TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality trivia
reality is the state of things as they actually exist
april 18, 2019
IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER ALREADY
ITMFA
real news today
april 18, 2019
*SCIENTISTS HAVE ESTABLISHED A LINK BETWEEN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND BRAIN DAMAGE
(Christianity)
*Scientists unearth 220 million-year-old dinosaur fossils in Argentina
(ANCIENT TIMES)
*Donald Trump Gets More Pathetic By the Day by the rude pundit
(Commentary)
*Mapping the US counties where traffic air pollution hurts children the most
(Environment)
*Researchers discover ancient giant ‘lion’ in Kenya
(Ancient Times)
*To end racial disparities in policing, we must look beyond the data
(America)
*Trump policy of less safety and more offshore drilling is 'a recipe for disaster'
(Oil)
*TSA AGENTS SAY THEY’RE NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST BLACK WOMEN, BUT THEIR BODY SCANNERS MIGHT BE
(Race Matters)
(for previous day's articles see "what's inside" below)
comment/tweet of the day
HERE'S THE MUELLER REPORT OFFICIAL DOCUMENT.(448 pages)
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
---
Nancy Pelosi✔
@SpeakerPelosi
AG Barr has confirmed the staggering partisan effort by the Trump Admin to spin public’s view of the #MuellerReport – complete with acknowledgment that the Trump team received a sneak preview. It’s more urgent than ever that Special Counsel Mueller testify before Congress.
(((Rep. Nadler)))✔
@RepJerryNadler
It is clear Congress and the American people must hear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller in person to better understand his findings. We are now requesting Mueller to appear before @HouseJudiciary as soon as possible.
---
Male lawmaker says he’s trying to restrict abortion because women ‘are not having enough babies’
---
paul krugman: “While today’s G.O.P. can’t do policy, it commands a powerful propaganda machine And this machine is now dedicated to a strategy of portraying Democrats as extremists. It might work — but it shouldn’t, because Democrats aren’t extremists, but Republicans are.”
---
chauncey devega: ...Trump and his enablers' thrive on greed, racism, violence, bigotry, misogyny, anti-intellectualism and other reactionary behavior and values. These things are by no means limited to public policy. Unlike what some commentators and observers claim to believe, politics and public policy are never separate from personal values. This is especially true in a moment of national and global crisis, when America's democracy and the rule of law are under siege by a right-wing authoritarian movement whose headquarters is in the White House.
Trickle-down economics are a myth and a lie. Trickle-down immorality, from Donald Trump and other right-wing opinion leaders, on the other hand, is all too real. (TALKERS)
---
Sen. Patrick Leahy: 'Mueller did his job. Now it's time for Congress to do our job'
Jen Hayden
Daily Kos Staff
Thursday April 18, 2019 · 10:47 AM PDT
Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
On The Release Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Redacted Report
April 18, 2019
Despite the Attorney General’s spin and carefully orchestrated press rollout — obviously intended for an audience of one — nothing can hide that this report amounts to a formal presentment of misconduct that reached the highest levels of the Trump campaign and administration.
Members of the Trump campaign were not simply useful pawns in Russia’s attack on our elections. They were eager, unapologetic beneficiaries of Russia’s interference. They welcomed it. They encouraged the release of stolen materials and planned a press strategy around it. They not once reported it to law enforcement authorities. Then they misrepresented the facts and hid their actions from the American people. Repeatedly.
The President’s interference with the Justice Department’s subsequent investigation went beyond everything that we had known. He regularly used the office of the presidency to attempt to manipulate and delegitimize one of the most critical national security investigations of our time. His lawyers promised witnesses would be “taken care of” if they did not cooperate with the investigation. He fired the FBI director leading the initial investigation and then attempted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
His efforts demean his office and demean the rule of law.
Robert Mueller did his job. Now it’s time for Congress to do our job, as Mr. Mueller envisioned in his report. In order to do so we must view the full, unredacted report. And Mr. Mueller should testify before Congress as soon as possible.
I hope all Americans, no matter their political views, agree that we must do more to protect our elections from foreign interference. The governments of foreign adversaries, including the Kremlin, are neither Republican nor Democrat. They seek only to divide and weaken us as Americans. These tangible threats to our democracy, and what we need to do about them, are the issue, not the President’s vanity about being seen as “winning” an election.
We must all stand together against foreign adversaries that threaten our democracy. And President Trump, who has never fully acknowledged these threats, needs to stand with us.
On The Release Of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Redacted Report
April 18, 2019
Despite the Attorney General’s spin and carefully orchestrated press rollout — obviously intended for an audience of one — nothing can hide that this report amounts to a formal presentment of misconduct that reached the highest levels of the Trump campaign and administration.
Members of the Trump campaign were not simply useful pawns in Russia’s attack on our elections. They were eager, unapologetic beneficiaries of Russia’s interference. They welcomed it. They encouraged the release of stolen materials and planned a press strategy around it. They not once reported it to law enforcement authorities. Then they misrepresented the facts and hid their actions from the American people. Repeatedly.
The President’s interference with the Justice Department’s subsequent investigation went beyond everything that we had known. He regularly used the office of the presidency to attempt to manipulate and delegitimize one of the most critical national security investigations of our time. His lawyers promised witnesses would be “taken care of” if they did not cooperate with the investigation. He fired the FBI director leading the initial investigation and then attempted to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
His efforts demean his office and demean the rule of law.
Robert Mueller did his job. Now it’s time for Congress to do our job, as Mr. Mueller envisioned in his report. In order to do so we must view the full, unredacted report. And Mr. Mueller should testify before Congress as soon as possible.
I hope all Americans, no matter their political views, agree that we must do more to protect our elections from foreign interference. The governments of foreign adversaries, including the Kremlin, are neither Republican nor Democrat. They seek only to divide and weaken us as Americans. These tangible threats to our democracy, and what we need to do about them, are the issue, not the President’s vanity about being seen as “winning” an election.
We must all stand together against foreign adversaries that threaten our democracy. And President Trump, who has never fully acknowledged these threats, needs to stand with us.
House Dems subpoena nine major banks as part of deep dive into Trump’s finances
Brad Reed - raw story
18 APR 2019 AT 08:39 ET
Democrats in the House of Representatives have leveled subpoenas against nine different major banks as part of their investigation into President Donald Trump’s finances.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Democrats have subpoenaed American banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America as well as foreign banks Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Deutsche Bank figures to be the bank of most interest to investigators, as it was the only major bank by the late 1990s that was willing to make major loans to Trump after a string of bankruptcies made him toxic to most of Wall Street.
“Since 1998, the bank has led or participated in loans of at least $2.5 billion to companies affiliated with Mr. Trump,” the Journal notes.
Additionally, Deutsche Bank has found itself caught up in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal — and a leaked internal memo obtained by The Guardian this week showed that the bank is concerned that regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom could bring the hammer down for helping Kremlin-linked Russian criminals move dirty money into the global financial system.
“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern,” House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said this week. “The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the President and his associates, as thoroughly as possible pursuant to its oversight authority, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead us.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Democrats have subpoenaed American banks JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America as well as foreign banks Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Canada and Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Deutsche Bank figures to be the bank of most interest to investigators, as it was the only major bank by the late 1990s that was willing to make major loans to Trump after a string of bankruptcies made him toxic to most of Wall Street.
“Since 1998, the bank has led or participated in loans of at least $2.5 billion to companies affiliated with Mr. Trump,” the Journal notes.
Additionally, Deutsche Bank has found itself caught up in a massive Russian money-laundering scandal — and a leaked internal memo obtained by The Guardian this week showed that the bank is concerned that regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom could bring the hammer down for helping Kremlin-linked Russian criminals move dirty money into the global financial system.
“The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern,” House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said this week. “The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the President and his associates, as thoroughly as possible pursuant to its oversight authority, and will follow the facts wherever they may lead us.”
Facebook uploaded email contacts of 1.5m users without consent
Company says it has stopped using password verification feature that collected data
Alex Hern
the guardian
Thu 18 Apr 2019 05.59 EDT
Facebook has admitted to “unintentionally” uploading the address books of 1.5 million users without consent, and says it will delete the collected data and notify those affected.
The discovery follows criticism of Facebook by security experts for a feature that asked new users for their email password as part of the sign-up process. As well as exposing users to potential security breaches, those who provided passwords found that, immediately after their email was verified, the site began “importing” contacts without asking for permission.
Facebook has now admitted it was wrong to do so, and said the upload was inadvertent. “Last month we stopped offering email password verification as an option for people verifying their account when signing up for Facebook for the first time,” the company said.
“When we looked into the steps people were going through to verify their accounts we found that in some cases people’s email contacts were also unintentionally uploaded to Facebook when they created their account,” a spokesperson said. “We estimate that up to 1.5 million people’s email contacts may have been uploaded. These contacts were not shared with anyone and we’re deleting them. We’ve fixed the underlying issue and are notifying people whose contacts were imported. People can also review and manage the contacts they share with Facebook in their settings.”
The issue was first noticed in early April, when the Daily Beast reported on Facebook’s practice of asking for email passwords to verify new users. The feature, which allows Facebook to automatically log in to a webmail account to effectively click the link on an email verification itself, was apparently intended to smooth the workflow for signing up for a new account.
But security experts said the practice was “beyond sketchy”, noting that it gave Facebook access to a large amount of personal data and may have led to users adopting unsafe practices around password confidentiality. The company was “practically fishing for passwords you are not supposed to know”, according to cybersecurity tweeter e-sushi, who first raised concern about the feature, which Facebook says has existed since 2016.
At the time, Facebook insisted it did not store email passwords but said nothing about other information gathered in the process. Shortly after, Business Insider reported that, for users who entered their passwords, Facebook was also harvesting contact details – apparently a hangover from an earlier feature that Facebook had built expressly to take contacts with permission – except in this new implementation, users had not given consent.
The company said those contacts were used as part of its People You May Know feature, as well as to improve ad targeting systems. While it has committed to deleting the uploaded contacts, it is not immediately clear whether it will delete the information it inferred from those uploaded contacts – or even whether it is able to do so. Facebook did not immediately reply to a query from the Guardian.
The discovery follows criticism of Facebook by security experts for a feature that asked new users for their email password as part of the sign-up process. As well as exposing users to potential security breaches, those who provided passwords found that, immediately after their email was verified, the site began “importing” contacts without asking for permission.
Facebook has now admitted it was wrong to do so, and said the upload was inadvertent. “Last month we stopped offering email password verification as an option for people verifying their account when signing up for Facebook for the first time,” the company said.
“When we looked into the steps people were going through to verify their accounts we found that in some cases people’s email contacts were also unintentionally uploaded to Facebook when they created their account,” a spokesperson said. “We estimate that up to 1.5 million people’s email contacts may have been uploaded. These contacts were not shared with anyone and we’re deleting them. We’ve fixed the underlying issue and are notifying people whose contacts were imported. People can also review and manage the contacts they share with Facebook in their settings.”
The issue was first noticed in early April, when the Daily Beast reported on Facebook’s practice of asking for email passwords to verify new users. The feature, which allows Facebook to automatically log in to a webmail account to effectively click the link on an email verification itself, was apparently intended to smooth the workflow for signing up for a new account.
But security experts said the practice was “beyond sketchy”, noting that it gave Facebook access to a large amount of personal data and may have led to users adopting unsafe practices around password confidentiality. The company was “practically fishing for passwords you are not supposed to know”, according to cybersecurity tweeter e-sushi, who first raised concern about the feature, which Facebook says has existed since 2016.
At the time, Facebook insisted it did not store email passwords but said nothing about other information gathered in the process. Shortly after, Business Insider reported that, for users who entered their passwords, Facebook was also harvesting contact details – apparently a hangover from an earlier feature that Facebook had built expressly to take contacts with permission – except in this new implementation, users had not given consent.
The company said those contacts were used as part of its People You May Know feature, as well as to improve ad targeting systems. While it has committed to deleting the uploaded contacts, it is not immediately clear whether it will delete the information it inferred from those uploaded contacts – or even whether it is able to do so. Facebook did not immediately reply to a query from the Guardian.
the cover-up general!!!
Bill Barr: Mueller listed 10 episodes of potential obstruction — but Trump is cleared by his ‘non-corrupt motives’
Travis Gettys - raw story
18 APR 2019 AT 09:51 ET
Attorney General William Barr revealed special counsel Robert Mueller examined 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump — but he disagreed with his assessment.
Barr said the president entered the White House in an “unprecedented situation,” given the numerous investigation into his possible illegal associations with Russia during the campaign.
Barr said he and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw most of his investigation, “disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories.”
“The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency,” Barr said, “propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”
Therefore, he said, that amounted to “evidence of noncorrupt motives,” which he believes absolves the president from criminal wrongdoing.
Barr said Trump took “no act” to deprive Mueller of documents or witnesses, although he refused to sit for an interview himself, and instead submitted written responses to the special counsel’s questions.
Barr said the president entered the White House in an “unprecedented situation,” given the numerous investigation into his possible illegal associations with Russia during the campaign.
Barr said he and deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller and oversaw most of his investigation, “disagreed with some of the special counsel’s legal theories.”
“The president was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency,” Barr said, “propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.”
Therefore, he said, that amounted to “evidence of noncorrupt motives,” which he believes absolves the president from criminal wrongdoing.
Barr said Trump took “no act” to deprive Mueller of documents or witnesses, although he refused to sit for an interview himself, and instead submitted written responses to the special counsel’s questions.
Flint Receives Remaining $77.7M in Federal Funding for Water System Repair
By Tanasia Kenney - atlanta black star
April 18, 2019
The state of Michigan has released the remaining $77.7 million in federal funding for water infrastructure improvements in Flint as the city works to recover from a crippling water contamination crisis.
As reported by MLive, the funds are part of a $120 million federal and state loan given to Flint in March 2017 under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 and helps support several water infrastructure projects across the city.
Rob Bincsik, Flint’s director of Public Works, made it clear Tuesday that the funds are not new but are a portion of what had already been allocated for the improvement projects in Flint.
“While we are grateful for this funding, it’s important to understand it’s not new funding,” Bincsik said. “The federal government awarded this funding and is utilizing the MDEQ’s Drinking Water Revolving Fund as the mechanism to disperse it to the City of Flint.”
The remaining funds were released alongside a $51.7 million loan to the city of East Lansing, Michigan, as well as a $10.2 million loan for Monroe County for similar water infrastructure repairs, according to MLive.
Projects that the federal loan will contribute to include water main and water meter replacements, the completion of a secondary water source pipeline and the creation of a panel monitoring the city’s water quality, among other improvements.
“These projects will help the short and long term sustainability of the water system in the city of Flint,” Bincsik added. “But as stated in the Water Distribution Optimization Plan, the water system needs in excess of another $300 million in capital improvements over the next 20 years.”
Flint has suffered an ongoing water crisis since 2014, when a switch in the city’s water source caused high levels of lead to leach into the water supply, sickening thousands. Outrage ensued after it was revealed that state officials, including former Gov. Rick Snyder, waited nearly three months before notifying residents that their water had been contaminated.
In December, Mayor Karen Weaver said the city was “ahead of schedule” in replacing thousands of old lead and iron pipelines.
As reported by MLive, the funds are part of a $120 million federal and state loan given to Flint in March 2017 under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 and helps support several water infrastructure projects across the city.
Rob Bincsik, Flint’s director of Public Works, made it clear Tuesday that the funds are not new but are a portion of what had already been allocated for the improvement projects in Flint.
“While we are grateful for this funding, it’s important to understand it’s not new funding,” Bincsik said. “The federal government awarded this funding and is utilizing the MDEQ’s Drinking Water Revolving Fund as the mechanism to disperse it to the City of Flint.”
The remaining funds were released alongside a $51.7 million loan to the city of East Lansing, Michigan, as well as a $10.2 million loan for Monroe County for similar water infrastructure repairs, according to MLive.
Projects that the federal loan will contribute to include water main and water meter replacements, the completion of a secondary water source pipeline and the creation of a panel monitoring the city’s water quality, among other improvements.
“These projects will help the short and long term sustainability of the water system in the city of Flint,” Bincsik added. “But as stated in the Water Distribution Optimization Plan, the water system needs in excess of another $300 million in capital improvements over the next 20 years.”
Flint has suffered an ongoing water crisis since 2014, when a switch in the city’s water source caused high levels of lead to leach into the water supply, sickening thousands. Outrage ensued after it was revealed that state officials, including former Gov. Rick Snyder, waited nearly three months before notifying residents that their water had been contaminated.
In December, Mayor Karen Weaver said the city was “ahead of schedule” in replacing thousands of old lead and iron pipelines.
Sears sues Lampert, claiming he looted company and drove it into bankruptcy
by Jonathan Stempel
APRIL 18, 2019 / 8:25 AM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sears Holdings Corp sued longtime Chairman Eddie Lampert, his hedge fund ESL Investments, and former directors including Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, accusing them of allowing the retailer to be looted of billions of dollars before its October 2018 bankruptcy.
The lawsuit, made public on Thursday, was filed by the restructuring team winding down what remains of the pre-bankruptcy Sears following Lampert’s $5.2 billion purchase in February of most of its assets.
Sears accused Lampert of ordering the creation of bogus financial plans showing the retailer would turn itself around even as it racked up huge losses, enabling the transfer of five major assets including Land’s End and Sears Hometown Outlet for his benefit.
“Had defendants not taken these improper and illegal actions, Sears would have had billions of dollars more to pay its third-party creditors today and would not have endured the amount of disruption, expense, and job losses resulting from its recent bankruptcy filing,” the complaint said.
Other defendants include Bruce Berkowitz and his Fairholme Capital Management, which had been a large Sears shareholder, and Seritage Growth Properties, which housed 266 of Sears’ more profitable stores after being spun off.
Mnuchin, a college roommate of Lampert’s at Yale University, had been a Sears director and ESL executive.
Representatives for Lampert and ESL, Berkowitz and Fairholme, Seritage and the Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The post-bankruptcy Sears did not immediately respond to a similar request.
The reorganized company was expected to have about 425 Sears and Kmart stores, down from roughly 3,500 when those companies merged in 2005.
The case is Sears Holdings Corp et al v Lampert et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-ap-08250. The main bankruptcy case is In re Sears Holdings Corp in the same court, No. 18-bk-23538.
The lawsuit, made public on Thursday, was filed by the restructuring team winding down what remains of the pre-bankruptcy Sears following Lampert’s $5.2 billion purchase in February of most of its assets.
Sears accused Lampert of ordering the creation of bogus financial plans showing the retailer would turn itself around even as it racked up huge losses, enabling the transfer of five major assets including Land’s End and Sears Hometown Outlet for his benefit.
“Had defendants not taken these improper and illegal actions, Sears would have had billions of dollars more to pay its third-party creditors today and would not have endured the amount of disruption, expense, and job losses resulting from its recent bankruptcy filing,” the complaint said.
Other defendants include Bruce Berkowitz and his Fairholme Capital Management, which had been a large Sears shareholder, and Seritage Growth Properties, which housed 266 of Sears’ more profitable stores after being spun off.
Mnuchin, a college roommate of Lampert’s at Yale University, had been a Sears director and ESL executive.
Representatives for Lampert and ESL, Berkowitz and Fairholme, Seritage and the Treasury Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The post-bankruptcy Sears did not immediately respond to a similar request.
The reorganized company was expected to have about 425 Sears and Kmart stores, down from roughly 3,500 when those companies merged in 2005.
The case is Sears Holdings Corp et al v Lampert et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 19-ap-08250. The main bankruptcy case is In re Sears Holdings Corp in the same court, No. 18-bk-23538.
New Apple lab uses robots to rip apart devices for recycling materials
Stephen Nellis - reuters
APRIL 18, 2019 / 5:05 AM
(Reuters) - Apple Inc is notorious for keeping what happens in its laboratories a closely guarded secret. But the iPhone maker plans to share openly everything that happens in its newest lab in Austin, Texas.
Apple said Thursday that it will open a “Material Recovery” lab to investigate new techniques using robotics and machine learning to rip apart its devices and recover valuable materials such as copper, aluminum and cobalt. The 9,000-square-foot lab will be at the same Austin facility as “Daisy,” an Apple-built robot that can now tear apart iPhones at the rate of 1.2 million per year.
The lab is part of Apple’s broader goal to make all of its products from recycled or renewable materials. Apple has not set a date for when it will reach that goal, though some products such as the MacBook Air already feature aluminum made from melted down iPhones traded in to Apple.
Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of environment, policy and social Initiatives, told Reuters the research will inform how Apple designs its products.
“I absolutely think that the learnings we make there will be for all of Apple, and hopefully for all of our sector, and of course will influence designers and engineers as we go forward,” Jackson said in an interview.
Apple has faced criticism in the past that its thin-and-light product designs make it hard to disassemble products so they can be recycled.
Kyle Wiens, chief executive of iFixit, which provides free repair instructions for electronics, said Apple deserves some credit for making the iPhone reasonable to recycle. But he said many other popular products in its lineup - such as its AirPods headphones - cannot be economically recycled because they are stuck together with glue.
Jackson pushed back against that notion, saying that smaller products reduce material use and that Apple focuses on making longer lasting products. The company for the first time released figures showing that 7.8 million devices brought to Apple as trade-ins last year ended up with new users.
“Durability matters,” Jackson said. “We know our products are used a long time.”
Apple also said Thursday that materials recovered by the Daisy robot are making their way into new products. For example, batteries recovered by Daisy will be sent to recyclers so the cobalt from them can be used in new Apple batteries.
“Cobalt is mined in horrific conditions,” Wiens of iFixit said. “Reducing cobalt consumption is a good thing across the board.”
Apple said Thursday that it will open a “Material Recovery” lab to investigate new techniques using robotics and machine learning to rip apart its devices and recover valuable materials such as copper, aluminum and cobalt. The 9,000-square-foot lab will be at the same Austin facility as “Daisy,” an Apple-built robot that can now tear apart iPhones at the rate of 1.2 million per year.
The lab is part of Apple’s broader goal to make all of its products from recycled or renewable materials. Apple has not set a date for when it will reach that goal, though some products such as the MacBook Air already feature aluminum made from melted down iPhones traded in to Apple.
Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vice president of environment, policy and social Initiatives, told Reuters the research will inform how Apple designs its products.
“I absolutely think that the learnings we make there will be for all of Apple, and hopefully for all of our sector, and of course will influence designers and engineers as we go forward,” Jackson said in an interview.
Apple has faced criticism in the past that its thin-and-light product designs make it hard to disassemble products so they can be recycled.
Kyle Wiens, chief executive of iFixit, which provides free repair instructions for electronics, said Apple deserves some credit for making the iPhone reasonable to recycle. But he said many other popular products in its lineup - such as its AirPods headphones - cannot be economically recycled because they are stuck together with glue.
Jackson pushed back against that notion, saying that smaller products reduce material use and that Apple focuses on making longer lasting products. The company for the first time released figures showing that 7.8 million devices brought to Apple as trade-ins last year ended up with new users.
“Durability matters,” Jackson said. “We know our products are used a long time.”
Apple also said Thursday that materials recovered by the Daisy robot are making their way into new products. For example, batteries recovered by Daisy will be sent to recyclers so the cobalt from them can be used in new Apple batteries.
“Cobalt is mined in horrific conditions,” Wiens of iFixit said. “Reducing cobalt consumption is a good thing across the board.”
*bites from real news - 4/18/2019*
*REVEALED: Trump’s attorney and two Mar-A-Lago regulars have been reviewing Mueller’s report for days Pissident Donald Trump’s personal lawyer revealed he had been reviewing special counsel Robert Mueller’s report for two days before Congress has had a chance to see it.
*Trump’s efforts to obstruct fell flat because people wouldn’t carry out his corrupt orders: Mueller report The case against Pissident Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice would have been easier if it wasn’t for his staff being too ignorant to figure it out, according to the special counsel’s report.
*Mueller concluded Trump Jr. was too ignorant to violate election laws
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s office weighed charging Donald Trump Jr. with a violation of election laws regarding foreign donations to political campaigns — but they concluded he was too ignorant to have knowingly committed a crime.
*Bananas at Risk of Extinction as Panama Disease Returns
The impact has been devastating, threatening livelihoods across Asia, Australia, the Middle East and Africa.
*AUSTRALIAN SENIOR DIPLOMAT READY TO CONFIRM KEY MEETING THAT LED TO MUELLER PROBE: REPORT
*GUTTING THE IRS How the IRS Gave Up Fighting Political Dark Money Groups
Six years after it was excoriated for allegedly targeting conservative organizations, the agency has largely given up on regulating an entire category of nonprofits. The result: More dark money gushes into the political system.
*Galaxy Fold: Samsung investigates as screens break in first days
*Mississippi Talking about climate change in conservative places is hard. But we can’t afford not to
If Mississippi reflects on the deep, systemic inequalities its plantation economy created, perhaps it will see those inequalities are exacerbated by climate change
*Kim Jong-un: North Korean leader to meet Putin in Russia for first time
*Attorney says Cohen can 'fill in the bulk' of Mueller report redactions
Lanny Davis, the attorney for Michael Cohen, said Thursday that Cohen "can fill in the bulk of the redactions" in special counsel Robert Mueller's report, which is set to be released on Thursday. Davis added that Cohen, President Trump's f ... (The Hill)
*Barnes and Noble offers free download of Mueller report
Bookstore Barnes & Noble says it will offer a free download of special counsel Robert Mueller's report, which will be released Thursday. The book retailer said in a tweet that it is offering pre-orders of the report that will be delivered once it is ... (The Hill)
*government by fools: In a Time of Cheap Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power Companies Are Seeking — and Getting — Big Subsidies
Illinois and New York have approved hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-energy incentives for nuclear power companies. New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland could be next.
*F.D.A. Halts U.S. Sales of Pelvic Mesh, Citing Safety Concerns for Women
The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday ordered the two remaining medical device companies selling surgical mesh for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop all sales and distribution in ... (New ork Times)
*As Single-Payer Gains Traction, Industry Launches Attack Ads
by Michael Corcoran, Truthout
*Environment This scientist thinks she has the key to curb climate change: super plants
Dr Joanne Chory hopes that genetic modifications to enhance plants’ natural carbon-fixing traits could play a key role – but knows that time is short
*More Americans are rejecting organized religion than belong to the Catholic Church: report
Political scientist Ryan Burge found that the percent of Americans claiming no religious affiliation is now so large that it rivals the other two largest groups, Catholics and evangelical Christians, according to a new analysis of the General Social Survey.
*Robert Reich sees a new day coming
CHAUNCEY DEVEGA
*How the alt-right corrupts the Constitution
Bill Barr’s Big Deception
The Trump-Russia scandal is not only about crimes; it’s about wrongdoing, betrayal, and treachery.
DAVID CORN - mother jones
Washington, DC, Bureau Chief
4/18/19
At his spin-before-release press conference on Thursday morning, Attorney General Bill Barr repeatedly bolstered Donald Trump’s mantra. “No collusion,” he said multiple times. And he gave the president a big pass on obstruction of justice, noting that Trump had been sincerely “frustrated” by the Russia investigation—as if that is a legitimate excuse. It was a great big PR wet-kiss for Barr’s boss.
His no-collusion comments were predictable. There has been no evidence that Trump and his lieutenants directly conspired in a criminal fashion with the Russian operators who hacked Democratic targets or those who ran a covert social media campaign in 2016 to sow chaos and help Trump. The issue has been whether Trump and his crew helped the Russian attack in other ways. For instance, Barr noted that no one associated with the Trump campaign “illegally” participated in WikiLeaks’ dissemination of material swiped from the Democratic Party entities and Hillary Clinton campaign officials. But his use of the word “illegally” raised Twitter eyebrows immediately. Was he suggesting that some Trumpers—Roger Stone, perhaps—did participate in this portion of the Russian assault on an American election, though it was not a crime?
On the obstruction front, Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had disagreed with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Mueller’s interpretation of legal theories related to Trump’s actions that might have constituted obstruction of justice. So the bottom line here: Obstruction remains an open question; read the report.
Moreover, Barr’s spin hid the basic foundation of the Trump-Russia scandal. Barr pointed out that the Russian government “sought to interfere in our election process.” That is, Putin’s attack was no hoax. Yet Trump and his crew, during the campaign and afterward, repeatedly denied that any such attack was underway or had occurred. Famously—or infamously—Trump at a press conference with Vladimir Putin in July 2018 said he saw no reason not to believe Putin’s denials.
During the election, when it mattered the most, Trump and his folks kept saying there was no Russian assault. They echoed Putin’s disinformation: Moscow is doing nothing. That provided cover for the Kremlin and helped it get away with this operation. And at the same time, they were enthusiastically interacting secretly with Russians. Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian emissary whom they were told would give them dirt on Clinton. Foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos through much of the summer of 2016, was trying to set up an “off the record” connection between the campaign and Putin’s office. All of that might well have been regarded as encouragement by Moscow. (So might have Manafort’s direct collusion with Russian nationals.) None of these facts are disputed. They raise the question: If Trump and his aides did not commit crimes, did they still engage in treachery and betrayal?
Barr, of course, did not address this. He stuck to the limited issue of whether there was any direct Trump involvement in the Russian attack. He pointed out that Mueller did investigate links and contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russians but did not uncover any “conspiracy to violate US law.” Yet not all misconduct is criminal conspiracy.
Barr was doing all he could to concentrate on possible criminality to distract from demonstrable wrongdoing. Since he was (rather deliberately) speaking before anyone listening could read what he was talking about, there was no way to tell if Mueller’s report explores this distinction and covers what occurred beyond possible crimes. Barr decided to contextualize the report before releasing it—an unorthodox decision—and now the contents of the report will have to catch up to the spin.
His no-collusion comments were predictable. There has been no evidence that Trump and his lieutenants directly conspired in a criminal fashion with the Russian operators who hacked Democratic targets or those who ran a covert social media campaign in 2016 to sow chaos and help Trump. The issue has been whether Trump and his crew helped the Russian attack in other ways. For instance, Barr noted that no one associated with the Trump campaign “illegally” participated in WikiLeaks’ dissemination of material swiped from the Democratic Party entities and Hillary Clinton campaign officials. But his use of the word “illegally” raised Twitter eyebrows immediately. Was he suggesting that some Trumpers—Roger Stone, perhaps—did participate in this portion of the Russian assault on an American election, though it was not a crime?
On the obstruction front, Barr said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had disagreed with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Mueller’s interpretation of legal theories related to Trump’s actions that might have constituted obstruction of justice. So the bottom line here: Obstruction remains an open question; read the report.
Moreover, Barr’s spin hid the basic foundation of the Trump-Russia scandal. Barr pointed out that the Russian government “sought to interfere in our election process.” That is, Putin’s attack was no hoax. Yet Trump and his crew, during the campaign and afterward, repeatedly denied that any such attack was underway or had occurred. Famously—or infamously—Trump at a press conference with Vladimir Putin in July 2018 said he saw no reason not to believe Putin’s denials.
During the election, when it mattered the most, Trump and his folks kept saying there was no Russian assault. They echoed Putin’s disinformation: Moscow is doing nothing. That provided cover for the Kremlin and helped it get away with this operation. And at the same time, they were enthusiastically interacting secretly with Russians. Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met with a Russian emissary whom they were told would give them dirt on Clinton. Foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos through much of the summer of 2016, was trying to set up an “off the record” connection between the campaign and Putin’s office. All of that might well have been regarded as encouragement by Moscow. (So might have Manafort’s direct collusion with Russian nationals.) None of these facts are disputed. They raise the question: If Trump and his aides did not commit crimes, did they still engage in treachery and betrayal?
Barr, of course, did not address this. He stuck to the limited issue of whether there was any direct Trump involvement in the Russian attack. He pointed out that Mueller did investigate links and contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russians but did not uncover any “conspiracy to violate US law.” Yet not all misconduct is criminal conspiracy.
Barr was doing all he could to concentrate on possible criminality to distract from demonstrable wrongdoing. Since he was (rather deliberately) speaking before anyone listening could read what he was talking about, there was no way to tell if Mueller’s report explores this distinction and covers what occurred beyond possible crimes. Barr decided to contextualize the report before releasing it—an unorthodox decision—and now the contents of the report will have to catch up to the spin.
The James O’Keefe Attorney General
Release of the Mueller Report Marks William Barr’s Date With History; Odds Are He’ll Screw It Up
By David Cay Johnston, DCReport Editor-in-Chief
4/17/18
William Barr, please do the right thing and release the full Mueller report.
After all, you don’t need to be Attorney General, as you yourself have said. You certainly don’t need your government paycheck, a pittance compared to your private sector pay.
And what will your grandchildren and their grandchildren think about you, a concern that motivated Senator Sam Ervin when he chaired the Watergate hearings four decades ago?
Oh, do I wish that would be a persuasive argument. But Barr’s past conduct shows it is not.
Honor and integrity are not part of Barr’s legal DNA. Neither s respect for our Constitution and the norms of decency, not to mention international law.
Barr is a lawyer whose actions reveal that he thinks right makes might so long as he agrees with the leader holding the might.
He sees his job as justifying anything in pursuit of what he imagines is some greater good.
And deceptively editing of official government documents, at least in the version made public, is a Barr skill, as an incident from 1989 reveals. Maybe that’s where Breitbart and its former video con man, James O’Keefe, got their first lessons in deception.
We already know that Barr wrote a misleading four-page letter summarizing the hundreds of pages in the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. We know Barr held back the summaries on issues prepared by Mueller’s prosecutors. We know Barr dishonestly described Mueller report because people from team Mueller told friends, knowing no doubt that the friends would alert journalists.
And we can expect that what we will see when the Mueller report is released tomorrow, April 18, will be not just heavily redacted, but redacted in ways that lead us away from facts and truths.
This kind of deception is nothing new for Barr, a right-wing warrior whose track record shows the ends justify the means – which they never do.
In 1989 he wrote a memo titled “Authority of the FBI to Override Customary or Other International Law in the Course of Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities.” At the time Barr was the deputy attorney general, though he would soon begin his first stint as attorney general.
Ron Ostrow, the Los Angeles Times veteran Justice Department reporter, explained the memo when he broke the story. He wrote that the memo said FBI agents have “authority to apprehend fugitives from U.S. law in foreign countries and return them to the United States without first obtaining the foreign state’s consent.”
Barr’s memo “reversed a ruling dating back to the Carter Administration that had denied the FBI such authority to take unilateral action overseas,” Ostrow wrote. “The Carter ruling even had warned that federal agents could face kidnapping charges abroad if they used such tactics.”
When reporter Ostrow asked Barr about the memo, Barr stonewalled. “I just don’t discuss the work of the office of legal counsel,” Barr said. ”
Ostrow smartly suggested the memo would be used to justify invading Panama and seizing dictator Manuel Noriega, who was both a valuable source of American intelligence and a drug lord associate. Events later showed Ostrow was right.
Under international law any nation must first obtain the permission of another country to seize a suspect, as we just saw in the arrest by British police of Julian Assange, now being held while awaiting a hearing on extraditing him to the United States. This rule of law is why the 12 Russian GRU officers indicted by a grand jury working with Mueller will not be tried (unless they foolishly set foot outside Russia and another government agrees to capture them for or with us).
At least superficially the George H. W. Bush administration claimed ignorance. As the Washington Post put it, “the White House and State Departments quickly distanced themselves from the legal opinion after it was revealed yesterday.
That made sense since then-President George H.W. Bush had run the CIA, among other positions, and was aware of international law. And so, of course, was State.
It also made sense because sending FBI agents without permission to foreign soil is an act of war, though it may not necessarily spark one given the dominance of American military forces.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel considered such FBI kidnappings in the late 1970s when the FBI sought approval to kidnap Robert L. Vesco, a fugitive financier then living in Central America.
Justice lawyers back then concluded that “U.S. agents have no law enforcement authority in another nation unless it is the product of that nation’s consent,” and that arrests by U.S. agents without foreign approval are “regarded as an impermissible invasion of the territorial integrity of another state.”
The Carter era officials warned that agents who make such overseas arrests may face extradition to the foreign country on kidnapping charges.
In 1985, during the Reagan era, a Senate hearing was told that “seizure by U.S. agents of terrorist suspects abroad might constitute a serious breach of the territorial sovereignty of a foreign state and could violate local kidnapping laws.”
That testimony came from Abraham D. Sofaer, the chief State Department lawyer, under Reagan.
Sofaer also suggested senators consider the adoption of similar policies by other governments.
“How would we feel if some foreign nation . . . came over here and seized some terrorist suspect . . . because we refused . . . to extradite that individual?”
What no one knew back then, and would not until Bill Clinton assumed office, was that the summary of the memo Barr wrote was misleading. The full memo is here.
In the 1989 case, Barr issued what NYU law professor Ryan Goodman writes was a document “replete with quotations from court cases, legal citations, and the language of the OLC opinion itself. Despite its highly detailed analysis, this 13-page version omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion. And there was evidently no justifiable reason for having withheld those parts from Congress or the public.”
So, unless leopards change their spots, don’t expect the redactions in the Mueller report to just protect national security and grand jury secrets (which Barr says he will not ask the grand jury judge to allow being made public). Expect to be misled.
How should we feel if we get not only less than the full Mueller report but a version that is edited like a James O’Keefe video?
Remember O’Keefe and his Project Veritas. That word is Latin for truth, but O’Keefe videos were anything but, deceptively edited to make it appear people said and did things that were in some cases the exact opposite of the truth and in all cases misleading.
If Barr fails in his duty and gives us a deceptively edited Mueller report, as seems almost certain, maybe we should label him, just like we name sports stadia and law schools.
We could call William Barr “the James O’Keefe Attorney General.”
After all, you don’t need to be Attorney General, as you yourself have said. You certainly don’t need your government paycheck, a pittance compared to your private sector pay.
And what will your grandchildren and their grandchildren think about you, a concern that motivated Senator Sam Ervin when he chaired the Watergate hearings four decades ago?
Oh, do I wish that would be a persuasive argument. But Barr’s past conduct shows it is not.
Honor and integrity are not part of Barr’s legal DNA. Neither s respect for our Constitution and the norms of decency, not to mention international law.
Barr is a lawyer whose actions reveal that he thinks right makes might so long as he agrees with the leader holding the might.
He sees his job as justifying anything in pursuit of what he imagines is some greater good.
And deceptively editing of official government documents, at least in the version made public, is a Barr skill, as an incident from 1989 reveals. Maybe that’s where Breitbart and its former video con man, James O’Keefe, got their first lessons in deception.
We already know that Barr wrote a misleading four-page letter summarizing the hundreds of pages in the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. We know Barr held back the summaries on issues prepared by Mueller’s prosecutors. We know Barr dishonestly described Mueller report because people from team Mueller told friends, knowing no doubt that the friends would alert journalists.
And we can expect that what we will see when the Mueller report is released tomorrow, April 18, will be not just heavily redacted, but redacted in ways that lead us away from facts and truths.
This kind of deception is nothing new for Barr, a right-wing warrior whose track record shows the ends justify the means – which they never do.
In 1989 he wrote a memo titled “Authority of the FBI to Override Customary or Other International Law in the Course of Extraterritorial Law Enforcement Activities.” At the time Barr was the deputy attorney general, though he would soon begin his first stint as attorney general.
Ron Ostrow, the Los Angeles Times veteran Justice Department reporter, explained the memo when he broke the story. He wrote that the memo said FBI agents have “authority to apprehend fugitives from U.S. law in foreign countries and return them to the United States without first obtaining the foreign state’s consent.”
Barr’s memo “reversed a ruling dating back to the Carter Administration that had denied the FBI such authority to take unilateral action overseas,” Ostrow wrote. “The Carter ruling even had warned that federal agents could face kidnapping charges abroad if they used such tactics.”
When reporter Ostrow asked Barr about the memo, Barr stonewalled. “I just don’t discuss the work of the office of legal counsel,” Barr said. ”
Ostrow smartly suggested the memo would be used to justify invading Panama and seizing dictator Manuel Noriega, who was both a valuable source of American intelligence and a drug lord associate. Events later showed Ostrow was right.
Under international law any nation must first obtain the permission of another country to seize a suspect, as we just saw in the arrest by British police of Julian Assange, now being held while awaiting a hearing on extraditing him to the United States. This rule of law is why the 12 Russian GRU officers indicted by a grand jury working with Mueller will not be tried (unless they foolishly set foot outside Russia and another government agrees to capture them for or with us).
At least superficially the George H. W. Bush administration claimed ignorance. As the Washington Post put it, “the White House and State Departments quickly distanced themselves from the legal opinion after it was revealed yesterday.
That made sense since then-President George H.W. Bush had run the CIA, among other positions, and was aware of international law. And so, of course, was State.
It also made sense because sending FBI agents without permission to foreign soil is an act of war, though it may not necessarily spark one given the dominance of American military forces.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel considered such FBI kidnappings in the late 1970s when the FBI sought approval to kidnap Robert L. Vesco, a fugitive financier then living in Central America.
Justice lawyers back then concluded that “U.S. agents have no law enforcement authority in another nation unless it is the product of that nation’s consent,” and that arrests by U.S. agents without foreign approval are “regarded as an impermissible invasion of the territorial integrity of another state.”
The Carter era officials warned that agents who make such overseas arrests may face extradition to the foreign country on kidnapping charges.
In 1985, during the Reagan era, a Senate hearing was told that “seizure by U.S. agents of terrorist suspects abroad might constitute a serious breach of the territorial sovereignty of a foreign state and could violate local kidnapping laws.”
That testimony came from Abraham D. Sofaer, the chief State Department lawyer, under Reagan.
Sofaer also suggested senators consider the adoption of similar policies by other governments.
“How would we feel if some foreign nation . . . came over here and seized some terrorist suspect . . . because we refused . . . to extradite that individual?”
What no one knew back then, and would not until Bill Clinton assumed office, was that the summary of the memo Barr wrote was misleading. The full memo is here.
In the 1989 case, Barr issued what NYU law professor Ryan Goodman writes was a document “replete with quotations from court cases, legal citations, and the language of the OLC opinion itself. Despite its highly detailed analysis, this 13-page version omitted some of the most consequential and incendiary conclusions from the actual opinion. And there was evidently no justifiable reason for having withheld those parts from Congress or the public.”
So, unless leopards change their spots, don’t expect the redactions in the Mueller report to just protect national security and grand jury secrets (which Barr says he will not ask the grand jury judge to allow being made public). Expect to be misled.
How should we feel if we get not only less than the full Mueller report but a version that is edited like a James O’Keefe video?
Remember O’Keefe and his Project Veritas. That word is Latin for truth, but O’Keefe videos were anything but, deceptively edited to make it appear people said and did things that were in some cases the exact opposite of the truth and in all cases misleading.
If Barr fails in his duty and gives us a deceptively edited Mueller report, as seems almost certain, maybe we should label him, just like we name sports stadia and law schools.
We could call William Barr “the James O’Keefe Attorney General.”
|
|
just what traitors would say!!!
Republicans announce the Mueller report doesn’t say what it says
Sarah K. Burris - raw story
18 APR 2019 AT 15:32 ET
Republican leaders are burying their heads in the sand when it comes to special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report on President Donald Trump and the Russia investigation.
According to Huffington Post reporter Jen Bendry, Republicans seem to be repeating“LA LA LA LA LA THIS IS FINE LA LA LA.”
Multiple times in the report, Mueller explains that he found evidence of obstruction of justice. He further said that had there been an FBI investigation into Trump and his campaign, other crimes would likely have been found.
Republicans leaders responded to the report by urging Americans not to believe their lying eyes.
“Today’s release of the Special Counsel’s report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice,” Vice President Mike Pence said in a false statement. “After two years of investigation, conducted with the full cooperation of this Administration, that involved hundreds of witness interviews and millions of pages of documents, the American people can see for themselves: no collusion, no obstruction.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) claimed that there was “no collusion,” which ignored the multiple cases of conspiracy cited in the Mueller report. The reason Mueller decided not to prosecute for conspiracy with Russia is that he believed those in the Trump campaign were too clueless to know not to do it.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) demanded Democrats apologize to Americans “for misleading them” when it came to the Mueller investigation.
“Now that the Mueller Report has formally been released, two things are abundantly clear: There was no collusion with Russia, and there was no obstruction of justice,” Scalise said, apparently neglecting to read the full Mueller report.
Trump continues to proclaim he’s been vindicated on “collusion” and obstruction of justice. A former top aide to President Barack Obama, Jennifer Palmieri, noted she can’t see how Democrats can escape impeachment after the report.
“It would be a grave mistake for the country if Democrats in House allowed short-term political concerns to get in way of conducting their constitutional responsibility to hold President accountable,” she tweeted Thursday. Abdication of such responsibilities is how democracies die. “
Read Bendry’s full report at the Huffington Post.
RELATED: ‘Embarrassing and traitorous’: RNC slammed for spinning Mueller report to blame Russian election interference on Obama
The Republican National Committee swiftly used special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report to attack former President Barack Obama — and earned a swift rebuke.
According to Huffington Post reporter Jen Bendry, Republicans seem to be repeating“LA LA LA LA LA THIS IS FINE LA LA LA.”
Multiple times in the report, Mueller explains that he found evidence of obstruction of justice. He further said that had there been an FBI investigation into Trump and his campaign, other crimes would likely have been found.
Republicans leaders responded to the report by urging Americans not to believe their lying eyes.
“Today’s release of the Special Counsel’s report confirms what the President and I have said since day one: there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and there was no obstruction of justice,” Vice President Mike Pence said in a false statement. “After two years of investigation, conducted with the full cooperation of this Administration, that involved hundreds of witness interviews and millions of pages of documents, the American people can see for themselves: no collusion, no obstruction.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) claimed that there was “no collusion,” which ignored the multiple cases of conspiracy cited in the Mueller report. The reason Mueller decided not to prosecute for conspiracy with Russia is that he believed those in the Trump campaign were too clueless to know not to do it.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) demanded Democrats apologize to Americans “for misleading them” when it came to the Mueller investigation.
“Now that the Mueller Report has formally been released, two things are abundantly clear: There was no collusion with Russia, and there was no obstruction of justice,” Scalise said, apparently neglecting to read the full Mueller report.
Trump continues to proclaim he’s been vindicated on “collusion” and obstruction of justice. A former top aide to President Barack Obama, Jennifer Palmieri, noted she can’t see how Democrats can escape impeachment after the report.
“It would be a grave mistake for the country if Democrats in House allowed short-term political concerns to get in way of conducting their constitutional responsibility to hold President accountable,” she tweeted Thursday. Abdication of such responsibilities is how democracies die. “
Read Bendry’s full report at the Huffington Post.
RELATED: ‘Embarrassing and traitorous’: RNC slammed for spinning Mueller report to blame Russian election interference on Obama
The Republican National Committee swiftly used special counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report to attack former President Barack Obama — and earned a swift rebuke.
‘The tip of a big, slimy iceberg’: GOP strategist explains why the Mueller report is hardly the end of Trump investigations
by Alex Henderson - alternet
April 18, 2019
Thursday, April 18, 2019 will go down in history as the day in which Attorney General William Barr publicly released a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report for the Russia investigation. But Republican strategist Rick Wilson, one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal critics on the right, stresses in an opinion piece for the Daily Beast that Mueller’s report is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Trump’s legal concerns.
Wilson is highly critical of Barr in his piece, describing him as “a Justice Department head dedicated not to the law or our security, but to protecting Donald Trump’s ample ass.” But the GOP strategist stresses that regardless, “very smart legal minds” will be analyzing the report—which he describes as only “one more battle in a long war.”
“Even from the currently filed indictments and documents that have come to light, we know that the counterintelligence aspects of the Mueller investigation almost immediately, and in granular detail, identified the Russian influence operation that successfully manipulated the 2016 election,” Wilson notes. And he goes on to say that “we’ll get to see the grasping, venal eagerness Trump had to build a tower in Moscow.”
Trump-related investigations, Wilson emphasizes, will continue—and Mueller’s probe will hardly be the last one.
“The Mueller investigation has already given us an idea of the scuzzy, sleazy behavior of several of Trump’s close advisers, including Michael Cohen, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort,” Wilson writes. “We’ll see more, and it won’t be pretty. In many ways, this 400-page redaction is the tip of a big, slimy iceberg.”
Legal entities that will continue to carry out Trump-related investigations in the months ahead, Wilson writes, range from federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. “Those cases are ongoing, and like a minefield, still dangerous to Trump and his cronies,” Wilson points out.
Wilson concludes his piece by saying, in effect, that Trump’s claims of total vindication are misleading. “The wheels of justice grind notoriously slowly, but they grind fine,” Wilson asserts. “Sorry, Donald—the game is still on.”
Wilson is highly critical of Barr in his piece, describing him as “a Justice Department head dedicated not to the law or our security, but to protecting Donald Trump’s ample ass.” But the GOP strategist stresses that regardless, “very smart legal minds” will be analyzing the report—which he describes as only “one more battle in a long war.”
“Even from the currently filed indictments and documents that have come to light, we know that the counterintelligence aspects of the Mueller investigation almost immediately, and in granular detail, identified the Russian influence operation that successfully manipulated the 2016 election,” Wilson notes. And he goes on to say that “we’ll get to see the grasping, venal eagerness Trump had to build a tower in Moscow.”
Trump-related investigations, Wilson emphasizes, will continue—and Mueller’s probe will hardly be the last one.
“The Mueller investigation has already given us an idea of the scuzzy, sleazy behavior of several of Trump’s close advisers, including Michael Cohen, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort,” Wilson writes. “We’ll see more, and it won’t be pretty. In many ways, this 400-page redaction is the tip of a big, slimy iceberg.”
Legal entities that will continue to carry out Trump-related investigations in the months ahead, Wilson writes, range from federal prosecutors for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. “Those cases are ongoing, and like a minefield, still dangerous to Trump and his cronies,” Wilson points out.
Wilson concludes his piece by saying, in effect, that Trump’s claims of total vindication are misleading. “The wheels of justice grind notoriously slowly, but they grind fine,” Wilson asserts. “Sorry, Donald—the game is still on.”
|
|
Trump Said ‘I’m Fucked’ After Special Counsel’s Appointment: Mueller Report
daily beast - cheat sheet
President Trump has long claimed that he had nothing to fear from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation—but according to an anecdote in the report, he was terrified when he found out Mueller was appointed. When former Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Trump that Mueller had been appointed on May 17, 2017, Trump reportedly responded, “Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked,” before ripping into Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation. Sessions allegedly recalled that Trump said something in the vein of “you were supposed to protect me,” before adding that “Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.”
Notre Dame Fire ‘Likely Caused’ by Short-Circuit: Official
daily beast - cheat sheet
The fire that ravaged Paris’ centuries-old Notre Dame cathedral on Monday was “likely caused” by an electrical short-circuit, an anonymous French judicial police official told the Associated Press on Thursday. But although that’s reportedly investigators’ current theory, they haven’t yet been able to enter the cathedral’s ruins for safety reasons. The remaining parts of the cathedral are currently being fitted with wooden planks to help stabilize the structure.
Kim Jong Un Will Meet Putin in Russia This Month: Kremlin
DAILY BEAST - CHEAT SHEET
Kim Jong Un will head to Russia in next few weeks to meet Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin confirmed early Thursday. No date has been announced for the meeting but Russia announced it will take place before the end of April. The meeting will come at a time when relations between North Korea and the United States seem to be getting worse and worse. Since Donald Trump walked out of a summit with Kim Jong Un earlier this year, North Korea has adopted a much harsher tone towards the Trump administration and reportedly test-fired a new “tactical guided weapon,” which would be North Korea's first weapons test since the failed summit. Earlier Thursday, North Korea said it no longer wants to talk to Mike Pompeo because the secretary of state isn't “mature” enough. Kim has said he's open to a third meeting with Trump but only if Washington offers acceptable terms for a deal.
Democratic House leader says impeaching Trump isn't 'worthwhile' after the Mueller report
Eliza Relman - business insider
4/18/19
- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Thursday afternoon that it's "not worthwhile" for the Democratic Party to try to impeach the president following the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation report.
- "Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Thursday afternoon.
- Some Democratic activists, some of whom called for Hoyer to resign from party leadership.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on Thursday afternoon that it's "not worthwhile" for the Democratic party to try to impeach the president following the release of a redacted version of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation report.
"Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point. Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months and the American people will make a judgement," Hoyer told CNN's Dana Bash.
Other Democratic leaders stayed quiet on the subject of impeachment on Thursday.
Mueller did not come to a legal conclusion over whether Trump obstructed justice in his handling of the investigations into himself and his team. And the special counsel team didn't find sufficient evidence to charge the president or his aides with colluding with Russian officials to influence the election.
Some Democrats and legal experts believe Mueller's findings on the issue of obstruction of justice offer Congress a clear roadmap to pursue impeachment proceedings.
Legal analyst and journalist Jeffrey Toobin cited a particular line from the report as "all but an explicit invitation for Congress to impeach the president." The line in question reads, "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."
Toobin, a legal analyst and journalist, called the above-mentioned sentence "all but an explicit invitation for Congress to impeach the president."
Some outspoken Democratic activists agreed — and slammed Hoyer for his statement.
"Steny Hoyer should be removed from House leadership," progressive pollster Matt McDermott tweeted.
Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and "Pod Save America" co-host also tweeted in response to Hoyer, "This is unbelievably disappointing. Even if you don't ultimately pursue impeachment proceedings, why on Earth would you say this today?"
Trump Presidentaial Library
Black People Are Fighting Against Gentrification and for the Heart and Soul of Their Cities
Judith A. Browne Dianis - the root
4/18/19
Last week at the corner of 14 and U, a throng of mostly black people swayed in unison to the beat of a live go-go band. The drums and horns blasted as people walked from near and far to not only hear their indigenous music but also to join the resistance. The band and its audience were protesting in response to a nearby Metro PCS shutting off its outdoor go-go music due to a complaint from a neighbor. The store and its music were not the issues, but the instance of this complaint highlighted a larger problem.
As the demographics of D.C. have changed, so too has the culture. This change is a result of the displacement of black people, forced and otherwise.
In the 1990s my husband, then boyfriend, owned Heart and Soul Café on Capitol Hill. His restaurant was the target of a similar cultural shakedown. At the time, Capitol Hill was changing rapidly to majority white but still had pockets of black residents and low-income families. On a couple of evenings throughout the week, the Cajun and Soul Food restaurant featured live go-go bands. Back then, go-go was in its waning days, but Heart and Soul gave it a rebirth. Some of go-go’s best musicians performed on its stage, including Sugar Bear (“Da Butt”), Lil Benny and Donnell Floyd (formerly of Rare Essence). It became so popular that out-of-town celebrities would visit. From Steve Harvey, who talked about it on his radio show for weeks after, to Shaquille O’Neal, who got on stage and rapped with the band. There was a good time to be had, but the white neighbors hated it. They hated black people flocking to “their community.” They maliciously organized against Heart and Soul.
Knowing that the key to killing a restaurant is revocation of its liquor license, they strategically put us in front of the board with their complaints. They fabricated their claims in a number of ways, including calling the police to complain about loud music on nights we were closed. Too many complaints trigger a liquor board hearing. The liquor board took the bait, catering to the white residents and created new rules that we jokingly called the “Heart and Soul Rules.”
Black churches have also been squeezed out the city by new white residents. For example, due to limited city parking, church congregants were permitted to double-park during Sunday service. This was allowed for years. However, new residents fought this and thereby made it harder for people to attend their churches. In one instance, Mt. Moriah Baptist Church near RFK Stadium proposed building multi-family housing for the church elders. Upon the church’s proposal, they were met with opposition by white residents in its changing neighborhood.
I could go on with more examples, but my point is made.
That’s why as one drives through D.C., it becomes clear that Chocolate City is gone. New, mostly white residents feel they get a bad rap as gentrifiers because they think they just got a good deal on a house or moved to a convenient rental. But it’s not that simple.
There is a history of intentional removal of people of color dating back to the arrival of white people in North America and the taking of Native lands. While that is different, in part, because of the gruesome violence that was executed, there are some similarities. There was also a period in the 1960s and ‘70s called Negro Removal, where black families were moved out of cities for so-called revitalization. What is happening today mirrors that as well. In each of these time periods, white people didn’t just show up and innocently use their capital, giving people of color a good deal to take and leave. No. Instead, these takings were enforced by way of government action through zoning, permitting, tax laws and other mechanisms.
The new white settlers in our cities are not just new neighbors, they are colonizers, settling and establishing control over land and existing ways of life. Whether it’s go-go in D.C. or black religion, our local governments have been complicit in, and in many instances hastened, the removal of people of color from neighborhoods they have, in many cases, built from the ground up. While the owners of the Metro PCS store have restored their go-go music, the people dancing on the corner of 14 and U last week know it’s bigger than that.
People of color across the country are fighting for the hearts and souls of their cities.
As the demographics of D.C. have changed, so too has the culture. This change is a result of the displacement of black people, forced and otherwise.
In the 1990s my husband, then boyfriend, owned Heart and Soul Café on Capitol Hill. His restaurant was the target of a similar cultural shakedown. At the time, Capitol Hill was changing rapidly to majority white but still had pockets of black residents and low-income families. On a couple of evenings throughout the week, the Cajun and Soul Food restaurant featured live go-go bands. Back then, go-go was in its waning days, but Heart and Soul gave it a rebirth. Some of go-go’s best musicians performed on its stage, including Sugar Bear (“Da Butt”), Lil Benny and Donnell Floyd (formerly of Rare Essence). It became so popular that out-of-town celebrities would visit. From Steve Harvey, who talked about it on his radio show for weeks after, to Shaquille O’Neal, who got on stage and rapped with the band. There was a good time to be had, but the white neighbors hated it. They hated black people flocking to “their community.” They maliciously organized against Heart and Soul.
Knowing that the key to killing a restaurant is revocation of its liquor license, they strategically put us in front of the board with their complaints. They fabricated their claims in a number of ways, including calling the police to complain about loud music on nights we were closed. Too many complaints trigger a liquor board hearing. The liquor board took the bait, catering to the white residents and created new rules that we jokingly called the “Heart and Soul Rules.”
Black churches have also been squeezed out the city by new white residents. For example, due to limited city parking, church congregants were permitted to double-park during Sunday service. This was allowed for years. However, new residents fought this and thereby made it harder for people to attend their churches. In one instance, Mt. Moriah Baptist Church near RFK Stadium proposed building multi-family housing for the church elders. Upon the church’s proposal, they were met with opposition by white residents in its changing neighborhood.
I could go on with more examples, but my point is made.
That’s why as one drives through D.C., it becomes clear that Chocolate City is gone. New, mostly white residents feel they get a bad rap as gentrifiers because they think they just got a good deal on a house or moved to a convenient rental. But it’s not that simple.
There is a history of intentional removal of people of color dating back to the arrival of white people in North America and the taking of Native lands. While that is different, in part, because of the gruesome violence that was executed, there are some similarities. There was also a period in the 1960s and ‘70s called Negro Removal, where black families were moved out of cities for so-called revitalization. What is happening today mirrors that as well. In each of these time periods, white people didn’t just show up and innocently use their capital, giving people of color a good deal to take and leave. No. Instead, these takings were enforced by way of government action through zoning, permitting, tax laws and other mechanisms.
The new white settlers in our cities are not just new neighbors, they are colonizers, settling and establishing control over land and existing ways of life. Whether it’s go-go in D.C. or black religion, our local governments have been complicit in, and in many instances hastened, the removal of people of color from neighborhoods they have, in many cases, built from the ground up. While the owners of the Metro PCS store have restored their go-go music, the people dancing on the corner of 14 and U last week know it’s bigger than that.
People of color across the country are fighting for the hearts and souls of their cities.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Admitted to the Mueller Team That She's Full of Shit
Katherine Krueger - splinter news
4/18/19
There are any number of gratifying, if unsurprising, tidbits coming out of Robert Mueller’s massive report already. One I’d rank close to the top of the pile so far: Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders admitting to Mueller’s investigators what we’ve always known—that she just gets up there and lies and lies and lies.
Here’s what the report says about the administration’s claim, which was parroted by Sanders, that morale at the FBI had dropped precipitously because of James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal..
“Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.” Incredible.
She really loved lying about this in the “heat of the moment”!
Again, this is no shock to the system to anyone who’s watched Sanders brazenly lie again and again and kept the act up even when she was directly called out for lying. She lied so much—and hated being called on it enough—that she all but killed the administration’s illusion of playing ball with the press in regular briefings. That she was only willing to tell the truth when her neck was on the line speaks volumes.
Here’s what the report says about the administration’s claim, which was parroted by Sanders, that morale at the FBI had dropped precipitously because of James Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal..
“Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.” Incredible.
She really loved lying about this in the “heat of the moment”!
Again, this is no shock to the system to anyone who’s watched Sanders brazenly lie again and again and kept the act up even when she was directly called out for lying. She lied so much—and hated being called on it enough—that she all but killed the administration’s illusion of playing ball with the press in regular briefings. That she was only willing to tell the truth when her neck was on the line speaks volumes.
*What's Inside*
april 15 - april 17
✔PUERTO RICO IS TARGETING 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS OTHER IDEAS.
(COLONIES)
*TRUMP TO THE HUNGRY: ‘LET THEM EAT … WHATEVER’
(TRUMP)
*BACK ON EARTH, CHINA'S MARS SIMULATION BASE GREETS FIRST VISITORS
(CURRENTS)
*NANCY PELOSI JUST CAN'T QUIT THE DEMOCRATIC PROTECTION RACKET
(DEMO POLITICS)
*HOW THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED TO PRESERVE SLAVERY
BY THOM HARTMANN(HISTORY)
*THE EVIDENCE THAT JESUS EVER EXISTED IS WEAKER THAN YOU MIGHT THINK
(CHRISTIANITY)
*COURAGE AND COWARDICE: TRUMP SHOULD BE IMPEACHED JUST FOR HIS VICIOUS ATTACKS ON ILHAN OMAR
BY CHAUNCEY DEVEGA (TALKERS)
*THE MISOGYNIST TROLLS ATTACKING KATIE BOUMAN ARE THE TIP OF THE TRASHPILE
(AMERIKKKANS)
*TRUMP'S NEW INTERIOR CHIEF MET WITH LAWYER FOR TRIBE LINKED TO ZINKE SCANDAL
(CORRUPTION)
*DEUTSCHE BANK FACES ACTION OVER $20BN RUSSIAN MONEY-LAUNDERING SCHEME
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*'DISASTROUS' LACK OF DIVERSITY IN AI INDUSTRY PERPETUATES BIAS, STUDY FINDS
(REALITY)
✔AMAZON FAKE FIVE-STAR REVIEWS BOOST UNKNOWN BRANDS IN PRODUCT SEARCHES
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*'WE'RE BROKE, AND AMAZON IS SHOUTING ABOUT HOW AMAZING THEY ARE BECAUSE OF THIS RAISE'
(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
*SEAN HANNITY GUEST FALSELY CLAIMS ILHAN OMAR IS ‘INFATUATED’ WITH TERRORISM
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*CORPORATE DEMOCRATS REPORTEDLY ‘GROWING INCREASINGLY NERVOUS’ AS BERNIE SANDERS GAINS STEAM
(CANDIDATES)
*ROBERT REICH BREAKS DOWN THE 12 BIGGEST MYTHS ABOUT RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH
(TALKERS)
*MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS THINK EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS ARE MORE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THAN MINORITIES
(GOP POLITICS)
*REPUBLICANS PUSH ANTI-WIND BILLS IN SEVERAL STATES AS RENEWABLES GROW INCREASINGLY POPULAR
(ENVIRONMENT)
*THE RIGHT WING IS BURSTING WITH UNHINGED — AND BIGOTED — CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT THE NOTRE DAME FIRE
(WORTHLESS MEDIA)
*AMAZON FACES NEW HEADACHE AS NASHVILLE DEAL ENRAGES LOCALS LEFT AND RIGHT
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*TRUMP IS HELPING BIG BANKS HURT HIS OWN VOTERS — AFTER RAILING AGAINST THEM IN 2016: NYT REPORTER
BRAD REED BRAD REED(PAYBACK)
*TWO CHARTS - ONE SEEMING OUTCOME
(GOP POLITICS)
*SILICON VALLEY-FUNDED PRIVACY THINK TANKS FIGHT IN D.C. TO UNRAVEL STATE-LEVEL CONSUMER PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
(CORPORATE CRIMINALS)
*HOW CAPITALISM CAPTURED THE MINDFULNESS INDUSTRY
(CAPITALISM)
*WOMAN IN 'GARDENING WHILE BLACK' CASE HIRES SELF-PROCLAIMED ALT-RIGHT LAWYER
(AMERIKKKANS)
✔REPEALING TRUMP’S TAX CUT WOULD BRING IN BILLIONS—AND 2020 DEMOCRATS WANT TO PUT THAT CASH TO USE
(CANDIDATES)
*MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG OFFICIALLY KICKS OFF HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN SOUTH BEND, INDIANA
(CANDIDATES)
*STEPHEN MILLER IS MAD THAT IMMIGRANTS AREN’T BEING DENIED BENEFITS FAST ENOUGH BY THE ADMINISTRATION
(AMERIKKKANS)
*BLACK IDENTITY IN THE SPOTLIGHT AT PARIS’ MUSÉE D’ORSAY
(WORLD)
*TRUMP’S TAX COMMISSIONER HAS A DARK HISTORY — AND IT’S THE ONLY REASON HE GOT THE JOB BY DAVID CAY JOHNSON
(COMMENTARY)
*DENIALS OF U.S. IMMIGRANT VISAS SKYROCKET AFTER LITTLE-HERALDED RULE CHANGE
(AMERICA)
*ARE AMERICANS (REALLY) SO DUMB THEY DON'T KNOW FASCISM WHEN THEY SEE IT?
(AMERICA)
*REP. JERROLD NADLER TELLS DONALD TRUMP THAT HE HAS NO "MORAL AUTHORITY" TO DISCUSS 9/11
(DEMO POLITICS)
*MEMO TO THE GOP
(GOP POLITICS)
*STOP & SHOP HIT BY STRIKE AS 31,000 WORKERS WALK OFF JOB
(SLAVERY 21ST CENTURY)
Such a catchy slogan for Nazi's. Soph0571 - Demo Underground
*late news of interest*
Senators under pressure to stop NOAA nominee after sexual harassment revelations
Group argues the former AccuWeather CEO failed to disclose scale of sexual harassment at the family-run company.
KYLA MANDEL - thinkprogress
APR 17, 2019, 4:42 PM
A government employee group is urging Senate leadership to halt the nomination of former AccuWeather CEO Barry Lee Myers to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The call was prompted by the release of a federal investigation document detailing a pervasive culture of sexual harassment at the family-run company.
A letter sent Wednesday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) by the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) states that Myers repeatedly failed to disclose the Department of Labor’s investigation into claims of harassment and discrimination at AccuWeather.
“I am writing you… to alert you to certain potentially materially false statements made under oath by Mr. Barry Lee Myers in his Nominee Questionnaire for his nomination to the position of Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,” Timothy Whitehouse wrote.
The letter was also sent to Senate Science Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA), along with Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather Chairman Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
As PEER explains, Myers first submitted his questionnaire in October 2017. After the full Senate failed to confirm Myers that year, the questionnaire was resubmitted “in substantially identical form” when President Donald Trump re-nominated him in 2018. Trump nominated Myers to the position for the third time in January after the Senate once again failed to vote on his nomination.
Throughout the nomination process, Myers has faced scrutiny over ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest should the Senate confirm him to lead NOAA. When he was first nominated, Myers was still the CEO of AccuWeather and held shares in the company, which has lobbied to effectively privatize NOAA’s weather service. Between his second and third nomination, Myers resigned from the company and sold his shares. But it was also during this time that the company settled its sexual harassment claims.
As part of his nomination, Myers submitted a sworn statement in response to the committee questionnaire, which asked whether Myers or his business was ever involved in “an administrative proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation.”
Myers’ response was stated in one line: “AccuWeather has been involved in routine civil and administrative actions such as contract disputes and employee claims for unemployment compensation, workers compensation, and other personnel matters.”
However, late last week, it was reported that between March 2017 and January 2018, the Department of Labor conducted a federal workplace investigation into allegations of sexual harassment at AccuWeather. As a letter summarizing the investigation’s findings obtained by ThinkProgress revealed, AccuWeather had a culture of sexual harassment and discrimination that included unwanted touching and kissing by a male executive.
Women who engaged in sexual relationships with senior male managers were rewarded with “job-related perks,” according to the January 2018 letter from the agency’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Many women resigned rather than submitting to the harassment, while others feared being “blacklisted” if they filed complaints.
Although they were aware of the issue, AccuWeather officials “did not take reasonable action to prevent and remedy harassing conduct,” the letter states.
AccuWeather, a government contractor subject to the federal Civil Rights Act, ultimately settled with the Labor Department, agreeing in June 2018 to pay $290,000 in claims to more than 35 women, as the Center Daily Times revealed in February.
Although it is unclear how much Myers was involved in or aware of the sexual harassment described by the Labor Department, he was head of the company when the incidents allegedly occurred and when the company agreed to pay the hefty settlement. As part of the settlement agreement, AccuWeather pledged to create a workplace culture that did not tolerate harassment or discrimination.
“Such an investigation held the potential to jeopardize AccuWeather’s substantial government contracting revenue streams, and thus its overall valuation, as well as its reputation, and by extension the reputation of Barry Myers and the Myers family, which holds over 90 percent of AccuWeather’s corporate equity,” Whitehouse wrote in Wednesday’s letter.
During the entire Labor Department investigation, Myers was chief executive of AccuWeather, Whitehouse continued. “As such it is not plausible that Myers lacked knowledge of the investigation at the time when he submitted his Nominee Questionnaire seven months after it began.”
The letter concludes with a request for the senators to contact Myers “to resolve the discrepancy in his written statement to the Senate about this subject and return his nomination to committee until he can be called to testify about the OFCCP Investigation.”
If Myers is unable to clarify the discrepancy, Whitehouse wrote, his nomination should not be approved and should instead be referred to the Justice Department for investigation.
Earlier this month, Myers’ nomination was approved in a rushed, party-line vote by the Senate Commerce Committee. Senators were not given a chance to debate his nomination despite fresh ethics concerns and news of AccuWeather’s sexual harassment settlement coming to light.
It is now up to McConnell to call a floor vote; the full Senate typically does not question nominees once committees have approved them.
A letter sent Wednesday to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) by the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) states that Myers repeatedly failed to disclose the Department of Labor’s investigation into claims of harassment and discrimination at AccuWeather.
“I am writing you… to alert you to certain potentially materially false statements made under oath by Mr. Barry Lee Myers in his Nominee Questionnaire for his nomination to the position of Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,” Timothy Whitehouse wrote.
The letter was also sent to Senate Science Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA), along with Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Oceans, Fisheries, and Weather Chairman Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).
As PEER explains, Myers first submitted his questionnaire in October 2017. After the full Senate failed to confirm Myers that year, the questionnaire was resubmitted “in substantially identical form” when President Donald Trump re-nominated him in 2018. Trump nominated Myers to the position for the third time in January after the Senate once again failed to vote on his nomination.
Throughout the nomination process, Myers has faced scrutiny over ethical concerns and potential conflicts of interest should the Senate confirm him to lead NOAA. When he was first nominated, Myers was still the CEO of AccuWeather and held shares in the company, which has lobbied to effectively privatize NOAA’s weather service. Between his second and third nomination, Myers resigned from the company and sold his shares. But it was also during this time that the company settled its sexual harassment claims.
As part of his nomination, Myers submitted a sworn statement in response to the committee questionnaire, which asked whether Myers or his business was ever involved in “an administrative proceeding, criminal proceeding, or civil litigation.”
Myers’ response was stated in one line: “AccuWeather has been involved in routine civil and administrative actions such as contract disputes and employee claims for unemployment compensation, workers compensation, and other personnel matters.”
However, late last week, it was reported that between March 2017 and January 2018, the Department of Labor conducted a federal workplace investigation into allegations of sexual harassment at AccuWeather. As a letter summarizing the investigation’s findings obtained by ThinkProgress revealed, AccuWeather had a culture of sexual harassment and discrimination that included unwanted touching and kissing by a male executive.
Women who engaged in sexual relationships with senior male managers were rewarded with “job-related perks,” according to the January 2018 letter from the agency’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Many women resigned rather than submitting to the harassment, while others feared being “blacklisted” if they filed complaints.
Although they were aware of the issue, AccuWeather officials “did not take reasonable action to prevent and remedy harassing conduct,” the letter states.
AccuWeather, a government contractor subject to the federal Civil Rights Act, ultimately settled with the Labor Department, agreeing in June 2018 to pay $290,000 in claims to more than 35 women, as the Center Daily Times revealed in February.
Although it is unclear how much Myers was involved in or aware of the sexual harassment described by the Labor Department, he was head of the company when the incidents allegedly occurred and when the company agreed to pay the hefty settlement. As part of the settlement agreement, AccuWeather pledged to create a workplace culture that did not tolerate harassment or discrimination.
“Such an investigation held the potential to jeopardize AccuWeather’s substantial government contracting revenue streams, and thus its overall valuation, as well as its reputation, and by extension the reputation of Barry Myers and the Myers family, which holds over 90 percent of AccuWeather’s corporate equity,” Whitehouse wrote in Wednesday’s letter.
During the entire Labor Department investigation, Myers was chief executive of AccuWeather, Whitehouse continued. “As such it is not plausible that Myers lacked knowledge of the investigation at the time when he submitted his Nominee Questionnaire seven months after it began.”
The letter concludes with a request for the senators to contact Myers “to resolve the discrepancy in his written statement to the Senate about this subject and return his nomination to committee until he can be called to testify about the OFCCP Investigation.”
If Myers is unable to clarify the discrepancy, Whitehouse wrote, his nomination should not be approved and should instead be referred to the Justice Department for investigation.
Earlier this month, Myers’ nomination was approved in a rushed, party-line vote by the Senate Commerce Committee. Senators were not given a chance to debate his nomination despite fresh ethics concerns and news of AccuWeather’s sexual harassment settlement coming to light.
It is now up to McConnell to call a floor vote; the full Senate typically does not question nominees once committees have approved them.
