested a “march on Washington” by NFL players and owners, and Kaepernick’s teammate and fellow protester Eric Reid accused the league of blackballing the former 49er.
“I feel like he was hung out to dry,” said Reid, who wore a Kaepernick T-shirt over his dress shirt and tie. “Everyone in here is talking about how much they support us. Nobody stepped up and said we support Colin’s right to do this. We all let him become Public Enemy No. 1 in this country, and he still doesn’t have a job.”
Reid, whose contract expired after the season, also remains unsigned after he refused to agree to end his protest.
Pegula suggested finding a spokesman to promote the league and its good works like the NRA had found in actor Charlton Heston, and former NFL player Anquan Bolding urged owners to talk about social justice.
“For us to have a face, as an African-American, at least a face that could be in the media,” Pegula said, “we could fall in behind that.”
Kaepernick didn’t come up again after that exchange, and he remains unsigned while pursuing a labor grievance against NFL owners for alleged collusion.
About 30 owners, players and NFL executives met for nearly three hours in October to discuss the president’s public attacks on the league and its players over silent racism protests during the national anthem, reported the New York Times.
“Let’s make sure that we keep this confidential,” said commissioner Roger Goodell at the start of the meeting.
According to the leaked audio, players wanted to know why Kaepernick remained unsigned, despite leading the San Francisco 49ers to the 2013 Super Bowl and 2014 NFC Championship game.
“If he was on a roster right now, all this negativeness and divisiveness could be turned into a positive,” said Philadelphia Eagles defensive lineman Chris Long at the meeting, adding that he wouldn’t “lecture” teams on which quarterback to sign. “We all agree in this room as players that he should be on a roster.”
Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie told Long that fighting for social justice was not “about one person,” and New England Patriots owner Robert Craft — a longtime Trump supporter — complained “this kneeling” was another “elephant in the room.”
“The problem we have is, we have a president who will use that as fodder to do his mission that I don’t feel is in the best interests of America,” Kraft said. “It’s divisive and it’s horrible.”
Owners were deeply concerned about the president’s criticism, saying his Twitter attacks had turned many fans against the NFL.
“We’ve got to be careful not to be baited by Trump or whomever else,” said Lurie, who called Trump’s presidency “disastrous.” “We have to find a way to not be divided and not get baited.”
Buffalo Bills owner Terry Pegula was terrified that Trump would keep up the attacks.
“All Donald needs to do is to start to do this again,” Pegula said. “We need some kind of immediate plan because of what’s going on in society. All of us now, we need to put a Band-Aid on what’s going on in the country.”
Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan assured other owners that the worst from Trump was behind them, but Houston Texans owner Bob McNair took a shot at protesting players.
“You fellas need to ask your compadres, fellas, stop that other business, let’s go out and do something that really produces positive results, and we’ll help you,” McNair said.
Miami Dolphins owner Stephen Ross suggested a “march on Washington” by NFL players and owners, and Kaepernick’s teammate and fellow protester Eric Reid accused the league of blackballing the former 49er.
“I feel like he was hung out to dry,” said Reid, who wore a Kaepernick T-shirt over his dress shirt and tie. “Everyone in here is talking about how much they support us. Nobody stepped up and said we support Colin’s right to do this. We all let him become Public Enemy No. 1 in this country, and he still doesn’t have a job.”
Reid, whose contract expired after the season, also remains unsigned after he refused to agree to end his protest.
Pegula suggested finding a spokesman to promote the league and its good works like the NRA had found in actor Charlton Heston, and former NFL player Anquan Bolding urged owners to talk about social justice.
“For us to have a face, as an African-American, at least a face that could be in the media,” Pegula said, “we could fall in behind that.”
Kaepernick didn’t come up again after that exchange, and he remains unsigned while pursuing a labor grievance against NFL owners for alleged collusion.
Draining the Swampsky
Khalil Bendib
*What's Inside*
apr 23 - apr 25
~SUDAN UNEARTHS BONES FROM PYRAMID FOR DNA TESTING
(ANCIENT TIMES)
*DONALD TRUMP CALLED THE PRIME MINISTER OF VIETNAM TO DO A FAVOR FOR A CASINO-OWNING CROOK(TRUMP)
*BLACK NFL PLAYER SAYS COP PULLED HIM OVER BECAUSE HE ASSUMED MERCEDES MEANT HE WAS A DRUG DEALER(REAL PEOPLE)
*THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS PAYING MILLIONS FOR HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAIL LIST, FEC DOCUMENTS SHOW(DEMO POLITICS)
*MAJOR DEM DONOR HINTS SHE’LL WITHHOLD FUNDS AFTER ‘VIGILANTE’ DEMOCRATS FORCED AL FRANKEN TO RESIGN(DEMO POLITICS)
*HUD SECRETARY BEN CARSON TO PROPOSE TRIPLING RENT FOR SOME LOW-INCOME AMERICANS RECEIVING FEDERAL HOUSING SUBSIDIES(PAYBACK)
*CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL DAY IS FOR LOSERS BY THE RUDE PUNDIT
(COMMENTARY)
*STORE OWNER CHASED BLACK CUSTOMERS OUT OF SHOP WHILE YELLING N-WORD — THEN TRIED TO BLAME IT ON AN EMPLOYEE(AMERIKKKANS)
*THIS IS WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON WHEN THE UNITED STATES STARTS PUSHING ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’ AROUND THE WORLD(TRUE HISTORY)
*WHY IS TRUMP IGNORING AN AMERICAN HERO? HIS SILENCE ON THE WAFFLE HOUSE MURDERS IS DEAFENING(TALKERS)
*'OUR BABIES ARE DYING AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO CARE': A FORMER EVANGELICAL DISMANTLES THE SINGLE-ISSUE POLITICS OF WHITE CHRISTIANS
(COMMENTARY)
*ARIZONA SPECIAL ELECTION: DEBBIE LESKO HOLDS ON TO SEAT FOR REPUBLICANS
(ELECTIONS)
*FLINT CRISIS, FOUR YEARS ON: WHAT LITTLE TRUST IS LEFT CONTINUES TO WASH AWAY
(AMERICA)
*TRUMP OFFICIALS WENT ON A TAXPAYER-FUNDED SHOPPING SPREE. HERE’S THE BILL.
WELL OVER $3 MILLION AND COUNTING.(ARCHIVES)
*TRUMP SAID HE’D STAND BY FARMERS AND RANCHERS LIKE ME. HE HASN’T.
(SUCKERS)
~AT&T'S UNION SAYS COMPANY HAS BEEN SLASHING JOBS SINCE 'TAX CUTS PROMISE,' READY TO STRIKE(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
*U.S. AGENCIES FUELED A NATIONAL INCREASE IN ANTI-MUSLIM INCIDENTS: REPORT
(AMERICA)
*GREYHOUND IS CHOOSING TO LET BORDER PATROL DEMAND ITS PASSENGERS’ PAPERS
(RIGHTS)
*THE REMAINS OF YAHOO JUST GOT HIT WITH A $35 MILLION FINE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T TELL INVESTORS ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKING(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*WIND, SOLAR DELIVER STUNNING 98 PERCENT OF NEW U.S. POWER CAPACITY IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY(ENVIRONMENT)
*COLUMBIA GRAD STUDENTS PROTEST UNIVERSITY’S EFFORTS TO BLOCK UNIONIZATION
(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
*SEN. SANDERS TO ANNOUNCE PROPOSAL PROMISING JOBS TO ALL AMERICANS
(PROGRESSIVES)
*TORONTO AND TENNESSEE: TWO WHITE SUSPECTS, NO TRUMP TWEETS
(TRUMP)
*TRUMP’S BIG IDEA FOR HEALTH INSURANCE EXCLUDES MATERNITY CARE AND BARELY COVERS ADDICTION TREATMENT(PAYBACK)
*NEW RESEARCH REVEALS THE EXTRA OBSTACLES BLACK STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES FACE
(EDUCATION)
*'BREEDING CONCEPT': TRUMP USING THE LANGUAGE OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS IS NO COINCIDENCE BECAUSE HE IS ONE(TRUMP)
*STARBUCKS AND THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS: A TALE OF TWO MISGUIDED BOYCOTTS
KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR(COMMENTARY)
*DNC LAWSUIT AGAINST TRUMP CAMPAIGN DIVIDES PARTY – BUT COULD REVEAL KEY FACTS
(DEMO POLITICS)
*SEAN HANNITY'S REAL ESTATE VENTURE LINKED TO FRAUDULENT PROPERTY DEALER
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
~‘THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR CHILDREN!’ CONSERVATIVE PARENTS ARE GOING BONKERS OVER COMPREHENSIVE SEX-ED(SUCKERS)
*HERE’S HOW HOMELAND SECURITY MANIPULATES NUMBERS TO MAKE IMMIGRANT CRIME LOOK WORSE THAN IT REALLY IS(GESTAPO USA)
*WHITE AMERICANS SAY THE STARBUCKS ARRESTS WERE AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. BLACK AMERICANS SAY THEY WERE PART OF A PATTERN.(RACE MATTERS)
*TRUMP'S MOSCOW TRAVEL RECORDS CONTRADICT HIS STORY IN JAMES COMEY'S MEMOS: REPORT
(TRUMP)
*WEALTHIEST AMERICANS POISED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LOOPHOLE LEFT BY GOP TAX PLAN
(REALITY)
*TRUMP TWEETED A STRANGE, RACIST TERM AND SARAH SANDERS HAS NO EXPLANATION
(TRUMP)
*ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS MAY NOT BE SUGAR-FREE BLISS WE HOPED FOR
(CURRENTS)
*THE IRRESPONSIBILITY OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
(CAPITALISM)
*RISING SEAS HIT U.S. COASTAL PROPERTY VALUES: ‘A PRICING SIGNAL FROM CLIMATE CHANGE’
(ENVIRONMENT)
*DONNELLY BECOMES THIRD DEM TO SUPPORT POMPEO
(DEMO SELLOUTS)
*AMERICA’S FENTANYL PROBLEM IS REACHING A WHOLE NEW GROUP OF USERS
(REALITY)
*PROFITS BEFORE SAFETY
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*9 DEMOCRATS SIGN UP TO HELP WALL STREET STEAL CARS
(DEMO SELLOUTS)
*COFFEE SENSITIVITY TRAINING(FUNNIES)
*REPUBLICANS INTRODUCE A BILL TO MAKE IT LEGAL FOR ADOPTION AGENCIES TO DISCRIMINATE
(RIGHTS)
*WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTER WAS PART OF RIGHTWING EXTREMIST MOVEMENT: REPORT
(AMERIKKKANS)
*NOT WELCOME IN COLOMBIA, INDIGENOUS MIGRANTS STUCK AT BORDER AFTER FLEEING VENEZUELA(WORLD)
*TRUMP BLAMED AS U.S. COLLEGES LURE FEWER FOREIGN STUDENTS
(EDUCATION)
*WORLD'S FIRST OCEAN PLASTIC-CLEANING MACHINE SET TO TACKLE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH(EARTH)
*late news of interest*
Trump trade secretary spent almost $1 million on office furniture—but blames Obama
Hunter
Daily Kos Staff
Wednesday April 25, 2018 · 11:00 AM PDT
Are you sick of hearing about Trump appointees spending curiously large amounts of taxpayer money on things like private jet flights, barely disguised vacations, or new office furniture? Yeah, too bad—because it turns out Trump's U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, went on quite the office shopping spree.
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer spent more than $917,000 to furnish the two trade offices near the White House, according to contracts reviewed by The Post.
That’s a significant increase compared to the last two trade reps.
It's not just a significant increase, it's an enormous increase.
Ron Kirk, President Barack Obama’s first trade ambassador, spent $237,000 on office furniture during the first 15 months of his term.
His successor, Ambassador Michael Froman, spent $151,000 during a comparable time span, records show.
All right, but at least the expenditures weren't for his own private office, right? They were for things like 60 sit-stand desks, top-notch Herman Miller office chairs, and nearly half a million bucks to a furniture company that "specializes in rich wood-finished desks and high-grade furniture fit for bosses." That might or might not be overlavish spending; it's suspicious, but not overtly crooked.
What might tip the scales on that is if Lighthizer's office tried to deflect blame with a thoroughly debunkable lie about it being Barack Obama's fault. Which they did, claiming that it was a "longtime, planned project" of the Obama administration—and the Obama team isn't just denying that such a thing existed, they're openly mocking Lighthizer's claim that the Trump administration's hands were tied on this one. Read More
US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer spent more than $917,000 to furnish the two trade offices near the White House, according to contracts reviewed by The Post.
That’s a significant increase compared to the last two trade reps.
It's not just a significant increase, it's an enormous increase.
Ron Kirk, President Barack Obama’s first trade ambassador, spent $237,000 on office furniture during the first 15 months of his term.
His successor, Ambassador Michael Froman, spent $151,000 during a comparable time span, records show.
All right, but at least the expenditures weren't for his own private office, right? They were for things like 60 sit-stand desks, top-notch Herman Miller office chairs, and nearly half a million bucks to a furniture company that "specializes in rich wood-finished desks and high-grade furniture fit for bosses." That might or might not be overlavish spending; it's suspicious, but not overtly crooked.
What might tip the scales on that is if Lighthizer's office tried to deflect blame with a thoroughly debunkable lie about it being Barack Obama's fault. Which they did, claiming that it was a "longtime, planned project" of the Obama administration—and the Obama team isn't just denying that such a thing existed, they're openly mocking Lighthizer's claim that the Trump administration's hands were tied on this one. Read More
Dems: CIA Concealing Haspel Records, Showing “Nothing but Contempt for the Senate and the Public”
Published on April 25, 2018
by Sam Knight - district sentinel
The first step of President Trump’s ongoing cabinet shuffle is nearly complete, but there remains doubt about what will follow.
Current CIA Director Mike Pompeo looks set to be confirmed as Secretary of State, after dramatically being reported out of committee on Monday. There are, however, still impediments for Pompeo’s nominated replacement, current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel.
Haspel’s selection by President Trump has attracted opposition from Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)–because of her involvement in the CIA post-9/11 torture program, and the subsequent cover-up.
With the balance of the Senate 51-49 in favor of Republicans, and with John McCain (R-Ariz.) absent due to illness, Democrats could scupper Haspel’s nomination, if they stand united.
And while Sen. Paul–at the last second, on Monday–walked back his opposition to Pompeo’s State Department nomination, a flip-flop on Haspel could be far more difficult for the Kentucky lawmaker to maneuver. In March, Paul wrote an op-ed for Politico, chronicling in great detail his criticism of the career intelligence official.
“What is known is that Haspel participated in a program that was antithetical to the ideals of this country,” the senator wrote. “She destroyed evidence in defiance of our ideals.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing for the CIA to allow senators to fully review Haspel’s record–and to publicly release information related to her involvement in the torture program.
On Tuesday, the Agency said it would allow senators to review only some of the documents related to Haspel’s past, and that it was “actively working towards” publicly sharing some of this information, according to The Hill.
A trio of Senate Democrats reacted furiously on Wednesday, describing these offers as “wholly inadequate.”
“Concealing her background when no sources and methods are at stake shows nothing but contempt for the Senate and the public,” said Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
The three lawmakers said the public should know if Haspel “was a senior manager for a program that has been shown to be deeply flawed, as well as a number of other disturbing facts about her record.”
More conservative members of the Senate Democratic Caucus might not be persuaded by this criticism. But, so far, not a single Democrat has promised to support Haspel. Three have come out pledging “yes” votes on Pompeo—Joe Manchin (D-W.V.a), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
Similarly, Rand Paul might not be the only Republican to vote “no” on Haspel. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday: “We still have a lot of questions to ask.”
John McCain might also reject the nominee, if he is present for the vote. He reacted to Haspel’s nomination by asking for an explanation about “her involvement in the CIA’s so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ program.”
Current CIA Director Mike Pompeo looks set to be confirmed as Secretary of State, after dramatically being reported out of committee on Monday. There are, however, still impediments for Pompeo’s nominated replacement, current CIA Deputy Director Gina Haspel.
Haspel’s selection by President Trump has attracted opposition from Democrats and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)–because of her involvement in the CIA post-9/11 torture program, and the subsequent cover-up.
With the balance of the Senate 51-49 in favor of Republicans, and with John McCain (R-Ariz.) absent due to illness, Democrats could scupper Haspel’s nomination, if they stand united.
And while Sen. Paul–at the last second, on Monday–walked back his opposition to Pompeo’s State Department nomination, a flip-flop on Haspel could be far more difficult for the Kentucky lawmaker to maneuver. In March, Paul wrote an op-ed for Politico, chronicling in great detail his criticism of the career intelligence official.
“What is known is that Haspel participated in a program that was antithetical to the ideals of this country,” the senator wrote. “She destroyed evidence in defiance of our ideals.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are pushing for the CIA to allow senators to fully review Haspel’s record–and to publicly release information related to her involvement in the torture program.
On Tuesday, the Agency said it would allow senators to review only some of the documents related to Haspel’s past, and that it was “actively working towards” publicly sharing some of this information, according to The Hill.
A trio of Senate Democrats reacted furiously on Wednesday, describing these offers as “wholly inadequate.”
“Concealing her background when no sources and methods are at stake shows nothing but contempt for the Senate and the public,” said Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).
The three lawmakers said the public should know if Haspel “was a senior manager for a program that has been shown to be deeply flawed, as well as a number of other disturbing facts about her record.”
More conservative members of the Senate Democratic Caucus might not be persuaded by this criticism. But, so far, not a single Democrat has promised to support Haspel. Three have come out pledging “yes” votes on Pompeo—Joe Manchin (D-W.V.a), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
Similarly, Rand Paul might not be the only Republican to vote “no” on Haspel. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday: “We still have a lot of questions to ask.”
John McCain might also reject the nominee, if he is present for the vote. He reacted to Haspel’s nomination by asking for an explanation about “her involvement in the CIA’s so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ program.”
Lawmakers Warn that NLRB Spending Freeze Could Violate Federal Law
Published on April 25, 2018
by Sam Sacks - district sentinel
A pair of Democratic legislators caught wind of an attempt by the White House to claw back funding for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—a move that could potentially be illegal.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) wrote a letterto the NLRB’s General Counsel Peter Robb on Wednesday, informing him that any decision to fund the board at levels lower than what Congress appropriated would be “an extreme act of bad faith” in violation of federal budget laws.
“We remind you that Congress, not the Administration, has the ultimate authority to set funding levels for executive branch agencies,” the lawmakers wrote.
The Trump administration had requested a 9 percent spending cut for the NLRB, but Congress kept the agency’s funding level at $724 million in its March budget deal.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month, however, that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had instructed the NLRB to reduce spending on its own, essentially ignoring congressionally mandated funding levels.
Peter Robb pushed ahead with reorganization plans. Those include limiting the power of regional directors, and more hasty consideration of unfair labor practice complaints and union elections. Critics warn this could hamper the NLRB’s ability to respond to abuses on the job.
There is a formal process known as “rescission,” by which the administration can temporarily freeze funding for an agency, and then go back to Congress for a new level to be set. Speaking to the House Ways and Means Committee last week, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said his department was working with OMB on a rescission proposal.
Murray and DeLauro noted, however, that formal steps for rescission have not yet been taken by the NLRB.
“Agencies may not withhold appropriated funds obligation in advance of submitting a special impoundment message,” they wrote.
The lawmakers asked for a “prompt reply” with assurances that the NLRB intends to comply with all applicable budget laws.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) wrote a letterto the NLRB’s General Counsel Peter Robb on Wednesday, informing him that any decision to fund the board at levels lower than what Congress appropriated would be “an extreme act of bad faith” in violation of federal budget laws.
“We remind you that Congress, not the Administration, has the ultimate authority to set funding levels for executive branch agencies,” the lawmakers wrote.
The Trump administration had requested a 9 percent spending cut for the NLRB, but Congress kept the agency’s funding level at $724 million in its March budget deal.
Bloomberg reported earlier this month, however, that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had instructed the NLRB to reduce spending on its own, essentially ignoring congressionally mandated funding levels.
Peter Robb pushed ahead with reorganization plans. Those include limiting the power of regional directors, and more hasty consideration of unfair labor practice complaints and union elections. Critics warn this could hamper the NLRB’s ability to respond to abuses on the job.
There is a formal process known as “rescission,” by which the administration can temporarily freeze funding for an agency, and then go back to Congress for a new level to be set. Speaking to the House Ways and Means Committee last week, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said his department was working with OMB on a rescission proposal.
Murray and DeLauro noted, however, that formal steps for rescission have not yet been taken by the NLRB.
“Agencies may not withhold appropriated funds obligation in advance of submitting a special impoundment message,” they wrote.
The lawmakers asked for a “prompt reply” with assurances that the NLRB intends to comply with all applicable budget laws.
Black Alabama woman denied a job because of her dreadlocks is taking her case to the Supreme Court
Dominique Jackson - raw story
23 APR 2018 AT 21:12 ET
After being denied a job because of her hair, this woman is taking her case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to AL.com.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Chastity Jones in 2013, claiming that a company in Mobile, Alabama racially discriminated against her dreadlocks.
Jones was offered a position at Catastrophe Management Solutions, an insurance claims company, however the company revoked the job offer once Jones refused to change her hairstyle.
On the day of her initial training, Jones went to discuss scheduling with the manager. Court documents stated: “Before Ms. Jones got up to leave, [the manager] asked her whether she had her hair in dreadlocks. Ms. Jones said yes, and [the manager] replied that CMS could not hire her ‘with the dreadlocks.’ When Ms. Jones asked what the problem was, [the manager] said ‘they tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.”
Catastrophe Management Solutions has a gender-neutral grooming policy. The company policy states: “All personnel are expected to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines. Hairstyle should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable.”
Jone’s lawsuit claimed that the Catastrophe Management Solutions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An attorney for the company stated: “Race discrimination is unlawful and deplorable because it conditions employment on a factor unrelated to the job and entirely outside of the employee’s or applicant’s control. In contrast, employees and applicants–regardless of race–can control their dress, makeup, and hair styling.”
Charles Butler Jr., a senior U.S. District Judge and an appeals court both dismissed the case. Jones took it upon herself to appeal both of the rulings. She is now represented by lawyers from the NAACP.
“This case raises the important question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on stereotypes relating to the protected category of race,” she stated.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on the behalf of Chastity Jones in 2013, claiming that a company in Mobile, Alabama racially discriminated against her dreadlocks.
Jones was offered a position at Catastrophe Management Solutions, an insurance claims company, however the company revoked the job offer once Jones refused to change her hairstyle.
On the day of her initial training, Jones went to discuss scheduling with the manager. Court documents stated: “Before Ms. Jones got up to leave, [the manager] asked her whether she had her hair in dreadlocks. Ms. Jones said yes, and [the manager] replied that CMS could not hire her ‘with the dreadlocks.’ When Ms. Jones asked what the problem was, [the manager] said ‘they tend to get messy, although I’m not saying yours are, but you know what I’m talking about.”
Catastrophe Management Solutions has a gender-neutral grooming policy. The company policy states: “All personnel are expected to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines. Hairstyle should reflect a business/professional image. No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable.”
Jone’s lawsuit claimed that the Catastrophe Management Solutions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An attorney for the company stated: “Race discrimination is unlawful and deplorable because it conditions employment on a factor unrelated to the job and entirely outside of the employee’s or applicant’s control. In contrast, employees and applicants–regardless of race–can control their dress, makeup, and hair styling.”
Charles Butler Jr., a senior U.S. District Judge and an appeals court both dismissed the case. Jones took it upon herself to appeal both of the rulings. She is now represented by lawyers from the NAACP.
“This case raises the important question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination based on stereotypes relating to the protected category of race,” she stated.
denial conservative style!!
From Crooks & Liars: I've never gone wrong betting on the racism and arrogant ignorance of the Right: I've only erred occasionally on the point spread. And predicting Conservative behavior is dead-easy because traditionally they only have four basic settings:
Pleading Ignorance.
Of course Conservatives are ignorant -- deeply and malignantly ignorant. This comes from letting lying demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity take a dump in their skulls for the last 20 years. But since the GOP OnStar only emits turns in one direction, traditionally the only way Conservatives have been permitted to be "wrong" about anything was that they were "not Conservative enough!". From Crain's, October, 2015:
- Arrogant triumphalism: The aforementioned "We won! You lost! Bush is a genius! Suck it Libtards!"
- All-out denialism: The aforementioned "Everything I see on non-Fox teevee is fake! Terrible lies by the terrible Murrica-hating Libtard media conspiracy!"
- Bargaining: It doesn't matter whether or not I'm a brain-washed moron...because Both Sides!"
- Running Away: As I pointed out back during the first Great Skedaddle back in 2009, because Conservatives are by nature abject moral cowards, their last "out" is doing like German soldiers did after the fall of Berlin: stop running away from the catastrophe they created only long enough to burn their uniforms. See, "I'm an independent."
Pleading Ignorance.
Of course Conservatives are ignorant -- deeply and malignantly ignorant. This comes from letting lying demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity take a dump in their skulls for the last 20 years. But since the GOP OnStar only emits turns in one direction, traditionally the only way Conservatives have been permitted to be "wrong" about anything was that they were "not Conservative enough!". From Crain's, October, 2015:
