more Democrats registered there but there's more Dems registered in PA and that didn't work out in 2016. District was very pro-Trump, southwest of Pittsburgh. Probably a small chance, and if I were the national party I'd just leave the district alone and that'd give them a better chance to win. Cook Political report rates it as a likely republican. we really don't know because Demcrats didn't even freaking run anyone the past two times and Murphy was a powerhouse.

Another allegation against Sen. Franken, this time while he was a Senator. In 2010 a woman alleges that Franken grabbed her ass while they were taking a picture together at the Minnesota State Fair. The woman told her father and her husband of the incident at the time. Add three witnesses to the Ethics Committee.

oh Jesus Christ, just resign

slugsrbad wrote:

Donald Trump wrote:Sen. Jeff Flake(y), who is unelectable in the Great State of Arizona (quit race, anemic polls) was caught (purposely) on “mike” saying bad things about your favorite President. He’ll be a NO on tax cuts because his political career anyway is “toast.”

What did Flake say about Obama?

slugsrbad wrote:Another allegation against Sen. Franken, this time while he was a Senator. In 2010 a woman alleges that Franken grabbed her ass while they were taking a picture together at the Minnesota State Fair. The woman told her father and her husband of the incident at the time. Add three witnesses to the Ethics Committee.

it's almost like these things follow a pattern

Woody wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Another allegation against Sen. Franken, this time while he was a Senator. In 2010 a woman alleges that Franken grabbed her ass while they were taking a picture together at the Minnesota State Fair. The woman told her father and her husband of the incident at the time. Add three witnesses to the Ethics Committee.

it's almost like these things follow a pattern

Yup. Lucky I have access to my deleted thoughts, because I almost posted something similar. I hate to look at these things through a lens of cold politics, but if Democrats truly wanted to lead the #metoo/believe the women movement than they should have demanded Franken resign immediately. There was evidence of him sexually assaulting Mrs. Tweeden while she slept. And if there is one thing that seems to true with sexual assaulters is that it is typically not a one-off behavior. His long apology was poignant and hit on a lot of points that deserve discussion, but it should have ended with "and for those reasons I have decided to resign from the US Senate."

pacino wrote:Sheriff Jewel Williams accused by multiple women of harrassment and it's basically confirmed.

A second female employee has stepped forward to accuse Philadelphia Sheriff Jewell Williams of sexual misconduct, and state Democrats acknowledged this week that they paid a third woman $30,000 to settle her 2011 claim that Williams had harassed her when he was a state representative and she was his legislative aide.

He declined to comment about the settlement in a 2011 lawsuit in which he was accused of engaging in similar misconduct while he was a state representative serving the 197th District in North Philadelphia. That suit, filed by former legislative assistant Karan M. Rogers, was settled in June 2012 for $30,000, according to Bill Patton, spokesman for the Democratic Caucus of the state House of Representatives.

The accusations against Williams place the two-term sheriff under a harsh spotlight crowded by prominent men in government, media, and entertainment accused of similar behavior. In Philadelphia, the list includes Vincent Fenerty Jr., former executive director of the Philadelphia Parking Authority, who was forced to resign last year amid allegations that he had used taxpayer funds to take female employees on work trips on which he allegedly made sexual advances toward them; and Carl Greene, former executive director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, who was fired in 2010, in part for settling sexual-harassment lawsuits with public funds and not informing the PHA board.

utterly pathetic how this office is run and that the Philadelphia Democrats back this

Kenney wants Williams out of there, so of course Stu Bykofsky wrote a column about how he doesn't have to quit.

Here's a thread from Seth Abramson, edited for easy reading:

@SethAbramson

(THREAD) In this thread, a longtime criminal attorney analyzes one of the most pressing questions in American life today: how long will the Russia probe go on?

The President and his Congressional and administration allies recently initiated a national campaign to convince America the Russia probe is nearly done.

It's not.

Ty Cobb, one of the President's attorneys, is the source of much of the misinformation.

As has now been widely reported, Cobb told Trump the Russia probe was nearly over to calm him. First he said the probe would be over by now; then, he switched his prediction to soon after Thanksgiving; then, he changed it to December; then, he changed it to "early next year."

Cobb's assurances were intended for Trump, and for Trump's jittery allies. They're wishful thinking and aren't news.

However, in recent days Cobb has gotten an assist from disinterested observers: journalists misreading the course of the investigation.

There's an assumption—not among criminal investigators or criminal attorneys (two groups I've belonged to) but those without trial or investigative experience—that the probe ends the moment the only witness not yet interviewed by Bob Mueller is Trump himself.

This is wrong.

To explain why it's wrong, let's start with some facts:

(a) Federal cases move more slowly in the investigative and trial phases than state cases do.
(b) Federal cases of any complexity take years.
(c) This investigation started in June 2016.
(d) It met unexpected delays.
(e) This is the most complex federal criminal investigation of our lifetimes, partly because its authorizing document is—in fact—stunningly broad in its scope and license.
(f) The case's lead investigator was fired by its target this May.

It's true the FBI began looking at Trump-Russia ties a year before Comey's firing, but
a) they had to be cautious—lest word of the probe leak and affect the election;
b) they were distracted by a Trump-aided effort to reopen the Clinton case;
c) key events hadn't happened yet;
d) their main investigative lead came from a man with whom they weren't in regular contact (Chris Steele) and his sources were all either unknown or inaccessible (because overseas);
e) the premise of the case—a historic, traitorous collusion—seemed far-fetched at first blush;
f) the case was explosively political, and thus aroused little fervor among anyone worried about advancing their career in government;
g) the GOP was actively working via media and D.C. circles to squelch any rumors about Trump (cf. Obama's effort to reach out to McConnell);
h) the case had so many dimensions—at least 20 different investigative angles and 100+ key witnesses, many of whom were overseas—that focusing on any one slowed progress on any other, at least until substantial resources could be dedicated to the case (i.e., post-election);
i) because new inculpatory evidence was produced whenever Trump spoke, or every time a new Carter Page intercept was received (post-July 2016 FISA warrant on him), or every time Jared Kushner hatched a crazy scheme to back-channel Putin, new work was always being created.

And in the midst of all this, the man who FBI investigators knew from Day One would be their primary target—and knew it because they'd begun by reading the "Steele Dossier," written by a man they'd worked with before and whose sources they trusted—fired the lead investigator.

Here are a few of the investigative angles in the Russia probe:

(1) Hacking of DNC/Clinton (Guccifer, Stone, FancyBear et. al.)
(2) Illicit Sanctions Negotiations (Page, Sessions, Papadopoulos, Kislyak et. al.)
(3) Clandestine GOP Platform Changes (Gordon, Manafort et. al.)
(4) Clandestine Foreign Agents in Government A (Flynn, Gulen, Turkish officials et. al.)
(5) Clandestine Foreign Agents in Government B (Manafort, Gates, Deripaska et. al.)
(6) Data Analytics Collusion and Social Media Propaganda (Kushner, Mercer, Cambridge Analytica et. al)
(7) Obstruction of Justice A [Comey Firing] (Trump, Yates, Sessions, Miller, Comey, Lavrov, Kislyak, Hicks et. al.)
(8) Obstruction of Justice B [Trump Jr. Statement] (Trump, Trump Jr., Miller, Hicks et. al.)
(9) Making False Statements and/or Perjury A (Sessions)
(10) Making False Statements and/or Perjury B (Flynn)
(11) Making False Statements and/or Perjury C (Kushner)
(12) Making False Statements and/or Perjury D (Page)
(13) Making False Statements and/or Perjury E (Papadopoulos)
(14) Money Laundering (Manafort, Gates, et. al.)
(15) Espionage [Putin Backchannel] (Kushner, Flynn, Kislyak, et. al.)
(16) Clandestine Trump Tower Moscow Agreement [2013 to 2017] (Trump, Aras Agalarov, Emin Agalarov, Michael Cohen, Felix Sater, Kremlin officials et. al.)
(17) Clandestine Trump-Putin Meeting Plans (Clovis, Papadopoulos, Dearborn, Page, Mifsud, Millian et. al.)
(18) Clandestine Outreach to Pro-Putin Ukrainian Officials (Manafort, Deripaska et. al.)
(19) Possible Trump-Rosneft Collusion (Steele, Page, Lavrov, Peskov et. al.)
(20) Kremlin Kompromat [Trump Indiscretions] (Trump, Schiller, Agalarov, Ritz Moscow staff, Trump org employees, Ritz visitors, Sarka et. al.)
(21) Kremlin Kompromat [HRC/Ukraine] (Veselnitskaya, Kaveladze, Akhmetshin, Goldstone, Emin Agalarov, Kushner, Manafort, Trump Jr.)
(22) Clandestine Trump-Putin Meeting Plans B (Torshin, Rogozin, Clarke, NRA et. al.)
(23) Emoluments Violations [Russian Investors] (Eric Trump, Don Jr., Ivanka Trump, Kushner, Dodson, Gorka et. al.)
(24) WikiLeaks (Trump, Assange, Trump Jr., Kushner, Rohrabacher et. al.)/
(25) Suspicious Contacts in Other Nations (Papadopoulos, Kammenos, and Putin in Greece; Gordon, Page, Orbán, Finkelstein, and Schmitz in Hungary; Papadopoulos in the UK and Israel)

And these are just 25 of many, many more investigative angles that the FBI has had to pursue.

So when Trump, his lawyers, his allies, GOP politicians, or members of the media imply that the investigation will be over the moment Bob Mueller finishes interviewing the person closest to Trump—Hope Hicks—in a couple weeks, I don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Complex investigations can be diagrammed as a spiral: you have to return to certain witnesses a second or third or fourth time once you've learned more information. Consider—Mueller's talked to Carter Page 6 times. So why in the *world* would he speak to Hope Hicks just once?

Moreover, as the preceding non-exhaustive list of 25 investigative angles demonstrates, Hicks is a key witness for only a *few* of the threads the FBI is pursuing. So even if Mueller were only going to speak to Hicks once—he won't—the end of that interview would mean little.

Even if the investigative leads that involve Hicks were the *only* leads the FBI was pursuing (they're not—not by a mile) and even if Mueller were only going to interview Hicks once (he won't—it'll be multiple times) eyewitness testimony is only *one* kind of evidence.

Eyewitness evidence is never the only sort of evidence a prosecutor wants or needs, but it *can* be something in the general vicinity of that—if not, admittedly, *exactly* that—if an eyewitness confesses to a crime themselves or says flatly and clearly they saw a crime occur.

But one constant in the Russia probe—and it is a constant—is that every single Trump family member, campaign staffer, ally, friend, or administration aide that has been questioned on the subject has told *some* kind of lie. So the idea Mueller can rest on interviews is loony.

More likely, *even if* Mueller were going to interview Hope Hicks only once—which he won't; again, it'll be multiple times—he'd either a) get "smoking gun" evidence from her right away, or b) get little enough from her that he'd have to pursue other leads to prove her a liar.

On top of all this, there's a simple investigative maxim I first learned when I was being trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University in the mid-90s: "99% of investigation is failure." That means you do a *ton* of work that doesn't end up getting you anywhere.

In the Russia probe, it's even worse than that maxim suggests because there are some leads the FBI *can't* track down right now—or even *fail* to track down—because they lack basic access to them. Steele has given them some of his sources—maybe all—but many are inaccessible.

That is, if Mueller and his agents could pound the pavement and knock on doors in Moscow to speak to Steele's sources, those doors might be closed in their faces but *at least they'd be accessing those doors*. Right now they *can't*—and the same is true with key bank records.

It's for the foregoing reasons that I've said—from Day 1—that the earliest window for impeachment (the earliest) is "12 to 18 months from Mueller's appointment." I've never—ever—not once—no matter how much trolls may wish it so—said that impeachment would be quick *or* easy.

The reason is, I've conducted criminal investigations, and tried the most complex state cases (homicides), so I've a general sense of what a federal criminal investigation substantially more complex than anything I've ever had to deal with (or even the FBI has) might require.

The reason Mueller has a team of over 40 people—18+ attorneys so far—is that this case requires top-flight expertise in so many disparate areas of research, investigation and litigation that no 10 attorneys could ever handle it—even if they were the best attorneys in America.

So those saying this probe will be done soon are—intentionally or negligently—selling a bill of goods about how complicated the probe is that's fraudulent. Congress may—for political reasons—wrap up its probes by spring, but Mueller won't. A 2019 end is far more likely. {end}

PS/ None of this takes into account the possibility that seemingly ancillary threads will be seen as closely enough linked to Russia—or capable of turning Russia witnesses, even if unlinked to it—that they become "live": e.g. Erik Prince spreading Russian propaganda pre-election;

PS2/ The influence Giuliani appears to have used with the FBI's New York office to convince them to (or simply liaison with them about) fraudulently re-opening then slow-walking the re-opening of the Clinton email case; the 2002 Miss Universe pageant Trump tried to fix for Putin;

PS3/ Trump's dealings in/around Russia and Russians in 1987, 1996 and throughout the aughts; ex-Russian mobster Felix Sater and Bayrock suddenly appearing to rescue Trump from bankruptcy in 2002-2003; comments by GOP officials about Trump being on the take from Russia; and so on.

PS4/ And remember that even when Mueller's probe is done he must a) write it up in a 1000-page report; b) wait to see what Rosenstein will do about recusing himself; c) wait to see what Brand does with his referral; d) watch a lengthy political process *begin* in House Judiciary.

PS5/ So Mueller's probe is a) one phase of a lengthy process that'll lead to prosecutions and—in turn—further investigations and prosecutions; b) as to Trump, an investigative phase that continues with DOJ deliberations on any referral; c) going to—if history is guide—go *years*.

NOTE/ And none of this includes any of the potential state-level prosecutions of Trump or his cronies that are now being considered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is said to be in regular contact with Bob Mueller about bringing pardon-proof criminal charges.

I hate seth abramson

Glenn Thrush has been suspended by the NY Times for 'history of bad judgement' around young women journalists:

Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.

Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.

“I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable,” Thrush said in a statement emailed to me on November 19.

On that night five years ago, I joined Thrush and a handful of other reporters for a few rounds at the Continental, a Politico hangout in Rosslyn, Virginia. At first, nothing seemed strange, until the crowd had dwindled down to Thrush, me, and one other female colleague.

Thrush tossed a $20 bill at her and told her to take a cab and leave us, “the grown-ups,” alone. He slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.

In the morning, Thrush sent me an apologetic email. I didn’t save it, but I recall it as similar to the one he would later send to Padró Ocasio’s friend in June. He said he was sorry, but he didn’t say for what, exactly.

pacino wrote:Glenn Thrush has been suspended by the NY Times for 'history of bad judgement' around young women journalists:

Three young women I interviewed, including the young woman who met Thrush in June, described to me a range of similar experiences, from unwanted groping and kissing to wet kisses out of nowhere to hazy sexual encounters that played out under the influence of alcohol. Each woman described feeling differently about these experiences: scared, violated, ashamed, weirded out. I was — and am — angry.

Details of their stories suggest a pattern. All of the women were in their 20s at the time. They were relatively early in their careers compared to Thrush, who was the kind of seasoned journalist who would be good to know. At an event with alcohol, he made advances. Afterward, they (as I did) thought it best to stay on good terms with Thrush, whatever their feelings.

“I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately. Any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable,” Thrush said in a statement emailed to me on November 19.

On that night five years ago, I joined Thrush and a handful of other reporters for a few rounds at the Continental, a Politico hangout in Rosslyn, Virginia. At first, nothing seemed strange, until the crowd had dwindled down to Thrush, me, and one other female colleague.

Thrush tossed a $20 bill at her and told her to take a cab and leave us, “the grown-ups,” alone. He slid into my side of the booth, blocking me in. I was wearing a skirt, and he put his hand on my thigh. He started kissing me. I pulled myself together and got out of there, shoving him on my way out.

In the morning, Thrush sent me an apologetic email. I didn’t save it, but I recall it as similar to the one he would later send to Padró Ocasio’s friend in June. He said he was sorry, but he didn’t say for what, exactly.

WTF.

I really didn't think this was still as prevalent as it apparently is. Call me naive or dumb, but I had no idea. And I'm a freaking attorney.

There might be some sort of age gap. There was no where in my world where this seemed like it was more then an outlier. There is sort of a 'this cannot be real' quality to how wide spread it is. I guess I am just not powerful enough to try to use whatever sway I have to find my way into a bottomless pit of trouble.

the two bosses i have had in my adult life have both been women

CalvinBall wrote:the two bosses i have had in my adult life have both been women

... and ...

Really.

thephan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:the two bosses i have had in my adult life have both been women

... and ...

you just said you havent been in a position of power like that. i was saying same.

#calzonetoo

CalvinBall wrote:

thephan wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:the two bosses i have had in my adult life have both been women

... and ...

you just said you havent been in a position of power like that. i was saying same.

the dangle just made it sounds, dare I say, a little penthouse lettery.

FWIW, I have been in a positions where I have had ample opportunity, it just that I completely understand that this is so far out of bounds. The consequences are immense if the law is exercised. It is not terribly hard to file workplace problems. Normally, if a low has not been broken, the HR apparatus removes the issue. If it is a workplace legal matter, there is plenty of remedy available.

Having had dozens of female employees I always paid attention to the discrimination, and harassment situations. I might be one of the few people who actually paid attention to that workplace training as it is widely viewed as completely ineffective. I guess it helps that my wife deals with ER issues, so I get regular retaining in hearing how her day went. Anyway, I have had fantastic success hiring, and retaining female employees, and have had fantastic success with female clients. Now I think the secret might just be that I treat people with respect. Who knew

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

Nebraska regulators voted to approve Keystone XL!

Nationwide, Trump has said Keystone XL would create 28,000 jobs. But a 2014 State Department study predicted just 3,900 construction jobs and 35 permanent jobs.

JOBS JOBS JOBS

Opposition to the line in Nebraska has been driven mainly by a group of around 90 landowners whose farms lie along the proposed route. They have said they are worried spills could pollute water critical for grazing cattle, and that tax revenue will be short-lived and jobs will be temporary.

pacino wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Keystone pipeline spills 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota

Nebraska regulators voted to approve Keystone XL!

Nationwide, Trump has said Keystone XL would create 28,000 jobs. But a 2014 State Department study predicted just 3,900 construction jobs and 35 permanent jobs.

JOBS JOBS JOBS

Opposition to the line in Nebraska has been driven mainly by a group of around 90 landowners whose farms lie along the proposed route. They have said they are worried spills could pollute water critical for grazing cattle, and that tax revenue will be short-lived and jobs will be temporary.

These people are worried way too much about some hypothetical spill that has a remote chance of ever happening.


Oh wait...