April 25 AND 26, 2017


News and Views


UNION REP SAYS THEY “HAVE A HARD TIME.” WELL, IF THAT STROLLER HAD HIT THE BABY IT WOULD VERY LIKELY BE DEAD NOW. THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN THAT! IF A MOTHER CAN BE CHARGED CRIMINALLY FOR BEING UNAWARE THAT HER THREE-YEAR OLD HAS EXERCISED HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AND RUN OUT THE DOOR WHEN SHE WAS ON THE PHONE, SURELY A NEAR MISS WITH A DANGEROUS OBJECT WHEN HE FORCIBLY YANKED IT FROM HER, IS A CRIME. A $1,000 PAYMENT AND GOING TO FIRST CLASS IS GOOD FOR THE PASSENGER, BUT WHAT ABOUT TWO FREE TRIPS AS WELL? I STILL WANT TO SEE THAT FLIGHT ATTENDANT FIRED, NOT “GROUNDED,” WHATEVER THAT REALLY MEANS.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flight-attendant-union-american-airlines-response/
CBS NEWS April 26, 2017, 6:20 AM
Flight attendant union leader responds to recent in-flight scuffle

Only on “CBS This Morning,” the president of the union representing American Airlines flight attendants spoke with CBS News correspondent Kris Van Cleave about the recent video that showed one of the airlines’ attendants nearly hitting a woman with a baby stroller as he took it away.

Bob Ross, president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, said he doesn’t want to make excuses for the video.

“He’s a good flight attendant, he’s been doing this job for a long time,” Ross said. “This is not indicative of the other 26,000 attendants that we represent nor is it indicative of the airline industry as a whole,” Ross said.

Ross says he’s looking at what could have been done differently.

American would not comment on that claim, but the airline did quickly apologize for the incident and grounded the flight attendant. It offered a full refund to the woman with the stroller, a $1,000 voucher and upgrade for her family to first class for the rest of their trip to Argentina.

Caught-on-camera conflicts have put a spotlight on the tense conditions passengers can sometimes face. Over the past few decades, airlines have stuffed more people on each flight while also reducing seat sizes and adding fees that put overhead space at a premium.

“The tensions are definitely higher. Flight attendants, I must say, have a hard job,” said Paul Hudson, president of the website FlyersRights.org.

Hudson says passengers feel they’re paying more for worse service.

“It’s something to endure, not really something to enjoy,” Hudson said. The numbers of cancellations and people bumped from flights are at their lowest levels in decades and complaints last year were down. Still, irritation is running high.

“Yes, it is a pressure cooker right now,” Ross said.

Pressure, Ross says, we’re all feeling.

“Passengers and the flight attendants are in this together. We’re a team in order to get the aircraft out on time, and to get loaded and do it in a safe and secure and comfortable manner,” Ross said.



I WISH THE TRUMP BUSINESSES WERE COMPARABLE TO AMERICAN STANDARDS, BUT THAT’S WHY WE WANT TO HAVE OUR FACTORY IN A PLACE LIKE CHINA. RIGHT?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/workers-chinese-factory-ivanka-trump-s-clothing-paid-62-week-n751431
NEWS APR 26 2017, 3:01 PM ET
Workers at Chinese Factory for Ivanka Trump’s Clothing Paid $62 a Week: Report
by ERIK ORTIZ

Conditions at a Chinese factory where designer clothes are manufactured, including for Ivanka Trump's fashion line, were not entirely up-to-snuff for the 80 workers there: They punched in nearly 60 hours a week — many making just over $60 in that period, according to an outside audit last fall.

That same facility was producing its clothes for New York-based G-III Apparel Group Ltd., which has the exclusive license to manufacture blouses, dresses and other items under Trump's label.

The Fair Labor Association's report, released Monday, does not specifically mention the name of the factory or say whether workers had been tasked with a Trump-related project during the time of the audit. G-III also has partnerships with Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Kenneth Cole and Karl Lagerfeld, according to its website.

Play Ivanka Trump: Ivanka Trump: 'A global humanitarian crisis is happening' 2:37

In a statement provided to NBC News on Wednesday, G-III said its factories are "routinely audited" by its "highly experienced team," as well as third-party groups such as the Fair Labor Association, which monitors the industry.

The association said auditors in October uncovered two-dozen violations under the U.N. International Labor Organization, including that overtime work exceeded the legally required limit of 36 hours per month. Workers were found to have accumulated another 42 hours to as much as 82 hours per month in the past year.

Related: Trump's Made in America Slogan Doesn't Fit Ivanka's Clothing Line

The audit said that the factory's workers took home the equivalent of roughly $255 to $284 in U.S. dollars a month. The Fair Labor Association's report, however, did not find the factory was in violation of failing to pay minimum wages.

G-III said the infractions that were discovered have been corrected or will be corrected: "Our goal is to always attain and maintain the best labor conditions possible in these factories."

A spokeswoman for Trump forwarded a request for a response about the report to her fashion company, which did not immediately comment Wednesday.

President Donald Trump's eldest daughter stepped down from her management position with her company in March in order to take an unpaid advisory role in the White House. She was in Germany this week for a high-powered conference on women's empowerment, and has made an issue of equal pay in the workplace.

President Trump has also been criticized over reports that merchandise under his Trump Organization brand have been made outside the U.S., including in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Last week, he signed an executive order to tighten restrictions on federal agencies so that they buy American-made products first.

He has repeatedly urged American companies to manufacture in the U.S., and has slammed China for allegedly stealing U.S. jobs.

Conditions at a Chinese factory where designer clothes are manufactured, including for Ivanka Trump's fashion line, were not entirely up-to-snuff for the 80 workers there: They punched in nearly 60 hours a week — many making just over $60 in that period, according to an outside audit last fall.

That same facility was producing its clothes for New York-based G-III Apparel Group Ltd., which has the exclusive license to manufacture blouses, dresses and other items under Trump's label.

The Fair Labor Association's report, released Monday, does not specifically mention the name of the factory or say whether workers had been tasked with a Trump-related project during the time of the audit. G-III also has partnerships with Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Kenneth Cole and Karl Lagerfeld, according to its website.

Play Ivanka Trump: 'A global humanitarian crisis is happening' 2:37

In a statement provided to NBC News on Wednesday, G-III said its factories are "routinely audited" by its "highly experienced team," as well as third-party groups such as the Fair Labor Association, which monitors the industry.

The association said auditors in October uncovered two-dozen violations under the U.N. International Labor Organization, including that overtime work exceeded the legally required limit of 36 hours per month. Workers were found to have accumulated another 42 hours to as much as 82 hours per month in the past year.

Related: Trump's Made in America Slogan Doesn't Fit Ivanka's Clothing Line

The audit said that the factory's workers took home the equivalent of roughly $255 to $284 in U.S. dollars a month. The Fair Labor Association's report, however, did not find the factory was in violation of failing to pay minimum wages.

G-III said the infractions that were discovered have been corrected or will be corrected: "Our goal is to always attain and maintain the best labor conditions possible in these factories."

Online Sales For Ivanka Trump Brand Drop 26 Percent In January

Ivanka Trump brand boots for sale at the Century 21 department store Feb. 10, 2017, in New York City. Drew Angerer / Getty Images, file

A spokeswoman for Trump forwarded a request for a response about the report to her fashion company, which did not immediately comment Wednesday.

President Donald Trump's eldest daughter stepped down from her management position with her company in March in order to take an unpaid advisory role in the White House. She was in Germany this week for a high-powered conference on women's empowerment, and has made an issue of equal pay in the workplace.

President Trump has also been criticized over reports that merchandise under his Trump Organization brand have been made outside the U.S., including in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Last week, he signed an executive order to tighten restrictions on federal agencies so that they buy American-made products first.

He has repeatedly urged American companies to manufacture in the U.S., and has slammed China for allegedly stealing U.S. jobs.

Ivanka Trump's own clothing line has been targeted by activists, who called for boycotts earlier this year on companies that support the Trump brand. While Nordstrom said it was dropping the line because it was a poor performer, G-III's annual report filed earlier this month revealed the brand had a strong 2016 — with a $17.9 million increase in net sales.

Erik Ortiz ERIK ORTIZ TWITTERGOOGLE PLUSEMAIL
TOPICS WORLD, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS
FIRST PUBLISHED APR 26 2017, 3:01 PM E



A NEW PROGRESSIVE FACE – STEPHEN JAFFE V. NANCY PELOSI

http://www.lawyers.com/san-francisco/california/Stephen-R-Jaffe-224754-a/
Areas of Law

Sexual Harassment
Discrimination
Employment Law - Employee
Labor Law
Whistleblower/Qui Tam
Labor & Employment
Credentials

Position
Attorney

Admission Details

Admitted in 1971, California, 1972, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and U.S. District Court, Northern and Central Districts of California
1976, U.S. Supreme Court
1981, Oregon (inactive) and U.S. District Court, District of Oregon
1982, District of Columbia
1983, U.S. District... Read more

Law School Attended
Wayne State University School of Law
Class of 1970
J.D.

University Attended
University of Michigan
Class of 1967
B.A.
Political Science


5.0/5.0 submitted on 09/30/16
Mr. Jaffe was terrific. His efforts on my behalf helped me resolve an employment issue in a very short time, which prevented a great deal of stress for me. His experience and confidence were clear from the outset and this helped me overcome my anxiety. The results were more than I expected. I would recommend Mr. Jaffe to anyone needing legal representation. Recommended
Flag review

5.0/5.0 submitted on 05/19/14
I am extremely happy that Stephen Jaffe agreed to take my unusual same-sex gender discrimination case. He works with you directly, is easy to talk to, & genuinely cares about your legal situation. Stephen was immensely effective in obtaining a settlement that exceeded expectations. His ability to skillfully negotiate on his clients behalf is his strength above his peers. If you want a knowledgeable, proactive, hardworking, & honest attorney, who isn’t afraid to fight for you, call Stephen Jaffe.
Communication
5.0/5.0
Responsiveness
5.0/5.0
Quality of Service
5.0/5.0
Value for Money
5.0/5.0 Recommended
Flag review



http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-nancy-pelosi-just-got-a-challenger-and-1493224950-htmlstory.html
APRIL 26, 2017, 9:55 A.M.
Nancy Pelosi just got a challenger and he's a 'pretty hard-core' Bernie Sanders supporter
Christine Mai-Duc

San Francisco attorney Stephen R. Jaffe is a lifelong Democrat and he intends to do what no Democrat has been able to do so far: make it to a runoff election against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Jaffe, 71, is an employment attorney who became a volunteer for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign last year.

------------

FOR THE RECORD

1:08 p.m.: A previous version of this post misstated Jaffe's age as 72.

------------

"I was a pretty hard-core Bernie supporter," said Jaffe, who gave money to the campaign and volunteered during the Nevada caucuses. He was one of two attorneys who filed for an injunction on behalf of Sanders supporters in the California primary, requesting "re-votes" and an extension of the voter registration deadline. (The request was denied.)

Jaffe said he was "devastated" by Sanders' loss to Hillary Clinton in the primary season and that Sanders, in part, inspired him to run. He says he supports single-payer healthcare and criticized Pelosi for raising money from corporations and special interests.

Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the House, has never faced a serious challenger on the left in her liberal San Francisco district. Preston Picus, another Sanders supporter who ran as a no-party-preference candidate, came the closest when he received 19% of the vote in November, according to the California Target Book.

"I know that Ms. Pelosi's strategy has been to essentially ignore anyone who has challenged her, but I anticipate she'll have a more difficult time doing that with my candidacy," Jaffe said in an interview. He thinks if local, progressive activists can propel him to a runoff with Pelosi, he'll have a "quite realistic chance" of winning.

"There's a rumbling, a wave of activism here by people who have really never stepped forward before."




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sanctuary-city-order-temporary-block-california-judge/
CBS/AP April 25, 2017, 5:05 PM
Trump "sanctuary city" executive order blocked by California judge

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge on Tuesday blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials, saying the president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.

What is a sanctuary city? And what happens now?

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits -- one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County -- against an executive order targeting communities that protect immigrants from deportation.

The injunction will stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through court.

The judge rejected the administration’s argument that the order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said President Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

DOJ threatens “sanctuary cities” with loss of grant money over immigration enforcement

U.S. leaders split over Trump's crackdown on "sanctuary cities"
Play VIDEO
U.S. leaders split over Trump's crackdown on "sanctuary cities"

Even if the president could do so, those conditions would have to be clearly related to the funds at issue and not coercive, as the executive order appears to be, Orrick said.

“Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves,” the judge said.

In a statement provided to CBS News, the Justice Department points to the fact that it can still withhold federal grants from “sanctuary cities”:

The Department of Justice previously stated to the Court, and reiterates now, that it will follow the law with respect to regulation of sanctuary jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Department will continue to enforce existing grant conditions and will continue to enforce [the executive order]. Further, the order does not purport to enjoin the Department’s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions.

It was the third major setback for the administration on immigration policy.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus says the ruling is another case of “the 9th Circuit going bananas” in response to the 9th Circuit Court based in San Francisco, where judges have also ruled against Trump’s travel bans.

The administration has often criticized the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Orrick does not sit on that court but his district is in the territory of the appeals court, which has ruled against one version of Trump’s travel ban.

“The idea that an agency can’t put in some reasonable restriction on how some of these moneys are spent is something that will be overturned eventually, and we will win at the Supreme Court level at some point,” Priebus said.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the president was “forced to back down.”

“This is why we have courts -- to halt the overreach of a president and an attorney general who either don’t understand the Constitution or chose to ignore it,” he said in a statement.

Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams said the ruling will allow cities and counties across the country to prepare budgets without the “unconstitutional threat of federal defunding hanging over our heads.”

President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding
Play VIDEO
President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding

A Justice Department attorney, Chad Readler, had defended the president’s executive order as an attempt to use his “bully pulpit” to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law.”

Readler also said the order applied to only three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants that would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco.

But the judge disagreed, saying the order was written broadly to “reach all federal grants” and potentially jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to San Francisco and Santa Clara.

He cited comments by Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence that the order was intended to target a wide array of federal funding. He said the president himself had called it a “weapon” to use against recalcitrant cities.

The government hasn’t cut off any money yet or declared any communities to be sanctuary cities. But the Justice Department sent letters last week warning communities to prove they are in compliance. California was told it could lose $18.2 million.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loosely defined term for jurisdictions that don’t comply with immigration authorities.

The Trump administration argued that the executive order applied narrowly to cities that forbid officials to report a person’s immigration status to federal authorities. Orrick said it could also be construed to apply to cities that refuse to hold jail inmates for immigration authorities.

The Trump administration says that sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust that is needed to get people to report crime.

The order also has led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and a third San Francisco Bay Area government, the city of Richmond. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County suits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.

Photograph -- ap-17025826672680.jpg, Moina Shaiq holds a sign at a rally outside of City Hall in San Francisco, Wed., Jan. 25, 2017. President Trump moved aggressively to tighten the nation’s immigration controls Wednesday, signing executive actions to jumpstart construction of his promised U.S.-Mexico border wall and cut federal grants for immigrant-protecting “sanctuary cities.” AP

On Tuesday, mayors from several cities threatened with the loss of federal grants emerged from a meeting with Sessions saying they remain confused about how to prove their police are in compliance with immigration policies - a necessary step for them to receive grant money.

The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Mr. Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a directive calling for a wall on the Mexican border.

Trump administration challenges travel ban ruling
Play VIDEO
Trump administration challenges travel ban ruling

A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.

Sanctuary cities offer safe harbor for undocumented immigrants who might otherwise be deported by federal immigration law enforcement officials. There are over 140 sanctuary jurisdictions -- cities and counties -- across the U.S., including at least 37 cities -- San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle, Miami and Los Angeles, among others.

In 2016, a Justice Department inspector general’s report investigated how much in Justice Department federal grants some sanctuary jurisdictions receive (as of Mar. 2016). Over 60 percent of the funding goes to 10 jurisdictions identified by the report:
</i>
Connecticut: $69,305,444
California $132,409,635
Orleans Parish, Louisiana: $4,737,964
New York, New York: $60,091,942
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: $16,505,312
Cook County, Illinois: $6,018,544
Chicago, Illinois: $28,523,222
Miami-Dade County, Florida: $10,778,815
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: $7,539,572
Clark County, Nevada: $6,257,951



ASKING ALL WHITES TO RAT ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IS REPULSIVE ENOUGH, BUT TO GO ON TO SAY THAT THE USA IS A “WHITE NATION,” IS UNACCEPTABLE. ONE, THAT’S WHITE SUPREMACIST IN ITS’ MEANING, AND TWO, THIS IS SIMPLY NOT A “WHITE NATION,” THE LAST TIME I LOOKED. WISHES ARE NOT HORSES!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-campus-outraged-over-flier-addressing-white-americans/
CBS NEWS April 25, 2017, 7:44 PM
Texas campus outraged over flier addressing "white Americans"

ARLINGTON, Texas -- A controversial flier appeared on the University of Texas at Arlington campus that asks “white Americans” to report “any and all” illegal immigrants, CBS Dallas / Fort Worth reports.

The school is taking down the fliers after students said they appeared on a message board inside the university commons.

170425-cbs-dfw-uta-campus-flier.jpg
A view of the controversial flier posted around the University of Texas at Arlington. CBS DALLAS / FORT WORTH
By bloodandsoil.org.

The group behind the message appears to be protesting the possibility of UTA becoming a “sanctuary campus.” The term “sanctuary city” refers to cities that follow certain procedures to shelter illegal immigrants.

Judge blocks Trump's order on sanctuary cities
Play VIDEO
Judge blocks Trump's order on sanctuary cities

“I feel like it’s ignorant people trying to incite some sort of rally or some sort of riot to get people off campus or get people to go to their way,” said student Kasandra Moreno. “But with such a diverse campus, it doesn’t make sense to do that here.”

The fliers include the website of “Vanguard America,” a white supremacist group, but it’s still unclear if members are responsible for the fliers. CBS Dallas / Fort Worth did not receive a reply from the group when asked about the notice.

“We are a very open and welcoming campus,” said Moreno. “I’ve been here four years. I’ve never seen anything like this before.”

School officials say the signs violate campus policy, and they “expect high standards of civil discourse.”

One student saw the flier’s message and is glad it’s been taken down.

“It’s very offensive because I was actually born in Nigeria and I came here when I was a baby,” said student Chineme Obikudu. “It resonates with me in a negative way.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-berlin-germany-angela-merkel/
CBS NEWS April 25, 2017, 7:13 AM
Ivanka Trump heads to Berlin for women's conference, time with Merkel

Ivanka Trump’s trip to Germany is no ordinary trip by an ordinary White House official. In fact, it’s three visits in one -- by Ivanka Trump, the first daughter; by Ivanka Trump, the presidential adviser; and by Ivanka Trump, the businesswoman. It’s complicated -- just like the state of U.S.-German relations right now.

On the face of it, she has gone to Berlin for a high-powered conference on promoting the role of working women. It’s one of her pet issues. She’s also here because Angela Merkel knows an opportunity when she sees one, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips.

When the German chancellor went to Washington, D.C. to meet Ivanka’s father, President Trump, the atmosphere bordered on icy.

So when Merkel met Ivanka and invited her to the Berlin women’s conference, that invitation was about more than playing to the first daughter’s interests.

Political analysts in Germany, like Josef Braml, say it was a way to use a side door to get into the White House.

“You take what you get,” Braml said. When asked what that access gets the chancellor, Braml said, “You get access to Donald Trump and maybe a moderating effect to Donald Trump because he’s also surrounded by people who are less moderate and seem to be more radical.”

Ivanka, the special adviser to the president, told “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King that when it comes to trying to influence her father on issues she cares about, she’s not shy.

Ivanka Trump discusses her critics and new role in the White House
Play VIDEO
Ivanka Trump discusses her critics and new role in the White House

“This particular title was about giving critics the comfort that I’m holding myself to that highest ethical standard. But I’ll weigh in with my father on, on the issues I feel strongly about,” Ivanka said.

However, this visit isn’t about issues. It’s about trying to jumpstart a stalled relationship.

April 24, 2017


News and Views


IS IT POSSIBLE THAT TRUMP IS ACTUALLY PLANNING TO DECLARE WAR ON NORTH KOREA AT THIS TIME? THE TIME OF THE MEETING IS NAMED HERE, BUT NOT THE DATE. WELL, DUH! I SUPPOSE IT MUST BE TODAY. I DIDN'T SEE A STORY STATING THAT, THOUGH. I'LL LOOK AGAIN TOMORROW.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-usa-senate-idUSKBN17Q1LR
Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing
WORLD NEWS | Mon Apr 24, 2017 | 7:54pm EDT
By Patricia Zengerle | WASHINGTON

Photograph -- U.S. President Donald Trump (R) speaks next to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a bilateral meeting with China's President Xi Jinping (Not Pictured) at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., April 7, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Top Trump administration officials will hold a rare briefing on Wednesday at the White House for the entire U.S. Senate on the situation in North Korea.

All 100 senators have been asked to the White House for the briefing by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday.

While administration officials routinely travel to Capitol Hill to address members of Congress on foreign policy matters, it is unusual for the entire Senate to go to the White House, and for all four of those officials to be involved.

Wednesday's briefing was originally scheduled for a secure room at the Capitol, but President Donald Trump suggested a shift to the White House, congressional aides said.

Washington has expressed mounting concern over North Korea's nuclear and missile tests, and its threats to attack the United States and its Asian allies.

Trump, who called the leaders of China and Japan during the weekend, told U.N. Security Council ambassadors on Monday that "the status quo" is not acceptable, and said the council must be ready to impose new sanctions.

Congressional aides suggested the briefing was being held at the White House to underscore the message to North Korea that Washington is serious about wanting a shift in policy.

A senior Trump administration official said the flurry of activity around North Korea was "not a part of something choreographed" and cautioned against over-interpretation.

Senators said they were happy to be hearing from the White House.

"It's (the location) their choice," said Senator Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I hope that we hear their policy as to what their objectives are, and how we can accomplish that hopefully without dropping bombs."

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS
Hollande urges French to reject Le Pen in presidential run-off vote
Trump calls for new U.N. sanctions against North Korea

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the administration should be telling senators it had a "red line," if it has one. "By 2020, if nothing changes inside of North Korea, they'll have the technology, they'll have a breakthrough, to develop an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) that can reach America. I hope this president will say that's a non-starter," Graham said.

The briefing will take place at 3 p.m. EDT (1900 GMT).

Aides said they were working with the White House to schedule a similar briefing for the House of Representatives.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Richard Cowan; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Lisa Shumaker)



IS EXTORTION AN ACCEPTABLY SEVERE CRIME TO IMPEACH TRUMP? THAT IS WHAT THE CLAIMS AGAINST TRUMP IN THIS ARTICLE AMOUNT TO.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-makes-offer-dems-can-easily-refuse
White House makes an offer Dems can easily refuse
04/24/17 08:00 AM—UPDATED 04/24/17 11:25 AM
By Steve Benen

This Friday at midnight, current funding for the federal government will expire. Without some kind of agreement, Americans will see the latest government shutdown – and the first in which Congress and the White House are held by the same party.

There’s more than one dividing line in this dispute, but increasingly, the fight is coming down to one thing: Donald Trump’s demand that Congress appropriate money for his border wall. As hard as this may be to believe, it appears the White House is quite serious about this, as evidenced by this exchange between ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday:

STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know, the president is trying to get a down payment for the border wall in the government funding bill that needs to pass this week. Democrats insist it’s a nonstarter. So is the president going to insist on that funding even if it means a government shutdown?

SESSIONS: I can’t imagine the Democrats would shut down the government over an objection to building a down payment on a wall that can end the lawlessness.

There are all kinds of substantive problems with such a posture – including the idea that Dems will be to blame if Republicans shut down the government – but given the circumstances, Sessions may need a greater imagination.

If the Trump administration sticks to its guns, a shutdown is inevitable, because there’s simply no way Democrats will agree to spend taxpayer money on a border wall few outside the White House actually want. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal had an interesting piece the other day noting that among lawmakers who represent districts along the U.S./Mexico border – Democrats and Republicans alike – literally none of them support the president’s wall proposal.

But Team Trump believes it’s identified an area of possible negotiation, which is actually more accurately seen as a clumsy hostage strategy. Slate reported late Friday:

President Trump is apparently trying to add another item to his resume of bumbled hostage-taking efforts this week, by threatening to sabotage the Affordable Care Act unless Democrats vote to fund a border wall with Mexico.

As budget chief Mick Mulvaney explained in an interview with Bloomberg Friday, the administration is offering $1 of funding for Obamacare’s crucial cost-sharing reduction subsidies for every $1 of money Democrats pony up for the wall…. The implicit threat here is that, if Democrats reject this deal, the White House will cease making the subsidy payments, and likely bring Obamacare crashing down.

With very little subtlety, the president tweeted over the weekend, “ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.”

For the record, the Affordable Care Act is not dying – a detail Trump chooses not to understand – but that wasn’t the president’s point. This was effectively his way of saying, “It’s a nice health care system your country has there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

This is not, however, a real offer. Money for cost-sharing reduction subsidies isn’t some Democratic goodie to be used as a bargaining chip; it’s a necessary government expenditure needed for the stability of American health care marketplaces. Threatening health care for millions in order to extort money for a border wall more closely resembles an organized-crime technique than a serious attempt at governance.

And whether folks in the West Wing understand this or not, it won’t work. If Trump shuts down the government, Republicans lose. If Trump starts taking Americans’ health coverage away, Republicans lose. If Trump breaks his promise about Mexico paying for a border wall, Republicans lose. If Trump has to abandon his misguided shutdown strategy, Republicans lose.

For a guy who claims to be an expert negotiator, Trump should have some rudimentary understanding of how leverage works. What incentive do Democrats have to help the White House in this scenario? If there was broad public support for a border wall, Dems might feel a bit more pressure, but that’s plainly not the case. It’s left the president to effectively declare, “Give me something unpopular or I’ll do something unpopular.”

The fact that no one in the White House has taken Trump aside to tell him how flawed this plan is suggests either Team Trump is even less competent than many feared, or officials are afraid to tell the president what he doesn’t want to hear.

Postscript: Whatever happened to Trump’s secret strategy to have Mexico, and not American taxpayers, finance the wall? He added over the weekend, “Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.”

The comedy of errors continues.

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Donald Trump and Government Shutdowns


THIS IS SURE TO BE A BEST SELLER!

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/case-impeachment-allan-j-lichtman-121014522.html
The Case for Impeachment by Allan J Lichtman - review
Joy Lo Dic
Evening Standard 20 April 2017

Photograph – Richard Nixon

Some might think a book listing reasons to impeach President Trump is a little premature; some might think it is overdue. Allan J Lichtman, professor of history at American University in Washington DC, has been considering it since before Trump even stood on the Capitol steps to declare “America First”.

Two months before America went to the polls, Lichtman, who had predicted correctly the outcomes of eight previous elections, called it for Donald Trump. So pleased was The Donald that he sent a handwritten note: “Professor — congrats — good call.” Trump may write again in less friendly terms on Lichtman’s next prediction: that he will be impeached.

The term has fallen out of use in Britain but it remains a vital sanction in the American Constitution. Still raw from the revolution against George III’s Britain, the new-born United States devised a mechanism to remove a rotten leader without resorting to the gun.

Impeachment — putting the President or civil officers on trial before the Senate for “bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” — was its device. Deliberately broad in scope, it is as much about being unfit for office as having committed a specific crime. Only two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon resigned just before his summons arrived.

Johnson, the vice-president who took over after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, was a pugnacious know-all who appealed to the white working classes, and undid much of the work Lincoln had done of post-Civil War reconstruction, restoring power to the Southern slave-owning elites. After a three-month hearing he was acquitted of the charges by one vote.

Nixon had a problem with paranoia, the truth, hacking — at least he did his own — and he made calls to foreign powers (Cambodia) for political profit. The parallels with Trump made by Lichtman are delicious. Curiously, he largely leaves Clinton — and his weakness for women — alone.

The rump of the book* is a thumping catalogue of reasons why Trump is flirting with impeachment, neatly chaptered for lawyers or congressmen seeking grounds. For bribery and treason, investigate his business dealings and connections with Russia — both are already under scrutiny. For crimes, Trump’s reversal of efforts to combat climate change could count as a crime against humanity, ventures Lichtman. For misdemeanours, what about his treatment of women?

His argument races through 200 pages, with steam for more. But while impeachment is a way to avoid revolution, it still needs a smoking gun — and Lichtman hasn’t got it. This, like much of current US liberal journalism, is a thriller searching for a crime. When it arrives, Lichtman will take credit again but he’s not the Woodward or Bernstein of this piece.


“Rump of the book”* going back to the 1300s, this usage to mean “the remainder” or “the inferior part,” is proper, though I’ve never seen it before. Definition #2 is interesting for the many synonyms that it provides. I was familiar with all of those except jacksy and croup.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rump

1. ≡remains, rest, those left, remaining part The rump of the party does still have assets.

2. ≡buttocks, bottom, rear, backside (informal), tail (informal), seat, butt (U.S. & Canad. informal), bum (Brit. slang), ass (U.S. & Canad. taboo slang), buns (U.S. slang), arse (taboo slang), rear end, posterior, haunch, hindquarters, derrière (euphemistic), croup, jacksy (Brit. slang) jeans stretching across her rump



JOHN KASICH IS ONE OF THE FEW REPUBLICANS WHOM I WOULDN’T HATE SEEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE, BECAUSE HE TRULY IS “MODERATE.” HE ALSO GIVES EVERY APPEARANCE OF CARING ABOUT PEOPLE AND OUR NEEDS. JOHN MCCAIN IS ANOTHER.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich-political-parties-on-their-way-out/
By KATHRYN WATSON CBS NEWS April 23, 2017, 1:11 PM
Kasich says political parties are "on their way out"

WASHINGTON -- Ohio Gov. John Kasich said Sunday that political parties are “on their way out.”

He said that his state is “more united” than it once was -- and that there’s a reason for that.

“You know why?” Kasich said. “Because I’m not playing that stupid political game. And I think political parties are on their way out, essentially. Sanders is talking about reconstructing the Democratic Party. I think people care less about party. They want action and things done.”

Kasich said Americans must “believe in ourselves” and focus on “common humanity” rather than differences. Those are the themes of his new book, “Two Paths: America Divided or United.” Kasich described the book as a “cry of the heart.”

ftn-kasich-0423-1298171-640x360.jpg
“I have been fortunate enough to have so many different experiences in my life, both in politics and in business, in the media, across the board,” Kasich said. “And what this book is about is, how did we get to where we are, which is, today, divided? And how do we get out of it? And what is our responsibility, all of us, as individuals?”

Kasich, who ran on a moderate platform during his 2016 presidential campaign for the Republican nomination, said the answer to American unity “really gets down to living a life a little bigger than ourselves.”

“I think that, in some sense, we’ve kind of lost it,” Kasich said. “And what’s most important is for people to realize that they matter. I mean, they matter as much as a CEO, even if they’re turning off the lights at night.”



I CAN DO WITHOUT BLOCKBUSTER, BUT IT IS A SENTIMENTAL THING FOR ME, JUST AS REMEMBERING MY TEENAGE YEARS WHEN MCDONALD’S WAS NEW, AND WE SAT IN OUR CARS OUTSIDE TO RECEIVE HAMBURGER SERVICE FROM CUTE YOUNG PEOPLE. THE SUMMER NIGHT WAS WARM, AND THE RADIO WAS PLAYING ROCK ‘N ROLL. GOOD TIMES!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/be-kind-rewind-blockbuster-stores-kept-open-in-alaska/
CBS NEWS April 23, 2017, 9:53 AM
Be kind, rewind: Blockbuster stores kept open in Alaska

We have a real BLAST FROM THE PAST: Conor Knighton has spotted a retail survivor in a surprising place:

“I can’t tell you how many business cards I’ve given out to people ‘cause they literally do not believe that I’m from Blockbuster,” said Kevin Daymude. He’s the manager of a Blockbuster Video outlet in Anchorage, Alaska.

The new releases are new, and the candy is fresh, but it feels like a place from another era.

Daymude has been there for 26 years, since the days of people returning VHS tapes and having to rewind them. “’Be kind, rewind’ -- we had stickers on there!” he laughed.

blockbuster-video-store-alaska-exterior-620.jpg
Despite the company’s bankruptcy and the rise of Netflix, there are still a handful of Blockbuster stores open for business. CBS NEWS

Maybe we should rewind for a minute …

blockbuster-video-racks-244.jpg
CBS NEWS
You’ve seen the headlines: Blockbuster went bankrupt in 2010; it closed its last 300 stores in 2013. So how is this even possible?

“For a lot of people, they haven’t seen a Blockbuster store in, maybe, five or six years,” said franchise owner Alan Payne.

Back when Blockbuster shut down, Payne decided to keep HIS doors open. Today, he owns nine of the last 12 Blockbusters left in the entire country. (There were once over 9,000 worldwide.)

“At its peak almost half of the families in the entire country were going in a video store every week,” Payne said.

“I don’t know of any other industries that have gone from nothing, to an integral part of the culture that fast.”

The first Blockbuster opened in 1985. By 1989, one was opening every 17 hours.

1990s Blockbuster Video Store Commercial by TheRetroTimeMachine on YouTube
The stores were racking up millions of dollars of profit in late fees alone. In 1999, actress Rene Russo and a guy dressed up like a giant videotape rang the opening bell for Blockbuster’s IPO.

But two years earlier, another video rental company was founded: Netflix. Blockbuster had the opportunity to buy Netflix in 2000 for $50 million. Today, it’s worth $60 BILLION.

Payne explains: “Blockbuster was convinced at the time that they could compete with Netflix, and rather than buy them, they wanted to compete with them.”

But by the time Blockbuster launched its own DVD-by-mail service, it was too little, too late. Netflix and Redbox had already moved customers away from the stores ... and when high-quality streaming video came along, they never had to leave the couch.

There were once close to 60,000 employees wearing the blue and yellow. Now, Kenai Malay is one of just a handful left at a Blockbuster in Wasila, hometown of Sarah Palin. Here, there’s something you don’t normally see on Netflix: restocking shelves.

blockbuster-restocking-620.jpg
Kenai Malay restocks the shelves at the Blockbuster video store in Wasila, Alaska. CBS NEWS

And here, like in the rest of Alaska, Internet is expensive. When you’re getting charged by the gigabyte, the video store can actually offer a better deal.

And during the cold dark winters, they can be community gathering places.

“I feel like a lot of the customers just want to come in and feel like they’re someone special,” said Daymude. “They love the customer service, they love the interaction.”

It’s a chance to get a recommendation from a person instead of from a computer, to stroll instead of scroll.

“The shopping experience of looking for a movie on a screen versus coming in here and seeing literally 10,000 titles, there’s no comparison,” said Payne.

At these last few Blockbusters in the last frontier of Alaska, the employees all know how this movie ends; they’re just trying to pause and enjoy it while it lasts.



I USED TO FREAK WHEN I HEARD THIS KIND OF TALK, BUT THE CRASS AND UNCARING REPUBLICANS (OR SO I OFTEN TEND TO SEE THEM) STOPPED JUST ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CUT OFF LINE, OF THE ONLY FREE CLASSICAL MUSIC, INTERESTING TALK, GOOD DRAMA AND DOCUMENTARIES, AND OTHER UPLIFTING THINGS THAT ARE ON THE AIRWAVES. WILL THEY DO IT THIS TIME? THEY COULD AT ANY POINT, BUT I HOPE THEY WON’T. HIGH QUALITY ART SHOULDN’T BE THE PRIVILEGE OF THE FEW, BUT THE ENRICHMENT OF THE MANY. WITHOUT THESE THINGS, THE WHOLE SOCIETY WILL BECOME MORE AND MORE DEGRADED TO A POINT LITTLE ABOVE BARBARISM, IF WE AREN’T CAREFUL. THESE IGNORANT AND ROUGH-LOOKING MEN WALKING THROUGH PLACES LIKE WALMART WITH THEIR AK47S STRAPPED AROUND THEM COULD BECOME THE NORM, RATHER THAN EXAMPLES FOR CHILDREN OF WHAT NOT TO DO!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/for-arts-sake-when-funding-the-nea-is-in-jeopardy/
CBS NEWS April 23, 2017, 9:09 AM
For art's sake: When funding the NEA is in jeopardy

The battlelines are drawn in Washington over whether the federal government should be spending any money at all for art’s sake. The impact of the Trump administration’s proposed end to funding would be felt in communities large and small -- perhaps particularly in the small -- as Erin Moriarty reports in our Cover Story:

There is something surprising happening in the Pine Mountains of Kentucky. Like most mining communities, Letcher County has lost thousands of jobs. And yet, how do you account for the new whiskey distillery and restaurant in the county seat of Whitesburg? The renovated buildings? The 15,000-watt radio station?

What has helped breathe new life into the decimated coal economy here has little to do with mining.

“We have 18 full-time employees and five part-time employees,” said program director and fundraiser Ada Smith. “We have over a million-dollar payroll annually.”

kentucky-arts-appalshop-music-c-620.jpg, Small-town economies, such as Kentucky’s coal country, will be hard-hit if the Trump admin eliminates cultural programs like the National Endowment for the Arts. CBS NEWS

This is Appalshop (short for Appalachian Community Film Workshop), a non-profit arts center on the edge of town that exists largely because of federal funding.

“Appalshop has been here in this town for 48 years,” said Smith, “and I think it has been an example of the diversified economy we really need in this region.”

Smith, 29, grew up here. Her grandfather worked in the mines, but because of Appalshop, her father didn’t have to.

Applashop was a seed that grew out of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s. Programs were established in impoverished areas to encourage young people to develop new skills in the arts, like filmmaking. Smith’s mom and dad worked on a Steenbeck in a film editing suite.

appalshop-kentucky-filmmakers-promo.jpg, Appalshop filmmakers help preserve the musical heritage of Kentucky. CBS NEWS

The film workshop has grown into a diverse and thriving arts center, where picks and shovels have been replaced by picks and bows. But now, what was started by the 36th President has suddenly been put in doubt by the 45th.

Last month, in what was called the “America First” budget, the Trump administration unveiled a proposed budget that defunds the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- all of which provide critical funding to Appalshop.

Many of these agencies have been threatened with extinction before. In the 1990s, after Members of Congress accused the NEA of funding offensive art, the agency’s budget was cut nearly in half. But the Trump administration says this time the cuts aren’t about taste, but about taxes and struggling taxpayers.

“Can I really go to those folks, look at them in the eye, and say, ‘Look, I want to take money from you and I want to give it to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?’ That is a really hard sell, and it’s something we don’t think we can defend anymore,” said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

This, despite the fact that, altogether, funding for these agencies makes up less than .02 percent of the federal budget.

“To me,” said Smith, “it is, again, really short-sighted and silly.”

kentucky-arts-appalshop-banjo-620.jpg
A young music student in Whitesburg, Kentucky. CBS NEWS

Smith says that, in fact, these federal budget cuts will hurt the people struggling the most, in areas that helped elect the President. Letcher County voted 4-to-1 for President Donald Trump.

“The people working on this budget haven’t spent enough time understanding where these types of federal resources go and how much they’re needed in communities like this,” Smith told Moriarty.

With grants from the NEA, Appalshop filmmakers have turned the local culture into indelible images. For example, Appalshop’s films helped document the migration of black families from Alabama to coal mining regions in the first half of the 20th century.

Without federal funding, will this important part of American history and heritage be lost?

Not necessarily, says David Marcus, the artistic director for a theater company in Brooklyn, N.Y. Surprisingly, he support the cuts.

“For 20,000 years human beings have been making art,” he said. “That streak is not going to end in 2018 if the NEA goes away.”

Marcus says that even small government grants interfere with the free market, by giving recipients an unfair edge. “So when the federal government comes in and gives $10,000 or $15,000 to one company and not other companies, they are really putting a heavy thumb on the scale,” he said.

Yes, he says, theaters may fail, but others will simply take their place.

Moriarty asked, “But what guarantee do you have in a place like Whitesburg, Kentucky? What guarantee you have anything that will take that place?”

“I don’t have a guarantee,” replied Marcus.

“So it will just go?”

“Things go, yes. I mean, this is the nature of the world. This is the nature of art.”

But Broadway theater producer Rocco Landesman, a former chairman of the NEA, says, “Art needs subsidy to be alive. You cannot just have the marketplace determining what is done.”

He worries that without subsidies, challenging, daring art will never be produced. Case in point: “If you came to me and said, ‘I’ve got this hot idea for a musical about Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers and it’s gonna be done in rap and hip hop,’ I woudl say, as a commercial producer, my first take would be, Really?”

The reality is, says Lin-Manuel Miranda, “I’m a Puerto Rican guy who writes musicals and that’s not very common. And as an artist, you’re grateful for any opportunity, any crack in the door.”

Miranda created the Broadway musical “Hamilton,” perhaps the greatest theater sensation of the decade. He credits the success of “Hamilton” -- and his first musical, “In the Heights” -- to federally-subsidized theaters that took a chance on him and his ideas.

Lin-Manuel Miranda on gov't funding for the arts
Play VIDEO
Lin-Manuel Miranda on gov't funding for the arts

“At every formative stage, I can point to public funding of the arts as making that possible,” Miranda said. “My first job was as an intern for WNET, that’s the PBS affiliate in New York City. My first musical was workshopped at the O’Neill Musical Theatre Center which is partly funded by the NEA.”

And it wasn’t just the NEA that made the difference:

“I grew up loving musicals,” Miranda told Moriarty. “I had parents who loved musicals. And we never had money to go see Broadway shows. I think I saw three, maybe, before I was an adult. But because of PBS’ ‘Great Performances,’ I saw ‘Into the Woods.’ And it changed my life.”

Video -- Web extra: Lin-Manuel Miranda on the importance of federal funding for the arts

And that, says Miranda, is the point: to give children who otherwise wouldn’t have it access to the arts, like 11-year-old Jamin Radosevich and his older sisters, Samantha and Grace, in Letcher County, Kentucky. Appalshop is the reason they have been able to take music lessons.

“If you hand me an instrument, I want to learn how to play it,” said Grace. “So I was excited when I could learn the fiddle.”

The costs of funding these programs are only a tiny fraction of the federal budget. But NOT funding them, Ada Smith says, would cost Americans much more.

“We try to tell the stories of the people and amplify their voices, their lives, their stories,” Smith said. “When you take away that type of federal support, you start weeding out tons, millions of voices in this country, that are unheard.”



THIS ARTICLE ON RACHEL MADDOW CLAIMED THAT TRUMP HAS BEEN FIBBING AGAIN, AND IT SEEMED SO TO ME. THE FOLLOW-UP FROM THE 24TH, TODAY, IS MORE INFORMATIONAL. SEE BELOW.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dissembling-north-korea-trump-creates-crisis-credibility
Dissembling on North Korea, Trump creates a crisis of credibility
04/19/17 08:00 AM—UPDATED 04/19/17 09:10 AM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- U.S. President Donald Trump gets a briefing before he tours the pre-commissioned U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford at Huntington Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding facilities in Newport News, Virginia, U.S. on March 2, 2017. JONATHAN ERNST/Reuters

A week ago, as tensions with North Korea reached dangerous levels, Donald Trump sat down for an interview in which he sent an important message to our adversary and the world.

Asked specifically about redirecting U.S. military forces towards the Korean peninsula, the president said, “I don’t want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful.”

As is often the case with Trump, the message was disjointed – he didn’t want to talk about what he was doing, except to tell everyone he was dispatching a Navy “armada” – but we nevertheless got the point. Indeed, the president wasn’t the only one making this message: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer all said publicly, over the course of a few days, that the United States had dispatched an aircraft carrier and its support ships to head towards the Korean peninsula.

This was, the administration told the world, a show of force, intended to be a deterrent.


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW, 4/18/17, 9:00 PM ET
Trump foreign policy antics raise question, Stupid or nefarious?

We now know, however, that none of what the Trump administration said was true. As Rachel explained on the show last night, the USS Carl Vinson was not dispatched to the Korean peninsula; there were no cancelled exercises in the South Pacific; there was no armada sent as a show of force.

“Despite what the White House, and the National Security Advisor, and the Defense Secretary all said, the USS Carl Vinson was not steaming toward North Korea. It was not steaming north toward the Korean peninsula. In fact, while they were all saying that the USS Carl Vinson was steaming toward North Korea, it was 3,000 miles away, steaming south, in the opposite direction.”

I imagine much of the public gets tired of hearing this, but this is not normal.

Sure, there are times in which public misdirection is deemed necessary for security reasons. When then-President George W. Bush visited troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving in 2003, for example, the White House briefly told reporters false information about the president’s whereabouts.

Last week’s developments in the Pacific were not in any way similar. The president and his administration, during heightened tensions with an enemy that has nuclear weapons, told the world more than once that an aircraft carrier strike group was en route to North Korea, when in fact, there was no aircraft carrier strike group en route to North Korea.

And while the standoff with North Korea created a potential crisis, the Trump administration’s rhetoric has created a different kind of problem: a crisis of credibility. It is increasingly difficult to imagine how anyone – friend or foe – can accept the White House’s rhetoric at face value, even about matters as important as national security.

Under normal circumstances, developments like these would be the subject of congressional scrutiny, with some fairly obvious questions in need of answers: did the president and his team deliberately mislead? Did the president make an order that the military ignored? Did Trump’s Pentagon not know where its aircraft carrier strike group was and in what direction it was headed?

Explore:
The MaddowBlog, Donald Trump, National Security and North Korea



APRIL 24 -- THIS FOLLOW-UP STORY EXPLAINS THE SITUATION, HOPEFULLY. SOMETHING REALLY IS HAPPENING, AND THIS COLLECTION OF SHIPS COULD BE DESCRIBED AS AN “ARMADA.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-s-vinson-nears-korean-peninsula/
CBS NEWS April 24, 2017, 11:38 AM
USS Vinson nears Korean Peninsula

The Vinson battle group is nearing the Korean Peninsula, CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports. It is south of the Tohara Strait, which is between Okinawa and the Japanese main islands in the Philippine Sea. Two Japanese destroyers have joined the Vinson, and when it gets closer to the Korean peninsula, it will also be joined by South Korean ships. The Vinson naval strike group is also expected to pick up a Chinese intelligence trawler, which will shadow it while it is in the area. Over the next few days, the U.S. Air Force will also be conducting exercises.

Martin also confirmed that the USS Michigan, a nuclear-powered guided missile U.S. submarine, is to arrive at the port of Busan in South Korea on Tuesday. It will engage in training exercises near the Korean peninsula after undergoing a hull inspection at Busan, and then it will join the Vinson strike group for surveillance. UPI first reported the deployment of the Michigan.

The Michigan is armed with around 150 Tomahawk missiles, with a range of about 1,000 miles.

All 100 U.S. senators will be briefed on North Korea at the White House late afternoon Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will do the briefing, according to a Pentagon spokesman.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on American detained in North Korea
Play VIDEO
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley on American detained in North Korea

Tuesday is Army Day in North Korea and U.S. intelligence is expecting some kind of “firepower display.” North Korea has continued its show of defiance, detaining a third U.S. citizen, Tony Kim, on Saturday.

The North has also continued its barrage of aggressive language, threatening the Vinson -- its forces are “combat-ready to sink a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a single strike,” state-run media bragged.

However, Bill Richardson, the former New Mexico Governor who has also served as U.N. Ambassador, has previously negotiated prisoner releases with North Korea, and he suggested that the taking of detainees might indicate there’s a “path forward” with North Korea. Prisoner releases in the past have led “to at least a dialogue.”

“They use...these detainees from the United States as bargaining chips,” he told CBS News. “They always want something in return.”



I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT THIS OFFICER WILL BE INVESTIGATED FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, BUT I WISH THE CITY WOULD DO MORE THAN SIMPLY PUTTING HIM ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. WHETHER IT’S WITH OR WITHOUT PAY HASN’T BEEN STATED HERE, AND TO ME THAT REALLY MATTERS. WITHOUT PAY IS THE WAY TO GO! I’M SURE WE’LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS.

WE REALLY NEED TO REVAMP THE LAWS GOVERNING POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES, SO THAT NOT ONLY WILL THEY HAVE TO WORK UNDER STRICTER RULES, BUT THE POLICE WHO DO ABUSE SUSPECTS/WITNESSES/PEOPLE WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE IN THE AREA -- MUST PAY A REAL PENALTY FOR THE THINGS THEY TOO OFTEN DO AGAINST CITIZENS.

GETTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT PASSED ON A FEDERAL LEVEL WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE IMPOSSIBLE, UNLESS SOME MUCH MORE ACTIVIST BLACK AND WHITE STREET DEMONSTRATIONS WERE TO COME ABOUT. THERE WAS A CONSERVATIVE CONGRESSMAN – I CAN’T REMEMBER WHO – QUOTED IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS AS SAYING THAT ALL CONTROL OVER HOW POLICE OPERATE SHOULD BE ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. THAT JUST DOESN’T WORK, UNFORTUNATELY, TOWARD SOLVING THESE POLICE VIOLENCE PROBLEMS.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nandi-cain-punched-repeatedly-by-sacramento-officer-files-lawsuit/
CBS/AP April 24, 2017, 1:38 PM
Man files lawsuit after being hurled to ground, punched by police officer


CBSN VIDEO -- Jaywalker, witnesses speak out on violent arrest, Facebook, Twitter
April 12, 2017, 6:18 PM

A criminal investigation has begun following the violent arrest of a jaywalker in Sacramento, California. A witness captured the incident on a cell phone, and the footage has sparked new criticism of police. The officer initially stopped Nandi Cain Jr. for illegally crossing a street. After his orders weren't obeyed, the officer tackled Cain to the ground. The arresting officer has been placed on leave.


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A lawyer for a Sacramento man hurled to the ground and punched repeatedly in the face by a police officer has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city and county of Sacramento.

The lawsuit alleges Nandi Cain, 24, was also abused in jail after his arrest. It claims jail workers repeatedly kneed Cain in the ribs and used their knees to pin him down while stripping off his clothes.

Jaywalker, witnesses speak out on violent arrest
Play VIDEO
Jaywalker, witnesses speak out on violent arrest

Sacramento police did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.

Cain was walking home April 10 when an officer told him to stop because he had jaywalked. He refused and challenged the officer to a fight.

Video from a police dash camera showed the officer throwing Cain to the ground and punching him while he was down.

The video, posted by Naomi Montaie, starts by showing the incident unfolding from inside a vehicle. The officer and Cain are seen standing in the middle of a residential street exchanging words. A woman inside the vehicle yells, “Nephew, just listen.” About three seconds later, the officer steps forward, grabs Cain and hurls him onto the pavement.

The car moves forward as video continues to capture the incident, showing the officer on top of Cain, punching him repeatedly.

Cellphone video shows officer taking down alleged jaywalker
Play VIDEO
Cellphone video shows officer taking down alleged jaywalker

“Hey, hey, why you beatin’ him like that?” the woman yells.

Another officer arrives and handcuffs the man as he’s face down on the pavement. In the end, seven officers surround the man, handcuffed in the street, and eventually he’s put in the back of a police car.

Cain told CBS Sacramento that he thought he was “going to be like the next Trayvon Martin” -- referring to the African-American teenager who was shot and killed in Florida in 2012. He said that he feared for his life during the encounter, and that he was only walking home from work and did nothing wrong.

“I thought as soon as they got me on the ground and start, you know, putting my arms in different positions, I felt like they were going to draw a gun out and shoot me in my back,” Cain said.

cain3.png
Nandi Cain Jr., who was slammed to the ground for jaywalking by police in Sacramento, California. CBS SACRAMENTO

But police said Cain became combative after the officer stopped him.

“[He] actually turned toward the officer, removed his jacket and appeared to challenge the officer to fight,” said a spokesperson with the Sacramento Police Department.

Sacramento police also released a statement saying the actions of the officer were disturbing, and do not appear to be reasonable based on the circumstances, CBS Sacramento reported. The officer was placed on administrative leave.

As for Cain, he was cleared of any charges and has been given a court date for an outstanding warrant in Fresno, California, according to police.



THE FOLLOWING DISSERTATION ON THE SUBJECT OF HOW POLICE DISCIPLINE COULD BE HANDLED IS EXTREMELY HELPFUL AND WISE. SOME CITIES ARE ALREADY TRYING TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION, BUT OFFICERS AND THE UNIONS OFTEN BALK. SOMETHING LIKE THIS SHOULD HELP THEM CONSTRUCT THEIR PROGRAMS IN A BETTER WAY.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/sac/wv0104/ch4.htm
US COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Coping with Police Misconduct in West Virginia: Citizen Involvement in Officer Disciplinary Procedures
Chapter 4
Alternative Models for Police Disciplinary Procedures

Previous chapters discussed difficulties with existing procedures in West Virginia and reviewed past attempts by the legislature to better deal with the police misconduct issue. Against this backdrop, the Committee reviewed academic and research literature and consulted members of the law enforcement community, state government officials, and commentators to identify successful models and programs in other jurisdictions across the nation. The Committee’s motivation is to bring these worthy models and programs to the attention of the state legislature and the general public in the hopes that they may be considered for possible adoption in West Virginia. This chapter presents the results of such research under three broad categories—external controls, accountability and identification of rogue officers, and community relations—along with observations on their feasibility.[1]

External Controls

Reforms and models that include external oversight or involve individuals from outside the police department render the complaint process with an aura of objectivity, as external control by definition is exercised by individuals who are not part of the police department. Implementing any one of the external control models, therefore, is likely to improve the public’s faith in the fairness of the complaint process. This section reviews four models effective in other jurisdictions.

Civilian Review Board

A civilian review board is an entity external to the police department’s internal affairs, and consists of citizens from outside the department, appointed by the mayor or other senior government officials. A civilian review board is generally charged with the duty of reviewing complaints and making recommendations as to disciplinary action after the police department has completed its own investigation and made a disciplinary recommendation.

A civilian review board is usually charged with reviewing the same materials or a redacted version of what the internal affairs division examined, although a civilian review board could be given investigative power in order to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint. Such authority could include subpoena power, and the ability to administer oaths and compel the production of documents. The sufficiency of individual case files, and thus the accuracy of a subsequent review, may depend heavily on what information the board is given and whether it can supplement these files on its own initiative.

A key concern with instituting a civilian review board has to do with how much weight the recommendation of the board is accorded by law, that is, how binding. The activities of the board may be symbolic, as it has indeed been suggested that civilian review boards end up “agreeing with the police department in almost all instances.”[2] The importance of the civilian review board, therefore, rests on whether the disciplining officer is forced to accept or to provide a public account of why the recommendation is not accepted. For civilian review boards to be effective, they should be provided the authority to override the recommendations of the police, although such prospects are somewhat unrealistic.

A study of 17 law enforcement agencies found that citizen review boards sustain police brutality complaints at a higher percentage than do the police themselves, suggesting that such boards operate more fairly, although the “sustained” rate is only one means by which to measure possible success of civilian review boards.[3] It is important to note that it is unclear exactly what power the examined civilian review boards had, such as whether they could overrule the recommended sanctions of the internal affairs division.

The suggestion of a civilian review board will likely be met by considerable opposition from the law enforcement community in West Virginia, as it has in the past.[4] External recommendations will be viewed not only as an imposition from outsiders who are less knowledgeable in police affairs, but as another bureaucratic layer that does not aid in securing a final disposition with the police. Opposition or resistance will be proportionate to the power accorded to a civilian review board.

As noted above, a civilian review board has recently been set up in Bluefield, West Virginia. Its success or efficacy is yet to be determined since it has not received any complaints to date.

Independent Monitor/Auditor

An independent monitor or auditor, appointed by the mayor or other government officials, “does not investigate individual complaints, but reviews procedures for investigating” individual complaints of police misconduct.[5] More specifically, an independent monitor is appointed to (1) “scour and test the law enforcement agency’s policies, procedures, and practices to determine whether they are, in fact, up to the job of preventing misconduct”; (2) “propose new policies and practices where the old ones have failed”; and (3) “suggest the implementation of best practices from other law enforcement agencies.”[6]

An independent monitor compiles and examines data, and can produce reports that could include recommendations for improving existing procedures and deterring police brutality. The monitor may also aid in the development of “use of force” standards,[7] which can be very helpful in teaching officers when to exercise discretion in dealing with suspects. Moreover, if there is an instance in which force is used, standards can be revisited and improved as appropriate.

This model was successfully used by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), where an independent monitor was instituted in part because of strained police-community relations and high-profile instances of police brutality. LASD’s monitor believes excessive force has been “substantially curbed” to some extent by having a monitor.[8] Indeed, the number of excessive force complaints dropped from 381 in 1992–1993 (when the independent monitor was first instituted) to 70 in 1998–1999.[9]

The police lobby appears to be quite strong in West Virginia, and as such this external reform measure would likely be met with considerable resistance from the police. This option, however, might not be as offensive to the police since the independent monitor reviews only procedures rather than individual case files and is therefore somewhat removed from the actual complaint process.

Independent Investigator

An independent investigator, who is not a member of the police department, oversees and directs the investigation of individual citizen complaints.[10] The investigator, often appointed by the mayor, is empowered to participate in the investigation process, and is permitted to interview witnesses and review evidence. These investigators could be given greater power, such as the ability to issue subpoenas and compel production of documents.

Unlike a civilian review board that conducts an external review after the police’s own investigation is complete, the independent investigator helps shape the police’s initial investigation. If an independent investigator and civilian review board were in place together, the civilian review board would review files produced by the independent investigator and the internal affairs division he directs. If an independent investigator works in concert with an independent monitor, the independent monitor would assess the procedures in place that the independent investigator would be using while involved in individual investigations.

The existing system in West Virginia requires police departments to conduct their own investigations. Such internal investigations may be cursory and incomplete, as some individuals in a police department may have a conflict of interest that precludes them from impartially examining a claim against a colleague. The immediate value of an independent investigator is that he or she will be free of such conflict of interest. Accordingly, an independent investigator will be more likely to produce a fair investigation, and will thus help restore the public’s confidence in the integrity of the system.

An independent investigator has been operating in the Seattle (WA) Police Department and in Los Angeles County (CA) since 2001.[11] In Los Angeles’ Office of Independent Review, “[n]o investigation can be closed unless the [independent review office] certifies that it was full, fair, and thorough.”[12] These experiments have been said to be the most impressive alternatives to civil service commissions because of improved accountability and civilian involvement.[13]

This alternative is an attractive reform measure for West Virginia because investigations should be more complete and impartial due to the absence of a conflict of interest with an independent investigator. However, this reform may be the least feasible because of the radical change it would impose on internal affairs’ investigative duties—the investigators would be directed by an outside investigator.

Special Prosecutor

If criminal charges are sought against a police officer for police misconduct, a district attorney (DA) presents evidence to a grand jury for an indictment and argues the subsequent case. However, a central problem associated with a DA is that the DA may not want to file charges and proceed to trial against a police officer, perhaps because she does not want to either create the public impression that she is anti-police, offend the law enforcement officers to whom the DA relies on to receive evidence in other cases, or prosecute “one of her own.” For this reason, some jurisdictions have turned to a special prosecutor for cases involving police brutality and civil rights violations.[14]

It has been noted that with an independent or special prosecutor, the “frequency and quality” of “investigations and prosecutions” will increase.[15] The use of special prosecutors in police brutality cases has been successful in other jurisdictions, including New York[16] and Chicago,[17] and has been endorsed by the Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union.[18] A governor, judge, or the DA, who may have recused himself from the proceedings, often appoints a special prosecutor. With the benefits of a special prosecutor in mind, there should be a permanent statutory mandate for a special prosecutor in certain cases involving police misconduct.

This alternative appears to be promising. A special prosecutor was successfully used in a December 1999 suit filed against a West Virginia state police officer.[19] Moreover, a special prosecutor does not have anything to do with the internal mechanisms of the police internal affairs division—a special prosecutor is merely a different prosecutor with identical powers, leaving the police’s duties and functions entirely intact.

Despite the benefits of a special prosecutor, police officers may provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading material to him in order to minimize the allegations brought against their colleague. While a DA may face these same problems, a special prosecutor may encounter even less cooperation from the police if she solely prosecutes police officers charged with misconduct.

Accountability and Identification of Rogue Officers

Most misconduct arguably occurs because of a handful of rogue officers.[20] For example, a 2001 National Institute of Justice publication found that “10 percent of . . . officers cause 90 percent of the problems,”[21] and investigations have revealed that approximately “2 percent of all officers are responsible for 50 percent of all citizen complaints.”[22] As such, measures are needed to help ensure that these officers are identified before they can harm citizens and are sufficiently deterred from misbehaving if they are on active duty.

Accountability: Incentive Strategy

This model employs rewards for police officers (through promotions, formal recognition, commendations, and monetary awards, etc.) for nonaggressive behavior with citizens under trying conditions (e.g., an officer “avoids a shooting or talks a suspect into custody”).[23] If a reward system is in place and officers know there will be a direct positive consequence for their good actions, their behavior is likely to improve. Conversely, officers should be held accountable for their misconduct.[24] In addition, the efficacy of the system depends on whether and to what extent officers are willing to hold one another accountable and whether the community is able to identify misbehaving officers.[25]

This model is advisable because it is an internal accountability mechanism: the police reward and punish themselves. Moreover, the police already reward officers for “actions that led to arrest(s), the capture of a dangerous felon, or some other heroic activity.”[26] Rewarding officers for nonviolent behavior in tough situations will merely extend the types of actions for which officers can receive recognition. More importantly, a positive reinforcement mechanism will reorient the officer’s perception as to what his role is, namely to fight crime in a citizen- and community-friendly fashion.

In West Virginia, negative behavior is not included in the performance assessment that forms the basis for an officer’s promotion. For example, for municipal police officers, “[p]romotions shall be based upon experience and by written competitive examinations,”[27] and there is nothing “that even intimates that, to secure promotion, any further action is required than to pass the test . . . and have eligibility of an applicant.”[28] The West Virginia State Police bases promotions on an applicant’s composite score that is drawn from a promotional examination, a written examination, physical fitness test, education and longevity, and a performance appraisal of the officer’s past two years of service.[29] However, the officer’s performance appraisal accounts for approximately 14 percent of the applicant’s overall promotion evaluation (15 out of a possible 106 points).[30]

A greater proportion of an officer’s composite score should be based on the officer’s performance while on duty, both positive and negative behavior. The existing statutory provisions should be amended to include consideration of negative behavior in performance evaluations. The type of disciplinary action taken or the number of complaints against an officer could measure negative behavior. Moreover, if an officer has received serious disciplinary action, frequent discipline, or a certain number of complaints in a given time period, the officer should be precluded from consideration for promotion.

The lack of adequate accountability mechanisms to check officer misconduct could be part of the reason why police brutality has not been sufficiently deterred in West Virginia, and why the public may believe that officers cannot effectively police themselves. Improving existing accountability procedures will assist in preventing police misconduct and will provide the public with confidence that such acts of misbehavior will be documented and that officers will be disciplined accordingly.

There are two specific procedures, if implemented, that would help monitor police misconduct: computerized risk-management systems and cameras in police cars.

Computerized Risk-Management System. A computerized risk-management system can help incentive strategies operate more effectively and accurately by recording the actual police behavior that is to be rewarded or punished. A computerized risk-management system tracks officers’ “use of force, search and seizure, citizen complaints, as well as criminal charges or civil lawsuits filed against officers.”[31] The system can also be designed to track positive behavior or the recognition of positive behavior, such as commendations or monetary awards.

The effectiveness of this strategy depends first and foremost on the accuracy of the information entered into the system,[32] as officers may not consistently or honestly record positive or negative conduct into the system. Second, the system’s effectiveness also hinges on how often the system is checked by supervisors, and what, if any, accountability procedures are in place to appropriately reward or punish the officers who are in the system.

A computerized data-collection tool, combined with real consequences that may follow for police conduct, may deter negative or encourage positive behavior. In the least, a computerized system should be encouraged because it will serve as hard evidence of police conduct. Computerized tracking systems have been installed in various police departments across the nation, including the Pittsburgh city police, the Los Angeles Police Department, and the New Jersey State Police, among others. In Pittsburgh, reports of police misconduct have dropped by more than half on average since the tracking system was installed.[33]

Cameras in Police Cruisers. Installing video cameras in police cars can be another means to ensure officer behavior is documented and can provide useful information for implementing incentive strategies. The use of cameras, during traffic stops for instance, permits citizens to have incontrovertible proof as to what really occurred in case they later feel aggrieved by officer conduct. The installation of cameras in patrol and traffic vehicles, while costly, can not only benefit citizens who may complain of police misconduct, but also accused officers who may refer to the videotapes when a complaint is filed against them. Indeed, according to Police Chief Jerry Pauley, in Charleston, videotape from police cruisers has exonerated officers in 99.9 percent of complaints filed.[34] To be sure, most of Charleston’s patrol vehicles and traffic vehicles have cameras;[35] however, the installation of cameras in police cruisers should be a universally adopted program in all West Virginia law enforcement agencies.

Identification: Preemptive Evaluations

Because police brutality and misconduct can be traced to a handful of rogue officers, preemptive assessment evaluations can help identify those officers who are likely or may be predisposed to use unnecessary force, or who may be unable to handle high-pressure situations in a calm, resolute fashion. These evaluations may consist of medical and psychological tests, interviews, and performance assessments. Collectively, these tools could uncover behavioral issues, health problems, alcohol or drug abuse, or stress that may preclude an officer from exercising proper discretion. An officer identified under an “early warning system” may be compelled to undergo specialized training or may be relegated to administrative duties.

Empirical evidence compiled from three case studies (conducted in Miami-Dade, Florida, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and New Orleans, Louisiana) suggests that early warning systems “have a dramatic effect on reducing citizen complaints and other indicators of problematic police performance among those officers subject to intervention.”[36] It should be noted that such early warning systems were used in concert with other efforts to deter police misconduct.

The West Virginia State Police has an Early Identification System to identify troopers who have a “larger than normal” number of use of force contacts,[37] and a psychological assessment program, which reviews officers who have questionable duty judgment or persistent citizen complaints regarding their conduct.[38] Troopers identified under the system as having larger than normal number of use of force contacts are given “additional training on the use of force to ensure the problem is not with misunderstanding or abuse of use of force.”[39]

The local police structure indicates that “mental defects” that may incapacitate an officer are grounds for refusing to appoint or promote an officer;[40] however, the statutory mandate for these evaluations should be as comprehensive and explicit for local police jurisdictions as those for the state police officers. Charleston has psychological testing, evaluations, and an employee assistance program.[41] Such measures should be required, by clear statutory pronouncement, for all local-level police departments.

One noticeable advantage of these evaluations is that they can be done internally by the police force’s own designated personnel. To ensure compliance with these evaluations, they should be mandatory, and officers who fail to submit themselves to evaluation should be disciplined accordingly.[42]

Improving Community Relations

Incidents of police brutality generate public fear and distrust of law enforcement, particularly among minority communities and in areas where police misconduct has occurred in the past. Police-community tension thus may exist because of previous incidents and cultural differences that stifle understanding. Improved relations between law enforcement and citizens will restore trust in these affected communities, and make police efforts more effective through enhanced cooperation. Three aspects of police-community relations are discussed here: community policing, recruiting minorities to the police force, and awareness training.

Community Policing

Community policing is a practical solution to combat tension and improve law enforcement. It is a collaborative effort between law enforcement and citizens to identify crime and disorder and work together to solve ongoing problems and create an atmosphere in which serious crime will not occur.[43] If the community is more intimately involved in the law enforcement’s activities and strategies, citizens will believe they are being treated equitably. Conversely, officers will better understand all citizens and their respective cultures, and thus treat diverse citizens fairly and with requisite sensitivity. With fear dissipated and relations improved, community policing renders law enforcement more effective, as citizens will aid the police in establishing strategies and may be more forthcoming in reporting crime or their suspicions of crime being committed in their neighborhoods. Community policing is important in jurisdictions with large or multiple ethnic communities. The practice can help break down cultural and linguistic barriers in areas inhabited by groups that have been historically subject to “unfair and inappropriate police behavior.”[44]

In Miami, Florida, for example, the county police department hosted a series of concerts, which “provided an excellent vehicle for the police to create and maintain positive contacts with members of the community they serve and to be seen in a positive light. Further, by initiating and participating in activities the youths enjoyed, the police had an opportunity to see youth in a positive light.”[45]

There is evidence that community policing is effective. For example, researchers from Northwestern University found that “crime, social disorder, and physical decay decreased in the community policing districts.”[46] Similarly, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service cited several success stories from case studies done in the early 1990s in Madison, Wisconsin (1993), Seattle, Washington (1992), and Chicago, Illinois (1995).[47] Community-oriented policing is endorsed by the U.S. Department of Justice,[48] and by the Carolinas Institute for Community Policing.[49]

In West Virginia, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP, have advocated community policing as a needed reform measure, believing that state police officers target minorities and that there is an embarrassing lack of minorities on the police force.[50]

The Martinsburg Police Department has adopted a community policing effort by instituting a “citizens academy,” which consists of a nine-week course aiming to “educat[e] the public on topics relative to the role of the police officers” in the community.[51] This program, however, appears one-sided, asking only the public to learn about the functions of the police. A more effective and prudent community-policing effort would emphasize, or at least involve, education of the police as to citizen needs and characteristics of minority communities. A firm relationship between the police and citizens cannot result through a unilateral public understanding of the police since officers are the ones who engage in acts of misconduct against the public. The attempt to educate the public is indeed a step in the right direction, but it must be in conjunction with efforts to decrease the propensity of officers to use excessive force.

Eight hours of instruction on community policing are included in both basic training and cadet training for the West Virginia State Police.[52] Community policing, however, is easier said than done, and the inclusion of training or a declaration from the police that they will engage in community policing may be without real effect. As a result, the West Virginia police must recruit more minorities and establish conspicuous partnerships with local minority leaders through forums and other outreach efforts.

Moreover, the existence of community-oriented policing—that is, having a symbiotic relationship between law enforcement officers and the community—will facilitate minority recruitment efforts.

Recruiting Minorities

Minorities often do not view the police in a favorable light.[53] With officers of racial or ethnic backgrounds on the police force, they will be less likely to view the police as a “them” entity and their fear and mistrust may diminish. Minority officers are likely to help their fellow officers better understand any cultural and linguistic barriers that exist. Minorities should be recruited from “top to bottom,” meaning that diversity should exist at all levels within the police force[54]—from a cop on the beat to a senior officer directing and shaping police practices. Diversity at all levels is necessary if minorities are to have their faith restored in the police departments, and for the police themselves to better understand the concerns of various minority groups.

Awareness and Use of Force Training

Police officers should receive sensitivity or diversity training no matter what the racial composition of the force. Understanding various racial and ethnic groups will aid the police in responding to the concerns of these groups respectfully and more efficiently. For example, diversity training could help officers appreciate the fact that a vast majority of turbaned males in the United States are Sikhs of Indian origin, not Muslims from the Arab world. This training should be done early on in the officer’s career, and minorities should be involved in the training process to ensure the accuracy of the instruction.[55] Funding would be required to develop curriculum and solicit members from the community to oversee the curriculum. As officers are required to receive training before they are certified, adding awareness training to the existing curriculum may not be difficult once the training program is developed and approved by various affected communities.

The West Virginia State Police’s cadet training (which is required for all police officers in the state[56]) includes eight hours of “cultural diversity” training, and use of force utilization briefings are conducted at annual in-service training.[57] It is noteworthy that administrators of the training academy themselves realize the importance of and need for raising awareness in cultural diversity.[58] The mere existence of such training, however, is not indicative of its sufficiency, especially since it accounts for eight hours out of a total of 1,020 that cadets receive.[59] Awareness training should not only be increased during cadet training to ensure sufficiency, but continued throughout law enforcement officers’ careers.



TRUMP IS CLEARLY MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO “PUSH THE ENVELOPE,” AS TIME AND AGAIN HE DOES YET ANOTHER UNETHICAL THING, JUST TO PROVE THAT HE’S THE EMPEROR AND NOT THE PRESIDENT. HE CAN’T WRAP HIS MIND AROUND THE IDEA THAT HE IS NO LONGER A BILLIONAIRE PRIVATE CITIZEN, AND IS BOUND BY GOVERNMENT RULES. ONE MORE REASON TO IMPEACH HIM.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-state-department-blog/index.html
State Dept. blog promotes Trump's Mar-a-Lago, prompting ethics concerns
CNN Digital Expansion 2017
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 6:01 PM ET, Mon April 24, 2017

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump personally owns Mar-a-Lago, his private club on Florida's eastern coast. But that didn't stop the State Department, in a blog post on the United States Embassy in London's website, from touting the property.

In a markedly promotional blog post from April 5 that could eventually benefit the President's bottom line, should it spur membership or foreign visits, the embassy writes that the property has "become well known as the President frequently travels there to work or host foreign leaders."

Ethics watchdogs and Democratic groups have been closely eying Trump's ability to benefit his bottom line through the presidency and this blog post has some questioning whether the government is now helping publicize the property.

The Mar-a-Lago Club has already seemingly benefited from Trump's presidency. The club raised its initiation fee from $100,000 to $200,000 after Trump was elected and members and former members around Mar-a-Lago have said there is now an added cachet with frequently visiting the President's club.

"Aggressively begging foreign countries to funnel money straight into Trump's pocket is a clear violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, but that's precisely what the State Department is doing by openly promoting one of the Trumps' private businesses," Shripal Shah, vice president of American Bridge, a Democratic firm, said Monday. "It's a gross abuse of taxpayer resources and flagrant violation of the law from an administration that thinks rules don't apply to them."

Acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner wasn't aware of the post when it was raised by reporters on Monday.

Both Norm Eisen, former President Barack Obama's ethics czar, and Richard Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, said the blog post was a violation of federal law that restricts aspects of the government promoting a private business that benefits their superior, the president.

"This is outrageous, more exploitation of public office for Trump's personal gain," Eisen said. "Using the government's megaphone to promote Mar-a-Lago" is like when Kellyanne Conway, a top Trump aide, urged people during a television interview to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line.

The Office of Government Ethics found that to be a violation, but Conway was not punished, despite being "counseled" on the matter.

"It's illegality run rampant," Eisen said.

The blog entry, which was posted earlier this month, stems from an earlier post by Share America, a State Department site that aims to share "compelling stories and images that spark discussion and debate on important topics" with foreign governments and US embassies.

The Share America story, which labels Mar-a-Lago the "winter White House," a term Trump has taken to using, goes through the history of the property and how Trump was set to host Chinese President Xi Jinping at the property in April.

The entry details how it was built by Marjorie Merriweather Post in 1927, when the cereal heiress hoped the property would be used by presidents and dignitaries. Trump bought the property in 1985. The post also noted that "Trump opened the estate to dues-paying members of the public in 1995 as the Mar-a-Lago Club."

Trump has visited Mar-a-Lago seven times as president, spending a total of 25 days at the club.

He has entertained foreign dignitaries -- including Xi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe -- but he has also spent considerable time on the golf course, including at his nearby Trump International Golf Club.

Several Democratic lawmakers, many of whom have raised questions in the past about Trump's use of Mar-a-Lago, questioned the blog post.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, tweeted, "Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President's private country club?"

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
Ron Wyden ✔ @RonWyden
Yes, I am curious @StateDept. Why are taxpayer $$ promoting the President's private country club?
2:46 PM - 24 Apr 2017
3,598 3,598 Retweets 4,336 4,336 likes

And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted, "Why is @realDonaldTrump's State Dept promoting the President's private club? #Trump100Days"
Follow
Nancy Pelosi ✔ @NancyPelosi
Why is @realDonaldTrump’s State Dept promoting the President’s private club? #Trump100Days https://goo.gl/rrZP1Z
3:33 PM - 24 Apr 2017

Photo published for Mar-a-Lago: The winter White House
Mar-a-Lago: The winter White House
History of Mar-a-Lago, the florida resort now known as the winter White House.
uk.usembassy.gov
1,897 1,897 Retweets 2,429 2,429 likes