Tag Archives: organization

Russia Ran the Most Epic Ratfucking Operation in History This Year

by nydiapalazzi3 Posted on December 14, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Back during the campaign, I was vaguely aware that the Russians had hacked not just the DNC, but the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as well. For some reason, though, I never put two and two together long enough to think about what this hack might mean. In my defense, no one else seems to have given it much thought either—despite the fact that hacked documents were showing up in local races all over the country:

The intrusions in House races in states including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Illinois, New Mexico and North Carolina can be traced to tens of thousands of pages of documents taken from the D.C.C.C., which shares a Capitol Hill office building with the Democratic National Committee….The seats that Guccifer 2.0 targeted in the document dumps were hardly random: They were some of the most competitive House races in the country.

….In Florida, Guccifer 2.0’s most important partner was an obscure political website run by an anonymous blogger called HelloFLA!, run by a former Florida legislative aide turned Republican lobbyist. The blogger sent direct messages via Twitter to Guccifer 2.0 asking for copies of any additional Florida documents. “I can send you some docs via email,” Guccifer 2.0 replied on Aug. 22….“I don’t think you realize what you gave me,” the blogger said, looking at the costly internal D.C.C.C. political research that he had just been provided. “This is probably worth millions of dollars.”

The hacked documents played a big role in a Florida congressional primary between Annette Taddeo and Joe Garcia:

After Mr. Garcia defeated Ms Taddeo in the primary using the material unearthed in the hacking, the National Republican Campaign Committee and a second Republican group with ties to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, turned to the hacked material to attack him.

….After the first political advertisement appeared using the hacked material, DCCC chair Ben Ray Luján wrote a letter to his Republican counterpart at the National Republican Congressional Committee urging him to not use this stolen material in the 2016 campaign….Ms. Pelosi sent a similar letter in early September to Mr. Ryan. Neither received a response. By October, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a “super PAC” tied to Mr. Ryan, had used the stolen material in another advertisement, attacking Mr. Garcia during the general election in Florida.

The basic story here is simple: the Russians hacked, the media gave the revelations big play, and Republicans gleefully made use of the Russian agitprop. Altogether, the Russians released hacked documents from four different sources:

DNC
DCCC
The Clinton Foundation
John Podesta

But nothing was ever released from any Republican sources—despite the fact that, according to the New York Times, the Russians had hacked the RNC and possibly other Republican accounts as well. If I had to guess, I’d say there’s a good chance they hacked a few people at the Trump Organization too. So here’s where we are:

The Russians ran a very sophisticated operation designed to hack into both US government servers and the servers of US political organizations.
They released only hacked documents from Democratic organizations. Republicans were left alone.
The intelligence community told high-ranking leaders of both parties what was going on, but Republicans flatly opposed any public acknowledgment of what was happening.
Republicans cheerfully made use of all the hacked material, even though they knew exactly where it came from.

At this point, you need to be willfully blind to pretend this was anything other than what it was: a ratfucking operation on an epic scale aimed squarely at Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. And while it was happening, Republicans were happy to play along.

It’s inevitable that more details are going to emerge about all this—about both the hacking itself and Republican complicity in making use of the Russian material. This is not something that can be forgiven quickly or easily. Republicans may or may not care about this, but they’re going to have live with a smoldering, bitter anger from their Democratic colleagues for a very long time.

Excerpt from:

Russia Ran the Most Epic Ratfucking Operation in History This Year

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Russia Ran the Most Epic Ratfucking Operation in History This Year

BREAKING: Ivanka Out, Eric & Don Jr. to Take Reins of Trump Biz

by RosalinDeen Posted on December 13, 2016

Mother Jones

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

It looks like Ivanka has been fired:

In a pair of tweets sent after 11 p.m., Trump wrote: “Even though I am not mandated by law to do so, I will be leaving my businesses before January 20th so that I can focus full time on the Presidency. Two of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office.”

….Trump’s tweets omitted reference to daughter Ivanka, who, like her brothers, currently works at the Trump Organization. However, Ivanka is expected to step away from the business to serve in an advisory capacity to her father; her husband Jared is a key and trusted aide.

Then again, maybe she’s been promoted. Which is better: being a co-CEO of a crippled Trump Organization, or being acting First Lady because apparently your stepmother doesn’t want the job? That’s a ticklish question. Where’s the chief of protocol when you need him?

More:

BREAKING: Ivanka Out, Eric & Don Jr. to Take Reins of Trump Biz

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BREAKING: Ivanka Out, Eric & Don Jr. to Take Reins of Trump Biz

Bipartisan Group Raises Red Flags About Trump’s Conflicts of Interest

by Charline46P Posted on December 9, 2016

Mother Jones

A bipartisan coalition of Washington ethics watchdogs—including one of Hillary Clinton’s most vocal critics—is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to divest himself of his sprawling business interests.

“By combining your presidency with your family business enterprises, you will create ongoing conflict of interest and credibility problems for your presidency,” reads an open letter the group sent to Trump Friday. “Questions will regularly arise as to whether your domestic and foreign policy positions are being taken on behalf of the interests of the American people or the financial interests of the Trump family, which will necessarily diverge on numerous occasions from those of the nation as a whole.”

The letter was signed by 29 different individuals and groups. The list contains a who’s who of Washington watchdog groups. It also includes six former Republican elected officials and Richard Painter, who served as the top ethics lawyer in George W. Bush’s administration. But perhaps the most eye-popping name on the list is Peter Schweizer, the head of the Government Accountability Institute—a conservative group whose board has included Trump adviser Stephen Bannon. Schweizer is the author of Clinton Cash, a best-selling book that was the basis for much of the controversy over Clinton’s involvement with the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer was particularly critical of the foundation’s acceptance of large gifts from foreign donors who appeared to be seeking favors from the Clintons.

Even before he has taken office, Trump’s transition effort has already been dogged by conflict of interest accusations, including questions as to why his daughter has sat in on meetings with foreign leaders and his involvement with hotels in Argentina, Turkey, China, and Taiwan.

Trump has said he will hold a press conference next week in which he will explain how he he will separate himself from the daily “business operations” of the Trump organization. But this won’t be enough, the letter says.

Although congressional Republicans have appeared reluctant to take any steps to investigate Trump’s personal finances, the letter’s signers urge Trump to take the issue seriously.

“Republicans and Democrats called for similar strong measures regarding the Clinton Foundation if Hillary Clinton were elected president,” the letter says. “It is no less important for you to take the steps set forth in this letter with The Trump Organization now that you will be entering the Oval Office.”

The full letter can be read here.

Read original article: 

Bipartisan Group Raises Red Flags About Trump’s Conflicts of Interest

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bipartisan Group Raises Red Flags About Trump’s Conflicts of Interest

Pissed Off About Something You See on the Web? Call Out the Person, Not the Organization.

by RusselEuler Posted on December 3, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Over at National Review, David French writes:

For a ‘Peaceful’ Group, Black Lives Matter Sure Does Love Cop Killers and Murderous Dictators

I don’t know how I missed it, but this sickening essay from Black Lives Matter has to be read to believed. Entitled “Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante,” it begins….

I’m not especially trying to pick on French here, but this gives me an excuse to gripe about something that I see too often these days.

Let’s stipulate that the essay in question is horrible. I don’t care one way or the other. What I do care about is that French attributes it to “Black Lives Matter.” But that’s not the case. It was written by a specific person, not by BLM as some kind of official position statement. It represents them no more than I represent Mother Jones.

Still, at least MoJo employs me and has some responsibility for what I write. You can’t even say that much about the author of the Castro piece. To the extent that there’s an “official” BLM organization, it’s here. This is the organization founded by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. But pretty much anyone can set up shop under the BLM name, and the essay French links to comes from a Medium site called @BlackLivesMatterNetwork. It has posted a grand total of three pieces in the last two months. I have no idea who wrote them or who the site is associated with.

Condemn the piece all you want. But it’s not fair to use it to tar “Black Lives Matter.” They aren’t responsible for everything that’s tossed onto the web under the BLM banner.

UPDATE: It turns out that the official BLM site shared the Castro essay on its Facebook page. So it’s fair to call them out for promoting it.

My general complaint stands, however. If I write something, it means “Kevin Drum says,” not “Mother Jones says.” If David French writes something, it means “David French says,” not “National Review says.” Needless to say, this rule is for personal opinion/analysis pieces. News organizations are corporately responsible for editorial opinions and straight news.

This article is from: 

Pissed Off About Something You See on the Web? Call Out the Person, Not the Organization.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pissed Off About Something You See on the Web? Call Out the Person, Not the Organization.

What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

by RodrickXAC Posted on November 4, 2016

Mother Jones

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

For the first time in decades, Americans will likely hit the voting booths on Election Day without being able to review the tax returns of one of the major presidential nominees. Though Donald Trump previously vowed to release his taxes—as all top nominees since Richard Nixon have done—he reneged on that promise and for months fiercely refused to make this basic information public, offering shifting excuses. Trump did submit the public financial disclosure form that all federal candidates must fill out, but that does not cover all the fundamentals of his finances. By withholding his tax information, Trump has ensured that the American public cannot see how much income (if any) he pocketed, how much money (if any) he paid in taxes, and how much money (if any) he donated to charities. Without his tax returns, voters are in the dark about important details regarding his sources of income and his debts.

There are many more questions about Trump’s finances and business operations that remain as the 2016 presidential campaign slouches toward its end. Trump is the owner of a private business empire with elements that have been structured in Byzantine fashion. He is a proliferate user of shell companies, as many developers are. He has tried to broker deals around the world with assorted financial players with their own agendas. He has taken on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. There is a great deal publicly unknown about many of his ventures. Much of his deal-making—probably most—is not transparent. He is asking Americans to vote for a man who has not revealed basic information about his wide-ranging endeavors and associations.

Here is a list of Trump mysteries that will not be solved before Election Day.

* His partners: Trump lists about 500 business entities on his financial disclosure form. Many are shell companies, and if any of them have partners, there is no telling with whom Trump is in business. There is also no way to know if this is an accurate list reflecting all his dealings domestically and overseas. (These disclosures are not vetted by forensic accountants.) These entities would allow anyone seeking to gain favor with Trump to funnel investments and money to him and his family without public disclosure. As Newsweek put it, “Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House…The partnerships are struck with some of the more than 500 entities disclosed in Trump’s financial disclosure forms; each of those entities has its own records that would have to be revealed for a full accounting of all of Trump’s foreign entanglements to be made public.” The magazine added, “The dealings of the Trump Organization reach into so many countries that it is impossible to detail all the conflicts they present in a single issue of this magazine.”

Trump’s personal financial disclosure form hints that he has international business deals in the works that are still under wraps. There are corporations listed that indicate he may be planning hotels (with or without partners) in China and Saudi Arabia—projects which he has not publicly discussed.

* Huge loans from foreign banks: After Trump’s near-crash-and-burn bankruptcies of the 1990s, major US banks stopped doing business with him. But foreign banks picked up the slack, most notably the private banking arm of Deutsche Bank, which Trump owes more than $300 million. His cozy relationship with Deutsche Bank has never been explained. A bank spokeswoman would not talk about how it came to be.

The bond between Trump and this bank poses several problems. The bank in recent months has been in trouble and compelled to sell assets. If it is forced to sell Trump’s loans—or has done so already—the public may not find out immediately (or at all). So it is possible that Trump could be secretly in hock to some overseas person or entity. Also, the Justice Department has demanded that the gigantic German bank pay $14 billion to settle claims regarding its sale of bad mortgage-backed securities in the the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. The bank is battling this case. Were Trump to become president, he would be heading a government trying to squeeze a gargantuan fine out of a bank that has underwritten a big chunk of his business empire. That’s a super-sized conflict of interest.

Moreover, a New York Times investigation “into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings” found that “companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt”—about twice the amount listed on his financial disclosure form. A portion of all this debt, the newspaper reported, is held by the Bank of China, posing another set of possible conflicts of interest. But, the Times noted, it is nearly impossible to figure out from publicly available information what Trump owes and to whom: “The full terms of Mr. Trump’s limited partnerships are not known. The current value of the loans connected to them is roughly $1.95 billion, according to various public documents.”

* His creditors: At the first presidential debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Trump about his finances: “Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?” Trump replied, “I could give you a list of banks. I would—if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly.”

Trump has not produced such a list. Why is this list necessary? His personal financial disclosure report offers an incomplete view of his finances. Filed in May, the form lists 16 loans that are valued in vague ranges that make it impossible to determine the total amount he owes. And it does not cover some of the loans mentioned above—such as the Bank of China debt—that are held by companies in which he is deeply invested.

Also, Trump’s most recent financial disclosure is out of date. For instance, Trump reported in May that he owed UBS Real Estate, a subsidiary of the Swiss banking giant, between $5 million and $25 million in connection with a loan for commercial property at New York City’s Trump International Hotel and Tower. Yet public records show that this $7 million loan was paid off with a new $7 million loan from a smaller lender called Ladder Capital Finance. According to public documents, Trump currently owes Ladder Capital at least $275 million. Ladder Capital specializes in packaging loans into larger portfolios that are eventually sold off to other lenders. So where might Trump’s Ladder loans end up? It would be important to know his ultimate creditors. His financial disclosure form also lists a puzzling loan of more than $50 million that comes from one of his own entities. There has been no public explanation of this act of financial acrobatics and what it means for his complete debt picture and financial stability.

* Trump University: There are three pending cases alleging fraud on the part of Trump’s for-profit school. One, in San Diego, is scheduled to begin trial on November 28. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman accused Trump University of “repeatedly” deceiving “students into thinking that they were attending a legally chartered ‘university.'” Schneiderman’s lawsuit maintains that students were misled about the instructors. A former salesman for Trump University provided an affidavit in which he testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit notes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.” In June, The New Yorker asked, “Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant ripoff, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?” The election will occur before questions about Trump University are resolved.

* His lawsuits: Throughout the campaign, Trump has frequently threatened to sue the media and others (including the women who have accused him of sexual assault). But, as USA Today reported, Trump is already engaged in dozens of lawsuits beyond the Trump University cases that remain open. As the paper noted, “Trump faces significant open litigation tied to his businesses: angry members at his Jupiter, Fla. golf course say they were cheated out of refunds on their dues and a former employee at the same club claims she was fired after reporting sexual harassment…Trump is also defending lawsuits tied to his campaign. A disgruntled GOP political consultant sued for $4 million saying Trump defamed her. Another suit, a class action, says the campaign violated consumer protection laws by sending unsolicited text messages. If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give depositions or even testify in open court. That could chew up time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business dealings to the public.”

The paper pointed out that at least 60 lawsuits and hundreds of liens and judgments have “documented cases where people accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them what they were owed for their work.” Many of these have not received full press coverage during the campaign. USA Today also reported: “In at least 20 separate lawsuits, plaintiffs accused Trump and managers at his companies of discriminating against women, ignoring sexual harassment complaints and even participating in the harassment themselves. Women in those disputes have testified they were fired for complaining.”

* His net worth and income: Trump has claimed he’s worth $10 billion. With the records publicly available, this is impossible to confirm. A net worth calculation is meaningless if it does not take debts into account, and his total indebtedness cannot be determined on the basis of public documents. And Trump has a history of inflating his net worth. A decade ago, he sued a reporter who quoted experts saying Trump was worth only $200 million to $300 million, not the $2 billion to $5 billion Trump claimed at the time. (Trump lost.) At the first presidential debate, Trump insisted his 2015 income was $694 million, but a Mother Jones investigation found that Trump had greatly exaggerated his income from golf courses, calling into question that whopping amount. The New York Times recently reported that an examination of property tax appeals and other financial records showed that Trump likely overstated his income: “After expenses, some of his businesses make a small fraction of what he reported on his disclosure forms, or actually lose money. In fact, it is virtually impossible to determine from the forms just how much he is earning in any year.” Ultimately, it may not matter whether Trump has all the wealth and income he insists he possesses—but his truthfulness is at stake with his net worth and income claims.

There is a large amount of information that Trump has not released during the campaign, even after vowing to do so. It’s not just his tax returns. He promised to release evidence that he was under audit by the IRS (the supposed reason he has not released his tax returns). But he put out only a letter from his own lawyer. He said that his wife, Melania—whose past immigration status was questioned in media reports that suggested she might have once worked illegally as a model in the United States—would hold a press conference to set the matter straight. She did not; instead, a Trump lawyer issued a letter without any corroborating documentation. Trump pledged to release “full reports” regarding his health. Those never came.

Other than the tax returns, perhaps the most important information Trump has not produced is how he would separate himself from his businesses, were he to win the White House. His entanglements—which likely include publicly unknown partnerships, investors, and creditors—are extensive and complex. Trump has produced no plan for how he could run the government and be free of all the conflicts of interest posed by his business interests. He is the least transparent presidential candidate in modern times.

Sixteen months of campaign reporting has not revealed all the nooks and crannies of a business empire that is purposefully structured to be impervious to scrutiny. It would have taken a team of forensic accountants to develop a clear picture of Trump’s finances. He did not help by withholding his tax returns and fudging parts of his financial disclosure form. And that was the point. Trump, who is aiming to be perhaps the most powerful man in the world, wanted to keep much of his life secret before Americans voted. He succeeded in doing so.

From: 

What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

Posted in alo, Annies, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

300 million children are breathing toxic air right now.

by RosalynAgee Posted on October 31, 2016

That’s according to a new report by UNICEF, which found that nearly one in seven children in the world live in areas where outdoor air pollution is at least six times higher than international guidelines set by the World Health Organization.

The report also found that air pollution — primarily caused by fossil fuel burning, vehicle emissions, waste incineration, and dust — contributes to the deaths of about 600,000 kids under the age of 5 each year. The statistics are most dire in South Asia, where an estimated 620 million children live with dirty air.

Air pollution is especially harmful to children as their lungs are still developing and their respiratory tracks are more permeable than adults’. But as UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake points out, “Pollutants don’t only harm children’s developing lungs, they can actually cross the blood-brain barrier and permanently damage their developing brains — and, thus, their futures.”

UNICEF is calling for countries to take several steps to minimize risk to kids, including reducing pollution, increasing access to health care, monitoring air pollution levels, and keeping polluting facilities away from schools and playgrounds.

“We protect our children when we protect the quality of our air,” Lake says. “Both are central to our future.”

Read More – 

300 million children are breathing toxic air right now.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ringer, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 300 million children are breathing toxic air right now.

John Oliver to oil lobby: You bozos picked the wrong man to plagiarize

by NataliaSalcido0 Posted on August 15, 2016

Nah

John Oliver to oil lobby: You bozos picked the wrong man to plagiarize

By on Aug 15, 2016Share

Incredulous British person and Last Week Tonight host John Oliver has a new nemesis: the American Petroleum Institute.

Oliver pointed out on Sunday that the lobbying arm of the oil industry aired a commercial during the Rio Olympics that essentially carbon-copied the opening credit sequence of his own show. In response, he aired an imitation of one of API’s more shameless millennial-targeted ads.

A sunny, #relatable actress in Oliver’s version of the ad explains: “Did you know that [API] had research warning them about the link between fossil fuels and climate change as early as 1968? Maybe that’s why their logo looks like it’s being impaled by a polar bear’s dick.”

For the full ad, and more of Oliver’s thoughts on the organization that spent decades and millions of dollars fighting the public acceptance of climate change, watch the clip above.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Original article:  

John Oliver to oil lobby: You bozos picked the wrong man to plagiarize

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Oliver to oil lobby: You bozos picked the wrong man to plagiarize

Donald Trump Has a Huge Conflict of Interest That No One’s Talking About

by TonjaBinder Posted on August 15, 2016

Mother Jones

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

If elected president, Donald Trump would bring with him to the White House unprecedented conflicts of interest, thanks to his sprawling holdings and various debts, including more than $100 million owed to a foreign bank. But his biggest conflict might be the $200 million hotel project Trump’s company is developing a couple of blocks from the White House in the Old Post Office Building, a historic property owned by the federal government and leased to the Trump Organization for 60 years. It seems likely, if not inevitable, that during a Trump presidency the federal government could find itself negotiating with the commander in chief—or his children—over matters relating to the new Trump International Hotel.

Completed in 1899, the Old Post Office is an iconic piece of real estate in a prime downtown DC location on Pennsylvania Avenue. Once the main post office for the District of Columbia, the building subsequently housed federal offices. By 2010, the property—which had escaped demolition in the 1970s due to an outcry by preservationists—was run-down and costing the government millions of dollars a year to operate and maintain. Congress pressured the General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s facilities, to solicit bids to lease and revitalize the building. In 2012, Trump beat out competitors, including hotel chains Hilton and Hyatt, by offering an enticing deal—at least $3 million a year in rent and a share of the revenue, among other favorable terms—that some of his rivals thought was too good to be true and left little margin for profit. (Some bidders were also surprised that the government awarded this prize real estate to Trump, who at the time was actively stoking conspiracy theories that President Barack Obama was not a US citizen.)

Rival bidder BP-Metropolitan Investors, LLC, a consortium that included Hilton Hotels, angrily appealed the GSA’s decision to award the property to Trump, noting that the real estate mogul couldn’t possibly deliver on the terms of his proposal. At $200 million, his renovation was slated to cost $60 million more than BPM’s proposed overhaul, yet Trump was still pledging revenues to the government that surpassed those offered by his competition. “After a final contract award,” BPM warned in its complaint, “when the Trump revenues promised to GSA are found to be unachievable, the GSA and U.S. taxpayers will be left with an unrealistic economic model and another failed attempt to redevelop the Old Post Office. GSA and the U.S. taxpayers will have no choice but to ‘trade out’ the unrealistic ‘great deal’ it was promised for the far more pedestrian or even more disastrous outcome when it is taken back in default.”

BPM attached to its complaint more than 50 pages of exhibits detailing prior Trump bankruptcies, failed deals, and disgruntled business partners. But the GSA stuck with its decision.

Other critics have noted that, in order to turn a profit, Trump would have to charge exorbitant rates—and there’s no guarantee visitors would pay them in a city crowded with luxury hotels. Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein noted in 2012 that “none of the other experienced bidders came anywhere close to Trump’s numbers—and for good reason: They make no economic sense. Industry experts tell me that to justify that level of investment and that rent, Trump would have to fetch average room rates of at least…$750, which is far above the $500-plus average that even the city’s top hotel, the Four Seasons in Georgetown, commands.” At the time, Trump’s daughter Ivanka responded angrily to Pearlstein’s column, saying, “His numbers are pure speculation and, simply put, wrong.” She added, “We wanted to be extremely conservative in our projection and therefore showed achieving a rate less than that of the Four Seasons Georgetown.”

But now it appears that it was Ivanka Trump who was wrong. Pearlstein’s estimate, meanwhile, seems remarkably accurate. The hotel is slated to open on September 12 and is already accepting reservations. On October 18, a random weeknight this fall more than a month after opening, the Trump International’s cheapest room will run $775 a night. (The Trump Townhouse, a 6,300-square-foot two-bedroom suite, will cost $29,000 a night.) That same night, the least expensive room at the Four Seasons hotel in Georgetown, according to that hotel’s website, will be $735. (A one-night stay at the Ritz-Carlton will start at $685.) On some nights, the Trump International will be far and away the most expensive hotel in town, charging as much as three times more than other five-star hotels, such as the Mandarin Oriental. The question becomes whether or not Trump’s hotel can command those prices. If Trump can fill those rooms, the hotel may far exceed the expectations of critics who doubt it can be profitable at the price he paid. But if he can’t, it might spell trouble for the operation—and send Trump’s company back to the GSA seeking better terms that give the hotel a shot at profitability.

Going back to the bargaining table would not be an extraordinary move for a real estate developer—and especially not for Trump, who has frequently sought to change the terms of deals and has bragged of renegotiating debt. (He’s currently trying to renegotiate the presidential debate schedule.) And there are any number of reasons why the Trump Organization might need to haggle with the GSA that go beyond merely the bottom line, such as preserving certain architectural features. But Trump isn’t just a real estate developer. He’s potentially the boss of the very agency his company would be negotiating with. The GSA did not respond to a request for comment about how it would handle a conflict-of-interest issue if Trump becomes president.

Already the Trump Organization has sought to revise certain aspects of the Old Post Office deal. When his company submitted the plan, Trump said he had financial backing from Colony Capital, an investment firm run by his longtime friend Tom Barrack, a California billionaire who is currently serving as one of Trump’s economic policy advisers and helping finance a pro-Trump super-PAC. The Trump Organization later informed the GSA that Colony would not in fact be financing the project and that the organization would instead borrow $170 million from German banking giant Deutsche Bank.

Though historic preservation was an important aspect of the GSA’s decision-making process, the Trump Organization also informed the GSA in February 2013 that it would not be using the architect that it had identified in its proposal, a longtime champion of maintaining the building’s architectural and historical integrity. Since then, Trump’s company has regularly sparred with the government over preservation matters.

Jessica Tillipman, a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in government ethics, said the Old Post Office deal poses a massive conflict of interest for a President Trump. “You’d be kidding yourself if you don’t think the president of the United States has influence over this,” she says. “And he’s taken no affirmative steps to separate himself from this conflict of interest. I don’t know how this is not a bigger issue. It’s crazy.”

Presidents are not subject to the same ethics rules that govern other executive branch employees, but they often take steps, such as setting up blind trusts or handing over control of their assets, to avoid even an appearance of impropriety. But Trump has not been entirely clear on how he would disentangle himself from his complex corporate holdings if he became president. At one point, he suggested he would place his assets in a blind trust “or something.” But he also said this trust would be controlled by his children, who would continue to run his businesses. Blind trusts cannot be controlled by an individual’s family members. Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on how a conflict of interest with the Old Post Office, or any other property, would be handled.

“People have typically taken steps to silo these different aspects of their lives, because there should not be a doubt in the minds of the American public that the leader of the free world is not going to be putting certain interests over the public’s,” Tillipman says. “And when you haven’t taken affirmative steps, it leaves an open question.”

Originally posted here:

Donald Trump Has a Huge Conflict of Interest That No One’s Talking About

Posted in Bragg, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Has a Huge Conflict of Interest That No One’s Talking About

Olympians prepare for a “petri dish of pathogens”

by lbxmtg Posted on July 28, 2016

there’s something in the water

Olympians prepare for a “petri dish of pathogens”

By on Jul 28, 2016Share

The world’s greatest athletes head to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, this week for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. Those competing in Rio’s waters, though, will have more than just medals on the mind.

That’s because the waterways of Rio, as any resident of the embattled city probably could have told you, are dumping grounds for toxic chemicals, untreated sewage, garbage, and dead bodies. The contamination of Rio’s waters — including Guanabara Bay, where the sailing teams are practicing — is undeniable. And, as the New York Times reported yesterday, recent tests showed a “petri dish of pathogens,” including rotaviruses and drug-resistant super bacteria.

But this is the Olympics and the show must go on, despite public health concerns, a presidential impeachment scandal, and a host city that’s under a declared state of financial emergency. When it comes to water, the International Olympic Committee insists areas where athletes are to compete will meet World Health Organization standards. Still, to be on the safe side, as a 24-year-old Dutch sailing team member explained to the Times, “We just have to keep our mouths closed when the water sprays up.”

The water has been making Rio’s poor sick for decades. Hepatitis A, a waterborne disease, is widespread among residents of the city’s sprawling favelas. Lack of sanitation has also exacerbated the spread of the Zika virus. The Times reports that Brazil pledged to spend $4 billion to stem the flow of untreated sewage into its waters back in 2009, when it was angling for its Olympic bid. In fact, only about $170 million has been spent, a discrepancy that state officials blame on a budget crisis.

Meanwhile, at least 77,000 people faced forced, violent evictions from their homes leading up to the Olympic Games, despite having legal titles to their homes.

The Olympics are often, and controversially, hailed as an opportunity for development and improved infrastructure in the host country. But development, as David Zirin writes in an excellent article for the Nation, is most likely to benefit Brazilian elites, who view the Olympics as “a neoliberal Trojan horse allowing powerful construction and real-estate industries to build wasteful projects and displace the poor from coveted land.”

As for improved infrastructure, the fact that some of the world’s top athletes will have to compete in a “petri dish of pathogens” is pretty disheartening. If Rio’s waters weren’t cleaned up for some of the most highly valued bodies in the world, how much hope is there that they’ll be brought down to safe levels for the city’s actual residents, once the international media has packed up and gone home?

ShareElection Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

View original:  

Olympians prepare for a “petri dish of pathogens”

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Olympians prepare for a “petri dish of pathogens”

This Salvadoran Woman Served 4 Years for Having a Miscarriage

by AishaMcLean5884 Posted on July 12, 2016

Mother Jones

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

Maria Teresa Rivera didn’t realize she was pregnant in 2011 when she went into early labor. The 28-year-old factory worker in El Salvador, who already had one son, started bleeding heavily late one night, so her family called an ambulance to drive her to the hospital. The next day, Rivera was taken to jail.

Her crime? Having a miscarriage.

Rivera is one of a number of women in El Salvador incarcerated not for abortion, which is illegal, but as a result of miscarriages. An abortion rights group in the area has identified 17 people convicted of homicide, with sentences upward of 40 years, after facing obstetric emergencies such as miscarriage or stillbirth.

After serving four of her 40-year prison sentence for aggravated homicide, Rivera’s conviction was overturned by a judge and she walked free this spring. But the prosecution appealed her release, and this week a three-judge panel will decide whether to hold a new hearing or throw out the charges for good.

Only six countries in the world, including El Salvador, ban abortion in all cases, even when the pregnancy is the result of rape or threatens the life of the mother. Nicaragua, Chile, the Dominican Republic, the Vatican city-state, and Malta are the only other places with similar prohibitions. In January, El Salvador’s deputy health minister told women to avoid getting pregnant for two years because of worries over the effects of Zika virus.

“A woman who procures herself an abortion is running a very high risk,” Carmen Barroso, the former regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the Western Hemisphere, told Mother Jones. “She’ll run the risk to her life because she’ll have to have an unsafe abortion because they are so limited in availability. It is tragic.”

The ban in El Salvador got international attention in 2013, when the country’s highest court rejected the abortion request of a young woman, known only as Beatriz, with a potentially life-threatening pregnancy, ruling the “rights of the mother cannot be privileged over those” of the fetus. The fetus suffered from anencephaly, a severe congenital disorder where the fetus’ brain and skull stop growing, giving it little chance of surviving outside the womb. The woman survived after getting a controversial caesarian section.

Despite the ban, more than 19,000 illegal abortions were reported in El Salvador between 2005 and 2008, according to the Ministry of Health’s Information, Monitoring, and Evaluation Unit, an estimate that advocates say is low. Nearly a third of abortions performed were on adolescents, who make up a large percent of the region’s unplanned pregnancies. According to the World Health Organization, 9 percent of maternal deaths in Central America are the result of illegal abortions.

As a result of the criminalization, women in El Salvador frequently face legal scrutiny for abortion-related crimes. According to research done by a Salvadoran advocacy group, between 2000 and 2011 about 130 women were criminally prosecuted for ending their pregnancies. That number doesn’t include cases where the allegations were dropped or cases involving minors, whose records are sealed. Almost 50 women were convicted of either illegal abortion or different degrees of homicide, which carries a sentence of up to 50 years.

Then there are the cases of the 17 women who are part of “Las 17,” as they’re known, who are all, like Rivera, young, impoverished, and accused of losing their pregnancies on purpose. Guadalupe Vasquez, a housekeeper, was only 17 years old when she became pregnant from rape. She decided to keep the baby but lost it during labor. After her employer sent her to the hospital, she was reported to the police and eventually sentenced to 30 years behind bars.

Many of the women, including Rivera, were reported to the police by medical staff at the hospital. In some cases, neighbors or friends called law enforcement.

“I felt the need to go to the bathroom, I pushed, and it was the baby that came out into the latrine,” Rivera said in a video from prison. She passed out from loss of blood and was in the hospital when she woke up. “Then they took me to this place,” she said.

Rivera was convicted “despite the complete lack of evidence of any wrongdoing,” according to an analysis of Las 17 cases by a Salvadoran lawyer and a Harvard sociologist. The analysis also concluded that Salvadoran courts systematically discriminated against the women by aggressively pursuing “the mother’s prosecution instead of pursuing the truth.”

“In stark contrast to the courts’ findings, our analysis concludes that the legal and medical facts in the majority of these cases correspond with medical emergency—not with homicide,” they wrote.

Rivera successfully appealed her conviction and has spent the last two months walking free.

“What worries me is leaving my son alone again,” Rivera, who grew up in orphanages, told Rewire after being released in May. “I was forced to abandon him for four and a half years, and he suffered greatly during that time.”

See original article here: 

This Salvadoran Woman Served 4 Years for Having a Miscarriage

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Salvadoran Woman Served 4 Years for Having a Miscarriage