Prosecutors will not attempt to retry former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell and his wife Maureen on corruption charges, ending a four-year saga that rocked the Commonwealth’s political class and cut short the rise of a Republican star, according to a court filing.
The filing Thursday asks that the case be sent to a lower court, where prosecutors will formally file a motion to dismiss.
...
The decision to walk away from the case comes less than a week after it was publicly reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia — which brought the case against McDonnell — had recommended pressing forward to Justice Department higher-ups. It means that they were either overruled, or convinced to change their minds.
Some legal analysts said dropping the case is appropriate.
...
Experts have predicted the ruling will help both Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who is awaiting an appeals court ruling in a corruption case, and former New York State Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver (D) who aims to overturn his corruption conviction.
MA had a primary election last Thursday. It couldn't be on Tuesday because something-something Labor Day. Due to the odd timing and the lack of statewide contests, they predicted turnout of 8-10%, and early indications are they didn't reach it. At 11 am I was the 30th voter in my precinct.
I went because my state senator declined to seek reelection while being investigated for graft and corruption. The leading candidate vying for his seat was a conservative that I wanted to vote against (not a Republican, of course, this was a primary). Since the Republicans won't bother fielding a candidate in November, the winner of the primary is a shoe-in.
I got to the polls and discovered that the senate race wasn't on my ballot. The fellow I thought was my senator, it turns out, only represents part of my town, and his seat didn't include the precinct that I'm in. So I was looking at a ballot with six races. Five of them were unopposed, and it's my policy never to vote for unopposed candidates, so I didn't fill in those ovals. The only contested race was for governor's council, a powerless "advice and consent" job that is perpetually flirting with the chopping block. Having done no research on the candidates for this pointless office, I just chose the challenger because goddammit I was going to vote for SOMEbody.
Friday on MSNBC, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said, “This race is very close. I think we’re going to make history in Texas, and frankly, I think we’re going to be in the column for Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
He's caught between a rock and a hard place with this one. If he vetos it (which he has said he will), he gets the extreme right wingers like Rip screaming that he's a horrible president and an awful American. If he lets it pass, he creates a precedent in our country that could potentially see foreign citizens suing the U.S. on a regular basis.
I think this president, more than any other in recent memory, has had to act like the adult in the room when the children demand candy before bedtime.
hepcat wrote:He's caught between a rock and a hard place with this one. If he vetos it (which he has said he will), he gets the extreme right wingers like Rip screaming that he's a horrible president and an awful American.
Relative to now when they scream that he's an awful president and a horrible American?
But the point is that it has a lot of support among Democrats, as well (note that the house unanimously voted for it, and there's enough support in the senate to override the veto).
The House Republicans' proposal for tax relief could force the government to borrow trillions of dollars to continue operating and might even weaken the economy, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
By 2025, when the reductions would be fully implemented, 99.6 percent of the tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to the analysis. This group would enjoy the greatest relief as a share of their income (increasing their incomes after taxes by 10.6 percent on average) and in terms of dollars (an average annual savings of $240,000 for each household).
Poor and working-class households would gain more modest benefits. The poorest 20 percent of Americans would see an average increase of 0.5 percent in their incomes, or about $120 a year. Households in the upper middle class, those in the 60th percentile through the 95th percentile, would pay more in taxes on average.''
...GOP lawmakers and conservative economists have been agitating for years for policy researchers and budget wonks to take into account the effects of changes in spending and taxes on the broader economy. Democrats have argued that calculating these effects is uncertain and can bias forecasts against increased public spending.
Friday's analyses are the Tax Policy Center's first attempt to estimate those broader effects, which are known as "dynamic" in the jargon of budgetary research.
No surprises here, just tax cut and spend.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
With the polls tightening so drastically, the only thing helping me sleep at night is the knowledge that saying who you're voting for is not the same as actually getting off your ass and doing it. Hopefully Hillary's ground game will be the tie breaker in the swing states, all other things being equal.
Isgrimnur wrote:Why does the right hate the middle class?
I don't think it is hate - the GOP just correctly does not fear that the middle class will figure out their long con. It frees them to serve the people who write the big checks.
Isgrimnur wrote:Why does the right hate the middle class?
I don't think it is hate - the GOP just correctly does not fear that the middle class will figure out their long con. It frees them to serve the people who write the big checks.
If you amend that to elderly middle class, I'll give it to you the generalization. Otherwise, I rather doubt the DNC would be gaining so much ground while GOP is fracturing over the reactions of the middle class, though I must admit I see a fracturing in the near future for the democrats as well. Clinton will punctuate that fracture.
I'd argue that the Republicans are doing quite well at local and state levels still and also it is less about class and more about demographics shifting.
There was some talk that Trump is in it mostly because the bad Demos (from his pov) are concentrated more heavily in safe states.
LordMortis wrote: though I must admit I see a fracturing in the near future for the democrats as well. Clinton will punctuate that fracture.
In this context does 'punctuate' mean she will come between it and keep it from happening as soon as it would have.
Or, does it mean she will serve as the wedge that will cleave the party in two?
LordMortis wrote: though I must admit I see a fracturing in the near future for the democrats as well. Clinton will punctuate that fracture.
In this context does 'punctuate' mean she will come between it and keep it from happening as soon as it would have.
Or, does it mean she will serve as the wedge that will cleave the party in two?
She maintains her position as a rallying cry for both sides of the fracture, much like what is happening now. I'm not sure she's is the wedge. Maybe analogous to the pointy edge of wedge or the plating on the steel to keep the wedge from rusting. While her going away won't patch the fracture. Her constant and scrutinized presence will put stress on it. It's hard to describe the wedge without being pejorative. I suppose one side sees themselves as keeping the country from falling into chaos while the other side sees first side as destroying the country with the status quo on a downward slope.
Federal corruption charges ... against the former aides, Joseph Percoco and Todd R. Howe, and the state official, Alain Kaloyeros, were the culmination of a long-running federal investigation into the Cuomo administration’s attempts to lure jobs and businesses to upstate New York’s limping economy by furnishing billions of dollars in state funds to developers from Buffalo to Albany. Mr. Howe is cooperating with the investigation, according to a 79-page criminal complaint unsealed on Thursday.
The charges stemmed from “two overlapping criminal schemes involving bribery, corruption and fraud in the award of hundreds of millions of dollars in state contracts and other official state benefits,” federal prosecutors said in the complaint.
Mr. Percoco, who had served as Mr. Cuomo’s executive deputy secretary, is accused of soliciting and taking more than $315,000 in bribes between 2012 and 2016 from two companies: Competitive Power Ventures, an energy company that was seeking state approvals to build a power plant in the Hudson Valley, and COR Development, a major developer in the Syracuse area that ended up with several large state-funded economic development projects. The bribes were arranged by Mr. Howe, who counted both companies among his clients.
The energy company and the developer are not named in the complaint, but several defendants charged are among the companies’ top officials.
In addition to Mr. Percoco, Mr. Howe and Mr. Kaloyeros, the complaint charged Peter Galbraith Kelly Jr., who oversaw lobbying and public relations for Competitive Power Ventures, the energy company based in Maryland and Massachusetts; Steven Aiello, the president of COR Development; Joseph Gerardi, another executive at COR; Louis Ciminelli, the founder of LPCiminelli; and Michael Laipple and Kevin Schuler, two other executives at LPCiminelli.
Mr. Kelly, known as Braith, was accused of offering and paying Mr. Percoco bribes in exchange for Mr. Percoco’s help with the power plant. The payments were made to Lisa Toscano-Percoco, Mr. Percoco’s wife, who was ostensibly employed as a consultant to Competitive Power Ventures’s educational outreach arm starting in 2012.
In emails and other correspondence, Mr. Percoco and Mr. Howe referred to the bribes as “ziti,” according to the complaint. Mr. Percoco apparently used the name “Herb” while discussing the arrangement.
Mr. Aiello and Mr. Gerardi were accused of giving Mr. Percoco about $35,000 in bribes to use his position in the governor’s office to “promote” the company’s economic development projects.
They sought Mr. Percoco’s help in reversing a decision by the state’s economic development agency that would have forced COR — Mr. Cuomo’s largest donor in Central New York — to make an expensive labor peace agreement; pushing the state to release payments that it owed to COR; and getting a $5,000 raise for Mr. Aiello’s son, who worked for Mr. Percoco at the governor’s office, according to the complaint.
The charges in the complaint included bribery, extortion under the color of right, wire fraud and honest services fraud.
Mr. Howe had already pleaded guilty to extortion, wire fraud and related conspiracy charges. His lawyer, Richard J. Morvillo, would say only that his client “has accepted responsibility for his actions and will testify truthfully if called upon.”
Made the mistake of clicking on the Hillary and Trump threads after not clicking on them for several days and ignoring all H&T talk in my social media feeds. My mood had been noticeably lifted this week.
Then I almost topped it off with replying.
Is there a way to <ploink> a whole forum so I don't give in to the temptation of my own stupidity.
Then I need you to find a way to <ploink> cigarettes.
If FP could on that for me, I'd be much appreciative.
Disney has pulled a controversial costume off sale after complaints of cultural appropriation.
...
The Halloween fancy dress costume was based on [Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson's] character Māui and comes with an island-style skirt, rope necklace, tattoos, and has padded arms and legs to imitate his muscular body.
More notably, the costume is coloured brown to match the character's skin colour.
After people accused Disney of using 'brownface' and contributing towards cultural stereotypes, the company has confirmed that it has removed the costume from its website as well as from its shops.
Pyjamas and men's T-shirts showing a similar design have also been taken off sale.
"The team behind Moana has taken great care to respect the cultures of the Pacific Islands that inspired the film, and we regret that the Maui costume has offended some," Disney said in a statement.
...
A co-leader of New Zealand's indigenous Maori Party and a member of New Zealand's parliament, Maramba Fox, has said that the costume was a case of cultural misappropriation and that Disney was trying to profit off of another culture's intellectual property.
I didn't realize that native dress was capable of receiving intellectual property protections.
I'm rapidly growing tired of accusations of "cultural misappropriation". It's time to chill the fudge out, people. There are real issues on the table and we're fighting over whether or not Stoner Bob is a dick because he has dreadlocks (newflash: he's a dick because he's Stoner Bob)?
I may consider myself a liberal, but these kind of people are the liberal version of the alt right.
With the right seemingly trying to break the landspeed record away from what I used to believe was right leaning libertarianism and the disregard we, as a nation, collectively show for maintaining the public services we need to keep living in a modern world, I may have to consider myself a liberal soon too. It's downright, shameful.
hepcat wrote:I'm rapidly growing tired of accusations of "cultural misappropriation". It's time to chill the fudge out, people. There are real issues on the table and we're fighting over whether or not Stoner Bob is a dick because he has dreadlocks (newflash: he's a dick because he's Stoner Bob)?
I may consider myself a liberal, but these kind of people are the liberal version of the alt right.
As a Pacific person, I can't tell you how excited I am to see this movie. Seeing faces that look like mine, telling a story that relates to me. I just don't have the words.
I haven't felt this excited about a Disney film in decades.
I am excited that the film has given a voice to many Pacific people who might have otherwise gone unheard when discussing issues about culture, people and place in the context of the Pacific and our stories.
It has also raised important questions about cultural appropriation and misappropriation. Is Disney doing it right?
Is there a way to celebrate Moana and Pacific culture, without offending Pacific people?
...
On paper, it seems like a pretty logical decision to create a costume.
There is not much to work with in terms of clothes though, as he only wears a grass skirt and a necklace made of shells. Hence the final product that Disney released - a body suit with brown skin, tattoos, Maui's necklace, and a grass skirt.
In reality, it has offended many Pacific people. I understand the reasoning behind the grass skirt and the necklace, but the brown skin is too far, and the tattoos are culturally misappropriated.
Tattoos are deeply meaningful to Pacific people. Like a fingerprint, a tattoo is unique to each person.
Our markings tell a personal story that we carry with us on our skin, everywhere we go - constantly reminding us of our values, our people, and our identity.
It is considered taboo and extremely disrespectful in many Pacific cultures to wear the markings of a people or place that you are not spiritually or physically connected to. After the release of Moana, Maui may be a Disney character to some, but to many Pacific people, he is very real - a hero, ancestor, demi-God and a spiritual guide.
Even for Pacific people who don't believe in Maui, replicating a Polynesian tattoo and offering it to children for a price is belittling and trivializing an intimate aspect of Pacific people and culture.
Knowing this, Disney could have reconsidered their decision to include tattoos on Maui's costume. That would have also eliminated the need for the brown skin body suit that many consider "brownface". They also would have anticipated the backlash from Pacific people who interpret their decision as inappropriate and disrespectful at best - and at worst, a way to make money from a particularly significant aspect of Pacific culture.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
A new study out of the Yale School of Medicine shows that most preschool teachers are guilty of implicit (and often unconscious) racial bias when disciplining students. But the way that bias is applied differs based on the teacher’s race — in a way that may surprise people.
In analyzing 132 staff of early childhood programs, most of whom were teachers, researchers found that most of them had “a tendency to more closely observe blacks and especially black boys when challenging behaviors are expected.” But the team also found that black teachers hold black students to a higher standard of behaviors than white teachers do, and were more likely to punish them harshly.
The findings were enlightening, and may help explain why black children are suspended at a much higher rate than their white counterparts, said Walter S. Gilliam, one of five researchers on the project. Gilliam is also director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy and Associate Professor of Child Psychiatry and Psychology at the Yale Child Study Center.
According to the U.S. Department of Education, black children make up only 19 percent of preschool enrollment, but comprise 47 percent of preschoolers suspended one or more times. Those overwhelming numbers indicate that bias could be at play, Gilliam said. “Implicit bias is like the wind — you can not see it, but you can see the effects of it,” he said during a conference call this week. “Early educators are not immune to implicit biases. No one is.”
The Senate voted Wednesday to give families of 9/11 victims the right to sue the Saudi Arabian government, overriding President Obama's veto for the first time.
The vote was lopsided, with 97 Senators voting in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Senators Tim Kaine, D-Va. and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt. did not vote.
...
The House is likely to consider its own veto override by the end of this week. The House initially passed the measure on a voice vote earlier this month, two days before the 15th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks.
The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though. And there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.
Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.
...
Those concerns were underscored by CIA Director John Brennan shortly before the Senate vote.
"The principle of sovereign immunity protects U.S. officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity," Brennan said in a statement. "If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States—and few institutions would be at greater risk than CIA."
Under the principle of "sovereign immunity," a country should remain immune from lawsuits in the courts of another country. Although there are some very limited exceptions to that principle already, critics complain the measure allowing lawsuits against the Saudi government creates a dangerously wide exception.
...
Congress already has allowed Americans to sue countries that have been designated as "state sponsors of terrorism," but currently, that list includes only three countries — Iran, Syria and Sudan. The White House says that designation is assigned only after very careful review by national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials, and that such designations should not be left to private litigants and judges.
In the House, the veto override was approved a few hours later, 348 to 77.
...
Saudi Arabia has warned the Obama administration and members of Congress that the law could force them to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets to avoid them from being seized in court settlements. Next came the argument, made by the kingdom’s phalanx of lobbyists, that the law would expose the United States to lawsuits abroad and possibly cause complications for its armed forces.
