Tag Archives: turner

Republicans Focus on Protecting Trump at Russia Hearing

by LillaKdw749 Posted on May 23, 2017

Mother Jones

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

The Republicans still are not serious about investigating the Trump-Russia scandal. That message came through resoundingly when the House Intelligence Committee held a public hearing on Tuesday morning with former CIA chief John Brennan. (Actually, this was not officially a committee hearing. Democrats on the committee were informed earlier that this would be considered a “task force” hearing because the Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, could not appear because he had recused himself from the Russia investigation.)

At the witness table, Brennan told a harrowing tale. As CIA director last summer, he saw what was happening with the hack-and-leak attack on the Democratic National Committee, and he reviewed top-secret intelligence and concluded that Russia was mounting this assault to disrupt the election, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. He also at the time was aware of intelligence that showed contacts between Trump associates and Russia, and that caused him to conclude a thorough FBI investigation was warranted. He testified, “I saw interaction” that warranted concern.

This was a big deal. In March, then-FBI chief James Comey revealed during testimony to this committee that in July 2016 the bureau launched an investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Now the CIA head from then was stating that there was clear intelligence that justified that probe. He also revealed that in early August he was so concerned about the Russian operation he spoke to the head of Russia’s FSB, the country’s intelligence service, and warned him to knock it off. Brennan also revealed that in August and September he briefed a small number of congressional leaders and shared with them top-secret intelligence about Moscow’s effort to subvert the election in part to benefit Trump. (This means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan knew many details about the Russian operation but didn’t challenge or correct Trump’s continued public assertions that Russia was not necessarily the culprit in the DNC hack.)

Yet once again Republicans did not focus on the main elements of the story. When the Republicans on the committee had the chance to question Brennan, they did not press him for more details on Russia’s information warfare against the United States. Instead, they fixated on protecting Trump.

The Republicans zeroed in on the issue of whether Trump and his associates colluded with any Russians involved in the attack on US democracy—to push Brennan to say he had not seen concrete evidence of such conspiring. Reps. Tom Rooney (R-Fla) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) grilled Brennan repeatedly on this point. They posed the same basic query: Did you see any evidence that Trump or his associates plotted with Russians? “I don’t do evidence. I do intelligence,” Brennan replied. Still, they kept pressing him. They were obviously hoping he would state that he had not come across any such evidence so Trump and his champions could cite Brennan as a witness for their claim no collusion occurred.

In the face of this questioning, Brennan repeatedly stated that the intelligence he saw regarding contacts between Trump associates and Russia was worrisome and deserved full FBI scrutiny. So the Republicans failed in their mission to provide cover for Trump—and they ended up highlighting the legitimacy of the FBI inquiry begun under Comey.

A similar effort fell flat. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) questioned Brennan about the intelligence community assessment released in early January that concluded the Russian clandestine operation was designed to assist Trump. He several times asked Brennan if there had been evidence contrary to this conclusion that was not included in the report. Brennan explained that the assessment was the result of a thorough interagency process that looked to develop a consensus position. Still, King seemed to suggest that the assessment might be open to question. And Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asserted he had reviewed raw intelligence, and he insisted the information supporting the assessment that Moscow had preferred Trump was not as solid as the intelligence community maintained. Here were Republicans trying to find wiggle room for Trump.

Rooney took another stab at undermining the dominant narrative of the Trump-Russia scandal. He asked whether the Russians had been rooting for Clinton to fail or for Trump to win. “It was both,” Brennan replied. Rooney suggested that the Russians had gathered information damaging for Clinton’s campaign that it did not release, and he asked Brennan, what would that mean for the conclusion that Russians were trying to help Trump? It appeared as if Rooney thought this would be an a-ha! moment: If the Russians sat on anti-Clinton material, well, that must be an indicator they hadn’t’ engaged in cyber-skullduggery to help Trump. Brennan shot this down with a simple reply: Since the Russians, like many others, believed Clinton would win, they might have been holding on to that material to damage her once she became president.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) also tried to race to Trump’s rescue. Complaining that some Democrats on the committee have publicly said they have seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, Turner asked Brennan if it would be accurate to characterize the intelligence Brennan saw when he was CIA chief as evidence of collusion. Brennan responded that this would not be an accurate characterization. Turner smiled, as if he had just blown a hole in the Democrats’ case. Moments later, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) asked Brennan if he had seen the evidence and material shared by the FBI with the House Intelligence Committee in classified meetings. No, he had not. So Turner had proved nothing.

Perhaps the most absurd act of GOP distraction came when Rep. Ben Wenstrup (R-Ohio) raised an episode from 2012, when President Barack Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev, then the president of Russia, that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Vladimir Putin after the US presidential election. Calling this moment “pretty disturbing,” Wenstrup asked Brennan, “Would you question that interaction?” Brennan didn’t take the bait and said he had nothing to say in response. Wenstrup suggested that perhaps this should be investigated. Brennan didn’t reply.

Gowdy finished up his questioning by concentrating on leaks and the unmasking within top-secret reports of Americans picked up incidentally by US intelligence surveillance. This has become a favorite topic of Republicans looking to defect from the core features of the Trump-Russia scandal. And Gowdy, a bit defensively, noted he had waited until the end of the hearing to pose these questions so the claim could not be made that Republicans are “hyperfocused” on the matter. Yet compared with previous hearings, Gowdy was restrained in declaiming leaks. This time he did not suggest, as he has before, that journalists should be prosecuted for publishing stories containing classified information.

When the hearing ended, the Republicans departed the room quickly. A few Democratic members lingered. One complained about the slow pace of the committee’s investigation. Another pointed out that Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who’s leading the committee’s Russia investigation in Nunes’ absence, had barely participated in the hearing. Conaway had opened the hearings without any reference to the interactions between Trump associates and Russia, but he had presented a prayer that invoked Jesus. As one Democrat noted, Conaway did not ask a single question during the proceedings. “That tells you all you need to know,” this member said.

More here: 

Republicans Focus on Protecting Trump at Russia Hearing

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Focus on Protecting Trump at Russia Hearing

How the Stanford Sexual-Assault Case Could Change the Legal Definition of Rape

by Gloria30H4004 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”>

A month has passed since outrage over a sexual assault at Stanford University swept the internet, spurring protests at the school’s graduation and outcry in the US House of Representatives. Brock Turner, the 20-year-old convicted of sexually assaulting a woman outside a fraternity, was sentenced on June 2 to just six months in county jail. According to Judge Aaron Persky, a longer sentence would have a “severe impact” on the young man; many believed Turner got off easy thanks to his privilege.

The case might have passed with little attention but for a powerful statement that the victim, known only as Emily Doe, read aloud to her attacker at the sentencing hearing. Millions soon read the letter online, and since then, lawmakers and activists have seized on the issue of sexual violence in California, funneling the internet outrage into tangible legislative efforts and campaigns. While some efforts have focused on the judge who decided the sentence—for example, erecting a billboard and collecting signatures to remove him from the bench—others have sought broader changes in California rape law, hoping to ensure the next offender receives a harsher punishment. “We all need to try to protect the next Emily Doe against the next Brock Turner,” Alaleh Kianerci, the prosecutor in the case, told a state Senate committee in late June.

Here are the efforts you need to know about:

Mandatory minimums: Three weeks after the sentencing, Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen sponsored legislation that would introduce mandatory prison time for certain kinds of sexual assaults.

Turner’s six-month county jail sentence was tied to his conviction on one charge, assault with intent to rape. He was also convicted on two other charges—penetration of an intoxicated person and penetration of an unconscious person, both of which carry a sentence of three to eight years in state prison—but a legal exemption allowed the judge to sentence him to probation on both. Rosen’s bill would eliminate that exemption, making the penalties for sexual penetration of an unconscious or intoxicated person the same as that for sexual assault through physical force.

“Instead of brandishing knives or threats, these predators use vodka or beer,” Rosen testified to the Senate Committee on Public Safety on June 28. “They use the cover of the outdated, offensive perception that campus sexual assaults are simply youthful, drunken indiscretions. Violating an unconscious woman is never an indiscretion. It is a violent, predatory, and deeply destructive crime.”

The bill, introduced in the California House by Assemblymen Evan Low and Bill Dodd (both Democrats), quickly drew criticism for introducing new mandatory minimums. Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU’s California Center for Advocacy and Policy, cautioned against any laws taking away a judge’s discretion based on backlash to a single, high-profile case. “Everyone’s imaging Brock Turner and wanting him to get a longer sentence,” Minsker said. “We can’t change that sentence. Instead, the mentally ill defendant, or the defendant who has life circumstances that should be taken into consideration—that’s the person who’s going to get the longer sentence. And that person is almost certainly black or Latino.”

Recalling the judge: Within days of the sentence, Stanford law professor Michele Landis Dauber, a longtime advocate for sexual-assault victims, had begun organizing a recall campaign against Judge Aaron Persky. The campaign argues that Perksy was too lenient in his sentencing decision, in which he cited the “adverse collateral consequences on the defendant’s life”—including media attention and lifelong sex offender registration—as reasons for the light sentence.

“We believe he’s biased,” Dauber said, pointing to Persky’s related decisions—including a recent case in which Persky gave a Latino man a three-year sentence after he pleaded guilty to similar charges.

Critics of the recall, including a group of former Santa Clara County Superior Court judges, argue that Persky’s decision in the Turner case was based on a probation officer’s report, and that a recall would threaten judicial independence by making judges worry about public opinion in their decisions. Dauber, however, says that accountability to the people is already built into the state judicial system. “Under the California constitution, all of our judges are elected,” she said. “A recall is part of that process.”

Right now, the recall campaign is laying groundwork for a campaign that will need to collect around 80,000 signatures from Santa Clara County voters and raising funds (almost $350,000 so far, according to Dauber). They’ll launch their on-the-ground effort next April, aiming to put the recall on the November 2017 ballot.

While the recall campaign does not accuse Perksy of illegal conduct, California lawmakers have also asked the state’s judicial ethics body to investigate the judge. UltraViolet, a women’s rights activist group, is also campaigning for an ethics investigation into Persky’s decision.

Redefining rape: While Turner was publicly excoriated as a rapist, California law technically does not consider his crimes to be rape, since they don’t fall within its strict definition of “nonconsensual sexual intercourse.” That’s why state lawmakers led by Assemblywomen Cristina Garcia and Susan Eggman are seeking to update the archaic state code’s definition of rape to include more acts that are currently considered part of the broader category of sexual assault.

While their initial version of what’s known as Assembly Bill 701 was opposed by the ACLU due to its vague language on sentencing, later versions have made clear that the proposal will not change the sentences for the crimes it considers rape. An updated definition would hew more closely to the FBI’s definition of rape, which was expanded in 2012. Under the bill, Turner’s conviction on charges of sexually penetrating an unconscious and intoxicated person would qualify as rape. So would sexual assaults among members of the same sex, and forcible penetration by a “foreign object.”

A revised version of AB 701 was introduced on June 16 and could be reviewed by committee as soon as early August, according to an Eggman staffer. “When we fail to call rape ‘rape,'” the lawmakers said in a statement, “we rob survivors and their families of the justice they deserve.”

See the article here – 

How the Stanford Sexual-Assault Case Could Change the Legal Definition of Rape

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Stanford Sexual-Assault Case Could Change the Legal Definition of Rape

Why more roads = more traffic jams

by Genie1476e Posted on October 15, 2014

Why more roads = more traffic jams

By

15 Oct 2014 4:28 PM

Share

Share

Why more roads = more traffic jams

×

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Adding more roads — and more lanes on those roads — does absolutely nothing for gridlock. It’s counterintuitive, perhaps, but it’s true: Five years, $1 billion, and at least one new traffic-hell moniker later (“Carmageddon”), L.A. drivers on the 405 freeway actually added a minute to their daily commutes, in spite (or because?) of a snazzy new carpool lane.

From Southern California Public Radio:

That outcome is probably not surprising to economist Matthew Turner.

Turner co-authored a study that showed a one-to-one correlation in road capacity and the amount of drivers on the road.

“There’s a lot of trips that you don’t take because you don’t want to drive when it’s congested,” he says, “and if it’s little bit less congested there’s a lot of trips people are willing to take.”

There are just too many cars, and traffic has as much to do with human psychology as it does infrastructure. If we attempt to relieve gridlock, all we get is more drivers, and more gridlock. As Umbra put it in a recent post, carpool lanes are “designed to make driving easier. Yes, they have some environmental bennies, but they don’t do enough to attack our main climate goal: curbing driving, period.”

The only thing that will actually help curb traffic, according to Turner, is charging people to drive at rush hour. (He claims it’s worked in Europe and Asia). This kind of disincentive may be just as important as alt-transport incentives. Hit us where it hurts, and we may choose not to drive so much. ’Nuff said.

Source:
Why the 405 isn’t any faster with more lanes

, Southern California Public Radio.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read this article – 

Why more roads = more traffic jams

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Scotts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why more roads = more traffic jams

Study Finds Kids Prefer Healthier Lunches. School Food Lobby Refuses to Believe It.

by CarltonLenehan Posted on July 22, 2014

Mother Jones

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

From all of the commotion around the new federal school lunch standards, you’d think they were really Draconian. Republican legislators have railed against them. Districts have threatened to opt out. The School Nutrition Association (SNA), the industry group that represents the nation’s 55,000 school food employees, has officially opposed some of them—and doubled its lobbying in the months leading up to July 1, when some of the new rules took effect.

Here’s who doesn’t mind the new standards: kids. For a study just published in the peer-reviewed journal Childhood Obesity, researchers asked administrators and food service staff at 537 public elementary schools how their students were liking the meals that conformed to the new standards. Half of those surveyed said that the students “complained about the meals at first,” but 70 percent said that the students now like the new lunches. Rural districts were the least enthusiastic about the new meals—there, some respondents reported that purchasing was down and that students were eating less of their meals. But respondents from schools with a high percentage of poor students—those with at least two-thirds eligible for free or reduced-price meals—were especially positive about the new standards: They found that “more students were buying lunch and that students were eating more of the meal than in the previous year.”

“Kids who really need good nutrition most at school are getting it,” says Lindsey Turner, the Childhood Obesity study’s lead author and a research scientist at the University of Illinois-Chicago. “That’s really good news.”

SNA’s response? To issue a statement declaring that “these reported perceptions about school meals do not reflect reality.” The group cites USDA data that participation in school meals has declined by 1.4 million since the new rules went into effect in 2012. But Turner, the Childhood Obesity study’s lead author, notes that this is only about a 3 percent drop. She also points to a Government Accountability Office study that found that most of the drop-off was among students who pay full price for lunch.

What makes SNA’s stance on the new rules even stranger is that they actually are not all that strict. For example: Foods served must be whole grain rich, but as I learned from my trip to SNA’s annual conference last week, that includes whole-grain Pop Tarts, Cheetos, and Rice Krispies Treats. Students are required to take a half cup of a fruit or vegetable—but Italian ice—in flavors like Hip Hoppin’ Jelly Bean—are fair game.

Not all members of SNA consider the task of tempting kids with healthy foods onerous. As I reported last week, Jessica Shelly, food director of Cincinnati’s diverse public schools, has shown that all it takes is a little creativity.

HT The Lunch Tray.

Original post:

Study Finds Kids Prefer Healthier Lunches. School Food Lobby Refuses to Believe It.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study Finds Kids Prefer Healthier Lunches. School Food Lobby Refuses to Believe It.

Guns Are for Shooting "All Black People" and Other Horrifying Quotes From the NFL’s Dolphins Investigation

by Thorzar Posted on February 14, 2014

Mother Jones

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

In November, after Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Jonathan Martin left the team due to bullying from teammate Richie Incognito, the NFL commissioned an independent investigation to look into the matter. The results of that investigation, released today, reveal a pattern of racist, homophobic, and generally awful instances of harassment that took place inside and outside the Dolphins’ locker room. Read the lowlights—which are vulgar and graphic—below.

Incognito leaves a racist voicemail for Martin (page 10):

“Hey, wassup, you half-nigger piece of shit. I saw you on Twitter, you been training 10 weeks. I’ll shit in your fuckin’ mouth. I’m gonna slap your fuckin’ mouth, I’m gonna slap your real mother across the face laughter. Fuck you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.”

Incognito and others taunt and harass an Asian American trainer (page 22):

Incognito, Jerry and Pouncey admitted that they directed racially derogatory words toward him, including “Jap” and “Chinaman.” At times, according to Martin, they referred to the Assistant Trainer as a “dirty communist” or a “North Korean,” made demands such as “give me some water you fucking chink,” spoke to him in a phony, mocking Asian accent, including asking for “rubby rubby sucky sucky,” and called his mother a “rub and tug masseuse.” Martin and others informed us that Incognito and Jerry taunted the Assistant Trainer with jokes about having sex with his girlfriend. Incognito admitted that these types of comments were made to the Assistant Trainer.

On December 7, 2012 (the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor), Incognito, Jerry and Pouncey donned traditional Japanese headbands that featured a rising sun emblem and jokingly threatened to harm the Assistant Trainer physically in retaliation for the Pearl Harbor attack. Martin reported that the Assistant Trainer confided to him that he was upset about the Pearl Harbor prank, finding it derogatory and demeaning.

Incognito and an anonymous teammate exchange text messages joking about shooting black people (page 103):

Player B: Fuck yea! That what I’m doin my .338 in. Badass

Incognito: That’s gonna be sick

Player B: Especially if u plan living in Arizona in the future, that’s exactly what you want

Incognito: Yea. For picking off zombies

Player B: Lol isn’t that why we own any weapons!?

Incognito: That and black people

Player B: Mmm def all black ppl

Incognito and others, including a coach, engage in homophobic taunting (page 19):

Incognito and others acknowledged that Player A was routinely touched by Incognito, Jerry and Pouncey in a mockingly suggestive manner, including on his rear end, while being taunted about his supposed homosexuality. Incognito specifically admitted that he would grab Player A and ask for a hug as part of this “joke.”

Martin said that on one occasion, Pouncey physically restrained Player A and, in full view of other players, jokingly told Jerry to “come get some pussy,” and that Jerry responded by touching Player A’s buttocks in a way that simulated anal penetration. Pouncey and Jerry both denied this allegation. Given the seriousness of this allegation and the conflicting recollections, we decline to make any findings about this particular alleged incident.

The evidence shows that offensive line coach Jim Turner overheard and participated in this behavior toward Player A. During the 2012 Christmas season, Coach Turner gave all of the offensive linemen gift bags that included a variety of stocking stuffers. In each gift bag except for Player A’s, Turner included a female “blow-up” doll; Player A’s bag included a male doll.

Incognito tries to get teammates to get rid of evidence—a “fine book” that lists financial penalties for offenses like wearing “ugly ass shoes” or being a “pussy” (page 42):

“They’re trying to suspend me Please destroy the fine book first thing in the morning.”

Martin tells his parents about the taunting and his struggles with depression (page 15):

“I care about my legacy as a professional athlete. But I’m miserable currently. A therapist & medication won’t help me gain the respect of my teammates. I really don’t know what to do Mom.”

“People call me a Nigger to my face. Happened 2 days ago. And I laughed it off. Because I am too nice of a person. They say terrible things about my sister. I don’t do anything. I suppose it’s white private school conditioning, turning the other cheek”

Martin texts a friend with the pros and cons of continuing to play football (page 112):

-Football games are fun

-I can make a lot of money playing football and be set for life

-I have a legacy that will live after I die

-not many people get to live their childhood dream

-I am the left tackle for the Miami dolphins

-if I quit, I’ll be known as a quitter for the rest of my life

-my legacy at Stanford will be tarnished

-I will never be able to look any coach from my past in the eye

-I hate going in everyday.

-I am unable to socialize with my teammates in their crude manner

-I already have a lot of money. I could travel the world, get my degree. Then get a real job

-I could lose 70 lbs and feel good about my body

-I won’t die from CTE

-Maybe I’ll start to LIKE myself

-I don’t need to live lavishly. I could live very frugally

-why do I care about these people? All I need is my family

Read the full report here:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1018353-paulweissreport.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1018353-paulweissreport”
);

Miami Dolphins investigation (PDF)

Miami Dolphins investigation (Text)

Jump to original: 

Guns Are for Shooting "All Black People" and Other Horrifying Quotes From the NFL’s Dolphins Investigation

Posted in Accent, Anchor, Casio, Dolphin, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Guns Are for Shooting "All Black People" and Other Horrifying Quotes From the NFL’s Dolphins Investigation