Quantcast
Channel: National News – RI Future
Viewing all 33 articles
Browse latest View live

Trump’s moves against reproductive rights renew calls for state level action

0
0

Rachel Jarosz

“I don’t care what my employer believes,” wrote Mel DuPont, from the Committee to Pass RHCA in RI. “I need the insurance I work for to cover my needs. Not theirs.”

DuPont was reacting to the Trump Administration‘s recent announcement removing the rule requiring that employer-provided health benefits cover contraception. The move allows corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees when it comes to birth control. The administration also revised guidelines on religious rights that will impact LGBTQ people. These two policies highlight the Trump Administration’s priorities when it comes to human rights. As Trump put it, “we will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore.”

In other words, your human rights end where the religious beliefs of corporations begin.

Here in Rhode Island, the Trump Administration’s position on women’s health care, and the recent House vote to ban abortion after 20 weeks, are seen as attacks by groups, like DuPont’s, that see access to reproductive health care as a basic human right and need. In response to these attacks at the federal level, groups and individuals advocating for the reproductive rights of woman across Rhode Island are seeking state level protections.

Jordan Hevenor

“Speaker Mattiello has said the General Assembly will not act to repeal Rhode Island’s draconian abortion laws and codify the tenets of Roe v Wade until it is actually overturned by the Supreme Court,” writes The Woman Project on their site. “After this week, our question for the speaker is: Is it really fair to over 51 percent of Rhode Islanders to make them wait to take action?

“The Woman Project believes that it is not fair or just to make Rhode Island women wait any longer. We live in daily fear of our rights being stripped away. It is time for our General Assembly to step up and pass legislation to protect our reproductive rights. The General Assembly needs to come back with a plan to make sure health care for over 51 percent of Rhode Islanders isn’t marginalized. The women of Rhode Island need access to birth control. They need our draconian abortion laws repealed. They need to have the tenets of Roe v Wade codified to ensure safe and legal access to abortion.”

Planned Parenthood of Southern New England‘s Rhode Island Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, Craig O’Connor, mentioned other legislation that may blunt the Trump Administration’s new rules regarding reproductive health care.

“Protecting access to contraception is a critical piece of defending reproductive freedom,” writes O’Connor. “This year, Representative Katherine Kazarian introduced legislation (H5486) to allow for prescribing of contraception for a full year and to retain in RI law the provision of the Affordable Care Act that prevents patients from being charged cost-sharing for birth control. Despite broad support from health care leaders and women’s organizations, the legislation was not passed. We encourage Senate President Dominick Ruggerio and House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello to pass this legislation in 2018.”

In addition to working locally to change and enact laws that will protect the reproductive health care rights of women, pressure has also been building to get our federal delegation to fight for reproductive health care access in Washington. James Langevin received praise for his vote against the 20 week abortion ban, which represented a change in policy for the Representative. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse put out a strong statement in support of women’s reproductive health care right, saying, “Women should be able to make their own health care decisions regardless of where they work. The Affordable Care Act advanced women’s rights by recognizing that birth control ought to be fully covered by insurance. President Trump’s new rule is a step backwards, particularly for women struggling to make ends meet who can’t afford to pay for birth control out of pocket. It seems the Trump administration is working on all fronts to tear up decades of hard-fought progress.”

Rhode Islanders stand overwhelmingly in support of reproductive and abortion rights for women.

Mel DuPont, quoted at the beginning of this piece, ended her post asking a series of questions:

“How does denying women contraception further “health?”

“How is denying women their rights a “human service?”

“Women need contraception. 9 in 10 American women have used contraception. Why should any employer be allowed to push this to 0 in 10? Isn’t contraception my choice?

“I have the right to choose whether to prevent, commence, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Not my employer. Me.

“See you in court.”


Whitehouse talks war, Trump’s competency, and the state of national politics

0
0

Sheldon Whitehouse

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse sat down with reporters Tuesday morning to discuss some big issues, such as the competency of President Donald Trump, the potential for a disastrous war with North Korea and the removal of a sitting president by his cabinet. Along the way the Senator touched on some less apocalyptic topics, such as criminal sentencing reform and dark money in politics

“In my lifetime, even back to Nixon, I have never seen a White House so riven with conflicts and leaks,” said the Senator. As to President Donald Trump’s competency, Whitehouse responded, “I think everybody [has concerns about that.] I’d be hard pressed to find a Senator who doesn’t. [Tennessee Senator] Bob Corker said himself that virtually the entire Republican Caucus feels the way he does. I’ve had everything from private conversations to editorial eye rolls from Republican colleagues… It’s been a serious concern on their side.”

On health care, Whitehouse seemed mildly optimistic about the prospect of working with Republicans on some health care issues. There is the possibility of market stability legislation advancing, to protect the funding for the cost sharing program and to work on some more flexibility in the applications states can make to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) for waivers, says Whitehouse.

“The war on coal never existed,” said the Senator in response to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Director Scott Pruitt’s recent claim that the war on coal is over. “It’s a figment of the right-wing imagination.”

Whitehouse says that the economics of coal run against the return of that particular fossil fuel in the era of natural gas and renewables.

“In the case of the EPA there’s a more persistent desire to damage the institution by driving qualified people out, by trying to bring in scientists who aren’t real scientists but industry hacks, and are trying to fill the upper positions with people who are pure goons for the fossil fuel industry or the chemical industry,” says Whitehouse.

Whitehouse has full confidence in the acting United States Attorney for Rhode Island. So far Trump has failed to nominate anyone to the position. “To be really blunt,” said Whitehouse, “There’s not a flood of qualified people who want to come in and be this president’s nominee.”

The Senator was asked to explain a recent tweet.

“The Constitution provides mechanisms for dealing with the disability of a President. One of those specifically creates the prospect for an involuntary interruption of the President’s authorities,” said the Senator, choosing his words carefully. If the traditional cabinet officers and the Vice President agree that the President has become “unfit or incapable of discharging the duties of presidency then they can report that fact to Congress which then has to act.”

Whitehouse explains his dinner with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, which was primarily about the prospects for sentencing reform.

“It is not at this point a good situation,” said Whitehouse in regards to a question about North Korea. “North Korea has nuclear weapon, is very dangerous, is expanding on a regular basis it’s missile capacity and is led by a very dangerous leader. That’s a bad combination. It would be nice to believe that there’s a sensible, tough, consistent policy that’s being pursued by the United States government…

“Looking at all this ruckus and all this quarreling, particularly between the Secretary of State [and the President], it’s hard to have any confidence that that is the case.”

When playing for such high stakes, especially when nuclear weapons are involved, you want people “who are taking their responsibilities seriously,” said Whitehouse.

“There is sincere concern that this could spiral into something that turns out very poorly.”

The Senator has not followed Ken Block‘s comments calling into question the integrity of our electoral system in Rhode Island, but says he has complete confidence in our system here.

Whitehouse is bringing California Senator Kamala Harris to Rhode Island for a fundraiser. There is talk of Harris running for president , which Whitehouse was not in a position to confirm or deny.

Whitehouse talked about his committee investigation into Russian influence on United States’ elections. Even if there were no evidence of collusion between Trump administration officials and Russian operatives, the full extent of Russian efforts to disrupt our election need to be sorted out.

Whitehouse doesn’t feel that Trump’s ability to rally his base against sitting politicians holds much fear for Democrats. It may even help them. But Republican Party members are having trouble dealing with Trump in the normal course of business.

Whitehouse feels bad for Arizona Senator John McCain, whose “brutal” cancer diagnosis has been “snarled up” in the recent “intra-party feuding.”

The situation “is not great, but John [McCain] has responded to it in the right way,” said Whitehouse. He’s finding his principles and living by those principles, despite the political storm. “The more that happens, the better things will be in the Senate.”

 

Trump’s tax plan to benefit wealthiest Rhode Islanders, many face tax increase

0
0

The wealthiest Rhode Islanders would receive the greatest benefit from the GOP and President Donald Trump‘s proposed tax cut plan, while nearly 1 in 5 Rhode Islanders would see their taxes increase by over $1,800. The analysis come from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) which concluded that the “top one percent of Rhode Island taxpayers would get a tax cut of $55,510, nearly 2/3 of the overall tax change, compared with an average tax cut of just $240 for the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers in the state.”

“Tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy often come with a heavy dose of cuts to vital programs and services,” said Rachel Flum, executive director of the Economic Progress Institute. “Reducing investments in health care, education, food assistance, disability insurance and other programs is too steep a price to pay to give the wealthy a tax cut.”

According to ITEP:

“The framework would particularly benefit those with incomes greater than $1 million. These households will make up just 0.5 percent of Rhode Island’s population but would receive 57.2 percent of the tax cuts if the plan was in effect next year. This group would receive an average tax cut of $90,100 in 2018 alone, which would increase their income by an average of 3.4 percent.

“The middle fifth of households in Rhode Island, people who are literally the state’s “middle-class” would not fare as well. Despite being 20 percent of the population, this group would receive just 8.8 percent of the tax cuts that go to Rhode Island under the framework. In 2018 this group is projected to earn between $38,900 and $67,100. The framework would cut their taxes by an average of $390, which would increase their income by an average of 0.7 percent.”

 

Burrillville shines at EFSB’s last public comment hearing

0
0

Two years of public hearings and thousands of hours of research, study and practice have sharpened the the people of Burrillville into a spear aimed at the heart of Invenergy’s plans to build a $1 billion fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant in the northwest forests of Rhode Island. At the last public comment hearing to be held in Burrillville by Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) 75 people gave oral testimony over a four hour period. Only three people spoke in favor of Invenergy’s plan (videos 27, 44, 48), the rest, primarily from Burrillville, spoke against.

The recent news that Invenergy has struck a deal with Narragansett Indian Tribe leadership brought Native Americans to the meeting to speak out against the plant and against the water deal itself, which many tribe members have claimed was entered into inappropriately and without the consent of the tribal body. Randy Noka (video 65) and Silvermoon LaRose (video 78), both tribe members, spoke against the plant.

Christopher Hamblett (video 16) of Save the Bay asked the EFSB to deny Invenergy’s application to protect the Blackstone River watershed.

Potential gubernatorial candidate and former governor Lincoln Chafee (video 14) spoke about hydropower. Paul Roselli (video 45), who heads up the Burrillville land trust and spoke against the plant on that organization’s behalf. Roselli has announced his intention to challenge Governor Gina Raimondo in the Democratic primary for governor. State Representative Bobby Nardolillo (Republican, District 28, Coventry) (video 55), who is an announced Republican challenger to Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, also spoke against the plant. Both Governor Gina Raimondo and Sheldon Whitehouse have moved from supporting the plant to a neutral position, insisting that the public “trust the process.”

But it was the people of Burrillville and their allies who shined Tuesday evening. Speaker after speaker brought facts and interpretations of facts showing why the plant is unneeded, highlighting the plant’s impact on the environment and wildlife, and questioning the idea of investing in fossil fuels as the world struggles to move on from a power source that is literally killing the planet. For some speakers, members of the audience were prepared with signs that said “Water is Life.” For Paul Roselli’s remarks about the number of trucks that would be driving through Burrillville to service the plant, audience members held up numbered photos of trucks, visually representing the traffic.

“I think this was an amazing public comment hearing,” said EFSB Chair Margaret Curran (Video 79) after the speakers were finished. “We were all impressed with ho prepared everyone was, how everyone made an attempt to direct their remarks at the very things that we’re charged with having to decide. So thank you very much.” Curran gave the audience a thumbs up for their efforts.

Here are all the speaker, in order. Access the list by clicking the top left of the video below.

Members of the Building Trades were a large presence at the hearing

With new lawn signs…

and new tee shirts in favor of the power plant.

Invenergy’s Michael Blazer meets Burrillville’s Stephanie Sloman

RI delegation chides Trump for administrative dismantling of Obamacare

0
0

Rather than dismantling Obamacare through executive orders, Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation urged President Donald Trump and Republicans to work with Democrats to fix the Affordable Care Act. The four Democrats oppose Trump’s executive orders that would allow for cheaper plans with fewer benefits and stop subsidies for some poor people’s health care.

Senator Jack Reed called it a “reckless, desperate act” and implored Republicans to work with Democrats to fix Obamacare. Congressman David Cicilline said “Trump continues to fail” the American people and implored him to work with Democrats. Congressman Jim Langevin “strongly condemn[s] the President’s reckless actions” and urged everyone to work together to fix health care. And Senator Sheldon Whitehouse likened Trump’s tactics to “a reality TV show” and said the President “needs to put aside the politics and support the effort in Congress to make responsible, bipartisan changes to our health care system.”

Below are the full statements from each member of the delegation:

Senator Jack Reed

“This is beyond irresponsible. The President seems to be carrying out a personal vendetta to destabilize health insurance markets, raise everyone’s costs, and leave more Americans without health care.  This President is so determined to implode Obamacare that he doesn’t seem to care about collateral damage to working families.  The CBO has already warned that if President Trump refuses to make these payments, he will send premiums soaring and increase federal budget deficits by $194 billion in the coming decade.  This is a reckless, desperate act and it’s time for Congressional Republicans in DC to step up and truly join Democrats like me who have been calling for fixing, not breaking our health insurance system,” Reed said.

Congressman David Cicilline

The American people are hurting. And President Trump continues to fail them. This executive order will sabotage the health care market and drive up costs for working people. The President should be working with Democrats to make the Affordable Care Act even stronger. Instead, he’s creating chaos and undermining access. The American people deserve A Better Deal than this one.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

This isn’t a reality TV show; this is Americans’ health care. It’s clear the President is trying to sabotage the health care market and send costs soaring, especially for older, sicker Americans who have no place to turn but the Affordable Care Act. President Trump needs to stop this shameful chipping away at a health care law tens of millions of Americans rely on. And he needs to put aside the politics and support the effort in Congress to make responsible, bipartisan changes to our health care system.”

Congressman Jim Langevin

I strongly condemn the President’s reckless actions to destabilize the health insurance market just two and half weeks before the 2018 open enrollment period begins. The President’s Executive Order and subsequent decision to abruptly end Cost Sharing Reduction payments is a one-two punch that will directly affect the affordability of health coverage for hardworking families. Choking off these payments will drive up premiums for many Americans already struggling to pay for insurance.  The Administration is sabotaging critical pieces of a law that has provided millions of people with access to care in a cynical attempt to precipitate a crisis.

“We should be working together to strengthen our health care system. That is why I introduced the Individual Health Insurance Marketplace Improvement Act to lower costs and give consumers more options. It is high time that Republicans join Democrats in offering constructive solutions to expand access to health care rather than continuing their crusade against the Affordable Care Act.”

RI reacts to Trump decision to keep EPA from presenting local climate findings

0
0

The authors and supporters of a new report called The State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed hoped the new report would help call attention to the dire effects of climate change on coastal Rhode Island. Instead, the report is calling attention to the dire effects of the Trump Administration on science and speech.

“I expected to be telling a relatively simple story this morning but it turned into something else,” said University of Rhode Island oceanography professor John King, who contributed to the report.

He expected to present the report with three federal Environmental Protection Agency employees who helped him write it. The Trump Administration had different plans. According to the New York Times, “The Environmental Protection Agency has canceled the speaking appearance of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss climate change at a conference on Monday in Rhode Island, according to the agency and several people involved.”

Rhode Island’s all-Democratic congressional delegation, already scheduled to appear at the event, were not pleased.

“This event was supposed to focus on this collaborative comprehensive report and a remarkable achievement in cleaning up Narragansett Bay,” said Senator Jack Reed, at the event. “We should be here applauding progress. However, I am disheartened and disappointed that the Trump Administration is preventing several EPA scientists, whose work is supported by taxpayer dollars, from publicly presenting their research and finding today. This type of political interference or scientific censorship, whatever you want to call it, is ill-advised and does a real disservice to the American public and public health.”

Reed added, “I hope the Trump Administration will look at the facts and read this report and reconsider it’s stance on trying to muzzle scientists who don’t present evidence that doesn’t conform to their political agenda. Great democracies encourage the open exchange of free information.”

Congressman David Cicilline offered even harsher words than Reed.

“It’s almost impossible to image this sequence of events,” he said. “Scientists who are involved in this work, deeply respected, have been prevented from presenting their findings at this press conference at the direction of this administration.”

Calling the decision “dangerous,” Cicilline added, “This is something which we cannot just let pass by. This is extraordinary. The idea that we would deny the American people information – good, reliable facts and evidence – to develop public policy is not only disappointing it’s dangerous. it ultimately will endanger the lives of the american people when scientists are prevented from sharing their findings because some in the admin want to continue this claim that climate change is not real. this is a great danger to our democracy.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Congressman Jack Reed also denounced the Trump Administration decision to prevent the EPA scientists from speaking.

“The fact that we can’t have  conversation about this with the releavant federal officials is sad,” Whitehouse said.

“We have got to get beyond this point of stifling good science,” said Langevin. “This shouldn’t be about a Republican or Democratic issue, this is about protecting our planet. We’re not going to turn around the current trend without having an understanding of the fact. I hope the Trump Administration gets that message loud and clear.”

The report was created by the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which protects and oversees coastal and aquatic features in Rhode Island.

Save The Bay, which hosted the event, called the Trump Administration’s decision “travesty.” Said spokeswoman Cindy Sabato, “The cleanup of the Narragansett Bay estuary is a national success story, one that would never have happened without decades of sound scientific research and knowledge – not to mention tremendous, long-term commitment and investment by voters, policy-makers, elected officials, government agencies, environmental organizations and the citizenry of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The scientific facts will not change by silencing our nation’s scientists; rather, our federal government could reverse decades of progress and put our coastal communities at grave risk by pretending the science of climate changes doesn’t exist. Now more than ever before, our local communities must stand up and speak out for our natural resources, even as our federal government retreats further and further from environmental progress.”

 

Sheldon Whitehouse grills Facebook, Twitter, Google on Russian hacking

0
0

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse co-chaired a subcommittee hearing yesterday that shed new light on the extent to which Russian operatives used social media to turn American voters against one another in the run up to the 2016 election.

“We are trying in the Subcommittee to lay out the Kremlin playbook on election interference generally,” Whitehouse told the Washington Post after the hearing. “And we are looking to delve into which elements of the the Kremlin playbook were deployed in the United States specifically.”

Executives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google testified to the extent that Russian operatives exploited social media to “sow division and distrust,” said Colin Stretch, Facebook’s general counsel.

“We build tools that help people connect,” Stretch told the Subcommittee. “Our goal is to help bring people closer together. These foreign actors sought to drive people apart.”

On Facebook, as many as 126 million users were exposed to ads created by Russian operatives, according to Stretch. Twitter’s Sean Edgett said there were some 2,752 profiles controlled by Russians and some 30,000 Russian bots tweeted more than 1.4 million times. And Google’s Richard Salgado said there were more than 1,100 videos on YouTube created by Russian operatives.

And then there is the possibility that the Trump campaign worked with Russia and Wikileaks to steal then spread emails hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In his opening statement, Whitehouse said the media and Mueller investigation have already found evidence of this.

“It’s been reported that Trump confidante Roger Stone communicated with Guccifer 2.0 through a cut-out, and we learned last week from a press account that the CEO of Cambridge Analytica—a data-analytics firm that worked for the Trump campaign—offered assistance to Julian Assange,” Whitehouse said. “And of course we now have the statement of offense prepared by the Mueller probe. But we don’t know the full story of who coordinated with Wikileaks or even directly with Russian hackers.”

Rhode Island’s junior senator is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. This was its fourth hearing on “Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online.” Watch the full hearing here.

“I take it we can all agree that Russia did in fact interfere and meddle in the 2016 election,” Whitehouse asked the three tech executives, who each agreed. “And I gather that all of your companies have moved beyond any notion that your job is only to provide a platform and whatever goes across it is not your affair?”

The executives agree with this, too. “This type of activist not only creates a bad user experience but also distrust for the platform,” said Edgett, of Twitter. “We are committed to working every single day to getting better at solving these problems.”

The hearing was well-covered by the national media, including in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post also created this three minute highlight reel video of the hearing:

CBS News featured a portion of Whitehouse’s opening statement in a tweet.

Below is the text of Whitehouse’s opening statement to the Subcommittee:

Thank you, Senator Graham, for organizing this fourth subcommittee hearing into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. I’m very proud of the work we are doing on this issue. I hope it will continue, and I hope that you and your team see me and my team as loyal partners in this effort. Understanding what happened – how Russia applied the varied methods in its election interference toolbox to interfere with our democracy – is an important step toward protecting the integrity of future elections and of our democratic process. Each hearing this subcommittee holds gets us closer to that understanding.

At our first hearing back in March, we talked about the subcommitee’s intent “to begin a public conversation about the means and methods Russia uses to undermine democratic government.” We heard testimony from expert witnesses who outlined the various tools through which the Kremlin exerts influence abroad—from traditional intelligence methods like compromising corrupt business and political figures, to hacking and leaking stolen information, to disinformation, propaganda, and provocation through both traditional media and social media networks.

At a subcommittee hearing in May, I went through a checklist of Russia’s toolbox to see which methods had been deployed against the United States in 2016. We’ll learn more today about one of those methods, propaganda, fake news, trolls, and bots, from representatives of some major American tech companies and from outside experts. The Russian government exploited social media platforms as part of a wide-ranging disinformation campaign targeted against America and American voters. As we explore how that campaign worked, and how we might better insulate ourselves in the future, let’s recap what we’ve learned in our hearings, and what we still don’t know.

We certainly saw the hacking and theft of political information by Russia, something no serious person can dispute.

Timed leaks of damaging material were the fruits of that crime; we know they happened, but we still don’t know how the decisions were made about what to leak and when, and who made them. It’s been reported that Trump confidante Roger Stone communicated with Guccifer 2.0 through a cut-out, and we learned last week from a press account that the CEO of Cambridge Analytica—a data-analytics firm that worked for the Trump campaign—offered assistance to Julian Assange. And of course we now have the statement of offense prepared by the Mueller probe. But we don’t know the full story of who coordinated with Wikileaks or even directly with Russian hackers.

Another method we’ve heard about is the exploitation of shady business and financial ties. We’ve heard testimony from a number of witnesses both here in the subcommittee and at hearings of the Helsinki Commission that the U.S. has become a haven for secretive shell corporations that can allow foreign influence schemes to channel funds to compromised individuals and exert political influence.

We still know next to nothing about the President’s business dealings in Russia or with Russians, except that he’s long chased after deals there. The President’s tax returns would clarify a great deal, and hopefully put an end to some of these questions. But those tax returns have not been made public.

Paul Manafort’s long history of suspicious business relationships with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs has now yielded his indictment. The indictment exposed gaping holes in FARA enforcement and in picking up on false statements and international money-laundering. If you can use his alleged scheme to buy property, why not use it to make anonymous political expenditures or spend money to influence elections?

We still don’t have answers about the President’s curious relationship with Felix Sater, who was chasing Russian business in consultation with senior Trump Organization executive Michael Cohen well after the presidential campaign had begun. We haven’t been able to speak with Sater or Cohen, so we still don’t have answers on this front.

We know that the Russians try to corrupt and compromise political figures in order to exert influence over them. We don’t know to what extent that happened here, but we do know that the Trump campaign and the administration has had a very bad habit of forgetting about meetings with Russians. Michael Flynn is still the only person to have been held accountable for hiding improper contacts with Russia, even as more and more such contacts have emerged in the intervening months.

Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, and the President’s son met with a Russian lawyer sent to deliver damaging information about his opponent on behalf of the Russian government in June 2016. Mr.Kushner has apparently amended his security-clearance application multiple times to reflect more than 100 foreign contacts he initially left off – including meetings with Ambassador Kislyak, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and the head of a major Russian bank. The leaders of the Judiciary Committee sent letters to the White House in June and July of this year with questions about the status of Mr. Kushner’s clearance. To this day those questions have been ignored.

Nearly six months after we first ran through that checklist, we still have more questions than answers. My sincere hope remains that we will find those answers, so that we accomplish this subcommittee’s primary purpose, which is to help us learn how to protect the country from foreign political influence in our elections. Today we have an opportunity to learn more about how Russia exploited social media as part of its disinformation campaign, and to share some of those details with the public. I appreciate the cooperation of Facebook, and Twitter, and Google in sending representatives here today, and in working with our staff over the last several weeks to voluntarily produce information.

The Intelligence Community Assessment published in January reported that, and I quote them here, “Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls.’” Russian state-backed networks RT and Sputnik are an important disseminator of messages designed to undermine confidence in the legitimacy of Western institutions and governments. Social media troll armies, like the one operated by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, help to amplify those messages, often posing as Americans on Facebook and Twitter to “launder” Russian propaganda messages and obscure their Russian origin.

According to Ukrainian scholar Anton Shekhovtsov, Russian media “implant propagandistic narratives in the international media sphere” and they do so with the express intent of having them picked up on social networks. In Russia’s best-case scenario, traditional media will pick up a fake story from social media and give it legitimacy. “When narrative laundering is successful,” according to Shekhovtsov, “propagandistic narratives can become part of the mainstream media sphere.”

How can Western democracies interrupt this vicious cycle while respecting our commitment to freedom of speech? Greater transparency and disclosure about the source of information – especially paid political advertising – is a necessary first step. But our adversaries have access to tools well beyond traditional political advertising. They are using our own social networks—our friendships, our families and our biases and viewpoints—against us, to achieve their political ends.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the ways we can work with tech community to ensure that we are better prepared to confront Russian disinformation in the future. And again, I express my appreciation to our chairman, Senator Graham.

Nancy Pelosi dodges on Donna Brazile book but dis’ed superdelegates

0
0

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to talk about Donna Brazile’s new book.

“Today we are very close to one year from last year’s election and one year from next year’s election,” said Pelosi, who was in Rhode Island for a Jamestown fundraiser on Sunday and then a stop at the Community College of Rhode Island on Monday. “We think with the President where he is in the polls that the door is open for a great Democratic victory. That’s what we want to talk about, and not somebody’s book.”

But many progressives find a cautionary tale in Brazile’s new book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-Ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.” It details some ways in which the Democratic National Committee not only gave preferential treatment to the Hillary Clinton, but also was mostly funded by her campaign. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said the book shows the primary was rigged for Clinton.

Pelosi, who took questions from local reporters mostly on the GOP tax plan after visiting the CCRI advanced manufacturing facility, seemed to take some umbrage that the progressive left still wants to litigate the 2016 election.

“They can talk about it, I’m not going to say any more about it,” she said of Brazile’s book. “I have been a progressive longer than some of these people have been alive,” said the 77-year-old Congresswoman who has represented the San Francisco Bay Area since 1987.

Instead she tacked to superdelegates, the un-elected members of state Democratic parties that are allowed to vote independently for the party’s presidential nominee, which Pelosi said she has opposed for 30 years.

“I’m hoping we can reduce the number of superdelegates,” Pelosi said. “That doesn’t make me very popular among the superdelegates, but none-the-less I’ve always been against it because you can’t say go have your election but we’ll decide it in Washington D.C.”

She said Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez is working on a review of the party’s practices, known as the Unity Reform Commission, and she hopes the review leads to a reduction in the number of superdelegates.

Superdelegates are Democratic Party leaders who get to cast an independent vote for the party’s presidential candidate, regardless of whom regular delegates are bound to vote for at the convention based on the state primary.

Bernie Sanders supporters shined a spotlight on superdelegates as an undemocratic way of circumventing the will of the people. In the 2016 primary, Clinton won 2,220 delegate votes, including 591 superdelegates, while Sanders took 1,831, with only 48 superdelegates, according to the New York Times.

Rhode Island has nine superdelegates: Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, Congressmen Jim Langevin and David Cicilline, Governor Gina Raimondo, and Democratic Party officers Joe McNamara, Grace Diaz, Edna O’Neill Mattson, and Frank Montanaro all voted for Clinton in 2016. Since the election, Montanaro, a former head of the AFL-CIO, passed away and was replaced by Joe Paolino.

Pelosi made similar comments about superdelegates when asked about Brazille’s book on CNN Sunday. She has previously gone on record in her opposition to superdelegates.

Pelosi’s grandparents met in Pawtucket. They were Italian immigrants who eventually settled in Maryland, she told reporters after Congressman Jim Langevin announced her local ties. She called Rhode Island “small enough to be resilient but big enough to be significant.”

The GOP tax plan is “not reconcilable,” she said, noting she hopes 24 Republicans agree with her – the number it would take to kill the bill in the House. She described it as a “gift” to major Republican donors.

Speaking about California Republicans who support the tax cuts, she said, “They are royally ripping off their constituents.”


Berniecrats feel vindicated by Brazile’s book

0
0

In December 2015 I wrote an article about why I believed Debbie Wasserman Schultz was impeding democracy. At that point the focus was on the debate schedule, The Sanders’ campaign Van access denial and other issues. Fast forward to November 2017, almost 2 years later, and all over the news are additional revelations about democracy being impeded by DWS, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.   

The allegations that were released in the bombshell Politico article was straight from former interim DNC head Donna Brazile from her new book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House” to be published on November 7 (today) by Hachette Books.

Much of the information did not come as a shock to many of us in the know. Bernie volunteers always believed that there was some type of rigging or collusion going on – nothing substantiated, but we just knew it. Of course, we were all labeled “conspiracy nuts” or in denial and fabricating information to validate our accusations. Today, many of us feel that our concerns are now justified. Recent disclosures are not just about the handling of campaign funds from the HRC campaign to the DNC. Money influence in the DNC is not new and contracts are signed with guidelines. The second contract that was exclusive to HRC is, however, very concerning.  And that needs to be scrutinized. 

 Brazile “explained how she uncovered the joint fundraising agreement struck between the Clinton campaign and the DNC in August, 2015—before any caucuses, primaries, or debates—that not only allowed the Clinton campaign to essentially funnel money designated for state parties and the DNC back into its own coffers, but gave it stunning control over staffing, strategy, and finances at the ‘neutral’ DNC.”

For me, this stunning level of control over all aspects of the DNC operations was the bombshell. Wasserman Schultz in May of 2016 said, “the Democratic National Committee remains neutral in this primary, based on our rules,” Wasserman Schultz said.  Its own rules said they had to be neutral.

How was the DNC not in violation of their own rules when they allowed Hillary to have immense influence over everyday operations?  How could Bernie possibly compete with that?  There have been many great statements from various members of the Democratic community who have come out supporting Ms Braziles allegations, including Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sanders former campaign manager Jeff Weaver and Senator Elizabeth Warren who agreed with the statement that the primaries were rigged.  Today in a radio interview on WBUR DNC Chair Tom Perez and Our Revolution President Nina Turner discuss the fallout from the book.  One can only imagine what Jane Sanders is thinking.

Senator Bernie Sanders addressed it in the form of an email to his supporters:

What the recently released book excerpt from former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile made clear is that unless we get our act together, we are not going to be effective in either taking on Donald Trump or in stopping the extremist right-wing Republican agenda. We have to re-establish faith with the American people that in fact we can make positive changes in this country through a fair and transparent political process that reflects the will of voters across this country.”

Bernie hit just the right tone calling for a fair and transparent process. If there is no trust in the process, what kind of process is it. So many of us had such high hopes in the primary. We knew that Bernie winning was a long shot and all we asked for was respect, the chance to run a positive campaign, engage as many people as possible, and revitalize the party.  What is obvious is that there was never any intention for that to happen by the Hillary Campaign and the DNC.  This kind of corporate takeover of the DNC led to the incredible fracture and #Demexit that is happening across the country.  

Of course, issues are not only with the National DNC but state parties are having their own internal conflicts. Eruptions in CA, ME, and NY are some of the most notable that have been mired in riffs. And of course the Biggest Little Democratic State in the Union – Rhode Island.

The mess that happened with former Second Vice Chair Joseph DeLorenzo is just part of the problem with the RI Democratic Party. Inclusiveness, transparency and diversity are other issues that the party faces.  The party establishment still has yet to #GetOverIt (Bernie 2016 Primary victory)  and accept the fact that Bernie Progressives are here to stay and will be a force to be reckoned with in 2018 and beyond.  The injection of that type of energy, enthusiasm and grassroots organizing is exactly what the RI Democrats need to stay relevant. 

Ms. Brazile’s book is the catalyst for many of these disclosures. The majority of us who followed Bernie through thick and thin over the past decades, or in his quest for the presidency, wish these disclosures came out earlier. We of course will never know if the timing was “rigged” as well.  But hopefully some good will come of it.  The head of the DNC Tom Perez had this to say “ in an interview with Business Insider on November 5th.

“We have to do better is what we have to do,” Perez said. “That’s why I was very clear during our primary campaign, [and] during the campaign for DNC chair that we have to make sure that everybody feels at the end of the process that everyone got a fair shake.”

Trusting the process is always the battle!

RI House delegation doesn’t follow Pelosi’s lead on superdelegates

0
0

Superdelegates aren’t sacrosanct to the Democrats’ presidential nominating process, as evidenced by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s willingness to rail against their role yesterday at the Community College of Rhode Island (and Sunday on CNN). But that doesn’t mean every House Democrat will follow her lead and speak out against the process that gives state party leaders an uncommitted vote in who runs for president as a Democrat.

When I asked congressmen Jim Langevin and David Cicilline if they agreed with Pelosi, neither took the opportunity to denounce the anti-democratic Democratic superdelegate process. In an email to their spokespeople, I asked: “Does Congressman [Langevin/Cicilline] agree with Leader Pelosi that the number of superdelegates should be reduced?”

Cicilline said, in an email from his staff: “There’s no question the DNC fell short in 2016. DNC Chair Tom Perez and Vice Chair Keith Ellison are undertaking a thorough review to ensure the 2020 presidential primary is fair and transparent, and I support their work. But, to be honest, my focus is on taking back the House in 2018. Rhode Islanders want to know what we’re going to do to create full-time, good-paying jobs; raise wages; reduce costs; preserve health care; and stand up for working people. Those are the issues I’m focused on.”

Langevin spokeswoman Anita Baffoni said: “As Leader Pelosi said, the Democratic Party is reviewing the nomination process, including the role that Superdelegates play. He believes that the process should be reviewed, and he looks forward to reading the findings of Chairman Perez once that review is complete.”

Interestingly, the Senate caucus was more willing to speak out against superdelegates.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, through his spokeswoman Meaghan McCabe, said he “would be fine with moving away from the superdelegate system if the DNC decided to change the rules.‎‎”

Senator Jack Reed, who couldn’t be at yesterday’s event, said, “The Speaker is right, it should be examined.” To reporters last week, Reed said, “in Rhode Island, the election was overwhelmingly in favor of Bernie Sanders, so in terms of the popular vote that was something that was pretty clear. I think where we are going to have to look at is, structurally, is: how do we accommodate superdelegates, how do we integrate that with the popular vote? That’s a serious question that we have to work on.”

The Rhode Island Democratic Party sent 33 delegates to the nominating convention in July of 2016, nine of them were unpledged superdelegates – or 27 percent, according to a document that spells out the Rhode Island Democratic Party’s delegate selection process. All nine Rhode Island superdelegates voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, while in the primary election Bernie Sanders took 54.7 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 43.1 percent.

As of today, Rhode Island’s nine superdelgates to the 2020 nominating convention would be: Senators Reed and Whitehouse, Congressmen Jim Langevin and David Cicilline, Governor Gina Raimondo, and Democratic Party officers Joe McNamara, Grace Diaz, Edna O’Neill Mattson, and Joe Paolino.

This post was updated to include comments from Sen. Reed.

Who’s been accused of sexual misconduct, in seven charts

0
0

Long gone are the days when Harvey Weinstein was best known as the producer of “Pulp Fiction.” The disgraced movie executive may not even be best remembered for sexually preying on aspiring young actresses then launching Putin-worthy smear campaigns against the ones he thought might expose his behavior. Instead his ultimate claim to fame might be that he was the first to fall during the #metoo moment.

Since the New York Times first broke the story about Weinstein on October 5, just two months ago, another 44 leaders in entertainment, politics, and media have been accused of some sort of sexual misconduct involving a professional colleague, according to an Associated Press analysis. More than half on this list are from the entertainment industry, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows what the term “casting couch” means. But almost a third are from the media.

I’d like to believe the early numbers aren’t representational of these industries writ large – it’s just a hunch, but I don’t think America has rooted out the entirety of sexual predators from Hollywood or Congress quite yet. Also, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the media would more vociferously investigate allegations of sexual misconduct than either politicians or entertainers. But on the other hand, maybe the numbers are representational, and they simply show many more people work in media than entertainment or politics. Keep in mind, the list categorized an Amazon executive as being a member of the media and didn’t include other corporate actors.

The most concerning aspect of the media list was the number of journalists on it. For my chart, I counted 8 people as media executives and 6 as journalists (or content creators) – Glenn Thrush (NY Times), Charlie Rose (PBS), Mark Halperin (ABC), Matt Lauer (NBC), Garrison Keillor (NPR), and Leon Wieseltier (The Atlantic).

In the entertainment industry, more actors have been accused than producers.

In politics, the numbers were so few the AP included state-level politicians. Included was George H.W. Bush, John Conyers, Al Franken, Roy Moore, three state legislators, and a staffer to the governor of Louisiana. It didn’t include Donald Trump, who was accused of sexual harassment prior to Harvey Weinstein.

Without Trump

With Trump

The above pie charts don’t indicate much, if any, trends. Until you look at race. Of the 45 accused, 42 of them have been white.

And then there’s gender…

Christiane Amanpour, new PBS talk show host, first studied journalism at URI

0
0

Rhode Islander Alexandra Lewis with Christiane Amanpour, the new host of PBS late night talk show, and Adam Roth director of URI’s Harrington School.

When Christiane Amanpour takes over from Charlie Rose on Monday night, she’ll be assuming one of the highest profile positions in journalism. It’s a long way from Kingston, Rhode Island, where the famed CNN foreign correspondent received her first formal journalism training as an undergrad at the University of Rhode Island. The newly-minted PBS late night interview host graduated from URI, summa cum laude, in 1983.

“Certainly Christiane is the perfect pick to fill in on PBS, but could you imagine anyone better?” said Adam Roth, an associate dean and the director of the Harrington School of Communication and Media at URI. “She is the quintessential reporter, interviewer, journalist, and anchor, with an incredibly strong understanding of global politics and cultural affairs.”

Amanpour, who grew up in London and Iran, came to URI after fleeing the Iranian Revolution. She already knew she wanted to be a journalist.

“I was old enough to be just amazed by what was happening around me and to decide in that moment that I wanted to tell those stories to the world,” Amanpour recently told David Axelord while appearing on his podcast. “And I thought, ‘oh, well that’s journalism.’ And, oh, I think I want to do television because I had heard of Barbara Walters. And I think I want to go to America, because that’s the place to go if you have a dream, if you want to work hard, if you want to make your career your life.”

She chose URI because she couldn’t afford Brown University or Boston University, where her Iranian friends were attending college, Amanpour told Axelrod.

“I didn’t have the money to go to an Ivy League,” she said. “Luckily someone helped me get into the University of Rhode Island. They had a journalism school, which was great. I loved it. I consider Rhode Island my home state away from home. I made great friends. I couldn’t have had a better experience. I adored my U.S. university experience.”

Amanpour lived in Providence when she attended URI, and one year she shared a house with John F. Kennedy Jr., a friend who was a student at Brown at the time. According to Biography.com, she worked for WJAR and WBRU before taking a job at a start up cable station called CNN, where she ended up covering the world. Here first big scoop came reporting on Iran in 1985. She became a household name in 1990 when she volunteered to cover the Iraq War.

“I only got it because the more senior guys didn’t want it,” she said, noting she covered the action with an all-female crew from CNN. “I was like a terrier snapping at the heels of my foreign editor. So I went and for me the rest was history.”

Amanpour became one of the most recognizable war correspondents in the world. She would go on to become a reporter for 60 Minutes, as well. But she never forgot about the University of Rhode Island. She’s been a board member at URI’s Harrington School since its inception in 2009 and she helps fund the Harrington School’s annual Christiane Amanpour Lecture in International Journalism.

“Christiane has really cemented her relationship in the Harrington School by endowing the Annual Christiane Amanpour Lecture in International Journalism that allows us to bring in a leader in the Journalism field every year for a special presentation,” Roth said. “This year we featured Steve Adler, President and Editor-in-Chief of Reuters, the international news agency that reaches a billion people every day. Christiane, in fact, had recommended Steve to be a speaker, and boy was she right about that. Christiane continues to contribute financially to the growth of this endowment.”

Amanpour does more for URI than just cut checks. “She has also recently met while in Boston with me and an undergraduate student and offered the student personalized advice and guidance for pursuing her journalism career,” Roth said.

Amanpour isn’t the only nationally-known journalist to first study the craft at URI. John King, also of CNN, graduated in 1985. Adam Wiener, an executive vice president at CBS news, graduated in 1987. Tom Farragher, class of 1977, is an editor and columnist for the Boston Globe and was on the Spotlight team that exposed the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal. (This reporter graduated from URI in 1997.)

Doug Jones won, but it was the Washington Post that beat Roy Moore

0
0

By many Americans’ standards, Roy Moore is the worst congressional candidate in a long, long time. He thinks America was better during slavery, he thinks homosexual relationships should be illegal, and he thinks there should be a religious requirement to serve in Congress. He’s openly loyal is to Christianity and the Bible before America and the Constitution. It’s unclear if he even thinks women should be able to vote. No matter how conservative or evangelical you are, there are simply too many reasons to want to punch Roy Moore in the face for him to be a strong candidate for Congress. Anywhere. Even Alabama. Dog whistles may still play in the Deep South, but megaphones, evidently, don’t. It’s fair to assume Roy Moore is the only Republican on Earth who could have lost this election.

But he probably would have won if not for the journalism of the Washington Post. About a month before election day, the Post broke the story about Moore allegedly pursuing and sexually assaulting teenage girls. The scoop that forever changed Alabama and altered Congress for at least the next two years.

Whatever you think about Roy Moore’s bigotry, nobody assumed it disqualified him from winning a statewide election in deep red Alabama. Many worried his myriad expressions of divisiveness would prove more popular than ever. Steve Bannon was all in as Moore beat the more-establishment candidate in a GOP primary and was expected to win the Senate seat.

Then America learned Roy Moore is alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a 14 year old when he was in his 30s, and is said to have been banned from a local mall for targeting teenage girls around the same time. Initially, the Post reported on four women; all told 8 would accuse him of sexual misconduct; he denies all of it.

This was different than the overt bigotry and white male evangelical supremacy that America has come to expect in 2017. This was different also than the other high profile allegations of sexual exploitation during the #metoo moment. Predators and racists have daughters, too. Everyone was offended, or at the very least embarrassed.

Even the most faithful Roy Moore supporters recognized the report complicated his path to victory. The Republican National Committee, not a big Roy Moore fan in the first place, initially pulled their support before flip-flopping after President Trump got on board. Before the story even hit newsstands, the alt right had launched a seemingly well-coordinated smear campaign against the Washington Post. Fraudulent robocalls said to be from fake Post reporters portrayed the news organization as having partisan motives. Project Veritas sent an actor to try to trick real Post reporters into exposing bias – a move that instead exposed Project Veritas.

But nobody recognized how damaging it was than Roy Moore himself, who spend the last month of the campaign dodging the press and avoiding public appearances. His hiding may have sealed his fate, but make no mistake what Roy Moore was hiding from: follow-up questions.

Meanwhile, Democrats all of a sudden had reason to believe they could pull off an upset in one of the reddest, most pro-Trump states in nation. Money soon followed. Then came the high-priced strategists, who will invariably heap praise on one another for the win. Black voters came out in astounding numbers.

Perhaps Jones wins even if the world didn’t find out Roy Moore is alleged to have had sexual relationships with teenage girls. Success has many fathers and in any victory there are always a number of ingredients. But the stock in Doug Jones’ victory soup seems to be Washington Post shoe leather.

Ninth Circuit rules in favor of youth plaintiffs in constitutional climate trial

0
0

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejected the Trump administration’s “drastic and extraordinary” petition for a court order to drop the landmark climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth supported by Our Children’s Trust.

The  U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon lifted the stay it had imposed late last year on the trial of Juliana v. United States, originally scheduled for February 5 of this year. The court ruled that the Trump administration had not satisfied the requirements for the extraordinary petition it had filed. The case will now go to trial.

In their case the 21 young plaintiffs assert that the U.S. government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and has failed in its duty to protect air, land and water—see Article 1, Section 17 of the Rhode Island Constitution—for present and future generations.

Julia Olson , executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-counsel for youth plaintiffs said:

The Ninth Circuit just gave us the green light for trial. We will ask the District Court for a trial date in 2018 where we will put the federal government’s dangerous energy system and climate policies on trial for infringing the constitutional rights of young people.

The Court concluded:

There is enduring value in the orderly administration of litigation by the trial courts, free of needless appellate interference. … If appellate review could be invoked whenever a district court denied a motion to dismiss, we would be quickly overwhelmed with such requests, and the resolution of cases would be unnecessarily delayed.

Victoria Barrett , 18-year-old plaintiff from White Plains, New York, said:

Today, the Ninth Circuit sided with progress. I’m grateful that my fellow plaintiffs and I can have our voices heard, and that climate science can have its day in court. The Trump administration tried to avoid trial, but they can’t ignore us. Our future is our choice and I believe the courts will stand with our constitutional rights.

Kiran Oommen , 21-year-old plaintiff from Seattle, Washington, said:

The question of the last few years has not been ‘do we have a case’ but rather ‘how far will the federal government go to prevent justice.’ We have seen that they are willing to go to many lengths to cover up their crimes and maintain the status quo, but not even the Trump administration can go far enough to escape the inevitable tide of social progress. The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that we are on the side of justice, and for justice we are moving forward. We’ll see you in court.

Sahara Valentine , 13-year-old plaintiff from Eugene, Oregon, said:

Sahara Valentine

Sahara Valentine

To our supporters: be ready for the new trial date and plan on being with us at the court house here, in Eugene, where our voices will be heard.

Philip L. Gregory of Gregory Law Group, co-lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs commented:

The Ninth Circuit clearly recognized the importance of a complete record at trial particularly as to the climate science. We will promptly ask the District Court for a trial date in 2018 so that the urgency of the climate crisis can be addressed through appropriate remedies.

The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children’s Trust, and all seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.

The three-judge panel consisted of Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon, and Michelle Friedland. The latter replaced Alex Kozinski who abruptly retired after sexual harassment allegations last December, one week after oral argument was held on the federal administration’s petition.

Full disclosure: Peter Nightingale is President of Nature’s Trust Rhode Island.

Date set for climate lawsuit brought by kids against U.S. government

0
0

On Thursday, April 12, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon set October 29, 2018, as the first day of trial in the landmark constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 21 American youth against the U.S. government. This development follows multiple rulings issued in favor of the youth plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States.

Julia Olson​, ​executive director and chief legal counsel of Our Children’s Trust and co-lead counsel for youth plaintiffs said:

We have our trial date. In the coming months there will be depositions of the parties, defendants’ disclosure of their experts, and expert depositions in late summer. We will build a full factual record for trial so that the Court can make the best informed decision in this crucial constitutional case.

Department of Justice attorneys representing the Trump administration told Judge Coffin that the trial date he set “won’t work” for defendants. They claimed they needed additional time to address expert witness reports and find rebuttal experts for every one of plaintiffs’ experts, to which Judge Coffin responded by asking:

Where am I missing something? Given your admissions in this case, what is it about the science that you intend to contest with your rebuttal witnesses?

The Court also made it clear that it will not be making any decisions on matters of law (aka summary judgments) before the trial, despite defendants’ intentions to the contrary.

Sophie Kivlehan​, 19-year-old plaintiff from Allentown, Pennsylvania, and granddaughter of the famous climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, said:

It is a relief to see that the Court understands how imperative it is to get this trial underway as soon as possible, despite all of the delay tactics the U.S. government continues trying to use. I am so excited to have an official trial date on the calendar again so that we can finally bring our voices and our evidence into the courtroom!

Phil Gregory​, of Gregory Law Group and co-lead counsel for the youth plaintiffs, commented:

By setting a trial date of October 29, 2018 the court clearly recognizes the urgency of the climate crisis. Further, the court stressed that the science should not be in dispute and that the case should be able to proceed in a streamlined fashion. On October 29th climate science will finally have its day in court and the plaintiffs will be ready.

Jaime Butler​, 17-year-old plaintiff from Flagstaff, Arizona and a member of the Navajo Nation said:

Jamie Buttler

I am happy that the court is taking us and our case seriously, even though we’re young people. I’m excited to go to trial where I can represent other kids like me, not just Navajos but all Native Americans. Indigenous people feel the effects of climate change but a lot of them don’t have good representation. By representing people like me, I hope all indigenous people feel more respected and heard. We should all have an equal say in how the future should be and how we take care of it.

On May 10, Nature’s Trust Rhode Island will host a Youth and Climate Justice Conference featuring Mary Christina Wood, a law professor at the University of Oregon and a one of the legal scholars instrumental in developing the framework at the basis of these court cases. In the introduction to her book, Nature’s Trust, Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, Wood quotes Oren Lyons,  a member of the Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs and professor of American studies:

The thing that you have to understand about nature and natural law is, there’s no mercy…. There’s only law. And if you don’t understand that law and you don’t abide by that law, you will suffer the consequence. Whether you agree with it, understand it, comprehend it, it doesn’t make any difference. You’re going to suffer the consequence, and that’s right where we’re headed right now.

Full disclosure: Peter Nightingale is President of Nature’s Trust Rhode Island.


Reed, Whitehouse counter forced separation of undocumented families

0
0

Sen. Reed and Sen. Whitehouse announced their support of the Keep Families Together Act on Monday at Dorcas International. Picture courtesy of spokesman for Sen. Reed Chip Unruh.

Sen. Jack Reed and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse renounced the Trump administration’s separation of immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border during a meeting of immigration advocates, community leaders, and pediatricians at Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island on Monday. Both senators have announced their support for the Keep Families Together Act, introduced by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, which seeks to put an end to a practice widely critiqued as irreparably destructive for undocumented families and violently traumatic for undocumented minors.

Border and customs officials forcibly tear children away from their parents as a result of arrests of undocumented immigrants crossing the border; those children are then transported to “sponsors” within the country or detention centers, in many cases thousands of miles away, and within facilities as decrepit as the boarded-up Walmart Texas Senator Jeff Merkley tried (and failed) to enter in Brownsville, Texas on June 3. Trump’s family separation policy was drafted as an attempt to deter a growing number of undocumented immigrants crossing the border since last November, as first reported by the Washington Post. It has since led to a 40 percent surge in deportation arrests, with the Trump administration racing to support an exponential increase in detainees. The White House has sought to fund more than 51,000 additional beds for detention centers, and has started sending more than 1,600 undocumented immigrants to federal prisons in the lack of other available accommodations.

The New York Times reported on April 20 that over 700 children had been separated from their families by border officials since October of last year. On May 7, President Trump announced a “zero tolerance policy,” in which every immigrant crossing the border—including those seeking asylum—will be arrested and prosecuted for entering the country illegally. The Times reported on June 8 that more than 50,000 individuals were arrested at the border last month alone.

The Keep Families Together Act would allow enforced familial separation “only in the event they are being trafficked or abused by their parents. To provide an additional layer of protection, the bill provides for an immediate review by a superior upon the recommendation to separate, and only after consultation with a child welfare expert,” according to a description of the bill on Feinstein’s website.

A letter to the president, signed by Reed and Whitehouse along with 38 other senators, urged, “Your Administration’s decision to separate children from their parents at the border is cruel, unnecessary, and goes against our values as Americans.”

The letter also cited new attempts on the part of the Trump administration to make the placement of seized immigrant children with sponsors more difficult, such as a recent memorandum mandating that ICE perform background checks on those sponsoring children, as described in this Mother Jones interview with an expert on immigrant detention. These new tactics, the letter argued, “raise serious concerns.”

A press release sent from Reed’s office highlighted the traumatic psychic and medical harm caused by forced separation and detention of children. It cites a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which asserted that practices of violently isolating children from their families “contradicts everything we stand for as pediatricians — protecting and promoting children’s health. In fact, highly stressful experiences can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short and long-term health.”

The senators’ announcement coincided with U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision to overturn asylum protections for victims of domestic violence and gang-related violence, on the basis that both groups do not pertain to membership in a “particular social group” as stipulated in asylum law. In barring both, Sessions utilized the attorney general’s almost total control of immigration law and spurned multiple court precedents allocating “PSG” status to both categories.

Against Sessions’ additional claim that both groups do not constitute persecuted parties, in a strict skew of the term meaning that their governments “condoned” violence or “demonstrated an inability” to protect those seeking asylum, one might point to the well-documented link between government-sponsored trade deals with Mexico and Central American countries, including the connections the prominent U.S.-backed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and both gang violence and forced migration. This stipulation, while not exactly framed in Sessions’ own language, can provide an illuminating view into our government’s participation in both forms of violence.

“Many of the children and families arriving at our Southwest border have escaped horrific violence and persecution in their home countries,” the letter to the president read. “The decision to use this separation tactic as a ‘deterrent’ is not only frighteningly callous, but demonstrates willful ignorance of the violence and unlivable circumstances many families are risking their lives to escape.”

Cicilline describes life inside, and politics behind, tender age detention centers

0
0

“It’s horrific,” said Congressman David Cicilline. “It’s barbaric.”

The Rhode Island Democrat was describing what he saw after visiting immigration detention centers on the Texas/Mexico border this weekend where President Donald Trump’s family separation policy is playing out as a moral and political crisis before America’s and the world’s eyes.

“It is horrifying to see young children behind a chain link enclosure,” he said. “There’s no furniture. They are sitting on the floor, a few of them have mats, looking afraid, not sure of what is happening to them. It’s disgraceful. No child should be in that kind of facility ever and certainly children who are fleeing violence.”

Cicilline joined a congressional delegation that included senators Jeff Merkeley, Oregon, and Chris Van Hollen, Maryland, and representatives Peter Welch, Vermont, Mark Pocan, Wisconsin, Shelia Jackson-Lee, Texas, and Vincente Gonzalez, who represents the Texas district where the facilities are located.

“Every legislator in Washington should have seen those children and talked to those mothers,” Cicilline said, and I think they would understand what we are doing – what’s being done in our name – is un-American and needs to stop and doesn’t reflect the basic values of this country.”

The group visited a children’s shelter in Brownsville that used to be a WalMart, and a processing center in McAllen, where Cicilline and Van Hollen were prevented from recording video outside the facility, among other stops.

“When I looked at these children and thought they that were placed there by actions of the federal government I was horrified,” Cicilline said. “This is being done in our name. This is being done in the name of the American people.”

The group spoke with 10 mothers who had been separated from their children. “They could barely get through the story without completely sobbing uncontrollably recounting how their children were taken away or that they didn’t know where their child was anymore,” Cicilline said.

“I said to them one of the reasons we are here is because we think this policy is a violation of U.S. law and that it undermines the values of our country and that we are going to do everything we can to persuade the administration to stop this policy and that there were lots of people in the country that do not agree with it and that we’re going to do everything we could to prevent the president from continuing this policy.”

He explained he feels the policy violates U.S. law because it is “basically extinguishing your right to have your asylum application heard. They are using ripping away their children to discourage them from making an asylum claim, which our law provides them.”

Cicilline said the idea that Trump would separate families for political advantage was “despicable.”

“If you’re imprisoning children and ripping them away from their parents to use them as a bargaining chip to get your wall or to get some other immigration legislation…” he said, leaving the sentence unfinished as if he didn’t know quite what to compare that to. “Children should never be used as a bargaining chip in legislative negotiations. I don’t think you can ever enter into negotiations when you are imprisoning children and ripping them away from their mothers as a bargaining chip. This doesn’t require any negotiations. This is a policy they put in place, they should stop it immediately.”

As for broader solutions to immigration policy, Cicilline said the House could pass bipartisan bills right now if Speaker Paul Ryan would only allow members to vote on them.

“The answers are out there,” he said. “We have good bipartisan compromises. If they came to the floor, they would pass. The Republican speaker just will not bring anything to the floor for a vote.”

After I spoke with Cicilline on Tuesday, Republicans in Congress began exploring ways to end Trump’s family separation policy.

“I think the more their constituents learn about the process the more horrified they are going to be and [Republicans] are going to feel more pressure,” Cicilline said, prior to that development. “As President Lincoln said ‘public sentiment is everything’ so we need to keep the pressure on so that they understand their constituents are watching this.”

Graduate workers at Brown dodge Trump’s labor board in historic agreement

0
0

Stand Up for Graduate Student Employees (SUGSE). Courtesy of their website.

Graduate workers at Brown University announced a landmark agreement with the university Thursday afternoon, paving the way for one of the first collective bargaining agreements for graduate employees at a private institution in the country.

Graduate teaching and research assistants at public universities have long had access to collective bargaining rights, as they fall under the jurisdiction of public sector labor law. Yet their peers at private institutions have been widely denied the ability to unionize, often due to arguments that TA and researchers’ labor is fundamentally educational in nature, and that graduate employees are closer to students than laborers.

The pact announced Thursday, between representatives of the graduate organizing group Stand Up for Graduate Student Employees (SUGSE) and university administrators, will allow workers at Brown to counter that narrative. The agreement enables the school’s approximately 1,400 graduate workers to hold a vote to unionize. An election is expected to take place this fall.

“A strong majority of Brown graduate workers, including master’s students, have pledged their support for SUGSE,” according to the press release. The group is currently affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and the Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals.

Among the benefits for establishing a union at Brown are greater security for graduate research funding, protections and grievance procedures for workplace harassment, and fairer compensation for research and teaching work, according to a listing on SUGSE’s website.

Crucially, this decision and the ensuing election will be reached outside of the influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Historically, the NLRB’s decisions regarding collective bargaining at private institutions has closely followed the party allegiances of its appointees, including a 2004 decision, headed by appointees under President George W. Bush, denying bargaining rights to graduate workers at Brown.

Republicans currently form a majority on the NLRB, including two appointees under President Trump. Even so, with SUGSE’s agreement with the university, graduate workers will be able to move forward with unionization efforts without fear of an intervention from a federal court.

Marley Vincent-Lindsey, a fourth-year graduate assistant in History, wrote in the press release on Thursday:

“This agreement is a powerful reminder that higher education workers across the country hold the keys to making our universities work. We look forward to turning our majority support on cards at Brown into a successful election for collective bargaining. At a time when the value of higher education is continually reduced at the hands of austerity, I am excited that this agreement continues to advance our expectations of university administrators as our employers.”

Stage set for progressives to take over Rhode Island

0
0

Gubernatorial candidate Matt Brown addresses state convention.

As the deadline to run for elected office came and went Wednesday afternoon, there are more than a few political newcomers—many young, and many centered around social justice—that could constitute the makings of a progressive wave in Rhode Island.

Governor

Most notable might be the governor’s race, where Matt Brown promises to give incumbent Governor Gina Raimondo a run for her money in the Democratic primary. While Raimondo has secured the party’s endorsement, Brown will be able to tack left of her on issues that are resonating with Democrats across the country, like health care and income inequality. Raimondo, best known for leading pension reform efforts, can be called a prototypical mainstream Democrat. She’s made some progressive moves, like free community college, but some on the left will not trust her in part because of her ties to Wall Street and in part because of her record of defending the proposed Burrillville fossil fuel power plant.

Sheldon Whitehouse

Congress

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse also has to fend off a challenge from the left in a Democratic primary. Political newcomer and peace activist Pat Fontes is running against the three-term Senate incumbent who, in past elections, has traditionally been the progressive in the race. Fontes says her motivation to run came after Sen. Whitehouse failed to give a satisfactory answer regarding his military policy at a town hall event this spring. Sen. Whitehouse, in his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee, will be instrumental in the inevitable confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court justice following the announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement on Wednesday, according to Ted Nesi on Twitter—which might provide Fontes an opportunity for a more aggressive push on a much larger stage.

Congressman David Cicilline, who has in many ways inherited the mantle of most progressive member of the Rhode Island delegation from Whitehouse, doesn’t appear to have drawn any competition, so he may get to run unopposed. Congressman Langevin, perhaps the least progressive member of the delegation, will face Salvatore Caiozzo in the general election.

Aaron Regunberg

Statewide offices

Rep. Aaron Regunberg is challenging Lt. Gov. Dan McKee in the Democratic primary for that office. Regunberg helped start the Resist RI organizing group, as well as the extremely active Providence Student Union, and helped pass legislation for paid sick leave and raises to tipped minimum wage for restaurant workers. McKee may be best known for supporting charter schools while mayor of Cumberland. The winner is to face a Republican in the general election. If it’s Regunberg, there could be progressive majority among statewide elected officials. General Treasurer Seth Magaziner will run against Mike Riley while Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea must best Pat Cortellessa to win re-election.

The state Senate

In state Senate races, the progressive left has some opportunities to boost its numbers.

Sam Bell (District 5, Providence), an outspoken activist and former board member of Indivisible RI who led a historic campaign against the NRA during his time at Brown University, against incumbent Paul Jabour and Democrat Nick Autiello—a former Republican now running as a Democrat, a surprising former McCain and Giuliani supporter, and on record for his concerning comments regarding President Obama, according to this op-ed at Uprise RI.

Melanie DuPont (Johnston, North Providence, Smithfield), a vocal proponent of a $15 minimum wage and LGBTQ rights, will run against Stephen Archambault, a moderate (but fiery!) Democrat who has held the seat since 2012.

Melanie DuPont. Image courtesy of Indivisible RI.

Bridget Valverde, vice chair of the RI Democrats’ Women Caucus, is running for District 35 (East Greenwich, North Kingstown, South Kingstown, Narragansett) in a Democratic primary, and then potentially against Republican Dana Gee. Gee stepped in to run in the place of her husband, incumbent Mark Gee, because “it’s the year of the woman,” or for the less lofty claim that the district “need[s] a Republican to keep the seat,” according to East Greenwich News.

Paul Roselli made waves this month when he announced he was dropping out of the race for governor (shifting his support behind Matt Brown); Roselli is instead running for Senate District 23 (Burrillville, Glocester, North Smithfield), newly vacated by incumbent Paul Fogarty after two decades. In order to take Fogarty’s place, Roselli needs to beat not one, but two Republicans: Jessica De la Cruz, a first-generation American born to Portuguese immigrants, and Burrillville Town Council President John Pacheco.

Also vying for a seat is Jonathan Hernandez for District 6 (Providence), pitting an environment-based platform against incumbent Harold Metts—who himself carries a mixed track record, as notable for his stance against housing discrimination as it is for his religious opposition to gay marriage—and newcomer Carlos Cedeno.

Senator Gayle Goldin, who has showed a deep commitment to reproductive rights in the last month alone, remains unchallenged in her District 3 (Providence) seat. Marriage equality and LGBTQ rights seems to be a key factor in many candidates’ wheelhouse: Donna Nesselbush, a senator from District 15 (Pawtucket, North Providence) who served as the lead sponsor for a ban on conversion therapy last year, also appears to have no opposition filed against her run for re-election. Dawn Euer, an attorney and social justice organizer who dominated the District 13 (Newport, Jamestown) special election last year, stands against Republican Matthew Perry—and if her previous broad support serves as any indication, Euer seems poised for a winning streak.

But other progressive Senators need to defend their seats. Incumbent Jeanine Calkin of District 30 (Warwick), one of the Senate’s most steadfast supporters of progressive environmental policy and women’s rights since she entered office two years ago, will fight off Warwick lawyer and Democratic newcomer Mark McKenney. Josh Miller (District 28, Cranston, Providence), after a strong showing on health care and environmental rights in his previous term, will defend his seat against Independent Cassandra Michael.

Rep Edie Ajello

The House

Many House races are characterized by the existing progressive caucus running to keep their hold on representative seats. At the core of this group is Edith Ajello, a longtime pro-choice activist who has not lost a race since 1992, and who is running unopposed for District 1 (Providence). Ajello has run four races without a challenger across her career. Fellow progressives who are also running races without challengers:  Chris Blazejewski for District 2 (Providence), labor and cannabis advocate Scott Slater for District 10 (Providence), gun control supporter Jason Knight for District 67 (Barrington, Warren), Shelby Maldonado, who has shown herself to be one of undocumented Rhode Islanders’ strongest allies, for District 56 (Central Falls), and environmental progressive Lauren Carson for District 75 (Newport).

But there is at least one opportunity to pick up a seat, and knock out an ardent NRA supporter in the process. Lauren Niedel, state chair for the Bernie Sanders campaign, is running for Republican Rep. Mike Chippendale’s District 40 (Coventry, Foster, Glocester) seat. Chippendale may face consequences for his vocal support of the NRA, and his vitriolic tweet at Parkland survivor and gun control activist Emma Gonzalez.

Not everyone has a clear path back to their seats all but secured. Teresa Tanzi of District 34 (Narragansett, South Kingstown), who gained attention this session in her fight for legislation attacking sexual harassment—as she faced a frustrating stalemate and harassment herself—will run against Ewa Dzwierzynski, returning to the fray as an independent after losing on the Democratic ticket in 2016. And Rep. Moira Jayne Walsh is campaigning against fellow Democrat Michael Earnheart for District 3 (Providence), who appears to posit himself as pro-business and, given a recent tweet congratulating the Providence RIPD on a fentanyl bust, perhaps markedly distinct from Rep. Walsh’s vocal opposition to increased policing of controlled substances during her stand against Kristen’s Law.

Marcia Ranglin-Vassell

One of the clearest examples of the wide, progressive/moderate faultline in the Rhode Island Democratic Party this election cycle can be found in the race between first-time incumbent Marcia Ranglin-Vassell of District 5 (Providence) and Holly Taylor Coolman, a Providence College theology professor. While Coolman’s campaign poster aligns her with supposedly “core democratic values,” she also takes this to mean a staunchly anti-abortion platform. Rep. Ranglin-Vassell, a former Providence school teacher and one of the House’s strongest voices for racial justice and women’s rights, could not represent a more distinct opponent to this self-proclaimed “pro-life progressive.”

Perhaps the most dramatic potential for a newcomer upset is Justine Caldwell’s race against Republican incumbent Anthony Giarrusso for District 30 (East Greenwich, West Greenwich). Giarrusso, who has held the seat since 2012, hasn’t had a challenger for his last two terms, and Caldwell, who has previously worked as an activist against housing and workplace discrimination for LGBTQ people, could mark a sudden and significant shift in the region. Caldwell has been quick to make this readily apparent, as seen in previous reporting on sparring between the two on this site.

Laufton Ascencao, an organizer with the Working Families Party and vice president of the Young Democrats, is also joining the cohort of young activists taking their skills to the State House. His opponents for House District 68 (Bristol, Warren), include Libertarian William Hunt Jr., who lost handily to incumbent Kenneth Marshall in 2016, and Marshall himself, who came under investigation this month for the misuse of thousands of dollars in campaign funds for personal expenses. Whether Marshall will be able to break out those cigars he illegally purchased for a potential victory party is anybody’s guess.

The messiest race might be for House District 13 (Providence, Johnston). Ramon Perez—known less for his support for driver’s licenses for undocumented residents than an incident where he passed out porn on the House floor, as well as making inappropriate comments with remarkably bad timing (i.e. during a sexual harassment training)—is running against returning Democratic challenger John Carnevale, who is still facing perjury charges from the Board of Canvassers for allegedly lying about living in the district at all. Buried under the perjury story making the rounds is an extensive history of charges against Carnevale of sexual assault and domestic violence. Neither are included here to assert any kind of progressivism, of course—which at this point, might be better served by a write-in.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article reported that Rep. Ranglin-Vassell was the only Black woman in the General Assembly—she is not. Thanks to Jordan Seaberry on Twitter for the revision.

Spicer claims Cohen doesn’t have info against Trump during sparse book-signing

0
0

Sean Spicer at a book signing for his new memoir at a Middletown Barnes and Noble Friday.

I had time to ask Sean Spicer, the former press secretary under President Trump for six months last year, exactly one question during his book signing at a Middletown Barnes and Noble on Friday.

I asked: “This week, reports were released saying that Michael Cohen testifies that Donald Trump knew about a meeting of campaign officials with Russians attempting to interfere with the election. You have previously stated [on a WPRI Newsmakers interview Friday] that the campaign learned about Russian tampering through reports from officials who said that there were attacks to both the RNC and the DNC, and who told you to demonstrate your confidence in the electoral process. Can you still defend that position and that confidence now?”

“I’m sorry, so what does the Cohen thing have to do with this?” he asked. “Your confidence that Donald Trump did not know about Russian interference in the election before you were notified,” I told him.

“I don’t think there’s anything in the Cohen tapes which suggest that,” he responded.

“Really?” I asked. “Even given the reports this week?”

“Again, nothing that I’ve seen,” Spicer said. “Then again, I’ve kind of been promoting a book.” He laughed. “So, sorry!”

Then he signed my copy of his new memoir, “The Briefing: Politics, the Press, and the President,” and my time was up.

It is true that there are currently no audio recordings which have been produced of a meeting between Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen in which such information was divulged. Spicer’s claim, however, skirted the extensive report CNN released Friday on Cohen’s new claim that Donald Trump knew in advance of a meeting of Donald Trump Jr. with Russian officials promising damaging details on Hillary Clinton.

During the Newsmakers interview with WPRI’s Tim White and Ted Nesi on Friday, Spicer refused to comment as to whether he had been contacted by the Mueller investigation team. During the interview, Spicer chalked up the extent of “Russian meddling” to “$200,000 in Facebook ads,” saying he felt “very confident in our win.”

Spicer, who grew up in Barrington and is a former student of Portsmouth Abbey School, returned to his home state this weekend promoting his new book. A BJ’s Wholesale in Seekonk canceled Spicer’s signing there, “due to the political climate.” Signing events at Barrington Books locations in Barrington and Cranston are still on for Saturday.  

A Barnes and Noble employee told me only “a few dozen” attendees had arrived by the time I got there at its 7pm start-time. There was an older couple with t-shirts emblazoned with dozens of copies of Trump’s face behind me in line. One man, standing outside of the line, screamed, “You should be ashamed of yourself! You were the mouthpiece to the largest threat to the free press!” before being led away by security. Leah McGee, an attendee in front of me in who told me she wanted to hear “what the other side has to say,” went up to Spicer and told him to his face that she disagreed with most of what he has done before he signed her copy.

Alex Lombard, who accused Spicer of calling him the n-word and trying to fight him during his time at Portsmouth Abbey.

A few minutes after I entered the line, a black man standing outside of the line—later identified by the Associated Press as Alex Lombard of Cambridge, Massachusetts— shouted at Spicer that he was a fellow Portsmouth Abbey student, that Spicer had tried to “fight” him, and that Spicer had called him the n-word during his time there. Lombard was quickly escorted out of the store by private security present at the event, yelling as he left, “I was a scared kid, then, Sean. I’m not scared to fight you now.”

There’s a video of the confrontation at the Newport Daily News.  A representative of Spicer told the AP that the former press secretary “can’t recall any incident like this happening” and was “not sure if this was just a stunt this man was pulling.”

In a review of Spicer’s memoir in the Wall Street Journal, chief White House correspondent for ABC Jonathan Karl writes that the book contains multiple inaccuracies, such as listing an Obama-era press conference as taking place in 1999, as well as calling the president a “unicorn.” Karl also writes that Spicer says that his former boss, Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned after sending sexually explicit messages to teenage congressional pages, was “good to staff and fun to be around.”

Exactly two protestors—Lloyd Trufelman, who heard about the event while attending the nearby Newport Folk Festival, and Beth Murphy Ward—were outside the event waving signs when I exited the Barnes and Noble.

“I just felt it was important to take a stand and to show this fellow, who’s on a book tour and who’s trying to rehabilitate his reputation, to position himself as a sensible, moderate policy guy, that we’re not going to forget the fact that he lied and damaged the press and American democracy. It’s just a matter of saying, hey, you’re not going to get off that easy,” Trufelman told me.

Lloyd Trufelman

I asked Trufelman whether he still thinks Spicer is doing damage to American democracy. “I haven’t read the book, to be honest,” Trufelman said. “So I’m not sure. You know, it really boils down to how you define ‘complicit.’ If you look at, for example, what’s happened in this country with the administration since he left, has he spoken out? For example, he’s a smart and educated man, understands policy. What were his comments after the Putin summit?”

In fact, Spicer told Fox that “no one knows exactly what was said, in the context it was said,” and that Trump would go into a future summit with his “A-game.”  

“The specific Putin press conference, where Trump holds a summit, and there’s no agenda, there’s no transcript, there’s nothing that comes out of it, and he didn’t criticize?” Trufelman added. “That the thing where, as a Washington insider, he certainly knew the summit was not handled correctly and possibly put the country at risk, and he’s out here spinning and selling books.”

A woman came up to Cullen and laughed at her sign as I began to walk away. “I came for the entertainment factor, but

Beth Murphy Ward

I didn’t know you would be here!” she shouted.

One of Spicer’s first controversies was his aggrandized comments about the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd, telling the press “was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration” before that was debunked by photo comparisons of the event for President Trump and former president Obama. It was the event that prompted Kellyanne Conway’s use of “alternative facts,” and six months of Spicer’s vicious critiques of the free press.

The Barnes and Noble parking lot, however, was nearly half-empty by the time I left, 43 minutes after I arrived.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article listed one of the two protestors as Beth Cullen. Her name is Beth Murphy Ward.

Viewing all 33 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images