Joining the panel for today's show, we have: David Ignatius, Sam Stein, April Ryan, Josh Green, Kristen Welker, John Harwood, Luke Russert, Sen. Cory Gardner, Sen. Chris Coons, Katty Kay, Cokie Roberts, Phil Mattingly, Steve Schmidt, Chuck Todd, Valerie Jarrett, Grover Norquist, Ari Melber, Dan Price, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Brian Sullivan and Kelley Paul...
There was a 19-0 vote to allow Congress to have their vote on that Nuclear Deal. John Kerry lobbied hard and until 1130PM last night to try to get anyone to vote against it but obviously that did not work. The new York Times reports that the POTUS Administration then had to back off letting this go.
Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal. The White House relented on Tuesday and said President Obama would sign a compromise bill giving Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear accord with Iran as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in rare unanimous agreement, moved the legislation to the full Senate for a vote.
An unusual alliance of Republican opponents of the nuclear deal and some of Mr. Obama’s strongest Democratic supporters demanded a congressional role as international negotiators work to turn this month’s nuclear framework into a final deal by June 30. White House officials insisted they extracted crucial last-minute concessions. Republicans — and many Democrats — said the president simply got overrun. Speaking to air force commanders in Tehran on Thursday, Ayatollah Ali Khameini said Iran interactive Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program.
“We’re involved here. We have to be involved here,” said Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, the committee’s ranking Democrat, who served as a bridge between the White House and Republicans as they negotiated changes in the days before the committee’s vote on Tuesday. “Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime.”
Mr. Kerry left a classified briefing with senators at the Capitol. The essence of the legislation is that Congress will have a chance to vote on whatever deal emerges with Iran — if one is reached by June 30 — but in a way that would be extremely difficult for Mr. Obama to lose, allowing Secretary of State John Kerry to tell his Iranian counterpart that the risk that an agreement would be upended on Capitol Hill is limited.
As Congress considers any accord on a very short timetable, it would essentially be able to vote on an eventual end to sanctions, and then later take up the issue depending on whether Iran has met its own obligations. But if it rejected the agreement, Mr. Obama could veto that legislation — and it would take only 34 senators to sustain the veto, meaning that Mr. Obama could lose upward of a dozen Democratic senators and still prevail.
The bill would require that the administration send the text of a final accord, along with classified material, to Congress as soon as it is completed. It also halts any lifting of sanctions pending a 30-day congressional review, and culminates in a possible vote to allow or forbid the lifting of congressionally imposed sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It passed 19 to 0.
Why Mr. Obama gave in after fierce opposition was the last real dispute of what became a rout. Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Obama was not “particularly thrilled” with the bill, but had decided that a new proposal put together by the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made enough changes to make it acceptable. “We’ve gone from a piece of legislation that the president would veto to a piece of legislation that’s undergone substantial revision such that it’s now in the form of a compromise that the president would be willing to sign,” Mr. Earnest said. “That would certainly be an improvement.”
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the committee’s chairman, had a far different interpretation. As late as 11:30 a.m., in a classified briefing at the Capitol, Mr. Kerry was urging senators to oppose the bill. The “change occurred when they saw how many senators were going to vote for this, and only when that occurred,” Mr. Corker said.
Mr. Cardin said that the “fundamental provisions” of the legislation had not changed. But the compromise between him and Mr. Corker did shorten a review period of a final Iran nuclear deal and soften language that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran’s ending support for terrorism. The agreement almost certainly means Congress will muscle its way into nuclear negotiations that Mr. Obama sees as a legacy-defining foreign policy achievement.
The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this month, and House Republican leaders have promised to pass it shortly after.“Congress absolutely should have the opportunity to review this deal,” the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Tuesday. “We shouldn’t just count on the administration, who appears to want a deal at any cost.”White House officials blitzed Congress in the days after the framework of a nuclear deal was announced, making 130 phone calls to lawmakers, but quickly came to the conclusion that the legislation could not be blocked altogether.
Moreover, officials increasingly worried that an unresolved fight could torpedo the next phase of negotiations with Iran.“Having this lingering uncertainty about whether we could deliver on our side of the deal was probably a deal killer,” said a senior administration official, who asked for anonymity to describe internal deliberations.Under the compromise legislation, a 60-day review period of a final nuclear agreement in the original bill was in effect cut in half, to 30 days, starting with its submission to Congress. But tacked on to that review period potentially would be the maximum 12 days the president would have to decide whether to accept or veto a resolution of disapproval, should Congress take that vote.
The formal review period would also include a maximum of 10 days Congress would have to override the veto. For Republicans, that would mean the president could not lift sanctions for a maximum of 52 days after submitting a final accord to Congress, along with all classified material.
And if a final accord is not submitted to Congress by July 9, the review period will snap back to 60 days. That would prevent the administration from intentionally delaying the submission of the accord to the Capitol. Congress could not reopen the mechanics of a deal, and taking no action would be the equivalent of allowing it to move forward.Mr. Corker also agreed to a significant change on the terrorism language.
Initially, the bill said the president had to certify every 90 days that Iran no longer was supporting terrorism against Americans. If he could not, economic sanctions would be reimposed.Its a treaty, and the Senate has to ratify it.Based on the past performances of the executive and legislative branches over the past twenty.Of course congress who represent their constituents should have a say on IMPORTANT issues like this...NOT just one person sitting in a white.The Iranian talks are such that the Senate should back any deal the President would make with the Iranians. It's also a way to debate.
Under the agreement, the president would still have to send periodic reports to Congress on Iran’s activities regarding ballistic missiles and terrorism, but those reports could not trigger another round of sanctions. The measure still faces hurdles. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, fresh off the opening of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, dropped plans to push for an amendment to make any Iran deal dependent on the Islamic Republic’s recognition of the State of Israel, a diplomatic nonstarter. But he hinted that he could try on the Senate floor. “Not getting anything done plays right into the hands of the administration,” Mr. Rubio said.
Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, abandoned an amendment to make any Iran accord into a formal international treaty needing two-thirds of the Senate for its ratification, but he, too, said it could be revived before the full Senate. Mr. Earnest said the president also wanted no more changes. “We’re asking for a commitment that people will pursue the process that’s contemplated in this bill,” he said.
Democrats had implored Mr. Obama to embrace the legislation. “If the administration can’t persuade 34 senators of whatever party that this agreement is worth proceeding with, then it’s really a bad agreement,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said. “That’s the threshold.”
To temper opposition to the deal, Mr. Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz gathered with senators Tuesday morning in a classified briefing, after a similar briefing on Monday for the House. But the administration met firm opposition in both parties. The agreement “puts Iran, the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, on the path to a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, as he emerged from the briefing. “Whether that’s a matter of months or a matter of years, that’s a dangerous outcome not just to United States and allies like Israel but to the entire world.”
On Tuesday, the Center for Security Policy sent a thank you letter containing signatures from more than 150 security experts to Sen. Tom Cotton and the other 46 senators that sent an open letter to Iran’s leaders in regard to a nuclear deal between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. Cotton and 46 other senators sent a letter to the Ayatollah in the beginning of March, explaining that any nuclear deal reached by the president could be revoked by the next president or that it could be modified by Congress. The letter from the Center for Security Policy, which was released in a press release, read in part:
“Given the chimerical nature of the so-called framework agreement—which is, at the moment, being characterized in wildly different ways by the various parties, raising profound uncertainty about the nature and extent of the commitments Iran is making, their actual value in preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons program, the timing and extent of sanctions relief, etc.—the need for congressional oversight, advice and consent concerning any accord that flows from that agreement can no longer responsibly be denied.“
“It would be a serious affront to the Constitution and to the American people were an agreement of this potentially enormous strategic consequence not to be submitted for such action by the Congress. Grievous insult would be added to injury should the United Nations Security Council instead be asked to approve it.” Among the signatures of the letter to Cotton where: the Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell, a former United States ambassador, multiple high-ranking military officials, as well as other national security experts.
BTW, Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times. But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response for it. The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.
“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”
My feeling is that anyone that ever communicated with her via email would see the URL and that mail server she typed it on and sent it. But she (Hilary Clinton) ignored ity before resigning from that position 7 weeks later. What is alarming to me and Sam Stein is that this was brought up years ago and she still had no clue how to handle it today.
Regardless of the email controversy that is just not going away today, Democrat Hillary Clinton, at the first official event of her presidential campaign, spelled out the ideas that she said will be at the heart of her campaign.
"I want to be the champion who goes to bat for Americans in four big areas," she told four students and three educators at a roundtable staged in an automotive technology classroom at a community college. It was the first time Clinton had laid out specific campaign themes since she announced on Sunday in a short video that she's in the 2016 race for the Oval Office. "We need to build the economy of tomorrow, not yesterday," she said, as a handpicked audience of 20 and about 60 reporters looked on. "We need to strengthen families and communities because that's where it all starts.
"And we need to fix the dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," she said. "And we need to protect our country from threats that we see and the ones that are on the horizon. So I'm here in Iowa to begin a conversation about how we do that." Democrat Hillary Clinton explains why she's running for president following a roundtable with students at Kirkwood Community College's satellite campus in Monticello, Iowa. Republicans noted that as Clinton spoke, big Democratic donors, including Clinton allies, were convening in California to talk this week about spending millions of dollars on liberal groups. And the New York Times reported last week that her campaign and her allies will likely haul in $2.5 billion, "dwarfing the vast majority of her would-be rivals in both parties."
In 2008, Clinton's final presidential campaign rally in Iowa was at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, a city with a substantial Democratic population. She came full circle Tuesday kicking off her premier 2016 event at Kirkwood, but at one of its 11 regional sites. The Jones County Regional Center, just south of Monticello, is one of four where students can earn college credits or certificates while concurrently enrolled in high school. It was no accident that she chose a community college, Clinton said. The colleges are part of her plan for a better future, she said.
Clinton hit on points that catered to the liberal base in Iowa, saying the economy has improved, but "it's fair to say the deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. There's something wrong with that. There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. "There's something wrong when American workers keep getting more productive, as they have, and as I just saw a few minutes ago is very possible because of education and skills training, but that productivity is not matched in their paychecks," said Clinton who took a tour of the college.
"And there's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days," she said. "There's something wrong when students and their families have to go deeply into debt to be able to get the education and skills they need in order to make the best of their own lives." Clinton traveled cross-country from her home state of New York to get to Iowa Monday night, riding in a van with Secret Service and a couple staffers.
"A lot of people in the last few days have asked me, 'Well, why do you want to do this?' And 'What motivates you?' And I guess the short answer is I've been fighting for children and families my entire adult life - probably because of my mother's example. She had a really difficult childhood, was mistreated, neglected, but she never gave up," she said. Clinton said she was also thinking about the lesson she learned in church that "you're supposed to give back and help others."
As a candidate who is just starting to re-introduce herself to Iowans since she ended her 2008 campaign, she ticked off basic points on her resume. Clinton talked about working for a children's defense fund, then in Arkansas worked to improve education. As first lady, she fought for health care reform and kept fighting until they passed health insurance for kids, she said. As a U.S. senator, she dealt with problems New York faced after 9/11. "And then as secretary of state standing up for our country," she said.
Clinton said: "I want to stand up and fight for people so they cannot just get by, but they get ahead and stay ahead." Then she asked for thoughts from those at the roundtable -- Diane Temple, an composition instructor at the community college; Ellen Schlarmann, a junior at Monticello High School; Andrew Lorimer, a senior at Springville High School; Drew Moellenhauer, a student at Central City High School; Jason McLaughlin, the principal at Central City High; and Bethany Moore, a non-traditional student and mother of three; and Kirkwood Community College President Mick Starcevich.
After the 1 1/2-hour event, she responded to three questions that reporters called out. Clinton repeated her rationale from running, and told reporters she was going to "steal" an idea from Starcevich about an "opportunity system," where the K-12 and college education systems help students find the right career paths. But Clinton turned away when the press shouted out more questions, saying with a smile: "More to come, everybody." A likely Democratic rival, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, did nine press gaggles to answer reporters' questions and did nine one-on-one interviews, his backers say.
Press dodging, trust and inevitability were the themes in Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann's statement in response to Clinton's visit. "We're glad Hillary Clinton finally arrived for her Democratic coronation, but there are still many questions left unanswered," he said. One question, he said, is "how are Iowans supposed to trust you when your decades in D.C. have been marked with endless scandal and controversy?"
Clinton's campaign aides intentionally designed her two-day debut Iowa swing to be a listening tour, staged in small, casual settings, mostly out of the glare of press scrutiny. They've said she will take a more humble approach this time around, recasting the focus away from herself and onto ordinary Americans. And her strategists have already begun to downplay expectations for her predicted victory in the Iowa caucuses in February, saying "This is going to be a competitive caucus."
That exchange with Kristen Welker was priceless. I saw that last night or yesterday and cracked up out loud but also, Hilary is indeed sounding like Elizabeth (Warren) the 2nd. It seems like everyone on the panel laughed at that Kristen Welker and Hilary exchange. That was hilarious but now that I think about it, she most likely does not want to answer to that Darrell Issa email story that broke but this exchange did happen before it so scratch that one please. But she cannot be acting this way towards media people where it just seems like she is blowing whomever off which it did big time with this one. At first, she was so nice to her (Kristen Welker) and then she brushed her off with an answer that did not even make sense considering the question about how she plans on winning in Iowa this time around (which will be becauseOobama is NOT in the race, but anyway).
I also posted that video of the reporters runnnig towards the Scooby van yesterday afternoon at Sunset Daily:
I also posted that video of the reporters runnnig towards the Scooby van yesterday afternoon at Sunset Daily:
Continuing what we said about Paul Blart, the cop in Tulsa Oklahoma that used his gun rather than a Tasor which eventually killed someone, CNN does now reprt that did volunteer deputy in Tulsa shooting pay to be a cop? Robert Bates was a volunteer deputy who'd never led an arrest for the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office. So how did the 73-year-old insurance company CEO end up joining a sting operation this month that ended when he pulled out his handgun and killed suspect Eric Harris instead of stunning him with a Taser? A lawyer representing the Harris family says the answer is simple.Bates paid big money to play a cop in his spare time, attorney Daniel Smolen says, but he didn't have the training to handle the job. It's a claim that Bates' attorney and the Sheriff's Office deny, arguing that he was experienced and qualified for the role. His donations of equipment to the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office and his friendship with Sheriff Stanley Glanz, they say, have nothing to do with the April 2 shooting. But as Bates faces a second-degree manslaughter charge, analysts say the case raises serious questions about who's policing America's streets, how and why.
How much training did he have?
Investigators have said Bates meant to pull out his Taser but accidentally used his handgun during the undercover weapons sting. In a video of the shooting, he's heard announcing that he's going to deploy his stun gun, and then apologizing, saying, "I shot him. I'm sorry." Critics call it a clear case of police brutality and question whether Bates had the know-how to be a deputy. "It's absolutely mind-boggling that you have a wealthy businessman who's been essentially deputized to go play like he's some outlaw, like he's just cleaning up the streets," Smolen said. Scott Wood, an attorney who represents Bates, said his client -- who had donated cars and video equipment to the Sheriff's Office -- had undergone all the required training and had participated in more than 100 operations with the office's violent crimes task force. He'd never been the main deputy in charge of arresting a suspect, Wood said, but was thrust into the situation because Harris ran from deputies, who were trying to arrest him after he sold a gun to an undercover investigator. Bates worked for the Tulsa Police Department for a year in the 1960s. He'd been a reserve deputy since 2008, with 300 hours of training and 1,100 hours of community policing experience, according to the Sheriff's Office.
He was also a frequent contributor to the Sheriff's Office, including $2,500 to Glanz's re-election. Tulsa County Sheriff's Maj. Shannon Clark denied accusations that Bates had paid to play a cop, describing him as one of many volunteers in the community who have contributed to the agency. "No matter how you cut it up, Deputy Bates met all the criteria on the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training to be in the role that he was in," Clark said. Clark said the agency is now looking into its reserve program but notes that the 130 volunteer deputies have played a crucial role policing fairs, helping out after tornadoes and rescuing people from burning homes.
How much training did he have?
Investigators have said Bates meant to pull out his Taser but accidentally used his handgun during the undercover weapons sting. In a video of the shooting, he's heard announcing that he's going to deploy his stun gun, and then apologizing, saying, "I shot him. I'm sorry." Critics call it a clear case of police brutality and question whether Bates had the know-how to be a deputy. "It's absolutely mind-boggling that you have a wealthy businessman who's been essentially deputized to go play like he's some outlaw, like he's just cleaning up the streets," Smolen said. Scott Wood, an attorney who represents Bates, said his client -- who had donated cars and video equipment to the Sheriff's Office -- had undergone all the required training and had participated in more than 100 operations with the office's violent crimes task force. He'd never been the main deputy in charge of arresting a suspect, Wood said, but was thrust into the situation because Harris ran from deputies, who were trying to arrest him after he sold a gun to an undercover investigator. Bates worked for the Tulsa Police Department for a year in the 1960s. He'd been a reserve deputy since 2008, with 300 hours of training and 1,100 hours of community policing experience, according to the Sheriff's Office.
He was also a frequent contributor to the Sheriff's Office, including $2,500 to Glanz's re-election. Tulsa County Sheriff's Maj. Shannon Clark denied accusations that Bates had paid to play a cop, describing him as one of many volunteers in the community who have contributed to the agency. "No matter how you cut it up, Deputy Bates met all the criteria on the Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training to be in the role that he was in," Clark said. Clark said the agency is now looking into its reserve program but notes that the 130 volunteer deputies have played a crucial role policing fairs, helping out after tornadoes and rescuing people from burning homes.
Deputy: I thought he had a gun
Bates' attorney describes the shooting as an "excusable homicide," arguing his client is not guilty of second-degree manslaughter. "We believe the video itself proves that it was an accident of misfortune that occurred while Deputy Bates was fulfilling his duties as a reserve deputy," Wood said. In a statement he made to investigators after the shooting, Bates said he'd attended "numerous schools and seminars related to drug investigations and the tactical operations associated with the apprehension of suspects involved in drug trafficking." He also said he'd attended a five-day homicide investigation school in Dallas and had training from Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on responding to active shooters. The gun he used was his personal weapon, he said, adding that he qualified at the range last fall. In the report, he describes how, from his position on the perimeter, he saw Harris running from officers. "I noticed that Harris was running in an unusual way because as he ran he repeatedly touched his right hand to his waistband," he wrote. "Based on my past experience, primarily with the task force, and my past training, I believed that Harris might be carrying a gun." It was the fear that Harris could have a gun, he says later in the report, that made him rush to use his Taser as he saw Harris on the pavement, struggling with deputies as they tried to arrest him. "My training on ground fighting, even going back to when I was on the Tulsa Police Department, has been that it is one of the most dangerous situations an officer can experience," he wrote.
'Recipe for disaster'
While many departments have volunteer police programs, such positions are generally used for crowd control or less volatile situations, experts said. The Oklahoma case raises a troubling question, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said. "Do we want really what are ordinary citizens, with enough money to play to be police officers, policing our streets? This is a very, very dangerous precedent," she said. "And I think it's now time for either the Justice Department, perhaps, or every single police department to review this, the deputy status, because we're going to see more and more of this kind of thing, if it isn't happening more than we even know." Daniel Bongino, a former Secret Service Agent, said the New York Police Department's auxiliary department is a good example of a program that works. "You go through a police academy, and you're primarily used in traffic situations, busy shopping areas. They're not armed, they're usually with an armed regular police officer. I think it's a far better model," he told CNN's "AC360." "I think you were almost setting yourself up for failure in this situation in Tulsa, having a 73-year-old man, however good or bad intentioned, in that kind of situation, with a potential gun crime. That was a recipe for disaster."Look no further than the recent movie "Foxcatcher" for an example of how donations to law enforcement in order to play the role of a deputy are "very concerning," said Phil Stinson, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University. John du Pont, the killer depicted in the film, made significant donations to police, Stinson told "AC360." "He had given a great deal of money, he'd given cars, given use of a helicopter, actually set up a firing range for a township police department outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania," he said. "So we've actually seen this before, and if you think about the troubles police departments have had with budgets in recent years, it's rather tempting if you're the head of that type of agency to take someone up on this, and give them the action experiences that they're looking for. It's really pay for play." CNN's Atika Shubert contributed to this report.
I have to say that it reminds me of what George Zimmerman wanted to do by playing policeman.
Cory Gardner and Sen. Chris Coons are on now discussing that vote yesterday and honestly, I am not against what they did except that the ONLY problem is that we are NOT the only ones (country) in on this deal. Therefore, what will the other countries think about it? I am glad they will not be able to attach this now to any future deals like that appropriations deal set to hit the floor in May. I will tell you that getting into the weeds like they are doing in this segment is going to be so necessary because this is way hard. Like talking about the center fuges (sp?) if that is the correct saying for that term is daunting to me but again, they must know that information. One day when Dan Pfeifer was on, he answered a question on the panel saying something about center fuges and I knew it was smart and detailed but I was also like not now please. I am not even sure if that is correct way to say it. I am merely sounding it out so I must learn about it over the next few months. And, I must learn what it does for Nuclear power and how it helps gain whatever country weaponry using Nukes. But there is no way around it (getting deep into things when closing this deal).
Bates' attorney describes the shooting as an "excusable homicide," arguing his client is not guilty of second-degree manslaughter. "We believe the video itself proves that it was an accident of misfortune that occurred while Deputy Bates was fulfilling his duties as a reserve deputy," Wood said. In a statement he made to investigators after the shooting, Bates said he'd attended "numerous schools and seminars related to drug investigations and the tactical operations associated with the apprehension of suspects involved in drug trafficking." He also said he'd attended a five-day homicide investigation school in Dallas and had training from Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on responding to active shooters. The gun he used was his personal weapon, he said, adding that he qualified at the range last fall. In the report, he describes how, from his position on the perimeter, he saw Harris running from officers. "I noticed that Harris was running in an unusual way because as he ran he repeatedly touched his right hand to his waistband," he wrote. "Based on my past experience, primarily with the task force, and my past training, I believed that Harris might be carrying a gun." It was the fear that Harris could have a gun, he says later in the report, that made him rush to use his Taser as he saw Harris on the pavement, struggling with deputies as they tried to arrest him. "My training on ground fighting, even going back to when I was on the Tulsa Police Department, has been that it is one of the most dangerous situations an officer can experience," he wrote.
'Recipe for disaster'
While many departments have volunteer police programs, such positions are generally used for crowd control or less volatile situations, experts said. The Oklahoma case raises a troubling question, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said. "Do we want really what are ordinary citizens, with enough money to play to be police officers, policing our streets? This is a very, very dangerous precedent," she said. "And I think it's now time for either the Justice Department, perhaps, or every single police department to review this, the deputy status, because we're going to see more and more of this kind of thing, if it isn't happening more than we even know." Daniel Bongino, a former Secret Service Agent, said the New York Police Department's auxiliary department is a good example of a program that works. "You go through a police academy, and you're primarily used in traffic situations, busy shopping areas. They're not armed, they're usually with an armed regular police officer. I think it's a far better model," he told CNN's "AC360." "I think you were almost setting yourself up for failure in this situation in Tulsa, having a 73-year-old man, however good or bad intentioned, in that kind of situation, with a potential gun crime. That was a recipe for disaster."Look no further than the recent movie "Foxcatcher" for an example of how donations to law enforcement in order to play the role of a deputy are "very concerning," said Phil Stinson, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Bowling Green State University. John du Pont, the killer depicted in the film, made significant donations to police, Stinson told "AC360." "He had given a great deal of money, he'd given cars, given use of a helicopter, actually set up a firing range for a township police department outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania," he said. "So we've actually seen this before, and if you think about the troubles police departments have had with budgets in recent years, it's rather tempting if you're the head of that type of agency to take someone up on this, and give them the action experiences that they're looking for. It's really pay for play." CNN's Atika Shubert contributed to this report.
I have to say that it reminds me of what George Zimmerman wanted to do by playing policeman.
Cory Gardner and Sen. Chris Coons are on now discussing that vote yesterday and honestly, I am not against what they did except that the ONLY problem is that we are NOT the only ones (country) in on this deal. Therefore, what will the other countries think about it? I am glad they will not be able to attach this now to any future deals like that appropriations deal set to hit the floor in May. I will tell you that getting into the weeds like they are doing in this segment is going to be so necessary because this is way hard. Like talking about the center fuges (sp?) if that is the correct saying for that term is daunting to me but again, they must know that information. One day when Dan Pfeifer was on, he answered a question on the panel saying something about center fuges and I knew it was smart and detailed but I was also like not now please. I am not even sure if that is correct way to say it. I am merely sounding it out so I must learn about it over the next few months. And, I must learn what it does for Nuclear power and how it helps gain whatever country weaponry using Nukes. But there is no way around it (getting deep into things when closing this deal).
On another note, those teachers down in Atlanta got crushed with sentencing yesterday. That Judge went off about them too. Ashley Fantz reports for CNN that prison time for some Atlanta school educators in cheating scandal and there was nothing routine about a sentencing hearing Tuesday in Atlanta that wrote the final legal chapter of one of the most massive school cheating scandals in the country. Educators were convicted April 1 of racketeering and other lesser crimes related to inflating test scores of children from struggling schools. One teacher was acquitted. One by one, they stood, alongside their attorneys, before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter. In this system, a jury decides guilt or innocence, the judge metes out punishment. Throughout the five-month trial, Baxter has been pointed. Until Monday, he said he planned to sentence the educators to prison. When verdicts were reached, he ordered them directly to jail. But on Monday he changed his mind and decided to allow prosecutors to offer them deals that would have allowed them to avoid the possible 20-year sentence that racketeering carries. And that's why there were sparks when some of the educators, flanked by their attorneys, did not directly and readily admit their responsibility. Baxter was not pleased. He raised his voice numerous times and shouted at attorneys. Some attorneys shouted back. At one point, one of the defense lawyers said he might move to recuse the judge and the judge retorted that he could send that attorney to jail. "Everybody starts crying about these educators. This was not a victimless crime that occurred in this city!" Baxter said.
"Everybody knew cheating was going on and your client promoted it," Baxter said to an attorney representing Atlanta Public Schools educator Sharon Davis-Williams, who Baxter sentenced to seven years in prison. Davis-Williams was ordered to perform 2,000 hours of community service and pay a $25,000 fine. Repeatedly, Baxter appeared frustrated when more educators did not simply accept the deal and plainly vocalize their guilt. "These stories are incredible. These kids can't read," he said. "This is the time to search your soul," Baxter said. "It's just taking responsibility. ... No one has taken responsibility that I can see." In 2013, a Fulton County grand jury indicted 35 educators from the Atlanta Public Schools district, and more than 20 took a plea deal. Among them were teachers, principals and testing coordinators. The cheating is believed to date back to 2001, when scores on statewide aptitude tests improved greatly, according to a 2013 indictment. The indictment also states that for at least four years, between 2005 and 2009, test answers were altered, fabricated or falsely certified. A review that former Gov. Sonny Perdue ordered, determined that some cheating had occurred in more than half the district's elementary and middle schools.
Michael Bowers, a former Georgia attorney general who investigated the cheating scandal, said in 2013 that there were "cheating parties," erasures in and out of classrooms, and teachers were told to make changes to student answers on tests. "Anything that you can imagine that could involve cheating -- it was done," he said at the time. During his investigation, he heard that educators cheated out of pride, to earn bonuses, to enhance their careers or to keep their jobs, he said. The cheating allegedly involved the top educator in the district, ex-Atlanta Public Schools Superintendent Beverly Hall. Hall said she was innocent. Suffering from cancer, she died before she could stand trial.
The sentences
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's investigative journalism is credited with first examining the corruption within the city's public school system. On Tuesday, the newspaper published photos of each of those who took plea deals and the sentences they received.
* Donald Bullock was first. Witnesses testified that Bullock urged them to change test answers, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The former testing coordinator was ordered to serve five years probation, six months of weekends behind bars, pay a $5,000 fine and perform 1,500 hours of community service. As part of his deal, Bullock agreed to waive his right to appeal.
* Angela Williamson, a former teacher, was ordered to serve two years in prison. She was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and perform 1,500 hours of community service.
* Pamela Cleveland, a former teacher, was ordered to serve one year home confinement, pay a $1,000 fine and perform 1,000 hours of community service. "I am guilty of the charges against me," Cleveland said in court.
* Michael Pitts, a former schools executive, was accused of telling teachers to cheat and then telling them not to talk to Georgia Bureau of Investigators who were looking into the scandal. He was ordered to serve seven years in prison, perform 2,000 hours of community service and pay a $25,000 fine.
* Tamara Cotman, a former schools administrator, was ordered to serve seven years in prison, pay a $25,000 fine and perform 2000 hours of community service.
* Dana Evans, a former principal, was ordered to serve one year and perform 1,000 hours of community service.
*Tabeeka Jordan, former assistant principal, was ordered to serve two years in prison, perform 1,500 hours of community service and pay $5,000 fine
* Theresia Copeland, a former test coordinator, was ordered to serve one year in prison, perform 1,000 hours of community service and pay a $1,000 fine.
* Diane Buckner-Webb, a former teacher, was ordered to serve one year in prison, perform 1,000 hours of community service and pay a $1,000 fine.
BTW, Chris Christie is on the (campaign) trail. Christie paints himself as man of the people.
At 11 a.m., he was the governor of New Jersey – the latest politician to take the stage at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics with a policy pitch and, perhaps, an eye on the White House. But when he walked through the doors of Caesario’s Pizza & Subs on Elm Street in Manchester, the same guy insisted: he was just “Chris.”
“I did notice, I called him ‘Governor’ and he corrected me and said ‘Chris,’ ” said Marcus Metzger of Goffstown. “Because he wants to be a man of the people, apparently, not formal.” Of course, that average Joe image only goes so far for any politician when you’re being trailed by dozens of journalists with recorders and cameras in hand. Members of the national and local media lined the entrance outside the pizza place before Christie’s arrival; when he showed up, some resorted to standing on the seats of Caesario’s dining booths to see over the small crowd engulfing the politician as he worked his way around the room to talk to customers.
The governor, meanwhile, hit all the notes you’d expect out of a politician thinking about making a play for the presidency – even as he hasn’t formally committed to a run quite yet. Selfies? Check. Handshakes and autographs? Check and check. Nods to the home sports team? Genevieve Coursey snapped a portrait with Christie on her phone when he stopped by the booth where she and Metzger, her co-worker, were seated. “I told him, watch, I’m going to be used as the example of the young Republicans,” Coursey joked, conceding that her political leanings tend to be more liberal.
And even if they weren’t all sold on his politics, Coursey and others at the restaurant agreed that – as a person, at least – Christie seemed plenty likeable. Stopping at another table, the governor was quick to play off of the team logo on one customer’s T-shirt. “Good luck to the Sox!” Christie exclaimed as he greeted Harold Schleicher of Manchester. A moment later, Christie added: “As a Mets fan, anybody who, you know, any anti-Yankee guys are the guys for me.” Schleicher, for his part, said he’s undecided but – at this point – probably leaning toward voting for Hillary Clinton.
Christie started his day at Saint Anselm College’s Institute of Politics, meeting with students and delivering a speech on entitlement reform to an audience peppered with elites of New Hampshire Republican politics. Zef Vataj, a freshman who’s studying politics at Saint Anselm, was among the students who got to talk to Christie before his speech yesterday morning. Vataj said he was impressed by the candor the governor seemed to project – especially when faced with a blunt question. The student said he asked Christie to rate his chances of running for president on a scale of 1 to 10. His response, according to Vataj?
“He gave me an 8,” the student recalled later last night. “That was nice to hear.” Claira Monier, former director of the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority and a veteran of Republican campaigns in the Granite State, said she gave Christie an “A” for substance – even if she took issue with his decision to refer to Medicare and Social Security as “entitlement” programs, when people have to pay into them. Nonetheless, she said, “his details were excellent,” and she was glad to see a candidate willing to address the future of the issue. “I was bothered by the fact that he had to use a teleprompter,” Monier added. “I’d rather hear from the heart, and the fact that he didn’t answer questions. But that’s our New Hampshire take on things.”
Voters have a few chances to ask the governor questions during his swing through New Hampshire this week. He’s hosting two “Tell It Like It Is” town halls in New Hampshire: one at noon today at the Londonderry Lion’s Club and another at 5:45 p.m. Friday at Shooters Sports Pub in Exeter. In between, his agenda also includes a roundtable with Renee Plummer, a Portsmouth businesswoman active in Republican politics, as well as a tour of the Made in NH expo with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas.
And Christie’s just one of dozens of high-profile Republican candidates set to parade through the state this week, leading up to the state party’s First In The Nation Republican Leadership Summit this Friday and Saturday. The event is set to include speeches from all major potential candidates, as well as appearances from other politicians including U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta and former Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown.
Ahead of the event, former governors Rick Perry of Texas, Jeb Bush of Florida and George Pataki of New York are all set to make their own stops through the state. But Monier, for her part, isn’t planning to go to this weekend’s summit. “That’s focused on politics rather than substance, and I want to focus on substance this election – I’ve done the politics bit,” she said, with a laugh. And even though she’s fielded a few calls courting her support for potential candidates, she isn’t expecting to endorse anyone soon.
“I’m not picking one until the end,” Monier said. “I have been disappointed a number of times with candidates with clay feet. I want sustainability. I don’t even care if they’re Republican or Democrat. I want to hear their ideas. I want to hear more than nice speeches. I want to know what they’re thinking.”
Bernie Saunders is on soon and so is Grover Nordquest. I posted this about bernie yesterday so please join him tonight:
As soon as Monday, legislation will be introduced in the Senate that would give the president "Fast Track" authority to pass the trade deal many are calling "NAFTA on steroids" -- setting up a situation later this year in which Congress would be pressured to pass the TPP without amendments.
The TPP is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.
Now is the perfect time for us to put our heads together and talk about what we need to do to defeat the TPP once and for all. That's why I'm returning to join a DFA Live conference call this Wednesday, April 15, at 8pm ET / 5pm PT to chat with DFA members about the TPP, Fast Track, and other issues on the minds of DFA members.
Would you like to chat with me about the TPP and other important progressive issues? Then click here to RSVP for my DFA Live call this Wednesday, April 15, at 8pm ET.
The media has done a horrible job of covering the TPP -- one of the most important issues facing our country and the world in the coming months. That's why I think it's vitally important that we have a conversation about the TPP now. The only way we are going to stop this disastrous deal from passing is if we work together to educate our friends and neighbors about it as soon as possible.
In January, more than 3,200 Democracy for America members signed up for a lively, in-depth DFA Live discussion focused on Citizens United. I thoroughly enjoyed it -- especially the insightful questions and thoughts shared by DFA members. I can't wait to do it again, to hear your ideas, and to answer your questions.
Don't miss your chance to chat with me about the TPP and Fast Track -- and anything else that is on your mind. Click here to RSVP for this special DFA Live call on Wednesday, April 15, at 8pm ET.
Thanks. I'm looking forward to talking with you on Wednesday.
- Bernie
Sen. Bernie Sanders
And, believe it or not about me lately, I pushed for and believed in Grover Nordquest too with me posting the following last month:
The Internet Sales Tax will harm the economy by opening the door for states to begin taxing across their borders into other states. States have the authority to govern only within their own borders. Real conservatives don’t support giving states such leviathan-like power that their ability to audit extends into 49 other states.
Through your efforts last Congress, we defeated the creation of an Internet Sales Tax, but the proposed tax and all the horrors that come with it are back.
The mandate will allow states like California and New York the power to collect taxes from citizens of other states and to audit businesses outside their own borders. It will harm small businesses that rely on the Internet to survive. The unregulated Internet has provided an irreplaceable platform for small business growth. Now is not the time to regulate one of the few bright spots in the American economy!
This book (Capital Dames) by Cokie Roberts sounds very interesting. Great subject.
Regardless of it all, please stay in touch!
