All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[numberthirty]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sanders-n...223600102.html

But he did vote for it, and as recently as 2006 touted this fact in a section of his website labeled “Bernie Sanders’ strong record of supporting tough on crime legislation.”

That "But it's complicated" doesn't wash off that vote when he was found boasting about his support for "tough on crime legislation" on his website.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with Harris misconduct when it comes to the rights of the accused or her attempt to create a nonexistent conflict of interest when it came to the judge dealing with said misconduct.

[Tendrin]

Or, where there is actual nuance.

The article you mentioned pretty clearly says "Vioated...". Never mind that they frame it as "Misconduct" by the prosecutor. In addition to that, the issue had to be taken past just addressing that violation. Harris lost in an attempt to argue that a judge who had been a defense attorney and spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence had a conflict of interest.

There isn't much in the way of nuance there.

Or maaaaybe the nuance I'm talking about stems from:

Adachi was less complimentary of her office’s handling of a crime lab scandal that resulted in the dismissal of over 1,000 drug cases. The lab was shut down after a lead technician, who testified on behalf of prosecutors on drug cases, was found to have systematically mishandled the drug samples seized from suspects, even consuming some herself.

The San Francisco Police Department, not the district attorney’s office, ran the crime lab, and the problems that emerged there began long before Harris was elected D.A. But a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in 2010 that the district attorney’s office under Harris violated defendants’ constitutional rights by failing to disclose what they knew about the tainted drug evidence. Prosecutors “at the highest levels of the district attorney’s office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab,” Judge Anne-Christine Masullo wrote in her decision.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/a...#storylink=cpy

Now, my question: Do you understand what it means when it says 'her office'? This is not about just Harris, after all, and details on who knew what, who signed off on what, who /did/ what are not readily availble. The buck stops with her, absolutely, but that situaton is essentially 'prosecutors nightmare' to begin with given that it tainted hundreds of cases. I am not defending Harris' office or the decision that was made, but I am suggesting that there's not a lot we know beyond the ruling, and she needs to address it. She's not gonna have a choice.

One thing Prosecutors everywhere have in common, it seems, is an inability to let the state be wrong without a fight. Makes you wonder about the culture of prosecutorial offices aross the USA. Frankly, I have more concerns about her ability to admit to being /wrong/ than I do about other aspects of this.

[numberthirty]

Or maaaaybe the nuance I'm talking about stems from:

Adachi was less complimentary of her office’s handling of a crime lab scandal that resulted in the dismissal of over 1,000 drug cases. The lab was shut down after a lead technician, who testified on behalf of prosecutors on drug cases, was found to have systematically mishandled the drug samples seized from suspects, even consuming some herself.

The San Francisco Police Department, not the district attorney’s office, ran the crime lab, and the problems that emerged there began long before Harris was elected D.A. But a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled in 2010 that the district attorney’s office under Harris violated defendants’ constitutional rights by failing to disclose what they knew about the tainted drug evidence. Prosecutors “at the highest levels of the district attorney’s office knew that Madden was not a dependable witness at trial and that there were serious concerns regarding the crime lab,” Judge Anne-Christine Masullo wrote in her decision.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/a...#storylink=cpy

Now, my question: Do you understand what it means when it says 'her office'? This is not about just Harris, after all, and details on who knew what, who signed off on what, who /did/ what are not readily availble. The buck stops with her, absolutely, but that situaton is essentially 'prosecutors nightmare' to begin with given that it tainted hundreds of cases. I am not defending Harris' office or the decision that was made, but I am suggesting that there's not a lot we know beyond the ruling, and she needs to address it. She's not gonna have a choice.

One thing Prosecutors everywhere have in common, it seems, is an inability to let the state be wrong without a fight. Makes you wonder about the culture of prosecutorial offices aross the USA. Frankly, I have more concerns about her ability to admit to being /wrong/ than I do about other aspects of this.

Once Harris tried to frame a judge as having a conflict of interest? What you seem to be saying there goes away.

I do get what you mean about that it was not something that Harris masterminded the entire way. That said, what needs to be done is not in question once you know it is the case.

It is "Just Harris" once what needs to be done is clear, and she tried to create a non-existent conflict of interest as an out. That is not on anyone except Harris.

[Tendrin]

Once Harris tried to frame a judge as having a conflict of interest? What you seem to be saying there goes away.

I do get what you mean about that it was not something that Harris masterminded the entire way. That said, what needs to be done is not in question once you know it is the case.

It is "Just Harris" once what needs to be done is clear, and she tried to create a non-existent conflict of interest as an out. That is not on anyone except Harris.

Not saying that there aren't serious concerns raised by her conduct as a prosecutor. I've said several times that I thought that was fair. Very little of that won't be scrutized intensely and I'll be patient and wait to see it addressed in the context of the campaign and her responses to it.

She has questions to answer, but we need to recognize that even when you're nominally in charge, there are serious obstcales and inertia and problems that started before you got there and will continue long after.

The better questions as to her record will stem from her actual service as DA, I think, which has some relative bright spots and some pretty obvious missteps.

All of this really only matters in the context of the Democratic primary, of course, because whatever reservations I have about Kamala Harris pale in the face of continued Republican party federal dominance.

[Kevinroc]

Which doesn't really have anything to do with Harris misconduct when it comes to the rights of the accused or her attempt to create a nonexistent conflict of interest when it came to the judge dealing with said misconduct.

So you don't actually have a response. You can just say that what Bernie Sanders did was wrong.

[numberthirty]

So you don't actually have a response. You can just say that what Bernie Sanders did was wrong.

If Bernie was right or wrong has nothing to do with Harris' record.

It certainly does nothing to address clear mistakes in Harris' record.

[numberthirty]

One dull bit that might have been under the radar last week...

https://www.today.com/health/perdue-...nation-t147002

Perdue recalls chicken nuggets due to possible contamination with pieces of wood

The "Sub" headline narrowed it down a bit.

Perdue Foods is recalling 68,000 pounds of its SimplySmart Organics gluten-free chicken nuggets after wood was found in some packages.

[jetengine]

One dull bit that might have been under the radar last week...

https://www.today.com/health/perdue-...nation-t147002



The "Sub" headline narrowed it down a bit.

...why is this here? Its fairly ordinary news and not particularly political. Machines sometimes break, stuff inadvertently contaminates the lines it happens.

[numberthirty]

...why is this here? Its fairly ordinary news and not particularly political. Machines sometimes break, stuff inadvertently contaminates the lines it happens.

"All Purpose", no?

While the odds are that recalls(and the like) won't have anything to do with anyone that might come across it here, it doesn't hurt to give them a quick mention.

[Tami]

Care about Science? Demand a Better Democracy

Think science should inform policy? Then I’m here to tell you why you should care about democracy reform. We don’t get science-based policies unless our political system allows for it. And we don’t get policies that protect people unless decision makers have our interests in mind. Right now, that political system is broken. Voters have been disenfranchised. Moneyed interests have drowned out science and evidence in policy debates. And much of this is happening behind closed doors.

But we can fix it. One of the first bills introduced by the new House of Representatives this January tackles this crucial issue. House Resolution 1 (H.R. 1) is a bill focused on addressing the corruption of this administration and restoring several important pillars of our democratic system: voting rights, money in politics, and ethics. We need everyone on board who cares about evidence in policy decisions. Here are three reasons the scientific community should support H.R. 1:

[worstblogever]

It was on this day in both 2015, as well as 2016, that “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Steve Martin, a former member of the Virginia legislature from 1988, serving five years in the General Assembly before moving to the Virginia State Senate from 1993 through 2016. The more famous silver-haired Steve Martin took to social media to ask that no one ever mixed him up with the Republican politician in February 2014 after the latter took to social media to argue against abortion, and in his anti-choice rant, he referred to pregnant mothers as "hosts". That's not all from Virginia's Martin, who was so in favor of torture said that it was justified no matter how many body parts the interrogated party loses, and that "Christ himself would have advocated for torture". Martin (again, the Republican one) believes that Constitutional rights don't apply to practitioners of Islam, because their religion "requires them to kill others to get into Heaven". Yes, somehow, a man with disgusting opinions like that can serve over a quarter century in politics. He was defeated in the GOP Primary for his Virginia State Senate seat in 2015, and has yet to reemerge in another run for office, if he ever will.



On this date in 2017, as well as 2018, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published its first profile of Josh Moore, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who finished eighth in the general election for his seat, and voters were right that he should barely qualify for office, if at all. You see, there was debate over a public nudity bill sponsored by Josh Moore in the New Hampshire House of Representatives back in December of 2015, HB 1525, which was oddly specific about women’s nipples being an offending thing (but not men’s) and State Rep. Amanda Bouldin was one of the Democrats opposed to the bill because she thought it might potentially make public breastfeeding a crime, and she posted her frustration over it on Facebook. While all any of her fellow legislators had to do was point out that the bill actually did have a written exemption in it for breastfeeding mothers… Josh Moore decided to argue with her by taking a slightly different, and really stupid angle, writing “Who doesn’t support a mother’s right to feed? Don’t give me the liberal talking points Amanda. If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that. Than you should have no problem with a mans inclantion [sic] to stare at it and grab it. After all... It’s ALL relative and natural, right?” So it seems Josh Moore feels that at the first sign of areola, he’s been given a free pass to grope anyone he likes. Which isn’t true, incidentally, and would actually be a form of sexual assault. Moore then closed his discussion with Amanda Bouldin by telling her, “I’ll see you on the House floor. I obviously have more respect for women and her innocence and decency than women who are support public nudity.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much a response of, “I’m not a disrespectful sexist, you are for believing your nips aren’t filthy and need to be covered up.” Two off-kilter comments aren’t enough to consider someone touched in the head here at CSGOPOTD, but when we look at his voting record, we also take note of how much of an extremist he’s been in his first term in office, what with a vote to repeal the buffer zone for protesters around abortion clinics. Y’know, so they can actually BLOCK THE DOOR. Moore also voted for SB 116, one of the many bills he’s supported to attempt to do away with the requirement of needing a license required to be able to have a concealed carry handgun, and voted against HB 1661, an attempt to ban the practice of gay conversion therapy upon minors.

In the 2016 election, with Josh Moore’s reputation for thinking every nipple exposed was an open invite to go grabbing women’s breasts a known story, he finished far worse than he did in 2014… but still came in eighth and qualified for the general election. By 13 votes. THIRTEEN VOTES was the difference in getting this sexist wanker out of public service. He then survived in the general election by finishing eighth yet again, and used his latest term in office to vote for New Hampshire’s SB 66, a Fetal Personhood Bill. With the Blue Wave on the horizon in 2018, Josh Moore opted to not run for re-election, and that probably was a wise choice as New Hampshire’s District 21 went from being represented by 8 Republicans to now split between 4 members of the GOP and 4 Democrats. We’re hoping Moore continues to stay the f*** out of politics going forward.

[Tami]

‘Absolutely out of control’: Cliff Sims’s book depicts life in Trump’s White House

President Trump watched on television, increasingly angry as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan criticized his handling of the deadly white supremacist rally in Charlottesville. He held the remote control “like a pistol” and yelled for an assistant to get the Republican leader on the phone.

“Paul, do you know why Democrats have been kicking your a-- for decades? Because they know a little word called ‘loyalty,’ ” Trump told Ryan, then a Wisconsin congressman. “Why do you think Nancy [Pelosi] has held on this long? Have you seen her? She’s a disaster. Every time she opens her mouth another Republican gets elected. But they stick with her . . . Why can’t you be loyal to your president, Paul?”

At times, Trump evinced less rage than a lack of interest. Sims recounts one time when Ryan was in the Oval Office explaining the ins and outs of the Republican health-care bill to the president. As Ryan droned on for 15 minutes, Trump sipped on a glass of Diet Coke, peered out at the Rose Garden, stared aimlessly at the walls and, finally, walked out.

Ryan kept talking as the president wandered down the hall to his private dining room, where he flicked on his giant flat-screen TV. Apparently, he had had enough of Ryan’s talk. It fell to Vice President Pence to retrieve Trump and convince him to return to the Oval Office so they could continue their strategy session.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

‘Absolutely out of control’: Cliff Sims’s book depicts life in Trump’s White House

Gee whiz! Why am I NOT surprised the Trump White House is such an unholy dumpster fire? Of course, Trump, Pence, Ryan and everyone else written about in that book will call it "fake news" and deny any rifts while it's unmercifully trashed on Faux News, leaving Sims out to dry and declared a pariah and a sellout in Republican circles.

[GOLGO 13]

‘Absolutely out of control’: Cliff Sims’s book depicts life in Trump’s White House

This is glorious. Ryan was treated like the absolute dog-shit that he is. Hi-larious.

[Tami]

Supreme Court temporarily allowing Trump's Transgender Military Ban to go in effect until the case is taken up next term. Which is a**-backwards from what normally happens in a case like this.