Author Archives: KrystynaK18

House Democrats Demand Investigation of Comey Firing

Mother Jones

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

Every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee signed a letter Thursday afternoon to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), demanding an investigation into President Donald Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey. The letter calls for hearings featuring testimony from Comey and from two high-ranking Trump administration officials who were involved in Comey’s termination: Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

In explaining why such hearings are necessary, the letter highlights the disjointed and contradictory explanations put forth by the White House over the past two days.

“The dismissal of Director Comey demands a clear and compelling explanation,” the letter states. “To date, the Administration has provided none.” It goes on to note that the administration’s initial justification for Trump’s actions—Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails—would have necessitated Comey’s firing months ago. And it notes that while the White House initially portrayed Rosenstein as the person behind the decision, Trump himself acknowledged in an interview with NBC Thursday that “I was going to fire him regardless of Rosenstein’s recommendation.”

The demand by the judiciary committee’s 17 Democrats echoes calls from Senate Democrats, who have requested hearings over Comey’s abrupt dismissal and the appointment of a special prosecutor of oversee the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election.

It’s possible that at least some House Republicans will be more willing to investigate the firing than their colleagues in the Senate. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the chairman of the House oversight committee, on Wednesday asked the inspector general for the Justice Department to look into the circumstances surrounding Comey’s firing. “Previously I asked Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to review the FBI’s actions in advance of the 2016 election,” Chaffetz said in a statement. “Today I sent a letter urging IG Horowitz to expand the scope of his review to include the decision to fire Director Comey. I look forward to receiving the IG’s findings.” But Chaffetz did not go so far as to schedule a hearing.

Here’s the Democrats’ letter:

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3718839-House-Democratic-Letter.js”,
responsive: true,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-3718839-House-Democratic-Letter”
);

House Democratic Letter (PDF)

House Democratic Letter (Text)

View post:  

House Democrats Demand Investigation of Comey Firing

Posted in FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on House Democrats Demand Investigation of Comey Firing

Trump Wants to Deport Millions of Immigrants. Here’s One Way to Slow Him Down.

Mother Jones

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

Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump ran on a staunchly anti-immigrant platform, vowing to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and deport millions of “criminal aliens” in his first hours in office. Last week, Democratic legislators in California—home to about one-fifth of the country’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants—introduced a series of measures aimed at protecting the state’s immigrants under Trump’s policies. Two of those bills could help immigrants facing deportation in a crucial way: by making sure they have legal representation in court.

Unlike defendants in criminal courts, immigrants facing deportation aren’t guaranteed a right to a court-appointed attorney. These immigrants have to bear the costs of securing a lawyer on their own, and this can be a costly and difficult process, especially for those held in detention centers. Nationally, only 37 percent of immigrants facing deportation proceedings have access to a lawyer, according to a study released by the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigration nonprofit. Immigrant detainees have it even worse: Only 14 percent receive legal representation. Studies have shown that one of the most important factors in determining an immigration case is whether immigrants had a lawyer—women and children, for instance, are up to 14 times more likely to win some form of relief from deportation or be released from detention when they have access to legal representation.

Together, California’s Assembly Bill 3 and Senate Bill 6 would provide funding so immigrants facing deportation would have access to free legal assistance, as well as set up state-funded trainings in immigration law so defense attorneys and public defender’s offices can better assist immigrants. Nearly 70 percent of detained immigrants in the state do not have legal representation, according to a report by the California Coalition for Universal Representation, and without it, only 6 percent of immigrants have won their cases over the past three years.

State Sen. Ben Hueso, a Democrat from San Diego who introduced SB 6, estimates that the state could allocate between $10-$80 million to fund these efforts. The measures “send a clear message to undocumented Californians that we won’t turn our backs on them,” said Hueso. “We will do everything in our power to protect them from unjustified deportation.”

The measures would require a two-thirds majority to be enacted, and with Democrats holding the majority in the state Legislature, the bills are likely to pass. Gov. Jerry Brown has yet to comment specifically on the legislation, taking a more cautious tone at a press conference last week, according to the Los Angeles Times. “I’m going to take it step by step and work in a collaborative way, but also defend our principles vigorously,” Brown said. “I think that’s the wiser course of action.” The measures will be voted on next month.

California could become the second state to help fund legal assistance for immigrants facing deportation, following an approach first implemented in New York: In 2013, nonprofit groups in New York City piloted a program that gave free representation to immigrants who couldn’t afford lawyers at one of the city’s immigration courts. Within a year, attorneys in the project won almost 70 percent of their cases, and the approach was so successful that the city fully funded the program. The model inspired similar programs in New Jersey, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

Despite a recent interview in which Trump appeared to soften his stance toward deporting so-called Dreamers, or young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children, immigration advocates say they are preparing for a mass deportation plan under his administration. Shortly after the election, Trump insisted he would deport immigrants who had committed crimes, saying he still planned to remove some 2-3 million undocumented immigrants immediately. (A Migration Policy Institute report found that about 820,000 undocumented immigrants had criminal records, but some advocates worry that Trump will broaden his definition of a “criminal” immigrant to include people who have been arrested—though not necessarily convicted of a crime—to gain popular support for deportations.) And his nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general and appointment of Kris Kobach as an immigration adviser to his transition team have also concerned immigration advocates.

Francisco Ugarte, a public defender in San Francisco, where community groups and the city’s public defenders have asked the city to set aside $5 million for free legal assistance, says the funding is desperately needed. “We have to provide representation for any noncitizen facing deportation proceedings,” Ugarte says. “That’s how fairness works.”

Link: 

Trump Wants to Deport Millions of Immigrants. Here’s One Way to Slow Him Down.

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Wants to Deport Millions of Immigrants. Here’s One Way to Slow Him Down.

Jon Stewart Picked a Good Time to Retire From the Daily Show

Mother Jones

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

I guess I’m curious about something. How many of you think Jon Stewart made the right decision stepping down from the Daily Show? I’m reluctant to say this because I’ve long been such a pretty devoted follower, but the truth is that Marian and I gradually stopped watching him last year. It wasn’t any single thing, or any big change in what he did. It was just a growing sense that we weren’t really laughing as much as we used to. There were still good bits, and the correspondents still had their moments, but they were fewer and farther between than in the past.

Are there others who feel the same way? I don’t want to turn this thread into a pile-on, especially if you happen to be someone who’s never liked Stewart’s brand of comedy. I’ve always been a big fan. But over the past year he seems to have lost a lot of his edge. Or is it just me?

Link – 

Jon Stewart Picked a Good Time to Retire From the Daily Show

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jon Stewart Picked a Good Time to Retire From the Daily Show

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

NASA Goddard

Is the sun finally setting on a dreadful idea?

The Arctic will be safe from drilling efforts by accident-prone Shell this year, and the oil company says it is reconsidering its very future in the region.

Shell spent nearly $6 billion on plans to drill the Arctic, but it has yet to produce any oil. The federal government barred the company from Arctic waters last year following a series of accidents during exploratory drilling in 2012.

The company had hoped the suspension would be lifted this year. As it turns out, the suspension won’t matter.

The company announced on Thursday that it won’t pursue exploratory drilling in the Arctic this year, and its CEO told reporters that the company is “reviewing our options” in the Arctic.

The announcement followed declining profits, the hiring of a new chief executive, and a major court ruling. Last week, a federal appeals court sided with environmentalists over the federal government, ruling that an environmental analysis related to the 2008 Chukchi Sea lease sale was flawed because it included an arbitrary estimate of the amount of oil available to be drilled.

From Shell’s press release about the decision:

The recent Ninth Circuit Court decision against the Department of the Interior raises substantial obstacles to Shell’s plans for drilling in offshore Alaska. As a result, Shell has decided to stop its exploration program for Alaska in 2014. “This is a disappointing outcome, but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014,” [CEO Ben] van Beurden said.

The Washington Post takes a look at the bigger picture:

But some analysts noted that the company has suffered a series of setbacks around the world that have led to write-downs in the value of projects. They said the delay fits the strategy of the company’s new chief executive, Ben van Beurden, who wants to put money into projects with more certain outcomes and shorter time horizons. …

Shell sent rigs to drill in the area in 2012, but the company got a late start after struggling to bring its drilling vessels in line with permit requirements. Then it had to deal with unexpected summer ice floes and decided to install only the top of wells in the Chukchi Sea because it was running out of time to drill before open-water season ended. Later that year, one of its vessels, the Kulluk, was damaged when it ran aground on its way to warmer waters. The company said it will be scrapped.

And here is the Anchorage Daily News with reactions:

“Shell is finally recognizing what we’ve been saying all along, that offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business perspective,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana’s vice president for U.S. oceans. …

Political leaders faulted the federal government and court rulings and downplayed Shell’s own difficulties.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was disappointed that Shell wouldn’t be going ahead this year. She said it was understandable given the uncertainty due to the federal court ruling on its leases.

“Companies willing to invest billions of dollars to develop our country’s resources must have confidence that the federal agencies responsible for overseeing their efforts are competent and working in good faith. I’m not convinced that has been the case for Alaska,” Murkowski said in a statement.

Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich blamed “judicial overreach” for the situation.

Aw, Shell. Better luck next year? Let’s hope not.


Source
New Shell CEO Ben van Beurden sets agenda for sharper performance and rigorous capital discipline, Shell
Shell says it won’t drill in Alaska in 2014, cites court challenge, Washington Post
Shell won’t drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year; ‘reviewing our options,’ CEO says, Anchorage Daily News

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Link:

Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Shell will stay out of the Arctic this year