March 9, 10 and 11, 2018

News and Views

I HOPE WE’LL BE ABLE TO SEE MORE ABOUT WHAT THE SUIT SAYS. I THINK A CITIZEN SHOULD BE A FULL ADULT WHEN THEY BUY ONE OF THESE ASSAULT WEAPONS. THE ATTITUDE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GUN LOBBY IS BASED, ACCORDING TO TWO NEWS ARTICLES RECENTLY, ON THE IDEA OF EACH CITIZEN'S BEING ABLE TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST ASSAULT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ONE SAID THAT "THEY NEED" SEMI-AUTOMATICS "BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS THEM." THAT'S EITHER PRESCIENT, A PART OF A WELL-LAID PLAN SET IN MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUMP, OR PURE PARANOIA. GUNS AND ANTI-GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, GOING BACK TO THE BILL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. OUR CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED SO THAT TERRORISTS MASQUERADING AS A LEGITIMATE PEACEFUL POLITICAL GROUP CAN BE IMPRISONED. THE MOST RECENT WAS THE BIZARRE AND TRULY MENACING BUNDY FAMILY.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-mom-student-asks-fbi-regarding-online-threats-144845107.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=2885bef6-b4ba-11e5-9c22-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews
The Latest: NRA files lawsuit over Florida gun control law
Associated Press • March 9, 2018

Video – MSNBC news 3/9/18

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The Latest on a shooting at a Florida high school (all times local):

Related Searches
Florida Gun ControlFlorida Gun LegislationNRA Gun Control FactsGun Control LawsFlorida Passes Gun Law
6:15 p.m.

The National Rifle Association has filed a federal lawsuit over gun control legislation Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed, saying it violates the Second Amendment by raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21.

The lawsuit came just hours after Gov. Scott, a Republican, signed the compromise bill Friday afternoon.

Lawyers for the NRA want a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect.

The new legislation raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.

The new measures come in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people.

___

4:45 p.m.

The National Rifle Association is expressing disappointment after Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a gun control bill that was written after a mass shooting at a high school killed 17 people.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, says the bill "punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual."

The bill signed Friday raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.

The new measures come in the wake of the Feb. 14 shooting rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

___

3:15 p.m.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed a school safety bill passed by the Legislature in response to the Valentine's Day mass shooting that killed 17 people at a high school.

The bill signed Friday falls short of what Scott and the shooting's survivors wanted. It also marks Scott's break with the National Rifle Association.

It raises the minimum age to buy rifles from 18 to 21, extends a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases to include long guns and bans bump stocks that allow guns to mimic fully automatic fire. It also creates a so-called "guardian" program that enables teachers and other school employees to carry handguns.

Student activists from the school where the shooting took place followed the bill's track closely and called it "a baby step."

___

1:15 p.m.

A Florida judge has ordered that the suspect in a deadly school shooting rampage continue to be held without bond.

Nikolas Cruz, wearing an orange jumpsuit and looking down, made his first court appearance on 17 charges of first-degree attempted murder Friday. The 19-year-old accused of opening fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine's Day was already being held without bond on 17 charges of murder.

His lawyer did not contest the judge's order.

Cruz will be arraigned on the 34-count indictment Wednesday. His attorneys say Cruz will "stand mute before the court" and enter no plea. In typical practice, the judge will then enter a not guilty plea on Cruz's behalf to continue the process.

___

9:30 a.m.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg has been an outspoken advocate for stricter gun laws since a teenager with an AR-15 killed 17 people at his school.

Hogg's mother, Rebecca Boldrick, says she contacted the FBI this week because threats against her family have continued to appear on Facebook. Boldrick had previously reached out to the FBI and local law enforcement last month, and she said the Broward Sheriff's Office assigned a deputy to patrol her neighborhood.

Boldrick said she's taking the threats seriously but isn't letting them change her daily routine. She notes that her husband is a former FBI agent and carries a gun at all times.

___

Midnight:

Authorities in Florida are releasing the panicked 911 calls related last month's deadly school shooting as a gun-control bill sits on the governor's desk.

The Broward County Sheriff's Office on Thursday released audio of 10 of the 81 calls its 911 center received during the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 dead and its aftermath. Calls came from students hiding in classrooms and parents who were getting calls and text messages from their children.

Meanwhile, Gov. Rick Scott has yet to say whether he'll sign a gun-control bill that challenges the National Rifle Association but falls short of what the Republicans and survivors of the massacre demanded. Scott says he wants to take his time and talk to the affected families. He has 15 days to sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature.



I’M NO LAWYER, OF COURSE, BUT I OFTEN DO WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS, OR WHAT THE PROOFS WOULD HAVE TO BE. THIS ARTICLE LAYS IT OUT CLEARLY. ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS, SADLY, NO, IT'S VERY UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED. THE RULES ON A CLASS-ACTION SUIT, ACCORDING TO THIS, ARE TOO DIFFICULT TO MEET.

https://www.quora.com/Will-a-well-organized-Class-Action-lawsuit-take-down-the-NRA-and-Gun-Manufacturers
Will a well-organized Class Action lawsuit take down the NRA and Gun Manufacturers?
Justinian Lane, I'm a product liability attorney who represents individuals injured by asbestos or by prescription drugs an...
Answered Dec 30, 2012 · Author has 191 answers and 273.8k answer views

Very very doubtful for a variety of reasons. Here we go:

First regarding the NRA: The NRA cannot be tied to any gun deaths or crimes in any way other than its advocacy for "gun rights." That's completely and totally protected activity under the 1st Amendment, and there is no theory of liability that would apply to them. They discourage illegal conduct and condemn every violent attack. No way are they on the hook.

With respect to the gun manufacturers: First, you couldn't just sue every gun manufacturer. You'd need to single out those that were purportedly responsible for whatever damages you're claiming. If the lawsuit is over the recent school massacre, you couldn't name anyone other than the company who made the guns that were actually used at the school. Even if the kid was carrying an Acme gun into the school, you couldn't possibly win against Acme if the gun was never used to kill anyone. Same with other massacres.

You may be thinking about a class action lawsuit against every gun manufacturer over every violent crime on behalf of all the victims. That's way too broad for a class action lawsuit. To file a class action lawsuit, you need to show four things:

1: Numerosity of claims - There has to be a sufficient number of claims that filing as a class action makes sense. You/d win this one.

2: Commonality of claims: The claims of everyone in the class must be similar. Everyone charged a BS late fee by a video store? Commonality satisfied. Gun victims? Not quite. Some were shot and killed. Some were shot and lived. Some were shot at but missed. Some were raped at gunpoint. Some were robbed at gunpoint. And I bet a few were "just" pistol whipped. Even if you just tried to narrow it down to people murdered with a gun, you'd still have a hard time with commonality because there are so many variations. An angry husband catching his wife with another man and shooting them both is totally different than the beltway sniper, for example.

3: Typicality of claims: Every class has a "named plaintiff." That's the guy or gal who brings the lawsuit on behalf of everyone else. The named plaintiff has to have claims that are typical of those of everyone in the class. If you think this sounds similar to the commonality requirement, you're right. And that's why this fails, too.

4: Adequacy of representation: Here you have to show that the named plaintiff serves as an adequate representative of the class. That means that the named plaintiff must be acting in the best interests of the class - and that their interests must be aligned. Probably difficult to prove this one as some plaintiffs are seeking money damages, others are seeking to have guns banned, etc. Also, you have to show that the plaintiff's law firm is up to the task of representing the entire class. Good luck finding a plaintiffs firm capable of simultaneously representing millions of gun crime victims and prosecuting the case against every gun manufacturer in the world who sells guns here. The firm would need dozens of attorneys and hundreds of support staff... and probably $100 million dollars to start.

So a class action is doomed to fail against the industry as a whole.

You MIGHT be able to bring one product liability lawsuit against one manufacturer for one crime on the grounds that the guns are defectively designed such that the risk of a killing spree outweighs the utility of having a 30 round clip. Because let's be honest here - no one NEEDS a 30 round clip for hunting or self defense, or any other legitimate usage of a gun. They're just more convenient and a hell of a lot more fun than a gun with an 8 round clip. And please, don't launch into an attack against me over that statement - I personally have no problem with 100 round drum magazines and full auto weapons. But I'm also honest enough to admit the only thing I'd do with those is have a good time at a private range. For home defense, I'm going with a shotgun every time.

Whatever the solution to gun violence is, I don't think it will come through a lawsuit. Unless the plaintiffs and their lawyers agreed to donate 100% of the proceeds to something like the Red Cross, everyone would just complain about greedy lawyers. Plus, with our conservative bench, we'd probably end up with a really bad decision that would preclude other future lawsuits against more traditional defendants.
1.2k Views · View Upvoters



ENGLAND IS IN THE NEWS BIGTIME TODAY. LIKE MANY IN THE USA, ESPECIALLY THE TRUMP FAMILY AND SEVERAL OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL “CONSERVATIVES,” THE PLEASURE OF RELAXING AND NEGOTIATING SOME BUSINESS WITH RUSSIANS, HAS BEEN OCCURRING WITH LESS UNEASE THAN WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN WISE. AFTER THE ATTEMPTED MURDERS LAST WEEK, THE UK GOVERNMENT IS “ON GUARD,” IN A WAY THAT I WISH WE WERE. OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN’T SEEM WORRIED AT ALL. THE PROBLEM ISN’T THAT “THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING,” BUT THAT THEY ARE ALREADY HERE AND INTERTWINED TO A SURPRISING DEGREE WITH OUR MONEY AND POLITICAL INTERESTS.

MONEY IS DEFINITELY OUR GREATEST WEAKNESS IN THE US, AND PROBABLY AROUND THE WORLD IN GENERAL. IN THE UK RUSSIAN DONATIONS TO CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES IS ONE OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT SEVERAL ARTICLES. I TUNED IN TO ALL OF THIS TODAY BECAUSE WHEN I GOOGLED THE WORD “NEWS,” I IMMEDIATELY SAW PM MAY ANNOUNCING A PUBLIC HEALTH ALERT IN THE RESTAURANT AND BAR WHERE THE PAIR OF RUSSIANS ENTERTAINED THEMSELVES BEFORE SHORTLY BEFORE THEY BECAME ILL. SHE WAS URGING EVERYBODY WHO WAS IN THOSE VENUES TO CLEAN THEIR CLOTHING AND OTHER POSSESSIONS THAT THEY HAD WITH THEM. THIS REMINDS ME OF THE WEAPONIZED ANTHRAX SCARE IN THE USA SOME 25 YEARS AGO. THAT ALSO FRIGHTENED ME.

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUED STATEMENTS OF RUSSIANS DONATING OVER £820,000 TO CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY CAMPAIGNS, JUST SINCE PM MAY CAME INTO OFFICE. THEY DIDN’T PUBLISH FIGURES FOR THE TIME BEFORE SHE WAS ELECTED, BUT EVEN SO, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO ME. IT WASN’T REFERRED TO AS A SCANDAL YET, BUT IT DOES LOOK A BIT LIKE A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS.

IT APPEARS THAT THE BRITISH CONSERVATIVES, JUST LIKE OUR CONSERVATIVES IN THE USA, ARE MOST INVOLVED IN RUSSIAN DONATIONS, AND THERE ARE OTHER LINKS, SUCH AS THEIR APPEARING AS GUESTS ON RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TV. THE LABOR PARTY IS ALSO PLEDGING TO STOP DEALING WITH RT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE HAVE BEEN TOO FEW SAFEGUARDS AGAINST RUSSIAN TAMPERING WITH OUR BODY POLITIC WITH CLEAR AIMS, IN OUR CASE, OF CHANGING OUR ELECTION TO BENEFIT TRUMP. OF COURSE, THE UK’S IMMEDIATE CONCERN IS THE SERIES OF ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED MURDERS OF RUSSIAN “TRAITORS,” WHO HAD TAKEN RESIDENCE OVER THE YEARS IN THE UK. THEY APPARENTLY THINK IT’S A GOOD SAFE PLACE TO HIDE IN THE CROWD.

THE LABOR PARTY’S MOVES TO PUT MAGNITSKY CLAUSES IN A CURRENT MONEY LAUNDERING BILL, BUT CONSERVATIVES OPPOSE THEM. THE LABOR PARTY LEADER HAS APPEARED ON THE RUSSIAN TV STATION RUSSIA TODAY, AND A CONSERVATIVE CALLS IT “AN ABSOLUTE SCANDAL.” ANOTHER ARTICLE SAID, HOWEVER, THAT CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALSO APPEARED IN INTERVIEWS THERE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT BOTH IN BRITAIN AND THE US WE HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO THE PRESENCE OF RUSSIANS IN OUR AFFAIRS, AND “MONITORED THEM” WITHOUT PUTTING UP A SERIOUS FIGHT AGAINST THEM. WESTERN EUROPE AND THE US ARE ON NOTICE NOW, I THINK, ABOUT PUTIN AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CONCERN IN ALL OUR FREE GOVERNMENTS. YET OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP, ACCORDING TO AN OFFICIAL, HAS STILL NOT “AUTHORIZED HIM” TO BLOCK RUSSIAN CYBER ATTACKS ON US, WHICH ARE STILL ONGOING. ELECTION TAMPERING, PROPAGANDIZING AND OTHER LOWDOWN DIRTY TRICKS ARE RUSSIA’S METHOD OF CHOICE, AND PLANTING THEIR PUPPETS IN OTHER COUNTRIES IS EXQUISITE JOY FOR PUTIN.

WE WHO ARE NOT USED TO BEING CONSTANTLY ON GUARD HAVE GROWN VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. FREE MEANS FREE OF ANXIETY, ALSO, AND OPENNESS TO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS HUMANS RATHER THAN AS ENEMIES. THAT’S GOOD FOR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BUILDING, BUT I AM REMINDED OF PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN’S PITHY COMMENT, “TRUST, BUT VERIFY.” UNFORTUNATELY, SOME RUSSIANS ARE STILL ENEMIES OF THE FREE WORLD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE, AND THAT’S WHAT I SEE HAPPENING. SEE THE THREE OR FOUR RELATED UK ARTICLES ON THIS SUBJECT BELOW.

THERE IS OBVIOUS CONCERN AMONG THE BRITISH POPULACE THERE OVER RUSSIA’S AGGRESSIVE MOVES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SO, AND ESPECIALLY THESE MURDERS. THE ONE I REMEMBER MOST WAS A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK, BUT IT WAS SO CLEVER THAT IT REALLY GOT MY ATTENTION. THAT’S THE ONE IN WHICH A POISON WAS INSERTED TO THE BACK OF THE RUSSIAN’S LEG WHILE HE WAS WALKING BY MEANS OF AN UMBRELLA SPIKE. I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS NICOTINE. WE IGNORED THEIR PRESENCE BEFORE, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T ACTIVE ENOUGH TO BE IN THE NEWS.

PRESIDENT PUTIN AND SOME OTHER RUSSIAN MEN ARE HANDSOME DUDES (UNTIL THEY GET GROSSLY FAT), BUT THEY AREN’T NICE GUYS. THEY AREN’T UNLIKE OUR LARGEST REPTILES, THE CROCODILIANS. ALLIGATORS HAVE A TENDENCY TO SNOOZE IN THE SUN IN PLACES LIKE OUR FLORIDA AND GEORGIA SWAMPLANDS, BUT A WISE NATURE BUFF WILL KEEP HIS DISTANCE. GATORS CAN LEAP UP TO ALL FOURS, TURN AROUND SUDDENLY, AND ATTACK IN TEN SECONDS OR LESS. I’VE SEEN FOOTAGE OF THAT ON A PUBLIC SERVICE WARNING. ALLIGATORS DOWN HERE HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO HIDE UNDER THE FAMILY CAR, JUMP IN THE SWIMMING POOL, AND EVEN TRY TO GET INTO THE HOUSE. WHEN WE SEE THEM PROSTRATE AND MOTIONLESS, THEY AREN’T ASLEEP, THEY AREN’T SICK, AND THEY DEFINITELY AREN’T DEAD. THEY’RE JUST WARMING THEIR BODIES UP A LITTLE BIT IN THE SUN; SO, ADMIRE THEM FROM AT LEAST 30 FEET AWAY.

NOW, LET’S GET BACK TO THE BRITS.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43363165
John McDonnell urges Labour MPs to stop appearing on Russia Today
March 11, 2018 12:47 PM

Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has said he won't be making any more appearances on Kremlin-sponsored TV station Russia Today.

He said RT's coverage "goes beyond objective journalism" and it was "right", after events in Salisbury, that Labour MPs did not appear on it.

A party spokesman said: "We are keeping the issue under review".

Mr McDonnell also backed visa sanctions against Russians suspected of corruption.

Chancellor Philip Hammond suggested a deal could be reached with Labour to bring in sanctions.

Salisbury diners told to wash possessions after nerve agent attack
Russian state TV anchor warns 'traitors'

But he rejected a call from the widow of murdered Alexander Litvinenko for the Conservatives to pay back more than £820,000 donated by Russian-linked business people since Prime Minister Theresa May came to power.

He told the BBC's Andrew Marr there were "very strict rules" governing donations to UK political parties.

"Only British citizens who are on the electoral register can make donations to parties" and those donations are "carefully vetted" and "reported to the Electoral Commission" he said.

Media captionMarina Litvinenko: 'Lessons haven't been learned'

"There are people in this country who are British citizens who are of Russian origin - I don't think we should taint them, we should tar them with Putin's brush.

"We should recognise that people come to this country from many places, they become British citizens, they live under UK law and they should have full participation rights in our society once they're British citizens."

Video -- Marina Litvinenko: 'Lessons haven't been learned'

It came after Marina Litvinenko warned the government: "You need to be very selective who you are friends with.

"When you allow people with money to come to your country to make a business, you need to make sure where the money has come from."

Mrs Litvinenko said the UK government's response to the murder of her husband, an outspoken critics of Vladimir Putin who was fatally poisoned in 2006, had not been strong enough and lessons had not been learned.

Mr Hammond, who was foreign secretary when the UK government inquiry into Mr Litvinenko's death was published, in 2015, said "we took measures which are still in place today" but he said the Russian government continued to protect the suspects the UK wanted to extradite to stand trial for his murder.

Asked by Andrew Marr if the Russians "were laughing at us" and believed they could act without implications in the UK, he said: "Nobody is laughing at us - this is a very serious investigation that is going on and let's see where it leads us."

Labour has been under fire for some time from the Conservatives over appearances by its MPs and spokespeople on RT UK.

Mr McDonnell said he had appeared on the rolling news channel in the past to raise certain issues but he added: "I've been looking overnight... in terms of changes in coverage on Russian television, in particular, and I think we have to step back now."

He added: "I can understand why people have [appeared on RT] up until now because we have treated it like every other television station.

"We tried to be fair with them and as long as they abide by journalistic standards that are objective that's fine but it looks as if they have gone beyond that line, so yes, we will have that discussion."

What is RT?
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The Kremlin-funded news channel began broadcasting internationally in 2005 in English, Arabic and Spanish as Rossiya Segodnya (Russia Today).

It shortened its name to RT several years later and began focusing on US news. It launched a dedicated UK service in 2014.

It says it provides a "Russian viewpoint" on world events and challenges "mainstream media" - but critics say it is a propaganda vehicle for the Russian government.

It has been sanctioned by UK regulator Ofcom for misleading programmes on the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said last year it was "an absolute scandal" that Labour MPs had given interviews to RT.

A number of Conservative MPs - and ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage - have also appeared on the channel and ex-SNP leader Alex Salmond hosts a weekly chat show.

Why has RT registered as a foreign agent with the US?

Mr McDonnell called on the government to pass a British version of the US Magnitsky Act - which punishes Russians involved in corruption and human rights violations - if the Kremlin is found to be behind the poisoning in Salisbury.

He said that the Labour Party had already moved amendments to the Money Laundering Bill currently going through parliament to introduce Magnitsky clauses - amendments he said were opposed by the Conservative Party.

"We hope now they'll enable us to bring those amendments back at the Report stage of the bill" he said.

Chancellor Philip Hammond said introducing Magnitsky clauses was not "strictly necessary".

"The home secretary already has the power to exclude individuals from the UK if she believes that their presence here is not conducive to the national security or the public good.

"But we're seeking to reach an accommodation with those who have put this amendment forward.

"Let's see if we can come to a proposal that works for everybody."



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-under-increasing-pressure-to-retaliate-against-russia-for-%E2%80%9Cbrazen-act-of-war%E2%80%9D/ar-BBK1GMS
Theresa May under increasing pressure to retaliate against Russia for “brazen act of war”
The Telegraph The Telegraph
By Gordon Rayner, Political Editor
March 9, 2018

Related: Theresa May Says UK Will Respond If Evidence Proves Russia Behind Nerve Attack (provided by Wochit News)

Theresa May is under increasing pressure from her own ministers to retaliate against Russia for its “brazen act of war” in using nerve gas on the streets of Britain.

The Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said the Government was being “pushed around” by Russia and “we have to change the way we deal with it” amid calls for fresh sanctions against Moscow and the expulsion of Russian diplomats.

© getty
Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has already threatened new sanctions if Russia is proved to be behind the attack which has left former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in a coma and Sgt Nick Bailey in intensive care.

Yesterday he repeated his insistence that Britain would respond “robustly” against any country found to be behind the attacks.

Downing Street insisted it could not make any diplomatic moves until police had proved who was behind the attempted murders.

A Whitehall source said: “There is a process to go through. These things have to be done in the right order.”

© getty
Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, told the Commons that there would be “consequences” for whoever was responsible and that the perpetrators would be brought to justice “whoever they are and wherever they may be”.

But MPs are impatient for action and Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, made it clear to Mrs May that: “The first duty of government is to protect the British people - I think using nerve agents on British streets really does demand a response.”

Mr Williamson, who has in the past said that Russia is ready to kill “thousands and thousands” of British people, said Russia was becoming an “ever-greater threat”, particularly to its closest neighbours.

He said: "Russia's being assertive, Russia's being more aggressive, and we have to change the way that we deal with it because we can't be in a situation in these areas of conflict where we are being pushed around by another nation."

Pictured in this file image dated August 9, 2006, is retired colonel Sergei Skripal during a hearing at the Moscow District Court© getty Pictured in this file image dated August 9, 2006, is retired colonel Sergei Skripal during a hearing at the Moscow District Court

Former minister Sir Edward Leigh said the circumstantial evidence against Russia was “very strong” and told the Commons: “If Russia is behind this, this is a brazen act of war, of humiliating our country.”

She said the investigation must be based on “facts, not rumour”, but added: “The use of a nerve agent on UK soil is a brazen and reckless act. This was attempted murder in the most cruel and public way. Ms Rudd said: “There will come a time for attribution and there will be, then, consequences and there will be further information that follows.”

“People are right to want to know who to hold to account. We are committed to doing all we can to bring the perpetrators to justice - whoever they are and wherever they may be."

The forensic tent, covering the bench where Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found© getty The forensic tent, covering the bench where Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found

Mr Tugendhat, a former Army officer, said it now seemed “likely” that Mr Skripal’s wife Lyudmila and son Alexandr had both been murdered. The circumstances of both their deaths are disputed, with some reports claiming both died in car crashes.

Pointing to threats made against former Colonel Mr Skripal and its similarity to the fatal attack on Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, Mr Tugendhat said: “We are beginning to see, not only a very strong pattern, but a very strong centre to that pattern - and that centre appears very strongly to be the Kremlin.”

Mr Johnson said: “It is an ongoing investigation. I think we have to wait for the outcome. But if, and it's still a big if, it turns out this is the agency of another state attempting to kill people on UK soil then of course the UK will respond robustly."


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/litvinenko-widow-warns-tories-over-russian-donations/ar-BBK6qZy
Litvinenko widow warns Tories over Russian donations
The Guardian
Haroon Siddique
March 11, 2018

Photograph -- © PA Marina Litvinenko.

The Conservative party is facing pressure to return Russian donations after the attempted murder of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal on British soil.

Marina Litvinenko, the widow of another former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, whose murder is believed to have been carried out under the direction of Russia’s FSB spy agency, said the Tories risked tainting their reputation if they held on to the cash.

Related: Labour MPs should not appear on Russia Today, says John McDonnell

“You need to be very accurate where this money came from before you accept this money,” she told Sky News. “If you identify it’s dirty money [you’re] just not allowed to accept it. Because I think reputation is very important. [The] reputation of the Conservative party in the UK and all around the world needs to be clear.”

The Sunday Times reported that Russian oligarchs and their associates had registered donations of £826,100 to the Tories since Theresa May entered No 10.

A spokesman said: “All donations to the Conservative party are properly and transparently declared to the Electoral Commission, published by them and comply fully with the law.”

Litvinenko accused May of failing to act to prevent a reoccurrence of the type of attack to which her husband fell victim.

The home secretary, Amber Rudd, has said it is too early to say who is responsible for the attack on Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, but fingers have been pointed at the Kremlin.

May, as home secretary, wrote to Litvinenko after the public inquiry into her husband’s death concluded in 2016. The inquiry found that Vladimir Putin and his top spy chief had “probably approved” her husband’s murder. In the letter, May vowed: “We will take every step to protect the UK and its people from such a crime ever being repeated.”

Litvinenko said: “We received very strong words after meeting in 2016 and I believed something would be done, but we can see nothing was done.”

The steps she wants the prime minister to take include bringing in a British equivalent of the Magnitsky act, US legislation that bans Russian individuals from entering the country and blocks their assets.

This month Labour tried to introduce Magnitsky amendments to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill in the House of Lords.

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the Tories had rejected the suggested clauses for “technical reasons” and urged the government to work with the opposition to implement them.

“What Magnitsky does is it identifies those individuals who are basically found guilty of human rights abuses. In particular it prevents them then operating or having bank accounts in our country and it effectively closes down all cooperation with them. Now, I think that could be remarkably effective,” he said.

On the same programme, the chancellor, Phillip Hammond claimed the amendments created a power the government already had but he suggested a compromise was possible.

“It’s not strictly necessary but we’re seeking to reach an accommodation with those who have put this amendment forward,” he said. “Let’s see if we come to a proposal which works for everybody.”



THIS SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A THREAT, RATHER THAN A WARNING. THERE IS A HIGH INCIDENCE OF ASSASSINATIONS THERE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT RUSSIA HAS A FEW TOO MANY SPIES AND “MOLES” PLANTED IN ENGLAND? OR THAT RUSSIANS IN TROUBLE BELIEVE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO BE MORE FRIENDLY TO THEM THAN OTHERS?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/09/russian-state-tv-warns-traitors-not-to-settle-in-england
Russia
Russian state TV warns 'traitors' not to settle in England
After Salisbury poisoning, host says there have been ‘too many strange incidents’ in recent years
Marc Bennetts in Moscow
Fri 9 Mar 2018 05.51 EST

The British home secretary, Amber Rudd, visits Maltings shopping centre on Friday where Sergei Skripal and his daughter were found critically ill. Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Russian state television has warned “traitors” and Kremlin critics that they should not settle in England because of an increased risk of dying in mysterious circumstances.

“Don’t choose England as a place to live. Whatever the reasons, whether you’re a professional traitor to the motherland or you just hate your country in your spare time, I repeat, no matter, don’t move to England,” the presenter Kirill Kleymenov said during a news programme on Channel One, state TV’s flagship station.

“Something is not right there. Maybe it’s the climate. But in recent years there have been too many strange incidents with a grave outcome. People get hanged, poisoned, they die in helicopter crashes and fall out of windows in industrial quantities,” Kleymenov said.

The stark warning comes as the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, remain critically ill in hospital after being poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury. Moscow has labelled speculation that they were targeted by the Kremlin security services as an “anti-Russian campaign”.

2:03
Who is the Salisbury spy Sergei Skripal? – video explainer

A number of Kremlin critics have met grisly ends in Britain in recent years. Boris Berezovsky, an oligarch turned government critic, was found hanged at his home in Berkshire in March 2013. The coroner delivered an open verdict. Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB security service officer, died in 2006 after being poisoned with polonium-210 in the lobby of a Mayfair hotel, allegedly by Russian hitmen. Vladimir Putin dismissed accusations of Russian involvement.

Timeline
Poisoned umbrellas and polonium: Russian-linked UK deaths

In 2012, Alexander Perepilichnyy, a former banker who was helping Swiss prosecutors investigate a Russian-linked money-laundering scheme, died after collapsing in Surrey. A pre-inquest hearing heard that traces of a chemical that can be found in the poisonous plant gelsemium* were later found in his stomach. The inquest is due to resume next month.

Stephen Curtis, a millionaire lawyer with close ties to the exiled Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, died when his helicopter crashed close to Bournemouth airport in 2004. Curtis is reported to have told a close relative that if he were to die, it would not be an accident. One of Curtis’s associates, Scot Young, who had business links to Berezovsky, was found impaled on railings after falling from his apartment in Marylebone, central London, in 2014. The coroner found insufficient evidence to rule it a suicide, and his family suspect he was murdered.

GELSEMIUM* – THIS PLANT IS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND FRAGRANT FLOWERS THAT WE HAVE IN THE SOUTH. THE SCENT IS A LITTLE LIKE LILY OF THE VALLEY. I’M DISTURBED TO FIND THAT IT HAS A NERVE TOXIN IN IT, BECAUSE IT’S THE FLAVORING INGREDIENT IN JASMINE (OR JESSAMINE) TEA, WHICH IS USUALLY AVAILABLE IN CHINESE RESTAURANTS. THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF JASMINE MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE I FOUND, SO MAYBE SOME ARE FREE OF POISON. ANYWAY, IT’S DELICIOUS.



PHARMA BRO IS SENTENCED TO PRISON, BUT WILL HE STAY THERE? PROBABLY NOT. SIGH.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pharma-bro-faces-high-stakes-sentencing-fraud-case-050300371--finance.html?soc_trk=gcm&soc_src=22bf5e1a-cf4e-11e5-8653-fa163e6f4a7e&.tsrc=notification-brknews
'Pharma Bro' tearfully apologizes, then sentenced to prison
Associated Press
Tom Hays and Colleen Long, Associated Press
Associated Press March 9, 2018

NEW YORK (AP) -- Martin Shrkeli, the smirking "Pharma Bro" vilified for jacking up the price of a lifesaving drug, was sentenced Friday to seven years in prison for defrauding investors in two failed hedge funds.

The self-promoting pharmaceutical executive notorious for trolling critics online was convicted in a securities fraud case last year unconnected to the price increase dispute.

Shkreli, his cocky persona nowhere to be found, cried as he told U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto he made many mistakes and apologized to investors.

"I want the people who came here today to support me to understand one thing, the only person to blame for me being here today is me," he said. "I took down Martin Shkreli."

He said that he hopes to make amends and learn from his mistakes and apologized to his investors.

"I am terribly sorry I lost your trust," he said. "You deserve far better."

Prosecutors argued that the 34-year-old was a master manipulator who conned wealthy investors and deserved 15 years in prison. His lawyers said he was a misunderstood eccentric who used unconventional means to make those same investors even wealthier, and deserved 18 months or less in prison.

The judge insisted that the punishment was not about Shkreli's online antics or raising the cost of the drug.

"This case is not about Mr. Shkreli's self-cultivated public persona ... nor his controversial statements about politics or culture," the judge said, calling his crimes serious.

He was also fined $75,000 and received credit for the roughly six months he has been in prison.

The judge ruled earlier this week that Shkreli would have to forfeit more than $7.3 million in a brokerage account and personal assets including his one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album that he boasted he bought for $2 million. The judge said the property would not be seized until Shkreli had a chance to appeal.

Attorney Benjamin Brafman told Matsumoto Friday that he sometimes wants to hug Shkreli and sometimes wants to punch him in the face , but he said his outspokenness shouldn't be held against him.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacquelyn Kasulis said Shkreli deserved the stiffer sentence not because he is "the most hated man in America," but because he is a criminal convicted of serious fraud. She said the judge had to consider his history and said he has "no respect whatsoever" for the law, or the court proceedings.

"I also want to make clear that Mr. Shkreli is not a child," Kasulis said. "He's not a teenager who just needs some mentoring. He is a man who needs to take responsibility for his actions."

Unapologetic from the beginning, when he was roundly publicly criticized for defending the 5,000 percent price increase of Daraprim, a previously cheap drug used to treat HIV, Shkreli seemed to drift through his criminal case as if it was one big joke.

After his arrest in December 2015, he taunted prosecutors, got kicked off of Twitter for harassing a female journalist, heckled Clinton from the sidewalk outside her daughter's home, gave speeches with the conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and spent countless hours livestreaming himself in his apartment.

He was tight-lipped when faced with a barrage of questions about the price hike from members of Congress a couple of months later, citing his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself. After the hearing, he tweeted that the lawmakers were "imbeciles."

Shkreli insisted he was being persecuted by prosecutors for being outspoken and confidently predicted after his conviction that he was unlikely to be sentenced to jail.

Things abruptly changed, though, last fall after he jokingly offered his online followers a $5,000 bounty to anyone who could get a lock of Hillary Clinton's hair. The judge revoked his bail and threw him in jail, a decision that she defended Friday.

That didn't tame Shkreli completely. He corresponded with journalists, ridiculing the personal appearance of one female reporter who asked him for an interview.

Before sentencing him, the judge said that it was up to Congress to fix the issue of the HIV price-hike. And she spoke about how his family and friends "state, almost universally, that he is kind and misunderstood" and willing to help others in need.

She said it was clear he is a "tremendously gifted individual who has the capacity for kindness."



READ THIS ONE SLOWLY ENOUGH TO PAY ATTENTION TO HER POINTS AND THINK ABOUT THEM A BIT BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. THAT’S THE WAY I READ FOR INFORMATION, BUT ALSO IN CASES LIKE THIS WHEN THE WRITING IS ELEGANT AND THE VIEWS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY, AND TO ALL OF US AS A GOOD WORLD CITIZEN.

OPINION | WHY DO REPUBLICANS HATE AMERICA?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-anderson-republicans-america_us_5a58d5efe4b04df054f860a1
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Carol Anderson
Columnist
01/18/2018 05:48 am ET Updated Jan 18, 2018

Photograph -- KEVIN LAMARQUE / REUTERS

Why do Republicans hate America? No, really. It’s not a rhetorical question. Since consolidating its power in January 2017, the GOP has systematically set out to dismantle the economic strength of this nation, coddle predators, shield traitors, attack those who are working, and strip protections from the most vulnerable. Are these the actions of a party that loves the nation it has sworn to serve?

Consider the GOP’s attempts over the last year to blow up the U.S. economy and make life harder for its constituents. The Republicans’ first try at demolishing the economy as if it were nothing but an old abandoned building was their reckless attempt to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which housed and protected millions of American citizens. The GOP’s congressional leaders held no hearings, refused to even listen to expert testimony and were utterly unconcerned about the impact that dismantling a key component of the nation’s health care system would have on one-sixth of the American economy.

When the button jammed on that detonator, Republicans tried another, more powerful type of explosive, and this one threatens to be much more successful. In December, they passed a tax bill that adds an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit — with no significant investment in infrastructure, education or health care to show for it. And now, as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made clear, when the GOP-fueled deficit balloons, they’re coming after the retirement and medical social programs that he has demeaned and mislabeled as “entitlements.” Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, however, are hard-earned benefits funded, in large part, out of our paychecks. They provide much needed support to the elderly, the infirmed and those with disabilities.

For America’s senior population alone, the Republicans’ assault on the safety net is going to be destabilizing and, in many cases, lethal. Currently, 9 out of 10 Americans over 65 receive Social Security. Forty-nine million are on Medicare, estimated to increase to 64 million by 2020. Nearly one-third will require nursing home care, which costs three times the annual income of those over 65. Imagine what an aging America will look like just a few years into the future with no Social Security, no Medicare and no Medicaid.

Not satisfied with their own multi-pronged attack on the social fabric and safety net of the nation they claim to love, the Republicans have also let a foreign government attack the United States. Instead of repelling the invaders, strengthening our defenses and ferreting out the collaborators, the GOP has acted more like a fifth column shielding the saboteurs. In the fall of 2016, when confronted with the reports from 17 agencies in the intelligence community about Russian interference in the 2016 election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) threatened then-President Barack Obama with partisan nuclear destruction and left the nation vulnerable to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s machinations. In March 2017, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) sabotaged his own committee’s investigation into Russian interference, and for that unconscionable act, Ryan rewarded him by threatening to allow contempt of Congress proceedings against the Department of Justice unless Nunes could review the FBI files on the case. In January 2018, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to the DOJ demanding an investigation of former U.K. intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who was so alarmed by what he was uncovering that he alerted the FBI that the Russians had cultivated a Trojan Horse in the form of Donald Trump. ”This was a national security issue,” Steele said. For having more concern about the United States than the Americans involved had shown, the Republicans tried to sic the FBI on him.

Consider the myriad other ways that the Republicans have demonstrated their destructive contempt for America. They removed protections for students against predatory lenders and financially hobbled the capacity of the next generation of leaders to actually engage in anything but mere survival. In August 2017, they sheared off millions of acres from public parks and seem ready to sell them to the highest bidder.

They have rushed through nominees for lifetime appointments on the federal bench who are demonstrably unqualified and would warp and mangle what has been the rule of law in this nation for decades. They have lied to the American people about so-called rampant voter fraud so that they could deny millions of citizens the constitutional right to vote. And they have tried to undercut the development and use of renewable energy, require power plants to use only coal or nuclear fuel, and opened up once-banned offshore drilling, which has now sent coastal states into a panic about the ever-looming threat to their very lives this decision has posed.

The Republicans have also lit a short fuse under America’s “soft power” ― our ideas, aspirations and strivings ― that makes the nation a world leader and not just any other one in the constellation. It only took a year under the GOP’s stranglehold for the global respect in which the U.S. was held to plummet from No. 1 to No. 6 in a global reputation survey. Within that short space of time, the Republicans have abdicated America’s international leadership on climate change; targeted, harassed, banned and deported immigrants of color with reckless abandon; and removed human rights and democracy as a goals of U.S. foreign policy.

Some Republicans, of course, have stood up every now and then to defuse these time bombs, to try to “put country over party.” Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) has been steadfast in his opposition to Trump and has challenged the White House’s ill-advised policies on immigration. Kasich, however, is also the governor of a state that has mastered the art of voter suppression from literacy tests, to artificially created long lines at the polls in counties with sizable minority populations, to voter roll purges that have removed twice as many African-American as white voters. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) helped torpedo the initial attempt to destroy the ACA. But all three voted for a tax bill that transfers inordinate wealth to the 1 percent, raises the burdens on the middle and working classes and saddles the nation with a deficit that dims the future. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has warned of impending doom, but his rhetoric of resistance has little correlation to his actions. Instead of holding the line, he has voted to destroy the ACA, twist the tax code to benefit the uber-wealthy and scuttle the nation’s environmental protections.

The Republicans wear their patriotism and love of country like a badge of honor, but they have demonstrated neither. Instead, they have been contemptuous and complicit. They seem determined to recreate the civil rights and deregulated financial sector wilderness of the 1920s; a world where millions of American citizens could not vote, where women were separate and unequal and where Wall Street gambled so recklessly that the global economy imploded and ushered in more than a decade of double-digit unemployment and the Great Depression. That desire to strip us bare once again has revealed a deep, unrelenting disdain for this nation ― for its people, its hopes, its ideas, its lands and its institutions. Their lies about love of country put them in power. Their hatred ― if we recognize it for what it is ― will put them out.

Carol Anderson is a historian and a professor of African-American Studies at Emory University. She is the author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth Of Our Racial Divide and the forthcoming One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our Democracy.

This piece is part of HuffPost’s brand new Opinion section. For more information on how to pitch us an idea, go here.



THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE WITH PLENTY OF FACTUAL BACKUP. THERE IS INTERNAL WORK TO BE DONE. WE NEED TO FACE OUR REAL ATTITUDES, FEARS, JEALOUSIES, AGGRESSION, AND BELIEFS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE OUR SLAVES WERE PUT OUT INTO THE WORLD WITH NO MONEY, EDUCATION, SOCIAL STANDING, PROTECTION AGAINST ATTACK BY WHITES, AND YET THEY HAVE SURVIVED. THIS ARTICLE CORRECTLY STATES THE ISSUE AS BEING “WHITE RAGE AGAINST PROGRESS.” THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC PARTS OF A “CONSERVATIVE” ATTITUDE. ANOTHER, ACCORDING TO A PSYCHOLOGY TODAY ARTICLE, IS “NEGATIVISM.” COMPARING LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES SHOWED THAT PERSONALITY DIFFERENCE. ANOTHER IS A GREATER AND LESSER DEGREE OF PERSONAL OPENNESS AND EMPATHY. NO SURPRISES THERE. I BELIEVE THEY FEEL THE WAY I FELT WHEN I SAW THAT DONALD TRUMP WAS WINNING ON THE LAST NIGHT OF THE ELECTIONS. SIMPLY HEARTSICK.

HOLY HECK! THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO A (SUPPOSEDLY EQUAL) FREE PUBLIC EDUCATION THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE, UNLESS THEY DON’T FIT INTO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS – NO DELAY IN RENEWING THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION CARD IF THEY HAVE BEEN DROPPED WITHOUT NOTICE DUE TO A PARTISAN CULLING OPERATION BY, GENERALLY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY; NO FELONY PRISON OR JAIL TIME; AND A MANDATORY PHOTO ID CARD, PLUS CITIZENSHIP PAPERS IN THE CASE OF IMMIGRANTS.

YES, IT’S HARSH AND UNFAIR, BUT IT’S THE LAW; AND YOU NEED NOW, AND WILL CONTINUE TO NEED, THOSE PIECES OF PAPERWORK. YOU’LL BE ABLE TO GET A JOB MORE EASILY. IF YOU CAN’T PROVE CITIZENSHIP, CONSULT A LAWYER. IF YOU ARE A FELON, CONSULT A LAWYER. AFTER THAT, IF WHAT YOU NEED IS TRANSPORTATION, ASK AROUND FOR A RIDE OR JUST WALK. BUT GET YOURSELF REGISTERED WITH PROOF OF YOUR STATUS AND GO VOTE.

THERE ARE OTHER MORE UNACCEPTABLE RESTRICTIONS ON BLACK VOTING OTHER THAN THE STRICTLY LEGAL PLOYS, INCLUDING VISITS BY THE KKK IN ALL THEIR FINERY. I HAVEN’T HEARD OF THAT VERY MUCH IN YEARS, BUT I’LL BET THERE ARE PLACES WHERE IT OR SOMETHING JUST LIKE IT STILL HAPPENS – NO HOODS, MAYBE. JUST THREE GUYS IN A CAR WHO GRAB YOU BY THE ARMS AND HIJACK YOU. IN THE NEWS LAST YEAR OR SO, THOUGH, THERE WERE KKK LEAFLETS DROPPED IN WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS IN TWO OR THREE NORTHERN CITIES TO INTEREST THE RESIDENTS IN JOINING THE WHITE SHEETS CLUB. BRING YOUR OWN TIKI TORCH.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ferguson-wasnt-black-rage-against-copsit-was-white-rage-against-progress/2014/08/29/3055e3f4-2d75-11e4-bb9b-997ae96fad33_story.html
Opinions
Ferguson isn’t about black rage against cops. It’s white rage against progress.
By Carol Anderson August 29, 2014

Photograph -- On Aug. 17, police in Ferguson, Mo., wait to advance after using tear gas to disperse a crowd protesting the shooting death of Michael Brown. (Charlie Riedel/Associated Press)


Carol Anderson is an associate professor of African American studies and history at Emory University and a public voices fellow with the Op-Ed Project. She is the author of “Bourgeois Radicals: The NAACP and the Struggle for Colonial Liberation, 1941-1960.”

When we look back on what happened in Ferguson, Mo., during the summer of 2014, it will be easy to think of it as yet one more episode of black rage ignited by yet another police killing of an unarmed African American male. But that has it precisely backward. What we’ve actually seen is the latest outbreak of white rage. Sure, it is cloaked in the niceties of law and order, but it is rage nonetheless.

Protests and looting naturally capture attention. But the real rage smolders in meetings where officials redraw precincts to dilute African American voting strength or seek to slash the government payrolls that have long served as sources of black employment. It goes virtually unnoticed, however, because white rage doesn’t have to take to the streets and face rubber bullets to be heard. Instead, white rage carries an aura of respectability and has access to the courts, police, legislatures and governors, who cast its efforts as noble, though they are actually driven by the most ignoble motivations.

White rage recurs in American history. It exploded after the Civil War, erupted again to undermine the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision and took on its latest incarnation with Barack Obama’s ascent to the White House. For every action of African American advancement, there’s a reaction, a backlash.

The North’s victory in the Civil War did not bring peace. Instead, emancipation brought white resentment that the good ol’ days of black subjugation were over. Legislatures throughout the South scrambled to reinscribe white supremacy and restore the aura of legitimacy that the anti-slavery campaign had tarnished. Lawmakers in several states created the Black Codes, which effectively criminalized blackness, sanctioned forced labor and undermined every tenet of democracy. Even the federal authorities’ promise of 40 acres — land seized from traitors who had tried to destroy the United States of America — crumbled like dust.

Influential white legislators such as Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-Pa.) and Sen. Charles Sumner (R-Mass.)tried to make this nation live its creed, but they were no match for the swelling resentment that neutralized the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and welcomed the Supreme Court’s 1876 United States vs. Cruikshank decision, which undercut a law aimed at stopping the terror of the Ku Klux Klan.

Nearly 80years later, Brown v. Board of Education seemed like another moment of triumph — with the ruling on the unconstitutionality of separate public schools for black and white students affirming African Americans’ rights as citizens. But black children, hungry for quality education, ran headlong into more white rage. Bricks and mobs at school doors were only the most obvious signs. In March 1956, 101members of Congress issued the Southern Manifesto, declaring war on the Brown decision. Governors in Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia and elsewhere then launched “massive resistance.” They created a legal doctrine, interposition, that supposedly nullified any federal law or court decision with which a state disagreed. They passed legislation to withhold public funding from any school that abided by Brown. They shut down public school systems and used tax dollars to ensure that whites could continue their education at racially exclusive private academies. Black children were left to rot with no viable option.

A little more than half a century after Brown, the election of Obama gave hope to the country and the world that a new racial climate had emerged in America, or that it would. But such audacious hopes would be short-lived. A rash of voter-suppression legislation, a series of unfathomable Supreme Court decisions, the rise of stand-your-ground laws and continuing police brutality make clear that Obama’s election and reelection have unleashed yet another wave of fear and anger.

It’s more subtle — less overtly racist — than in 1865 or even 1954. It’s a remake of the Southern Strategy, crafted in the wake of the civil rights movement to exploit white resentment against African Americans, and deployed with precision by Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. As Reagan’s key political strategist, Lee Atwater, explained in a 1981 interview: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N-----, n-----, n-----.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n-----’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like ‘forced busing,’ ‘states’ rights’ and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.” (The interview was originally published anonymously, and only years later did it emerge that Atwater was the subject.)

Now, under the guise of protecting the sanctity of the ballot box, conservatives have devised measures — such as photo ID requirements — to block African Americans’ access to the polls. A joint report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the NAACP emphasized that the ID requirements would adversely affect more than 6 million African American voters. (Twenty-five percent of black Americans lack a government-issued photo ID, the report noted, compared with only 8 percent of white Americans.) The Supreme Court sanctioned this discrimination in Shelby County v. Holder , which gutted the Voting Rights Act and opened the door to 21st-century versions of 19th-century literacy tests and poll taxes.

The economic devastation of the Great Recession also shows African Americans under siege. The foreclosure crisis hit black Americans harder than any other group in the United States. A 2013report by researchers at Brandeis University calculated that “half the collective wealth of African-American families was stripped away during the Great Recession,” in large part because of the impact on home equity. In the process, the wealth gap between blacks and whites grew: Right before the recession, white Americans had four times more wealth than black Americans, on average; by 2010, the gap had increased to six times. This was a targeted hit. Communities of color were far more likely to have riskier, higher-interest-rate loans than white communities, with good credit scores often making no difference.

Add to this the tea party movement’s assault on so-called Big Government, which despite the sanitized language of fiscal responsibility constitutes an attack on African American jobs. Public-sector employment, where there is less discrimination in hiring and pay, has traditionally been an important venue for creating a black middle class.

So when you think of Ferguson, don’t just think of black resentment at a criminal justice system that allows a white police officer to put six bullets into an unarmed black teen. Consider the economic dislocation of black America. Remember a Florida judge instructing a jury to focus only on the moment when George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin interacted, thus transforming a 17-year-old, unarmed kid into a big, scary black guy, while the grown man who stalked him through the neighborhood with a loaded gun becomes a victim. Remember the assault on the Voting Rights Act. Look at Connick v. Thompson, a partisan 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 2011 that ruled it was legal for a city prosecutor’s staff to hide evidence that exonerated a black man who was rotting on death row for 14years. And think of a recent study by Stanford University psychology researchers concluding that, when white people were told that black Americans are incarcerated in numbers far beyond their proportion of the population, “they reported being more afraid of crime and more likely to support the kinds of punitive policies that exacerbate the racial disparities,” such as three-strikes or stop-and-frisk laws.

Only then does Ferguson make sense. It’s about white rage.
outlook@washpost.com

Read more about Ferguson from The Washington Post:
I’m a federal prosecutor. Here’s why it’s so hard to indict police officers.
Get rid of local policing — Ferguson shows it doesn’t work.
The message from Ferguson is clear: Black youths, your lives don’t matter
How St. Louis County profits from poverty
Black America and the burden of the perfect victim
I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.



YES. SWEET, INDEED.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-trump-target-20180123-story.html
Sweet words we may soon hear: 'Mr. President, you are a target for obstruction of justice charges'
By HARRY LITMAN
JAN 23, 2018 | 4:05 AM

Photograph -- President Donald Trump meets with lawmakers in the White House on Jan. 9. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

"Just so you understand, there's been no collusion. There's been no crime. And in theory, everybody tells me I'm not under investigation."

So goes President Trump's consistent refrain when asked about the Russia probe led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. But with the Trump and Mueller camps huddling to negotiate the terms of a possible interview, that's about to change.

There is a special category of potential witness set out in the United States Attorneys' Manual as a "target." A target is a person whom the prosecutor is intending to charge, what the manual calls a "putative defendant."

It is longstanding Department of Justice policy for prosecutors to inform a witness that he or she is a target, if asked.

Accordingly, any competent white-collar defense lawyer contemplating testimony will inquire: "Is my client a target?"

So now, in all likelihood, Trump lawyer Ty Cobb will ask Mueller if the president is a target, and Mueller will in all likelihood answer that he is.

"Mr. President," Mueller will say, "you are a target for obstruction of justice charges."

More specifically, Mueller will explain that the president's in hot water for trying to stop former FBI Director James Comey from going after former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

If Trump testifies, he is unlikely to stave off the obstruction charges and quite likely to expose himself to some counts of perjury.

That's where the path of this investigation directly points: Mueller has spoken to all the crucial witnesses except Trump, and has the full account from the two principals, namely Comey and Flynn.

That "target" statement would demolish Trump's public stance, and completely alter the stakes for an interview.

How will Trump react?

He faces two basic problems. The first is that he can't testify under oath. The second is that he must.

He can't testify under oath because he has left a trail of patent lies and shifting accounts of central events, in particular Comey's firing, which Mueller's team will use to destroy his credibility. Moreover, there is strong evidence that Trump already knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he told Comey, "He [Flynn] is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."

Most ominously for Trump, he can't testify because he is in the dark about all of the evidence that Mueller and the grand jury have already — in particular from Flynn, who is cooperating with the investigation. Not knowing what Flynn has testified to, Trump will be unable to maneuver around it.

All of which means that if he testifies, he is unlikely to stave off the obstruction charges and quite likely to expose himself to some counts of perjury. And while his defenders in Congress might try to pooh-pooh the obstruction as old news, or the product of Mueller's bias, they will be hard-pressed after the Clinton impeachment to defend Trump against perjury charges.

But Trump can't stay quiet, either, because he has to provide a good reason for Mueller to stay his hand. That means on-the-record testimony — offering in his own words some persuasive exculpatory account. Presumably that would entail copping to Comey's version of events, and admitting that he has been lying all along (something that's hard to deny when you tell multiple versions of the same story), but insisting that he lacked the required corrupt intent for obstruction.

For example, he might try to sell the account that he acted to shut down the investigation not to shield himself, his family and his associates but because he believed it was a meritless witch hunt and a waste of resources.

Besides, if Trump tries to avoid an interview, Mueller is likely to seek a subpoena to force his testimony. And the courts are very likely to uphold the subpoena under the authority of cases involving Presidents Nixon and Clinton. Trump will have sustained a crucial, deflating loss at the hands of the judiciary, and his legal choices will have narrowed to testifying or taking the 5th Amendment.

So Trump has to testify to have any chance of staving off charges. But Trump can't testify because he will only add additional counts to the obstruction charges. Zugzwang*.

Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general, teaches at the UCSD school of political science and practices law at Constantine Cannon. @harrylitman

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion or Facebook


zugzwang* (go to the site and listen to this.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=zugzwang+define&oq=Zugzwang&aqs=chrome.5.69i57j0l5.5378j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
zug·zwang
ˈzəɡˌzwaNG,ˈtso͞oɡˌtsvaNG/Submit

noun -- CHESS
a situation in which the obligation to make a move in one's turn is a serious, often decisive, disadvantage.
"black is in zugzwang"



SO, WILL WE GET TO SEE THEM ON YOUTUBE, OR HOW DOES NETFLIX WORK. I HOPE IT’S FREE OF CHARGE. I REALLY DO MISS THEM!

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-fi-obama-show-20180309-story.html
Obamas discussing potential agreement with Netflix
By JACLYN COSGROVE
MAR 09, 2018 | 7:35 AM

Photograph -- Former First Lady Michelle Obama and former President Obama and arrive for the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago on Oct. 13. (Charles Rex Arbogast / Associated Press)

Former President Obama and Michelle Obama are negotiating a potential programming agreement with Netflix Inc., according to media reports.

The negotiations, first reported by the New York Times, are for original content that could focus on the topics that were important to the Obamas during their time in the White House, such as healthcare, nutrition and children's health.

Netflix and Eric Schultz, senior advisor to President Obama, declined to comment on the reports.

"President and Mrs. Obama have always believed in the power of storytelling to inspire," Schultz said in a statement. "Throughout their lives, they have lifted up stories of people whose efforts to make a difference are quietly changing the world for the better. As they consider their future personal plans, they continue to explore new ways to help others tell and share their stories."

It's unclear what the Obamas would be paid for any potential project.

Netflix is expected to spend a projected $7.5 billion to $8 billion on content this year, up from $6 billion in 2017.

In early February, the Los Gatos, Calif., company announced a multimillion-dollar deal with TV producer Ryan Murphy, whose shows include "American Horror Story" and "Glee." Last August, the streaming service snagged producer Shonda Rhimes, the woman behind "Grey's Anatomy" and "Scandal," from ABC.

Netflix shares jumped Friday, climbing 4.6% to $331.44.

jaclyn.cosgrove@latimes.com
Twitter: @jaclyncosgrove
UPDATES: 2:25 p.m.: This article was updated with Netflix's stock movement.
This article was originally published at 7:35 a.m.



NOW THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT I’M UNCONSCIOUSLY SEEKING WHEN I READ THESE NEWS ARTICLES. THE VERY ODD AND INTERESTING PIECE THAT I’VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, NOR EVEN IMAGINED. AS A GIRL AND YOUNG WOMAN I COLLECTED ROCKS AND MINERALS, SO DISCUSSIONS OF THE INCLUSIONS IN CRYSTALS AND ESPECIALLY WATER ICE CRYSTALS IS EXCITING TO ME.

FINDING EXTREMELY ANCIENT AIR IN ENCLOSED SPACES LIKE THIS, I’VE SEEN BEFORE. THAT WAS IN ICE CORES FROM GLACIERS. SCIENTISTS DO THAT TO SEE WHAT THE AIR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO WAS LIKE. THE PERCENTAGE OF OXYGEN TO CO2 MAY HAVE CHANGED, FOR INSTANCE. THAT’S ONE OF MY INFORMATIONAL VIDEOS WHICH I MADE FROM THE TV SET WHEN I HAD CABLE. THEY USUALLY CAME FROM DISCOVERY CHANNEL, HISTORY CHANNEL, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, ETC.

I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO FIND THAT YOUTUBE, WHICH I HAD NEVER INVESTIGATED BEFORE, HAS MANY, MANY INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTARIES LIKE THESE. THAT’S A RELIEF, BECAUSE ALL OF MY OLD VIDEO TAPES AREN’T WORKING AS WELL ANYMORE, AND THE COLOR OR SOUND IS BAD. I USE THEM TO GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT. THEY ERASE THE DAYS DETRITUS OF WORRIES OR PLANS WHICH WILL KEEP ME AWAKE FOR HOURS IF I DON’T DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NATURAL SCIENCE, HISTORY, MEDICINE, ETC. IN VIDEOS PUTS SOMETHING INTERESTING INTO THE PLACE OF A LIST OF THINGS TO BUY AT THE GROCERY STORE, OR A PROBLEM THAT I HAVEN’T SOLVED YET.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-water-in-diamonds-20180308-story.html
What scientists found trapped in a diamond: a type of ice not known on Earth
By DEBORAH NETBURN
MAR 09, 2018 | 5:00 AM

Photograph -- Some diamonds (like these) are for people who like bling, but others are for scientists who want to know more about the Earth's interior. (Jack Guez / AFP/Getty Images)

Trapped in the rigid structure of diamonds formed deep in the Earth's crust, scientists have discovered a form of water ice that was not previously known to occur naturally on our planet.

The finding, published Thursday in Science, represents the first detection of naturally occurring ice-VII ever found on Earth. And as sometimes happens in the scientific process, it was discovered entirely by accident.

Ice-VII is about one-and-a-half times as dense as the regular ice we put in our drinks and skate on in winter, and the crystalline structure of its atoms is different as well.

In normal ice, known as ice-I, the oxygen atoms arrange themselves in a hexagonal shape. In ice-VII these atoms are arranged in a cubic shape.

Oliver Tschauner, a professor of geoscience at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, explained that there are actually several known phases of water ice that form under different pressure and temperature conditions.

That's unusual. Generally, when you subject a solid phase of matter to increasing amounts of pressure, the space between the chemical bonds will decrease a little, and the bonds will tilt slightly toward each other, said Tschauner, who led the new work. That's called compressibility.

But water ice has very low compressibility. When it gets subjected to too much pressure, the atoms don't scooch together. Instead, they rearrange themselves into different patterns.

For example, if you press down hard enough on ice-I, it will transform into ice-II, which has a rhombohedral structure. Increase the pressure once again and the atoms will rearrange themselves into ice-III, then IV, V, VI and VII.

Unlike the other phases of ice, however, ice-VII remains fairly stable even as the pressure increases.

Scientists believe that ice-VII may be found in great abundance in the solar system, perhaps in the interior of ice moons like Enceladus and Europa, or as part of the ocean floor of Titan. But they did not think it could naturally occur on Earth.

The pressures ice-VII requires to form can be found on our planet, but they exist only deep in the mantle where the temperature is too warm for this form of ice to be stable.

Previous work has shown that ice-VII can be synthesized in the lab, but the new study revealed that small amounts of the material can also form naturally here on Earth, thanks to the peculiar properties of diamonds.

Diamonds can form very deep in the Earth's mantle, as much as 400 miles beneath the crust. As part of their formation process they will occasionally encapsulate teeny bits of the chemical environment around them in what are called inclusions.

The natural convection of the mantle will eventually transport a portion of these diamonds to the surface of the Earth. When that happens, they also bring up other deep-Earth materials in the form of these inclusions.

What's special about inclusions in diamonds is that the material entrapped within them remains under the same pressure as it was during the time it was encapsulated.

"The diamond lattice doesn't relax much, so the volume of the inclusion remains almost constant whether it's in the Earth's mantle or in your hand," Tschauner said.

Because of this property, diamonds are the major source of samples from the deep Earth, said George Rossman, a mineralogist at Caltech who worked on the study.

"Usually the extremely deep minerals that come up to the surface are not stable once they experience low pressures," Rossman said. "They crack and whatever inclusions they had in them are lost. But if a diamond comes up fast enough, it doesn't change."

Diamonds that form in the Earth's mantle don't originally capture ice-VII. As you'll recall, the mantle is too warm for ice-VII to exist.

However, as the authors discovered, diamonds can trap small bubbles of extremely dense pressurized water when they form. Then, as the diamond moves up through the mantle, the water inclusion is subjected to cooler temperatures while remaining under the same pressurized conditions. In that very specific case, ice-VII can occur.

Tschauner candidly admits that he and his team did not intentionally set out to look for ice-VII in diamonds. Instead, they were hunting for an unusual phase of carbon dioxide.

But while they were scanning the diamonds with high intensity X-rays, they saw something else: The first conclusive evidence of ice-VII on the planet.

"We were all very excited about that," Tschauner said.

Thanks to their discovery, ice-VII has been recognized for the first time as a mineral by the International Mineralogical Assn.

Rossman said that finding ice-VII, even by accident, was a thrill for the whole team.

"Water in diamonds is not unknown, but finding this very high pressure form of water ice intact, that was really fortuitous," he said. 'That's what you call discovery."

deborah.netburn@latimes.com
Do you love science? I do! Follow me @DeborahNetburn and "like" Los Angeles Times Science & Health on Facebook.


I HAVE PUT THIS ITEM IN ABOUT CONTACTING DEBORAH NETBURN BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A NUMBER OF GOOD SCIENCE ARTICLES THERE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THEM.