Author Archives: CharlieRodgers

Strategist for Pro-Trump Super-PAC Convicted in Ron Paul Pay-for-Endorsement Scheme

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

An Iowa jury found three political operatives with deep ties to Ron and Rand Paul guilty on Thursday of a scheme to pay an Iowa state senator for his endorsement of Ron Paul in the 2012 campaign.

All three men were key Ron Paul lieutenants in that campaign, and two, Jesse Benton and John Tate, went on to run a pro-Rand Paul super-PAC during his 2016 candidacy. After the younger Paul dropped out of the race, Benton began working last month with a pro-Donald Trump super-PAC. Along with Benton and Tate, operative Dimitri Kesari was also convicted.

The convictions stem from a plan to woo then-Iowa state Sen. Kent Sorenson away from the campaign of Michele Bachmann, whom Sorenson had already endorsed in late 2011. Sorenson testified during the trial that he was offered $25,000 to change his loyalties but, as emails presented by prosecutors to the jury showed, that plan was scrapped out of concern that a direct payment to Sorenson would show up on public disclosures. Instead, the campaign paid Sorenson roughly $73,000 by way of an audio-visual consultant in Maryland who testified that he never did any work for the campaign. The payments to the contractor were disguised on Federal Election Commission reports to hide the fact that Sorenson was being paid.

Sorenson took a plea deal in the case, admitting his role in the scheme and agreeing to testify against the three men.

It isn’t against federal law to pay a state senator for an endorsement. But it does violate Iowa Senate ethics rules, and prosecutors successfully argued that in trying to cover up the payments, the campaign ran afoul of federal election laws that require campaigns to disclose their expenses accurately.

The indictments against the men, which were filed in August 2015, shortly before the first Republican presidential debate, were among several blows to Rand Paul’s campaign, which attempted to distance itself from Benton and Tate. An earlier attempt by the Department of Justice to convict the three men met with mixed results. Before the trial even began in October, a judge tossed out the charges against Tate. The jury convicted Kesari of one charge and acquitted Benton of another but could not reach a verdict on the remaining charges. The jury that issued its verdict on Thursday, however, convicted all three men relatively quickly, returning a verdict within a few hours of closing arguments.

Tate and Benton ended up taking leaves from the super-PAC, America’s Liberty PAC, during their first trial. Benton—who changed lawyers between trials, after his first team of lawyers said he could no longer afford to pay them—picked up work with the pro-Trump super-PAC in early March. He also billed Marco Rubio’s campaign for $13,600 worth of work on March 25.

Read More: 

Strategist for Pro-Trump Super-PAC Convicted in Ron Paul Pay-for-Endorsement Scheme

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Strategist for Pro-Trump Super-PAC Convicted in Ron Paul Pay-for-Endorsement Scheme

Added Sugar Is Your Enemy, Not Aspartame

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Why does anyone still choose sugared sodas over artificially-sweetened sodas? One reason is taste. If you don’t like the taste of aspartame or saccharin, then that’s that. Another reason might be a rare medical condition that makes you allergic (or worse) to certain artificial sweeteners.

But that probably accounts for only a small fraction of the people who continue to drink sugared sodas. The rest are most likely convinced that artificial sweeteners are bad for you. But they’re wrong. It’s sugar that’s bad for you. Aaron Carroll brings the research:

One of the oldest artificial sweeteners is saccharin. Starting in the 1980s, Congress mandated that any product containing it be accompanied by the following: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”….There was a problem, though. This link has never been confirmed in humans….Based on these newer studies, saccharin was removed from the carcinogen list in 2000. But by that time, opinions were set. It did little to make anyone feel safe.

….Aspartame was introduced in the United States around the time that saccharin began taking a beating….But in 1996, a study was published in The Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology titled “Increasing Brain Tumor Rates: Is There a Link to Aspartame?” Most people ignored the question mark….There were any number of problems with this logic….Because aspartame was approved in 1981, blaming it for a rise in tumors in the 1970s seems impossible. Finally, much more comprehensive studies couldn’t find links….A safety review from 2007, published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, found that aspartame had been studied extensively and that the evidence showed that it was safe.

….But what about sugar?….Epidemiologic studies have found that even after controlling for other factors, one’s intake of added sugars is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes, with a 1.1 percent increase in prevalence for each can of sugar-sweetened soda. A study following people for an average of more than 14 years published last year in JAMA Internal Medicine found that those in the highest quintile of added sugar consumption had more than twice the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease than those in the lowest quintile, even after controlling for many other factors.

Anyway, that’s what science says. Unfortunately, science also says that presenting facts to people almost never changes their minds. In fact, it can do just the opposite as people respond defensively to the notion that they’ve been wrong for a long time. So I suppose no one reading this is actually going to switch to diet sodas. Instead they’ll cherry-pick studies that support their previous point of view. Or claim that all the studies exonerating artificial sweeteners are funded by big business and not to be trusted. Or perhaps make an outré claim about how aspartame interacts with gluten and animal fat to produce….something or other.

That’s life, I guess. However, I suggest that you swamp Professor Carroll’s inbox with all these insights instead of bothering me with them. He’s the expert after all. Or, just switch to water. Then you won’t have to worry about it.

Follow this link: 

Added Sugar Is Your Enemy, Not Aspartame

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Added Sugar Is Your Enemy, Not Aspartame