Prosecutors seek lengthiest Jan. 6 sentence yet for rioter who pinned officer in Capitol doorway

Prosecutors are seeking nearly 16 years in prison for Patrick McCaughey, a Jan. 6 defendant who pinned a police officer in a Capitol doorway amid some of the most chaotic moments of violence that day.

The Justice Department called for the sentence — which would be more than five years longer than the longest sentence handed down in any Jan. 6 case — to reflect what it called McCaughey’s “heinous” conduct, some of the most egregious of any Jan. 6 defendant.

“McCaughey taunted police officers at the West Front bike racks and joined the mob that threw its weight against the beleaguered line of officers guarding the Capitol,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Paschall wrote in the 45-page sentencing memo. “McCaughey used a deadly and dangerous weapon against Officer Hodges, where he spent over two minutes using his body weight to crush the officer in the doorframe.”

McCaughey’s restraint of D.C. Police Officer Daniel Hodges in a Capitol doorway is one of the most recognizable and horrifying images of the violence that day. McCaughey’s restraint of Hodges lasted more than two minutes while other rioters disarmed the officer, removed his gas mask and ignored his screams or help. Images of McCaughey face-to-face with Hodges became a symbol of the brutality of the Jan. 6 riot. It occurred in the Capitol’s lower west terrace tunnel, where many of the most violent confrontations that day took place.

“The defendant’s actions on January 6 show an absolute disregard for the rule of law coupled with a willingness to incite and engage in violence,” Paschall wrote. “The nature and circumstances of this defendant’s crimes weigh heavily towards a significant term of incarceration.”

U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden convicted McCaughey of nine charges — including three counts of assaulting police and obstruction of Congress’ Jan. 6 proceedings — at a bench trial in September 2022. He has characterized McCaughey’s actions as particularly horrific, even compared to other rioters who participated in some of the same violent attacks. But McFadden has also repeatedly rejected prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations, often disagreeing with their calculations and proposed enhancements. Prosecutors indicated in their sentencing memo that they anticipate him disagreeing with them once again.

Still, DOJ’s recommendation is the second-steepest it has made in any Jan. 6 case so far, trailing only the 17.5-year sentence it recommended for Thomas Webster, a former New York Police Department officer who brutally assaulted an officer on the front lines of the riot. Webster is currently serving a 10-year sentence, the longest of any handed down to a Jan. 6 defendant so far, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta. Mehta viewed Webster’s conduct as particularly egregious and also concluded that Webster lied on the stand when he testified about it.

The recommendation for McCaughey surpasses the 15-year sentence the Justice Department recommended for Guy Reffitt, the first Jan. 6 rioter convicted by a jury. Reffitt, a militia member, planned for violence with associates ahead of Jan. 6, carried a firearm and engaged with police in a lengthy standoff that enabled the mob to start amassing at the base of the Capitol. Ultimately, the judge in his case, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich, sentenced Reffitt to just over seven years in prison.

Prosecutors say McCaughey, like Webster, was dishonest when he testified in his own trial last year. In addition to his lack of candor on the stand, prosecutors say McCaughey’s recommended sentence was influenced by the brutality of his attack against Hodges and a second officer, Henry Foulds — who McCaughey struck with a riot shield as the officer tried to close the doors to the tunnel.

McCaughey, for his part, is arguing for a sentence of a year in prison, contending that his crimes on Jan. 6 were an “aberration” in an otherwise law-abiding life.

“Although his conduct is indeed serious, it represents the only legal transgression this hard-working person has ever committed,” his attorney, Dennis Boyle wrote in a 25-page sentencing memo. “It is also significant to note that his actions were not motivated by any desire for personal financial gain or any other type of benefit. Rather, his actions, which he himself admits were reprehensible, were motivated by a misunderstanding as to the facts surrounding the 2020 election.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/tV7x4Ip
via IFTTT

Read More

Texas judge halts FDA approval of abortion pill

A Texas federal judge ruled Friday to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — one of two drugs used together to cause an abortion — virtually banning the sale of the pills across the country.

The decision, however, gives the Biden administration a week to appeal, meaning the hundreds of thousands of patients who use the medication both for abortions and treating miscarriages will not be immediately impacted.

The pills, which the FDA approved for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy more than two decades ago, recently became the most common method of abortion in the United States, and a way many people have circumvented state bans since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

Both abortion-rights supporters and opponents have focused intensely on the pills in recent months — leading to clashes in state legislatures, regulatory agencies, and the courts.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Synla8K
via IFTTT

Read More

Leaked military documents on Ukraine battlefield operations circulated as early as March

A tranche of leaked documents that detail plans about Ukraine’s spring military offensive circulated online as early as March — a month earlier than previously reported, according to researchers with Bellingcat and a review of social media postings.

The batch includes more pages than originally known and also outlines sensitive information about other global hotspots.

The Ukraine-specific documents, photographed and distributed on myriad social media sites, outline everything from Ukraine’s readiness and training capabilities to death tolls on the battlefield. They date from the end of February to the end of March — around the same time as senior American generals hosted the Ukrainian military at a U.S. base in Germany to wargame the spring operation.

The materials that circulated in early March were uploaded on a Discord, an encrypted messaging app. They appear to be photos of slide deck printouts that were folded up and then smoothed out again. They have since been posted on other social media websites, including Twitter and Telegram.

It’s unclear who originally obtained the documents, who leaked them and the extent to which they’ve been altered. It’s also possible an even earlier version exists.

A senior administration official, granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive intelligence matter, said President Joe Biden's team is "concerned" by the large document leak. "This could be a Russian disinformation operation,” the official continued, citing the manipulations to the documents. "Russia has a history of manipulating information for disinformation purposes.” The official wouldn't detail when the administration first became aware of the leak.

There are discrepancies between the documents posted in March and those circulated this month, suggesting the earlier tranche could be the original versions — or at least closer to it.

The leak is one of the most high-profile breaches of military intelligence since the Russian invasion in 2022 and comes at a time when Ukraine is preparing to launch the spring offensive. The documents "represent a significant breach in security, which could compromise U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine," said Mick Mulroy, a former DoD official and CIA officer.

The images that appeared online earlier this week show slides that were produced by the Joint Staff, but which have been heavily doctored to show inaccurate information, according to a second senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.

In reviewing the batch of documents that circulated on Discord and those that appeared in April on sites such as Telegram, Twitter and 4chan, POLITICO found that at least one section had been changed — the death tolls. The number of Ukrainian deaths is significantly higher in the later version.

However, there are irregularities in both the March and April versions. Not all of the documents are dated. One is dated as late as March 23 — about 20 days after someone posted them on Discord. Other pages are missing security markers and have sections replaced by white space.

The documents, which are at least five weeks old, are of limited value to Moscow as they show the conflict as a snapshot in time. Still, they may help Russian intelligence planners with establishing the expected burn rate for Ukrainian supplies, the second senior official said.

The Department of Defense is investigating the leak, which the New York Times first reported, the Pentagon said Thursday.

“We are aware of the reports of social media posts, and the department is reviewing the matter,” said DoD spokesperson Sabrina Singh. The Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

The early reaction from Capitol Hill has been fierce. “I’d fire anyone who leaks without authorization when they’re identified,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a close ally of Speaker Kevin McCarthy and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

“I’m troubled by the potential leak and possible disinformation related to the documents,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee. “I look forward to hearing from the Department of Defense on steps they’re taking to investigate and address any wrongdoing.”

Other pages included in the March tranche include information about various countries, Jordan, Palestine and China.

Some of the Ukraine-related documents, marked “SECRET” and dated February and March, show American and NATO plans for training and arming Ukrainian forces ahead of a planned counteroffensive this spring.

One slide includes detailed plans for equipment Western countries will deliver to Ukraine this spring, such as the number of tanks and armored vehicles each nation is sending and the estimated date of arrival. It also shows the status of training programs by different NATO countries.

One document outlines what Western equipment Ukrainian brigades are receiving and when they’ll be trained. If that information is correct, it could provide useful intelligence to Moscow about new capabilities entering the battlefield this spring and summer. It is also a fascinating look into the international grab-bag of equipment the rapidly equipped Ukrainian army now fields.

The 82nd brigade, for example, looks to be an armored powerhouse. It will boast about 150 armored infantry carriers, including 90 U.S.-Stryker vehicles, 40 German-produced Marders, 24 U.S.-made M113 infantry carriers and 14 British Challenger tanks, giving the unit a powerful punch, according to the documents. The unit is currently being trained as the equipment continues to arrive.

Similarly, the 33rd brigade will have 32 Leopard tanks from Germany, Canada and Poland, alongside 90 American-made MRAP troop carriers. All the vehicles were slated to arrive for training in March and April, according to the documents.

Another slide shows the Joint Staff’s daily update of the conflict, including planned operations of U.S. forces in the surrounding area such as the aircraft carrier USS George H. W. Bush and several submarines, the locations of which are rarely, if ever, publicized.

Others, marked “TOP SECRET,” show the U.S. military’s assessment of Russian and Ukrainian troop movements in key battlegrounds, including Bakhmut, Kharkiv and the Donetsk, on March 1.

Both the March and April tranches show updates from the battlefield from February that includes an allegation that “agents” of Ukraine attacked a Russian aircraft based in Belarus. The Ukrainian government has previously denied those claims. A spokesperson for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s office did not respond to a request for comment on the incident.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/dn8VZCa
via IFTTT

Read More

Bennie Thompson: ‘I chose Liz Cheney over party’

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the man who for nearly 18 months anchored the House investigation into the events that led to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, says he sees parallels between the attacks on his committee’s work and the skepticism levied at the Manhattan district attorney.

Alvin Bragg, a first term district attorney, made history earlier in the week when he announced 34-felony counts against former President Donald Trump. It is the first time in the nation’s history a former president has been criminally charged. At his arraignment in New York on Tuesday, Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Soon after those charging documents were made public, critics, including those who normally would be expected to support Bragg’s case, bemoaned the legal theories he is employing in pursuit of a conviction. As POLITICO highlighted earlier this week, Bragg’s case, which stems from hush money payments to silence a porn star from speaking publicly about an alleged affair, appeared to embolden Trump’s most ardent defenders.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Thursday subpoenaed a former prosecutor who worked in the Manhattan DA’s office — a move Bragg characterized as an “attempt to undermine an active investigation” and “an unprecedented campaign of harassment and intimidation.”

None of this is a surprise to Thompson, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

“I expect nothing less from my colleagues on the other side,” Thompson said during an exclusive interview with POLITICO for The Recast Power List 2023.

“I've been in Congress almost 30 years and I've never seen a congressional committee attack a state official who's doing his job. Basically crossing the line – from Bennie Thompson's standpoint – intimidating an official not to do his job.”

In an 845-page report, Thompson’s own committee concluded at the end of last year that there is enough evidence for the Department of Justice to convict the former president on charges including obstruction of an official proceeding and assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.

In the interview, Thompson weighed in on the allegations that the myriad investigations Trump is at the center of — including two headed by special counsel Jack Smith at the DOJ and one by the Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney — are politically motivated. He also talked about why he opened the Jan. 6 hearings by connecting that attack to America’s long history of racism and slavery and explains the flak he received for picking former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) as the committee’s vice chair.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Booker: I want to jump into our conversation starting with what happened in Manhattan (this week) seeing the former president into a Manhattan courthouse and be charged with 34 felony counts in connection to a hush money payment to silence a porn star. I want to get your overall thoughts about what this says about where we are in our quest to uphold American democracy.

Rep. Thompson: Well, I think the best phrase that we hear from some circles is: It proves that no one is above the law. In America, you can be President of the United States, but you are tasked with the responsibility of the rule of law, and when you don't do that, you're subject to the penalties and other things that are associated with it.

So I allow that process to work itself [out]. Clearly, a group of citizens, in the form of a grand jury, heard evidence and ultimately made a decision to come forth with indictments. Now we'll look at our system of justice in this country to see if, in fact, Donald Trump will be proven guilty or innocent.

Booker: I just want to note that the former president pleaded not guilty to all the charges. Now, obviously, the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, has to convince a jury that Mr. Trump committed these alleged crimes. But, as someone who worked on the January 6th committee, are these legal proceedings of a former president, someone who is a leading candidate on the GOP side, good for American politics? You’ve talked about nobody's above the law, but certainly there are allegations being levied on the right that all of these investigations, these legal probes, are politically motivated.

Rep. Thompson: Well, I expect nothing less from my colleagues on the other side.

Donald Trump is the titular head of the [Republican] Party. They have a fundamental right to defend that individual, and that's what they're doing. My concern is, in defense of it, they're attacking the rule of law, and the rule of law in this country is clear. We have separation of powers in our Constitution.

I've been in Congress almost 30 years and I've never seen a congressional committee attack a state official who's doing his job. Basically crossing the line — from Bennie Thompson's standpoint — intimidating an official not to do his job.

I think that's unfortunate.

The other thing associated with the comment is my work on January 6th.

Some of the conversation and vitriol that we're hearing, we heard before January 6th. It's very dangerous language. So before January 6th, people would say, "Oh, this would never happen in the greatest democracy on Earth."

Well, it did.

And it happened because there were certain forces at work. Those forces were orchestrated — based on the work of our committee — by, at that time, the President of the United States and some other individuals.

I would think that our committee made the case. We utilized primarily people who worked in the administration, people who identified with the party of the administration, but they chose patriotism and democracy over party. I thank them for that.

But even with that, some of the individuals who are talking now are very critical of people in their own party for coming forth. This is our great democracy, we have an opportunity to speak our opinion, but sometimes we have to be cautious of what we say because others are listening, others are watching, and they, in many instances, interpret it a different way.

Booker: Well, let me just follow up on this one point here. A CNN poll out this week indicated that 60 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the Trump indictment.

But when broken down by race, 75 percent of those who identify as a person of color approved of the indictment, versus just 51 percent of white respondents who said they approved of this indictment.

Why do you think there's such a wide gulf in how white Americans and how people of color view this indictment of the former president?

Rep. Thompson: Well, one of the things I've experienced over my political career is there's a fundamental belief by the majority of African Americans that they actually believe in our system of government. They believe in the rule of law. So whatever it is that they have to do to demonstrate it, they do it on a regular basis.

When elections go wrong, the majority of the Black people who lose elections don't act like Donald Trump and his people. They basically will go to court. If they lose, then they'll get their act together and come back next election.

Donald Trump has taken losing an election to the worst level possible, and that worst level is deny, deny, deny and, ultimately, … go into a system of violence.

I take myself, for instance. I've been in elective office for quite a while. When I first started, we had problems registering people to vote; we had problems having people go in polling places to help, even though it was the law. But at no point did we ever think about taking the law into our own hands. We made the law work based on what it said. And so I see that attitude right now in that CNN poll.

People of color really want this system of government to work for all the people. And so they will, by and large, defend it. But I see a lot of white Americans who are somehow intimidated because of this growing minority, and the language that Donald Trump is saying, and his supporters, that we have to “make America great again.”

Some of those code words are really creating havoc in the white community because of the gun laws that are being passed around the country. The underlying element in those gun laws is race. It's not Second Amendment. It's all about how we have to defend our communities, why we have to defend our schools, even though, by and large, those rationales for the defense are hollow.

And so I'm comfortable in saying, even in the south, racial bloc voting occurs more among whites than it does Blacks. Black people in the South have voted, historically, at a greater percentage for white candidates than white voters have voted for Black candidates. So we have made some of that adjustment, and I think that poll reflects the maturing of the attitudes in the Black community toward defending the system.

Booker: At The Recast, we focus on the intersection of race and identity and how it's shaping American politics. Part of the reason why you were selected by a committee of my colleagues to be on this year's Power List is how you placed race right at the center of the January 6th investigation.

In your opening remarks in the first committee hearing ... I'm going to read your quote back to you just to get your reaction to it because it was so powerful, it stuck out to me.

You said: "I'm from a part of the country where people justify the actions of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan and lynching. I'm reminded of that dark history today as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of insurrectionists on January 6th, 2021."

Please break down why you wanted to start the conversation about the investigations into the attack on the Capitol with race.

Rep. Thompson: Well, I think, as a country, we have to continue to reflect on our history.

Even though we are the greatest country in the world, there have been some issues associated with our growth and maturity that we can't overlook. So to remind people of that history is important.

I think it was symbolic that an African American chaired the January 6th Committee, [whose] ancestors were brought to this country in the belly of ships, who for a number of years, toiled, building public courthouses and city halls all over this country for free, even our United States Capitol.

What happened on January 6th was that sole reminder that, even though we are the greatest country in the world, we have to maintain vigilance in keeping it … otherwise, the potential for what occurred on January 6th could very well happen again.

So I wanted to frame it [in that context and] I chose Liz Cheney as my vice chair. I didn't have to. I could have picked anyone, but I think it was for the country. I chose Liz Cheney over party. And some of us, my friends, they took issue with it

Booker: Really?

Rep. Thompson: Oh, yeah, absolutely.

But it was, more or less, "Why did you do it? You were in charge. You could have done a lot of things," and I said, "Well, this was more than party. This was country."

And while my country has not always treated Bennie Thompson or my ancestors properly, I think there are some times you have to look beyond party and race to get to the next level, and so I've tried to do that.

But I can still be truthful in the process. I don't have to gloss over it, just be straightforward, and so my opening comments, truthful, straightforward. Some people might not [have understood] the place of it, but you have to set the tone for the seriousness of your hearing, and I thought that went a long ways toward establishing the tone.

Booker: I wanted to ask a couple of questions since you are home in your district right now in the Jackson area. One, before the end of the year, Congress voted on an omnibus, allocating about $600 million to address the Jackson water crisis.

I'd like to get an update on that from you about how that is progressing. And last week, President Biden was in your state, touring the devastation from natural disasters. If you could, give me a brief update about how the recovery efforts are going in that regard.

Rep. Thompson: As most of you know, the Jackson water crisis was an ultimate culmination of a flooding event on our water system that really knocked out everything.

But, as we started to look at it, there was a history of lack of state support toward the largest publicly-owned water system in the state. Part of that was associated with the fact that Jackson had become a majority African American city. And so, over time, that neglect led to a system that could no longer be maintained.

The flood that occurred on that system, however, allowed us an opportunity to call on the federal government to help. We had a disaster declaration declared, and, ultimately, we looked at the omnibus disaster package. That provided money for wildfires in the West and flooding in the West also, as an opportunity to do the same thing for Jackson, Mississippi. And that's what we did.

The initial installment is 600 million. Not enough. It'll take several years to spend the money, but the system, pardon the pun, was on life support, so we’re working through it. But, in order to work through it, we established a third-party manager who will run that system, and we are in the process of going through that and I thank everybody for their support.

Unfortunately, 10 days ago, a tornado went through five counties in my district. We lost 13 in the city of Rolling Fork, Mississippi. We're struggling. Those cities and counties, under the best of circumstances, were vulnerable. There's no public transportation. In two of the counties, there's no hospital. So we're challenged in that respect, but our friends all over the country have stepped up. But there are still some vestiges of inequity.

One is, the white kids attend an all-white segregated academy. Believe it or not, some of the resources for the community were sent to that all-white segregated academy where Black folk don't go, and so we had to turn that around.

The Biden administration has talked about equity and making sure that the response to whatever it is, education, housing, agriculture, is looked at through a colorblind lens. We fixed that.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/qAj6XOi
via IFTTT

Read More

State Dept. should've done more to prepare for worst-case scenario of Afghanistan withdrawal, Blinken says

“More could and should have been done” by the State Department to prepare for a worst-case scenario in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told his staff Thursday, stating that the agency he leads wasn't fully primed for the swift fall of Kabul and the Afghan government.

The secretary spoke to a group of officials in a hastily organized event at Foggy Bottom following the release of the White House’s after-action report on the Afghanistan withdrawal. POLITICO gained access to the private online session, during which Blinken alternated between chief consoler of the department he leads and Cabinet member defending the administration and his own conduct.

Blinken said the department was in the process of delivering its own review to Congress in the hour-long meeting. But he didn’t commit to releasing the report publicly, stating that he preferred the department look forward instead of creating a “fixation” on the past.

The State Department declined to comment on the private workforce engagement.

During his opening remarks, Blinken highlighted five lessons the department gleaned during the review led by Ambassador Dan Smith, which spanned the time period from January 2020 to August 2021.

The first was that State should have more urgently planned and prepared for a worst-case scenario in Afghanistan. A lack of planning muscle at the department — especially for the most dire circumstances — has long been a complaint of some U.S. diplomats.

The department didn’t foresee the Afghan government’s rapid collapse as the Taliban swiftly took over the country. “This was seen as a very low probability, but obviously, potentially very high impact event and more could and should have been done to prepare for it,” Blinken said.

Another was that State’s own contingency plans were “inhibited” by a concern that such open preparation “might send the wrong signal to Afghans and to the government that we'd lost confidence in it and precipitate exactly what we hoped to prevent, which was its collapse.”

Other findings included a lack of clear authority of who led the evacuation operation, “competing and conflicting guidance” from Washington on evacuation priorities and a lack of clear tracking of Americans in Afghanistan.

“Even though there were things that we got right, things that we got wrong, things that we could do better, it's really important to me that no matter what, this country knows and appreciates the fact that you all served with incredible dedication and incredible distinction,” Blinken said.

The secretary then faced questions from the in-person and online audiences, some of whom interrogated the handling of the withdrawal and treatment of officials upon return from a brutal assignment.

One person asked whether Blinken would provide Congress with a copy of a July 2021 dissent cable that warned of Kabul’s collapse following an American military withdrawal. House Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) subpoenaed the State Department for the document.

Blinken said he likely would not do so, adding that handing over the cable would have a “chilling effect” on speaking truth to power within the department. Engaging in dissent “is a vital principle that we need to uphold,” Blinken said to applause.

“This principle of protecting that channel overrides other considerations that are real and relevant in terms of making the cable available."

The dissent channel is a long-standing official avenue for State Department employees to voice alternative opinions on policy and other matters. The submissions are generally kept private to allow people to feel free in offering what can be unpopular views.

Toward the end of the session, a woman urged Blinken to release the after-action report so that State and U.S. government officials — as well as the American public — could have a chance to review its contents.

Not releasing the report leads to a sense of “disillusionment” within the department, especially those who were in Kabul during the withdrawal, she said, because it feels “like there’s more concern about blowback than interest in being transparent.”

Blinken said one reason he wanted to keep the report under wraps was so others couldn’t “see some of the vulnerabilities and deficiencies that we have, which is information that would not be good to share in a broad way, even as we work, of course, to correct those.”

Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/zaCxfJM
via IFTTT

Read More

Former Michigan House speaker charged with accepting bribes for cannabis licenses

Rick Johnson, a former Republican Michigan House speaker turned cannabis regulator, received more than $110,000 in bribes in exchange for supporting companies seeking medical marijuana licenses, alleges a federal charging document filed in federal district court Thursday.

Johnson was charged alongside three defendants: John Dalaly, a business owner charged with paying bribes; and Brian Pierce and Vincent Brown, lobbyists charged with conspiracy to commit bribery.

All four defendants signed plea deals admitting guilt to the charges.

“[The marijuana industry has] been held out as an equalizing opportunity,” U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Michigan Mark Totten said at a press conference Thursday. “Yet what we’ve learned today is that one of its key leaders … acted corruptly and did so at a moment that mattered most for those who want to get ahead in this industry.”

The background: Johnson served as a state representative from 1999 to 2004, including three years as House speaker. After leaving office, he ran a lobbying firm in Lansing, before serving as the chair of the Michigan marijuana licensing board from 2017 to 2019, according to court documents.

Johnson was “at the heart of this corrupt scheme,” Totten said, outlining cash payments and other perks like private chartered flights through Dalaly’s companies.

The investigation, which started in 2017, was spearheaded by the FBI.

“Rooting out corruption is exceptionally difficult,” FBI special agent Jim Tarasca told reporters. Tarasca thanked forensic accountants and computer forensic examiners who helped determine the money trail and digital evidence to support the charges.

For years, the FBI has been warning states about the threat of public corruption posed by the cannabis industry. Local officials have been charged with similar crimes from California to Massachusetts, and corruption allegations targeting state officials in Arkansas and Missouri have been swirling for years.

More details: Dalaly operated a company that was seeking a medical marijuana license from the board. Pierce and Brown lobbied on behalf of another company that was seeking a license. Johnson not only voted in favor of those companies obtaining licenses, but also provided “valuable non-public information about the anticipated rules” surrounding the medical marijuana program, court documents allege.

Pierce and Brown attempted to hide payments to Johnson by funneling them through various companies that Johnson controlled, Totten explained. These payments came out of their client’s retainer fees, according to court documents.

David Griem, an attorney for Brown, said his client cooperated with the FBI “like a good citizen” before even hiring a lawyer and that he didn’t “know any of the big fish in this case.”

Attorneys for the other defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.

What’s next: All four defendants are expected to be arraigned and have plea hearings in the next one to two weeks, Totten said.

The investigation is ongoing, and Tarasca asked any members of the public who have information related to the charges to contact the FBI.

The four defendants pledged to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

Johnson and Dalaly face a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

In his plea deal, Johnson agreed to forfeit the $110,000 in bribes and the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed not to oppose his request for a reduction in offense level, which would impact his sentencing.

Pierce and Brown face a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/zU1Bc0P
via IFTTT

Read More

The Trump Cable News Coverage Was Good, Actually

A minor sidebar to the Donald Trump arraignment on Tuesday was a chorus of raspberries from members of the press complaining about the overload of coverage by cable news.

“The Trump Show is back,” the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer wrote, criticizing “the minute-by-minute broadcasting of his private plane arriving in New York” and “blanket coverage of his speech.” The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi rang the same bell. “On a day the news media constantly described as ‘historic,’ it didn’t actually look like much,” he wrote. My former boss Susan Glasser, now at the New Yorker, went to Twitter to heave her scorn on the spectacle: “Worn out already by breathless incremental coverage of Trump today: He’s walking! He might talk, oh he didn’t talk! He’s in a motorcade, it’s x cars long! Seriously???” New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo joined her: “ok, person sitting with me in the studio, tell us what’s happening in the courtroom now. OK, what about now? How about now? What is he thinking now? Where’s the judge sitting? OK, what’s happening now?” Former CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter called the coverage “interminable.”

That the coverage was monotonous, tail-chasing, incremental, repetitive and droning cannot be denied. The ratio of reportable news to airtime might have broken the record at CNN, MSNBC and Fox News. Some segments made Andy Warhol’s film Empire — a single, unchanging, eight-hour view of the Empire State Building — look like a riveting drama in comparison as the reporters and commentators struggled to find something noteworthy or original to say.

But what the critics overlooked was that cable news coverage isn’t supposed to be viewed nonstop like a news version of Empire — the way most of them were watching — but sporadically. That’s especially true of dominant stories like the arraignment of a former president who happens to be a candidate for reelection. That the story was news, nobody will deny. Every newspaper in the country put the Trump arraignment on Page One above the fold and published supplementary pieces galore about the legal and political ramifications of the criminal charge, yet you don’t hear anybody talking about print overkill.

Cable news was designed from its beginning in 1980, when Ted Turner started CNN, to deliver saturation coverage of major breaking news events like elections, catastrophic weather, wars, riots, school shootings, major criminal trials, impeachments, and now, arraignments like Trump’s, as they happen. When a big story breaks, the cable networks expect — rightly — that casual viewers beyond the core audience will tune in solely to learn the latest. These viewers come in waves, wanting to partake, however distantly, in the story that’s dominating the news. They tune in until their curiosity is sated and then tune out as other viewers arrive.

Because the networks understand that their audience is cycling through, they do their best to find new ways to keep telling it and to have something to share, even if it’s a kind of rerun when new viewers join. This system isn’t perfect. Often, when there’s no new breaking news to report, the reporters and commentators “dribble,” that is, keeping the news ball moving but not taking any shots because there are no shots to take. But even dribbling can be defended if it serves incoming viewers.

Cable news producers never expected anybody to watch 12 hours straight, and practically nobody does, just like nobody read every story the New York Times published about the Trump arraignment. The last time the Pew Research Center analyzed the cable news audience, it found the average viewer tunes in for only 25 minutes a day. Even the heaviest cable news viewers last for an average of only 72 minutes on the medium.

Like most drug users, cable news viewers have learned to titrate their dose before suffering the insulin shock of boredom that overwhelmed so many members of the commentariat this week. However many viewers suffered through all the coverage, there can’t be many aside from the journalists who had to tune in for their jobs or their own perverse addiction, so keep your pity in reserve. The most popular shows on cable news rarely get more than 3.3 million viewers a night.

If you were crazy enough to watch the coverage into the night, at which point reporters had actually read the formal charges against Trump, you would have learned something the daylight hours didn’t report: That district attorney Alvin Bragg appears to have a weak case. So there’s that.

In a perfect world, nobody would ever waste time watching breaking news on TV, waiting anxiously for something important to happen. Every moment would top the last as new revelations poured in. But news has its limits, as the BBC admitted on the evening of April 18, 1930, after the news well went dry one day. The announcer didn’t dribble, he came clean. “There is no news,” he said, and cut away to piano music for 15 minutes until the next scheduled program started.

******

The news is often like a meringue. It needs to be whipped into something worth consuming. Send news recipes to Shafer.Politico@gmail.com. No new email alert subscriptions are being honored at this time. My Twitter feed likes pie. My Mastodon account has cut the cord. My Post account wants to be booked on Jake Tapper’s show. My RSS feed says, “Kill your TV.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/YO4Dnb9
via IFTTT

Read More