Tag: posts

In a Miami speech on Thursday afternoon, Trump administration national security advisor (and persistent advocate for spreading democracy at the point of a gun/drone/ballistic missile) John Bolton promised the United States would take a more aggressive stance towards left-wing dictators in Latin America.

Specifically, Bolton identified the nations of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as a “Troika of Tyranny” responsible for “immense human suffering” and the cause of “enormous regional instability.” Bolton made it clear that the Trump administration would be putting more pressure on Cuban president Raúl Castro, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, and Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro—with the goal of seeing “each corner of the triangle fall,” according to The Washington Post‘s Josh Rogin.

If this seems like almost comically bad rebranding of the George W. Bush administration’s “Axis of Evil”—consisting of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—well, that’s because it is.

It’s also a political maneuver. Delivering this sort of tough talk just days before the midterms is at least partially an attempt to court Cuban voters (and Hispanic voters more broadly) who will be crucial to the outcome of Florida’s gubernatorial and Senate races.

Though the speech lacked specific policy proposals, there are at least a few concrete plans. Vox reports that Bolton called on Maduro to release hundreds of political prisoners, while the Trump administration is also ramping up sanctions against Venezuela and tightening diplomatic backchannels with Cuba.

To be sure, dictators Castro, Ortega, and Maduro have openly embraced socialist economic policies that have ravaged their countries and created humanitarian nightmares. An estimated 2 million people have fled Venezuela since 2014, seeking refuge from the financial collapse that has made it virtually impossible to buy even the most basic goods. Latin America would be a better place without those three men and the poisonous ideology they’ve inflicted on millions.

The best thing the United States could do is accept the refugees fleeing those oppressive states and recognize them for what they are: human beings seeking freedom and a better life. Given the Trump administration’s general view of immigration, however, I’m rather skeptical that’s going to happen. Indeed, whatever form this more aggressive posture takes—particularly if it includes sanctions on countries where people are already starving—it is a good bet that it won’t help the people who most need it.

Slapping labels like “Troika of Tyranny” on the three countries is unlikely to do much good. At best, it’s a diplomatic mistake that will make it more difficult to do the important work of stoking capitalism and freedom across Latin America. Lumping together the different circumstances of three different countries is foolish—dealing with a slowly liberalizing Cuba requires a different approach than dealing with the complete humanitarian disaster that is Venezuela.

At worst, this is a prelude to policies that will make the situation worse, just like the infamous Axis of Evil speech was part of the calculated build-up to going to war with Iraq. In some ways, this is old hat for Bolton. Before he became one of the primary cheerleaders for the Iraq War, Bolton actually floated the idea of invading Cuba over suspected chemical weapons (which were later found to not exist).

It’s unclear whether Bolton is suggesting that military options are on the table for dealing with these Latin American dictators—though Trump has already floated the incredibly stupid idea of a military invasion of Venezuela at least once, and Bolton has never been known for his foreign policy restraint.

Even if this isn’t the first step on the road to a Latin American version of the Iraq War, Bolton’s suggestion that he’s seeking the “collapse” of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela should be worrying. As he should have learned by now, you can’t fix regional instability by creating more of it.

Voters in Washington State rejected an initiative in 2016 that would have created a carbon tax-and-rebate scheme. That initiative would have imposed a tax on carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels like gasoline, natural gas, and coal. None of the monies collected would have gone to the state government, but instead would have been rebated in the form of an annual check back to the citizens of the state. Proponents of the initiative crafted the tax plan with an eye toward attracting conservative voters with the promise that the state legislature and state bureaucracies would not be able to divert the tax monies away from the wallets of state residents.

The 2016 initiative failed, because it was opposed by most major environmental lobbyist groups (among other reasons). Why did environmental activists, who proclaim their deep concern over what they believe is the impending disaster of man-made global warming, oppose this effort to rein in carbon dioxide emissions? Because they didn’t get a cut of the action.

Fast forward to today. On Nov. 6, Washington State residents will have a chance to vote on a new Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, known as Initiative 1631. Under this initiative, the state would impose a “fee” on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted starting at $15 per ton in 2020, and rising each year by $2 until 2035, when it would reach $45 per ton. However, the initiative exempts major local industries with big export markets from the fee, including aircraft maker Boeing and aluminum smelter Alcoa, along with the Centralia coal-fired electric power plant, which is set to shut down in 2025. In would, however, apply to the state’s five petroleum refineries.

Unlike the earlier proposal, this new initiative has the backing of most environmental lobbying groups. What’s different? Instead of going back into the pocketbooks of citizens, this time the funds will be directed toward projects chosen by a new 15-member board of political appointees, over which environmental activist groups will exercise outsized influence. Seventy percent of the revenue is earmarked for renewable energy investment and public transit, 25 percent for water and forests, and 5 percent must go to communities both impacted by fossil fuels and those looking to transition away from them. It is estimated that the fee will generate $2.2 billion in revenues during its first five years.

How much would the fee cost Washingtonians? Environmentalist backers of the initiative lowball the costs at $10 a month for the average household. NERA Economic Consulting puts the worst-case annual cost at $440 for the average household in 2020, rising to over $900 in 2035. Rob Williams, a carbon pricing expert at Resources for the Future, told the Seattle Times that he estimates the cost per household at about $300 per year.

The battle over the carbon fee initiative is fierce. The Nature Conservancy, the League of Conservation Voters, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, and their allies have spent $15.2 million on the campaign. Opponents, led by the Western States Petroleum Association, have raised $31.2 million from oil companies and business groups to oppose the measure. A recent poll reports that 50 percent of voters approve of the initiative, 36 percent are opposed, and 14 percent are still undecided.

Climate change could become a significant problem for humanity as the century unfolds. So how much would Washington State’s carbon fee impact this global commons problem? The state emits 76 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The U.S. will emit about 5,260 million metric tons this year. If Washington State were to entirely eliminate its emissions, that would reduce U.S. emissions by 1.4 percent. Humanity emitted about 36,000 million metric tons last year. Entirely eliminating Washington State’s contribution would reduce global emissions by 0.2 percent.

Washington State’s actual goal is to reduce, by 2035, its emissions by 25 percent below their levels in 1990. It emitted about 88 million metric tons that year, so that implies a reduction of around 22 million tons by 2035. Assuming today’s emissions, that would mean that Washington State’s planned reductions would amount to 0.42 percent and 0.06 percent of U.S. and global emissions respectively.

One estimate by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency calculated that the impact of the carbon fee initiative would be the equivalent of removing about 200,000 cars from the roads between 2020 and 2035. An average American automobile emits about 4.6 tons of carbon dioxide annually. Assuming that is sustained, that would amount to reduction of just under 1 million tons of carbon dioxide annually; in other words, a negligible reduction with respect to the problem that it purports to help solve.

Of course, supporters will say that the journey of a billion tons begins with the first million; but given the earlier history one might be forgiven for thinking that the backers of the current proposal killed a more effective one in 2016 just because they wanted to get their hands on some fee revenues with which to pursue their pet projects and reward their political friends.

Kicking a juvenile Latino teenager in the head. Spitting on him. Telling him: “Welcome to the white man’s world.” Threatening to plant a “kilo of coke” in another Latino teen’s pocket.

Those are just a few of the more horrifying allegations made against a Massachusetts cop in a federal indictment unsealed yesterday. The accusations stem from a February 2016 incident in which two Springfield police officers allegedly used excessive force after several Latino teens allegedly stole an unmarked police car.

It all started with a pizza run, according to a civil lawsuit filed in August by one of the teens. On the night of February 26, then-Officer Stephen Vigneault drove his unmarked car to pick up some pizza for former narcotics detective Gregg Bigda. The lawsuit says Bigda had been drinking rum, and Vigneault was hoping to sober him up.

Vigneault left the car running while he was in the pizzeria, only to discover it was gone when he returned. The Washington Post reports what happened next:

The chase was on. The alleged thieves, a group of teenagers, were apparently looking for a joyride. For nearly four hours they got one, until a strip of spikes laid by police stopped the speeding TrailBlazer in its tracks. The doors flung open, and the suspected thieves jumped out, fleeing through the woods with police dogs on their heels. They made it as far as the porch of a multifamily home.

The federal indictment, filed on October 25, names both Bigda and Vigneault as defendants. While arresting one of the juveniles, identified as E.P., Bigda “willfully deprived” him of his right “to be free from unreasonable seizures, which includes the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer,” the indictment says. The result was “bodily injury” sustained by E.P. The indictment says Vigneault acted in a similar manner while arresting another juvenile, identified as D.R.

The indictment did not go into detail regarding Vigneault’s alleged use of excessive force. But the claims made against Bigda are disturbing. “During the course of the arrest,” the indictment says, Bigda “kicked juvenile suspect E.P. in the head, spat on him, and said, ‘welcome to the white man’s world.'”

Things didn’t improve after the teens were taken to the police station. According to the indictment, Bigda interrogated D.R. without his parents present and “without reading him his Miranda warnings.” Bigda allegedly threatened to “crush [D.R.’s] skull and fucking get away with it,” “fucking kill [D.R.] in the parking lot,” “stick a fucking kilo of coke in [D.R.’s] pocket and put [him] away for fucking 15 years,” and “kick [D.R.] right in the fucking face.”

Bigda also interrogated a third juvenile and allegedly threatened to “beat the fuck out of” him.

Much of the interrogations was captured on surveillance video and released later in 2016.

“I’m not hampered by the fucking truth ’cause I don’t give a fuck! People like you belong in jail. I’ll charge you with whatever,” Bigda says in the video, before threatening to plant drugs in D.R.’s pocket.

According to The Daily Beast, Bidga only received a 60-day suspension. He was able to return to work despite this being just the latest in a series of disturbing claims made against him. MassLive reports:

Bigda has a history of civilian complaints. He has been accused of assaulting a pregnant woman, saying “I hate Puerto Ricans” and pepper-spraying puppies to death.

In a statement yesterday, Springfield Police Commissioner John Barbieri said Bigda “will be suspended without pay due to the indictment.”

Vigneault, meanwhile, resigned in the months after the incident. However, in a lawsuit filed last year, Vigneault claimed he was forced to step down, even though he didn’t actually do anything wrong. Vigneault has maintained his innocence to the present day.

Still, he and Bigda were both arrested yesterday, according to a press release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. In addition to the other charges, Bigda also stands accused of filing two false reports with internal affairs in an effort to cover up his actions.

The press release notes that both officers “are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.” But regardless of what happens in court, the case highlights a glaring lack of accountability in the Springfield Police Department.

On its own, the video of Bigda conducting interrogations should have been enough to get him fired. The fact that he was able to return to work so soon is unacceptable. Even though the video was disturbing enough to spark a Justice Department probe, Bigda remained on the force, despite years of alleged misconduct.

Firing bad cops may be “damn near impossible,” as Reason‘s Mike Riggs explained in 2012. But that doesn’t justify Bigda’s continued employment. As the video shows, it was clear he had no business being in any sort of position of authority.

The fact that it took federal charges for him to suspended indefinitely is inexcusable.

A new report is out from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR)—the government’s watchdog for the war—and its findings paint an ugly picture: despite billions spent and thousands of U.S. lives lost, Afghanistan is facing worsening violence and instability.

SIGAR’s quarterly report to Congress—it’s 40^st since the conflict began—found that the U.S.-backed Afghan government controls or influences just 56 percent of the administrative districts in the country, down from 72 percent in 2015. By comparison, some 14 percent of districts are now controlled or influenced by insurgent forces, and another 30 percent are rated “contested.”

The loss of territory has coincided with a slight drop in violent incidents. There were a reported 63 violent incidences per day in Afghanistan from February to May of this year (the period covered by the SIGAR report), a 7 percent decrease from the same period last year. However, both targeted assassinations and suicide bombings were up in the same period, rising 35 percent and 78 percent respectively, from last year.

Civilian deaths are also up. A record 1,692 civilians were killed in the first six months of 2018, according to the SIGAR report, slightly more than the 1,672 civilians killed last year, and a massive increase from the 1,052 civilians killed in 2009. When factoring in injuries, total casualties had declined slightly in the first six months of this year to 5,122, down from 5,272 last year.

Of these casualties, the SIGAR report—relying on United Nations data—found that 67 percent were the result of anti-government forces, while 20 percent were attributed to pro-government forces, which would include the U.S.

Some 353 casualties (149 dead and 204 injured) were the result of airstrikes, up from 232 last year and coinciding with a sharp increase in the number of U.S. airstrikes this year.

In addition to the ongoing violence in the country, SIGAR has found that U.S. efforts to stabilize the country have “mostly failed,” despite our spending some $4.7 billion on such efforts since 2002. In a bulleted list of “lessons learned,” the SIGAR report notes that “the U.S. government greatly overestimated its ability to build and reform government institutions in Afghanistan” and U.S. aid—far from reducing violence or strengthening Afghan governance—often “exacerbated conflicts, enabled corruption, and bolstered support for insurgents.”

The SIGAR report also had harsh words for the U.S. government’s attempts to crackdown on opium production, with Special Inspector General John F. Sopko saying that despite $8 billion spent on counternarcotics efforts since 2002, “Afghanistan’s opium crisis is worse than ever.”

None of this should come as much of a surprise, given the mind-boggling waste SIGAR has previously reported in Afghanistan, including spending $43 million on a compressed natural gas station and another $60 million on a Marriot hotel in downtown Kabul that, despite being totally unoccupied, still requires heavy security to prevent insurgents using the ghost building as a base from which to fire rockets down into the nearby U.S. embassy.

This newest report is a depressing reminder that after losing 2,400 U.S. military personnel and spending some $900 billion total on the war, the U.S. has failed to build a stable, democratic Afghani government that can provide for its own security.

Donald Trump calls journalists who fail to fawn over him “the enemy of the people.” New York Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg calls right-wing commentators who say things that offend him “the Incitement Industry.” While the president’s critics hear echoes of Stalin and Mao in his rhetoric, I hear echoes of Brandenburg v. Ohio in Rutenberg’s.

Brandenburg is the 1969 case in which the Supreme Court held that it’s unconstitutional to punish people for advocating illegal activity or the use of force “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Rutenberg seems to be implying that hyperbolic, outlandish, and inaccurate statements by conservative provocateurs such as Jeanine Pirro, Dinesh D’Souza, and Ann Coulter meet that test, meaning that they could be punished or censored without violating the First Amendment.

Am I reading too much into Rutenberg’s column? You tell me:

[D’Souza’s movie Death of a Nation] makes the case that the Nazi platform was similar to that of today’s Democratic Party. Prominent among its villains is George Soros, who was allegedly sent a pipe bomb by Cesar Sayoc Jr., who also is accused of sending similar packages to Hillary Clinton and [Barack] Obama….

The Incitement Industry can also be a driving force at Fox News, which has lately featured guests who have asserted without evidence that Mr. Soros financed the migrant caravan making its slow way toward the southern border of the United States. Someone who shared that view was the man charged with killing 11 congregants during a hate-driven shooting rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

The implication is clear enough that Rutenberg felt a need to add a disclaimer:

Violent acts, it should be noted, are the responsibility of those who commit them, and the perpetrators have various ideological motivations. But the grist for emotionally disturbed or just plain violent people has never seemed so readily available.

It’s possible, of course, to believe that criminals should be held responsible for their own actions while also believing that people who incite others to violence, as Rutenberg suggests that D’Souza and Fox News have done, should be punished as well. Rutenberg stops short of saying that, instead advocating self-restraint by media gatekeepers:

Where is the line between falsehoods that may incite violence and good, old-fashioned American political hyperbole? And should book publishers and entertainment companies be more careful about the products they send out into the world in a tense sociopolitical atmosphere?

So no, Rutenberg is not saying the government should censor people like D’Souza, Pirro, and Coulter or arrest them for participating in the Incitement Industry. But neither did Trump say the journalists he condemns as enemies of the people should be executed. In both cases, the epithet is troubling because of the history to which it alludes. While it’s sadly plausible that Trump was (at least initially) ignorant of the relevant history, it would be hard for a professional chronicler of the media to claim the same excuse.

None of the commentary Rutenberg cites would actually meet the Brandenburg test, which requires an intent to incite violence and a likelihood of succeeding right away. But Rutenberg, who says the Incitement Industry promoted the ideas that “provided a backdrop for mass murder in Pittsburgh and the recent pipe-bomb mailings to Barack Obama, the Clintons, George Soros and CNN,” is charging his political opponents with complicity in homicidal violence. That’s a pretty neat trick in a column bemoaning extreme rhetoric.

President Donald Trump has a new, grossly misleading ad about immigration. It is clearly intended to cause outraged reactions and deepen the divide between those with differing opinions about how to handle foreigners coming to America.

In the unlikely event you have not yet seen the ad, here it is:

It is outrageous what the Democrats are doing to our Country. Vote Republican now! https://t.co/0pWiwCHGbh pic.twitter.com/2crea9HF7G

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 31, 2018

The murderer highlighted in the advertisement is Luis Bracamontes, a Mexican immigrant who was living in Utah illegally for years. He had been deported twice for drug crimes. In 2014, after a confrontation with deputies in the parking lot of a hotel in Sacramento who were there investigating complaints about drug deals and thefts, Bracamontes shot and killed one deputy, then went on a rampage, shooting a motorist while carjacking him, and later killing a sheriff’s detective.

He was utterly unrepentant when caught, and the clip of him used in Trump’s ad is from his sentencing hearing. He was sentenced to death in April.

The goal of the ad is obvious and unsurprising. Trump wants to paint the immigrants in the caravan currently marching toward the Mexican border as though they’re all potential Bracamonteses: invaders, terrorists, violent threats to our civil life that must be stopped before they disrupt society. He is using it as the justification to send thousands of troops to the border for no reason (which will no doubt consume plenty of the money from the latest absurdly unnecessary boost in military spending). He wants to blame Democrats and sanctuary cities (though as noted, Bracamontes had in fact been deported, not shielded).

It’s not true that immigrants are any more of a criminal threat to Americans than Americans are criminal threats to each other. It has never been true in the United States, even though fear of immigrants has been a recurring social tradition. Bracamontes is an anomaly. He’s a horrifyingly violent anomaly, and we shouldn’t act as though his murders aren’t a big deal. But treating all immigrants as potential murderers is the same sort of nonsense as treating all gun owners as potential mass shooters. Like those who try to use every high-profile shooting as a justification to diminish our constitutionally protected right to own guns, Trump wants to use fear to convince Americans to let him be more authoritarian and make our country less free.

The blatantly nativist and racist nature of the advertisement has brought forth condemnation and comparisons to the infamous GOP Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 presidential campaign, which used racially tinged crime fearmongering to attack presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.

Dukakis’ rival—George H.W. Bush—wasn’t directly involved in promoting that advertisement, and there are some who feel that Trump’s latest ad is even worse precisely because Trump himself is pushing it. In other words, this is another example of Trump “violating norms.” But honestly, as gross as the advertisement is, the fact that Trump is taking ownership of his awful message exposes the nasty underbelly of the political class. There’s no hiding behind some political action committee or blaming “dark money” for this spot, like many politicians do. These nasty, fear-based ads have been a part of our body politic forever. The one thing I’ll say for Trump is that he isn’t pretending the president is personally above the fray.

A few weeks ago, the Trump administration asked the Environmental Protection Agency to end its prohibition on the sale of E15—fuel that is 85 percent gasoline and 15 percent ethanol—during summer months, when the pollution from evaporative emissions is highest. The limitation was imposed to meet requirements under the Clean Air Act, though it allows for standards to be waived under certain circumstances, which the White House wants to utilize.

Some are hailing the move as a form of energy deregulation. Accepting this view, however, writes Veronique de Rugy, ignores why ethanol is blended with gasoline in the first place. Namely, the government demands it. Yet that isn’t stopping the administration from touting the new rule as “providing consumer choice” and “propping up the free market.” Something is being propped up, all right, but it’s not a free market.

View this article.

Yesterday the Supreme Court of Mexico issued two more rulings against marijuana prohibition, which means courts throughout the country will now be bound by the conclusion that prosecuting people for consuming cannabis is unconstitutional.

According to a summary from the court, “The fundamental right to the free development of the personality allows persons of legal age to decide—without any interference—what kind of recreational activities they wish to carry out and protects all the actions necessary to materialize that choice.” While “it was clarified that this right is not absolute and that the consumption of certain substances could be regulated,” the court added, “the effects caused by marijuana do not justify an absolute prohibition on its consumption.”

The court reached a similar conclusion in three earlier cases, decided in 2015 and 2017. Under Mexican law, five Supreme Court rulings on the same issue set a binding precedent, so people charged with offenses related to their own cannabis consumption should now be able to get the cases dismissed. The decisions do not extend to commercial production and distribution, and they do not directly change the law. But the upshot is that Mexicans can no longer be punished for possessing, sharing, or growing marijuana for personal use.

“The ruling only applies to personal possession and private use, and cultivation in the home for such use,” Steve Rolles, a senior policy analyst at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, told Marijuana Moment. “It also allows for sharing. So the situation will be somewhat similar perhaps to the give-and-grow schemes in Washington, D.C., and Vermont in that it doesn’t allow for commercial sales, though that seems likely to follow when lawmakers act to implement the ruling. Until the legislation is adopted, we will be in something of a gray area.” In a press release, Rolles observed that “legalisation of cannabis in Mexico means you can now travel the entire West Coast of North America, from the Arctic circle in Canada to the Mexican border with Guatemala, without leaving a legal cannabis jurisdiction.”

Reuters reports that “officials in the incoming government of President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador have indicated they could take steps to legalize marijuana quickly as part of a broader strategy to fight poverty and crime.” If that happens, the United States will be sandwiched between northern and southern neighbors that have repealed marijuana prohibition at the national level.

“This is extraordinary because it is taking place in one of the countries that has suffered the most from the war on drugs,” Hannah Hetzer, senior international policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance, said in a press release. “With marijuana already legal in Canada, now both of the US’s neighbors will have legal marijuana, making the US federal government’s prohibition of marijuana even more untenable.”

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City is currently hosting an exhibition called Everything Is Connected: Art and Conspiracy, and I’ll be speaking at the Met Fifth Avenue tomorrow night as part of the program. The organizers asked me to be there because I wrote a book in 2013 called The United States of Paranoia; I’ll be sharing the stage with Jack Bratich, author of 2008’s Conspiracy Panics.

My talk will be a history-rich look at the intersection between conspiracy stories created as works of fiction and conspiracy stories that people actually believe in, and what happens when a story crosses over from the first category to the second. I don’t know what Bratich plans to say, but I was impressed the last time I saw him speak and so I expect to enjoy his remarks tomorrow too.

The event starts at 6:30, and it’s free. For more details, go here.

(On a related note: I have a cameo in this podcast on the Ong’s Hat hoax/game/art project/conspiracy theory.)

David Stewart’s tenure as mayor of Lantana, Florida, has hit a speed bump.

In 2015, Catherine Padilla asked the city government to install safety speed bumps after cars in her neighborhood hit a poodle, a cat, and a young girl. Padilla claims Stewart said he’d make sure the speed bumps were installed—if she had sex with him.

According to an ethics panel, there’s “probable cause” to think she’s telling the truth.

Padilla says that after having lunch with the mayor one day, he drove her to a local motel and said he wanted to “occupy” a room together, The Palm Beach Post reports.

“He pulled into this motel and got out of his van and I just kept motioning no, no I’m not interested,” Padilla told WPTV in February.

She has also said that before the Lantana Town Council voted on the speed bumps, the mayor told her he’d make sure they were approved if she slept with him. Once more, she refused.

The council approved the speed bumps anyway, but Padilla says that Stewart threatened to have them removed.

In January of this year, Padilla filed a complaint about Stewart with the Florida Commission on Ethics. Stewart, who’s been mayor of Lantana since 2000, has denied the allegations. “In the 18 years I’ve been mayor there has never been a quid pro quo or anything asked for or given in favor of me voting in a special or certain direction,” he told WPTV in February.

Stewart says he didn’t go to lunch with Padilla or drive her to a motel. But a local pastor, Michael DeBehnke, told the commission he saw the two at lunch together.

On October 24, the commission announced in a press release there was “probable cause” to believe Stewart acted inappropriately:

The Commission found probable cause to believe that Lantana Mayor DAVID STEWART misused his position to attempt to obtain a sexual benefit for himself. Probable cause also was found to believe he solicited sex from a constituent based on an understanding his vote, official action, or judgment would be influenced.

Stewart subsequently told the Palm Beach Post it would be “inappropriate to comment at this time.”

Commission spokesperson Kerrie Stillman tells the Post that Stewart can either settle the case or go before an administrative law judge. If he chooses the second option and is found guilty, he could be fined, suspended, or kicked out of office.