Bands Can Drink Onstage Thanks to This New Hampshire Libertarian

Brandon Phinney ||| Brandon Phinney“Being an elected person is not about partisan politics to me,” says New Hampshire State Rep. Brandon Phinney, one of 170-plus Libertarian Party members who hold elected office in the United States. “It’s about public policy and being able to provide the maximum freedom for all individuals in this state, and not worrying about the bullshit of anything else.”

Phinney, a 30-year-old Army reservist, atheist, and occasional rock musician (he was once in a band called Godcrusher), is conducting a rare electoral experiment his year—trying to win re-election to a state legislature under the Libertarian banner after switching parties while in office. His case to the Republican voters who initially put him in office? He was more interested in cutting government than New Hampshire’s GOP leadership, and he successfully purged two anachronistic, freedom-infringing laws from the books.

The most notable of the latter was strange quirk in New Hampshire employment law that classified visiting performers as employees, thus putting them in the cross-hairs of the state’s all-powerful Liquor Commission. As a result of Phinney’s exertions, beginning this month, bands have more latitude to drink on stage. Freedom!

I wrote about Phinney in the L.A. Times last month, and interviewed him two weeks ago on SiriusXM Insight’s Stand UP! with Pete Dominick program. The conversation ranged from his law-purging efforts, to his belief that kids should think twice about joining the Army, to his leeriness of a premature coronation of Bill Weld as the L.P.’s 2020 presidential nominee. The following is an edited transcript.

Welch: Walk us through a little bit about how you legalized the drinking of booze on stage by bands.

Brandon Phinney: I’m going to make one quick correction on that: So what the bill actually did, it didn’t stipulate in the law that such and such a band or comedian or whoever that performs in this state will be able to then drink alcohol. What the bill actually did was change the employment status of entertainers in the state, from employees of the venue to private contractors. So that would, essentially, remove them from any stipulations under the employment laws that say things like, well, you can’t drink on the job.

I had had some conversations with some friends of mine that book shows at places down here, and they said that they’ve had bands either turn down the opportunity to play here, or they’ve come here and haven’t come back…because the state won’t allow people to drink while performing. That may not seem a huge deal to a lot of people, but we’re a pretty small state and it’s hard to compete with the Boston market for bands when we’re trying to bring some of that stuff back up to New Hampshire. We have big country tours that come up here and play as well, and that’s a part of their act—they want to be able to toast to the audience, take a shot and whatnot. But we have a state agency that would shut that place down or revoke the ability of the venue to serve alcohol.

So it’s a big, government-controlled environment that I’m trying to remove their influence from. We successfully got the bill passed, and they actually supported it, which I was kind of surprised by.

Welch: Who’s “they”?

Phinney: The Liquor Commission. All of our stores in the state are owned by the state, so we don’t have any private competition up here, and they keep a pretty tight ship.

Welch: Wait a second here—this is the Live Free or Die State! There’s a whole Free State Project that’s happening up there! And you only have state-run liquor stores? What kind of heathens are you?

Phinney: Well, we’ve been trying to change that for many, many years, but because the state makes so much money on it, they’re incentivized to keep it going. I was planning on putting some more bills to try to weaken their power over that, but it’s really an uphill battle, because as long as the other two parties in office want to have that money, that’s not going to change.

Welch: So you discovered this issue through playing in bands and talking with venues, or through your [work] as a politician?

Phinney: I have been influenced by playing in a lot of bands over the years. I’ve been playing in bands since I was like 16, so we’re talking like 2004, and that’s always been an issue: I’m anxious when I get on stage and perform. I don’t do it very often, so I might want to have a beer while I’m up there, to kind of calm my nerves. And that’s the case for a lot of people.

But then if the Liquor Commission comes in and sees you with alcohol on stage, they can shut the entire show down, they can fine the owners up to a thousand dollars or more. It’s crazy! To me, it’s a scam: You’re coming in here and trying to say what I am and am not allowed to do with my own time and with my own body? You don’t own alcohol. Give me a break!

This was coupled with my first-term philosophy of trying to repeal erroneous and unenforceable laws. That was an unenforceable law. We have hundreds of bars in this state, and a lot of them provide live entertainment. [The Liquor Commission doesn’t] have the manpower to go into every bar and say, “Oh, don’t drink on stage,” or only in one arbitrary part of the venue where if you move five feet and you go to this area, you can’t drink alcohol anymore. To me, that was ridiculous.

Welch: You talk about repealing unenforceable laws, or laws that can be arbitrarily enforced as well. Talk to us about your heroic work of legalizing milk bottles.

Phinney: So we had a law from, I think, 1907, that essentially said that only milk products can go in milk containers. And my thought process was, well, in those days they were probably still delivering milk to your house in some way, so they were concerned about sanitary issues.

The way that I interpret the law in 2018 was that now they’re more concerned about commercial use on farms and whatnot, where there’d be cross-contamination in the bins and containers that they use. But from what I’ve seen, that’s never been an issue. And I’m not sure about you, but I trust farmers to know how to sanitize their stuff. They know how to maintain their product, and they’re not going to do anything that’s going to put their ability to make money on a product at risk.

So I put in a bill to essentially repeal the criminal penalty for using a milk container for things other than milk. Didn’t see any opposition to it, seemed pretty cut-and-dry. What was in my favor was that I was told the day that I was going to talk about the bill to the committee, was that it was being attached to a Senate bill that was overhauling the entire code anyway. So it was a pretty easy win there.

Those two bills that I applied and sponsored passed unanimously, which was crazy to me. They know I’m in a third party, quote unquote, and they still support the idea of the policy change. And to me, that’s what I’m trying to convey as a representative. I’m not only in the party, but also just being an elected person is not about partisan politics to me, it’s about public policy and being able to provide the maximum freedom for all individuals in this state, and not worrying about the bullshit of anything else.

Welch: You weren’t always a member of the Libertarian Party. You were elected in 2016 as a Republican, even though in this entire conversation you’ve sounded as Libertarian as they come. Talk about why you ran as a Republican, and then why you switched parties.

Phinney: Being an independent at that time required petitioning and signatures and whatnot, and being a first-time candidate, I really didn’t have the ability to do that. So I begrudgingly signed up as a Republican. Because all in all, we have some similar economic ideas. So I ran under their banner, and I got elected as a first-time candidate, just hitting doors and talking to people and just kind of being out there. I won by like 116 votes. 2016 was part of the federal cycle, and I think that because it was the year of Trump, it was pretty easy to get a lot of those hardline Republican people to come out and vote for the ticket.

When I got to the legislature, things were fine for the first month or two, and then I started to notice that the caucus was very fractious. There was a small part of small-Ls in that party that really didn’t get any headway with leadership; they were trying to push some policies and issues that were trying to maximize personal freedom and cut a lot of spending and taxes. I think a lot of people in leadership were more worried about what the other party was going to be doing and trying to counter that. But the House, the Senate, and…the governor’s seat are all controlled by the GOP in New Hampshire now, so they’re more concerned about trying to keep the other party from gaining any ground than really focusing on any public policy issues.

That year happened to be the budget year of 2017, so I saw how they wanted to spend all of our money, and that immediately set off every red flag imaginable. There was a concerted effort by the House Freedom Caucus, which is the political ultra-conservative wing of the party, which had a lot of small-Ls in there. They tried to get the budget cut even more, but they just weren’t getting any headway. And I just kind of, over the course of the month, realized that there was no cohesion, and there was no leeway for promoting the ideas of the Liberty Movement up here, and I just got tired of it. I had wanted to switch way earlier in the year, but I was the last one to switch. Caleb Dyer was first because he got sick of it right off the bat.

Welch: Fellow state rep.

Phinney: Yes. And getting bullied by the Speaker of the House in front of me, and seeing how they kind of operate with their own people. I was just horrified. But being the last to switch, I just waited until after we were finished with the session here, and I was like, “You know what? This isn’t my home. I don’t belong here. I don’t like anything that they’re doing.”

I had a meeting with Gov. [Chris] Sununu in his office, and I said, “Look, I think you’re a great guy, but I really don’t like your budget. I don’t like anything that you’re doing policy-wise as far as trying to implement full-day kindergarten and all these social programs that are just going to ramp up spending and raise property taxes over the next ten years, at least….I’m sorry, but I’ve got to leave, and I’m switching parties in two weeks.”

I have to give him some credit, he was actually pretty cool about it. I’m [also] a nobody in that party; being a first-time rep, I probably didn’t pose any threat. But I can promise you I’ve been a lot more public and a lot more big-mouthed since I’ve switched parties, where I don’t have those strings attached to me anymore. I can kind of be my own person—you’re not worried about someone calling and complaining about something that you’ve posted.

Welch: So has the Republican Party sent someone to take you out at the knees in the election here in November? What’s it like to actually campaign with the “L” embroidered on your pink sweater?

Phinney: It hasn’t been as bad as I thought it would. I’ve got people who are saying, “Oh, I’m never going to vote for you.” I don’t care about that anymore. I’ve had other people tell me, even with them knowing the party affiliation that I have, that they focus more about what I’m talking about. I’ve heard people from other wards in my city say, “Oh, I wish you were in my ward so I could vote for you!”

In New Hampshire, a lot of older folks, they tend to be more conservative up here. And to have that kind of support from people that know what party I’m in; they don’t care about that, they hear what I’m saying, and they see the issues that I care about. It’s been easier to talk to people who aren’t in public office. But for a lot of people that are in public office, they can’t get past the party affiliation, the fact that I switched. I’ve been called a turncoat, I’ve been called a traitor, I’ve been called all kinds of silly things, for the simple fact that I care more about my principles than any party that I’m in.

And that’s why I got elected in the first place. I never lied to anybody about what I stood on. I have always had these principles of individual liberty and cutting spending and taxes. I know it’s kind of a cliché thing to say, but I lived it and I’ve proven it by way that I’ve voted and the bills that I’ve sponsored.

There are people on the ballot against me, but I don’t think it’s strong opposition, I think it’s just people to put names on the ballot.

Welch: You referenced Trump earlier in connection to your own initial election. What are your views on him?

Phinney: Oh, Jesus. Well, look, I don’t hate the guy, but…it’s not about policy, it’s about trying to get people triggered and offended, and calling out the media constantly, and then starting Twitter wars with other countries. It just really gets tiring, and I stop paying attention to it. Now we’re talking about a Space Force? I just have lost all hope that this administration will do anything in the interest of people or in the interest of common sense.

People had asked me when I was first campaigning, “Oh, are you going to vote for Trump?” And I’d say, “No, sorry, I’m not going to vote for Trump. I think he’s a joke.” I tried to give him a chance, I really did, and I tried to be wary about some of the things that I criticized him on. I want to be open minded. But he’s been president for almost two years now, and I’m just so over it.

But now that the socialists are kind of taking over the other party, I’m concerned that he’s going to win election again in 2020. And that’s why the L.P. has to put up somebody that knows how to debate, that knows all of our platform ideas and can speak to them properly to the public, to try to take down some of that influence. I don’t want to see authoritarian government anywhere, federal or state, and I’m worried that that’s kind of the trend that we’re going, because everyone’s so against the socialists and whatnot that they’re just ramping up the other side of it by being the more conservative. Not for our interest, but for interest of the government.

It’s going to be an interesting event in 2020, for sure.

Welch: What kind of person are you looking for the Libertarian Party to put up in 2020? A Bill Weld type? Maybe someone like Justin Amash, a current Republican who’s clearly not feeling comfortable in the party? Maybe some outside billionaire like Patrick Byrne from Overstock, or Mark Cuban, or someone like that? What’s your typology of the person that you think would do well or best represent the party going forward?

Phinney: I really would like to get out of the cult of celebrity idea, the whole cult of personality thing, and I think that even the L.P. is succumbing to that with the whole Bill Weld thing. He has endorsed my campaign officially, and that’s fine, I’m very grateful for that. But at the same time, I don’t want another person that’s going to divide the party when we should be uniting and trying to change our focus from internal conflicts to changing the way people vote, and getting our candidates elected. I think if people can see me and Caleb get elected again, Sen. [Laura] Ebke in Nebraska—if we can show that our candidates can get elected, I think people would be more open minded toward our party.

But at the same time, the field of [presidential] candidates I’m not confident in at the moment. They have to raise a crapload of money to be able to get the media time to make the kind of initial pushes in all of the states that we know we can get a lot of votes in. Bill Weld is kind of the person on top of that, but I’m not ready to give him my vote at the moment. I’m not against Bill; I think he’s a great person, I’ve met him, I’ve talked to him a bunch of times. But I’m not confident that he’ll get the nomination from our party that easily. There’s a lot of conflicts with the things that he said in 2016 that I think people are just not OK with.

So I’m not sure yet, but I really am not concerned about that at the moment—I’m concerned about the campaign I’m currently on, if I can be selfish for a second, because I think it’s important that we get a win somewhere. Just give me a win that’s more than just a little water board thing or even city council. Give me something more, where people can say, “Hey, our candidates can get elected! I want to vote for that guy, and I’m more open to his party.” I’m tired of hearing that we’re just the Republicans who like weed and guns. I want to be more than that. And if somebody can effectively promote an idea that is not cliché and is not stereotypical and is more than just about marijuana, then I think that we can make some headway.

Welch: You’re an Army vet. Famously in 2016, the moment that people always talk about, probably more than is warranted, is when presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party Gary Johnson said, “And what is Aleppo?” on MSNBC. There is a caricature of Libertarians as being out of touch with foreign policy and military culture and life. It is a caricature. There are a lot of Libertarians who came to it by serving overseas. Can you speak briefly to that and your own journey and exposure to libertarian ideas as a veteran?

Phinney: Well, I’ve been in the Army since 2009. I’m actually still currently serving—I’ve got three years left in the National Guard. So I’ve been in for a big chunk of my adult life, and been able to see a lot of that foreign policy up close and personal. Thankfully, I’ve never been to combat, and I don’t think it’s a badge of honor to say that you have. There was a time where I wanted to get that experience so I could understand where people are coming from a lot better, and to just feel like my service had purpose, but since my philosophies have changed, I’m super in favor of non-intervention as foreign policy. I want to close down all of our foreign occupying bases around the world, especially in places like Germany. I’m not afraid of a Soviet invasion as much as other people are. Get us out of Japan. Get us out of places where we’re kind of just hanging out for the what-ifs.

I think that if we’re going to believe in a country’s sovereignty, including our own, then we let them deal with their own affairs….They need to kind of figure things out for themselves. And that’s not to say that we want to be isolationists in any way, but I think that the way that we’re taking care of them by giving them money gives us the green light to say, well, we can come to your country and do whatever we want.

I don’t want be that guy in the world. I don’t want to be the world police. I want people to be able to take care of their own affairs and not put our people in the line of fire when it doesn’t have anything to do with us. I know that’s not really a popular opinion, but people are dying every day, including our own. For what? There’s no purpose for us to be in Afghanistan anymore.

But it’s been cool being able to talk to people in the unit that I’m in. I’m in an engineer company, so I’m a construction engineer, I’m an electrician. And we get to talk about some of the things that I’ve been doing in office, and I’ve been able to provide some of my ideas on what our role as a military is, and it’s been pretty cool to be able to influence a lot of them and get them to agree with my stance. But we have to follow regulations, and we could be called up at any time to go anywhere, so it’s that kind of conflict that I have internally whenever I go to drill.

I’ve served my time, and I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished. I’ve done a lot of humanitarian projects in El Salvador, I’ve been to some cool places. But I’m ready to move on in my life, and I would encourage anybody that wants to serve their country to do it in another way. I think, right now, being in the military isn’t…I won’t say it’s a bad thing, but there’s got to be a better way to serve people than being a part of the government.

Welch: Representative of the government warns about being a pawn of the government….

Phinney: I know, it’s kind of hypocritical and I understand that. But I was in this long prior to me being interested in politics and being a candidate for office, and my eyes have been opened a lot to a lot of things. It’s contradictory to continue to wear the uniform when I don’t support anything that our government does overseas in other countries, and I don’t want be a part of it anymore. But I need to fulfill my obligations and get out the right way.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Pkcfpk
via IFTTT

NORTHCOM Commander: “The U.S. Homeland Is No Longer A Sanctuary”

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Air Force General Terrence O’Shaughnessy ended a speech at the 140th National Guard Association conference in New Orleans this weekend with an ominous warning that the era of great power competition doesn’t leave the United States mainland uncontested. The U.S. “homeland is no longer a sanctuary,” according to the four-star general.

According to The Military Times, O’Shaughnessy says that peer-level adversaries are probing U.S. defenses in multiple domains and that the continental United States is well within their sights.

“We’re in a changing security environment,” O’Shaughnessy said. “We used to think about the sanctuary we had with oceans and friendly countries to our north and south, but that’s changing with adversaries that are actually able to reach out and touch us now.”

O’Shaughnessy’s concerns fall right in line with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ new National Defense Strategy.  This strategy just so happens to prioritizes peer-level adversaries as greater threats than lower-end insurgent forces like those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade.  According to O’Shaughnessy and Mattis, those peer-level foes are Russia and China. That breaks down simply: The U.S. is no longer immune to attacks from Russia or China.

According to The Daily WireO’Shaughnessy asserted,

“We’re in a changing security environment. We used to think about the sanctuary we had with oceans and friendly countries to our north and south, but that’s changing with adversaries that are actually able to reach out and touch us now.”

“We have to think about our defense in different ways than we have in the past. That means we need to fundamentally re-think when we say homeland defense how we’re going to do that against a peer competitor … A good example is the new AESA radars we’re trying to put in the F-16s, and we’re making progress.”

That was a reference to Northrop Grumman’s APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar when the Air Force chose to upgrade 72 Air National Guard F-16 Falcons in 2017. The APG-83 helps the F-16 to detect, track, and identify more targets faster and at longer ranges. Northrop Grumman also stated the radar is capable of operating in hostile electronic environments.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Dave Goldfein told The Military Times,

It’s probably dangerous for us to think we can physically be a sanctuary when we’re in competition below a level of armed conflict, and we have a couple of new domains that our adversaries are operating in: cyber and space.

… Our competitors have studied the way we fight and the way we operate and are investing in and training in ways to take those advantages away from us.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2or7rCR Tyler Durden

Some Observations On Argentina’s IMF-Sponsored Collapse

As reported earlier today, in response to the unprecedented drop in the Argentina Peso, the Argentina Central Bank (CBRA) decided to engage in an “emergency” rate hike, and as the peso collapsed to 39/USD, it unexpectedly raised the key 7-day leliq rate to 60% (a 1500bp hike). The rate was last hiked from 40% to 45% on Aug 13th. The bank also confirmed there will no rate cuts until December.

Unfortunately for Argentina, the dramatic rate hike is not enough, and with the market expecting some fiscal intervention, the ARS has resumed its slide and was trading at session lows at last check.

But what about the IMF backstop? Well, the market does not appear to be giving the IMF too much credibility, and there may be a reason why as Constantin Gurdgiev explains. Here are his thoughts:

After a short wait, @IMFNews are back in business of taking over small and large-ish countries… and it’s next M&A target is its favourite one: #Argentina, one country that IMF can never cure of itself.

Greek Government spokesperson: “Greece is not Argentina”

In SIX IMF programs of 1992-1999 period, Argentina fulfilled NOT ONE of the IMF conditions for lending in… err… all 6 of these programs. Of the 61 years between 1956 and 2017, the country was under an IMF program for 40. In year 62, it is in program year 41…

By the ENTIRE history of Argentina, new IMF lending to the country is the most perfect exemplification of doing the same thing for 62 years, yet expecting a different outcome.

But do not despair: IMF lending to #Argentina will not completely wasted. It will feed caviar & champagne to an army of advisers, analysts, lobbyists, specialists, technical experts and similarly useless economists inhabiting Washington DC and environs.

Of course, this time, all will be different. The new IMF facility – agreed June this year is the LARGEST IMF loan in history to any state – USD50bn. Argentina’s Government deficit was 6.46% of GDP in 2017 (Italy’s, for comparison was 1.93%). ARG gross Gov debt is at ca 52.6% which is a slim shadow of Italy’s 131.5%. But, ARG current account balance is -5.1% of GDP, while Italy’s is +2.6%. As large as the IMF facility is, it will ONLY cover 14 months of Argentine Current Account Deficit.

All of which means one simple thing: after the last large scale IMF program (excluding subsequent lending to prop up post-program failures), ARG entered a period of economic Depression.

In conclusion: This time, it won’t be much more different, folks.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2wrUj4T Tyler Durden

NYC Housing Authority Embroiled in Boozy, Salacious Orgy Scandal

Two New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) employees have been suspended and dozens more transferred amid allegations of on-the-clock staff orgies at a Bronx public housing project.

The New York Daily News first reported on the scandal earlier this week, which involved booze-filled sex parties held in a groundskeeper’s shop. Sources told the Daily News that the parties took place on Fridays and included lots of sexual activity between supervisors and their subordinates. When the orgies were held after work, staff would apparently claim overtime for the hours they spent partying.

According to Throggs Neck Houses Tenant Association President Monique Johnson, nothing could get in the way of the staffers’ desire to party. “[It happened on] overtime, during working hours, after working hours, any day or any time of the day,” Johnson tells the New York Post. “I now understand why work wasn’t getting done.”

One resident says the state of the housing development suffered while the staffers were otherwise occupied. “In the meantime, we kept seeing the garbage pile up, the grounds not being kept, lights not being replaced in a timely matter,” Lehra Brooks, 66, tells The New York Times.

It wasn’t just the partying. Johnson tells the Times that many staffers weren’t involved in the salacious behavior. But they were told that if they spoke up, they’d face retaliation.

NYCHA higher-ups found out about the scandal in May and started investigating soon thereafter. On Friday, NYCHA General Manager Vito Mustaciuolo reassigned the entire Throggs Neck staff—about 40 people in all—to other apartment complexes. “We’ve had longstanding concerns about management and performance issues at Throggs Neck,” NYCHA spokesperson Robin Levine tells the Times. “Those concerns, coupled with troubling allegations of misconduct, are why the staff was reassigned. We can’t comment further on an ongoing investigation.”

In addition to reassigning dozens of employees, NYCHA suspended two of the Throggs Neck staffers without pay: grounds supervisor Brianne Pawson and caretaker Tayron Hazel. According to the Daily News, the suspensions weren’t handed down until Tuesday, one day after news of the scandal broke. It’s worth pointing out that Pawson is the daughter of NYCHA executive Charles Pawson.

The Throggs Neck development will surely benefit from an entirely new staff, though this latest scandal comes after years of problems for the massive apartment complex, which houses more than 2,700 residents. Last year, for instance, NYCHA faced accusations that it found traces of lead paint in 78 of the development’s apartments, but didn’t reveal that information to residents.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2Pm8Whs
via IFTTT

Is Trump Right About “Flipping”?

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

In the wake of the federal criminal conviction of former Trump official Paul Manafort and the guilty plea in federal court of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, the mainstream press is singing the praises of special prosecutor (and former FBI Director) Robert Mueller and the Justice Department.

In the process, Trump’s critics are condemning his denunciation of “flipping,” the process by which federal prosecutors offer a sweet deal to criminal defendants in return for testifying against a “higher-up” who the feds are also prosecuting. The press and the anti-Trumpsters say that such a practice is part of the “rule of law” and essential to the proper administration of justice.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever else might be said about Trump, he is absolutely right on this point. The process of offering sweetheart deals to people in return for their “cooperation” to get someone else convicted has long been one of the most corrupt aspects of the federal criminal-justice system, especially as part of the federal government’s much-vaunted (and much-failed) war on drugs.

Suppose a federal criminal defendant contacts a prospective witness in a case and offers him $50,000 in return for his “cooperation” in his upcoming trial. The money will be paid as soon as the trial is over. The defendant makes it clear that he wants the witness to “tell the truth” but that his “cooperation” when he testifies at trial would be greatly appreciated.

What would happen if federal officials learned about that communication and offer? They would go ballistic. They would immediately secure an indictment for bribery and witness tampering.

What if the defendant says, “Oh, no, I wasn’t tampering with the witness. I specifically told him that I wanted him to tell the truth when he took the witness stand. I was just seeking his friendly ‘cooperation’ with my $50,000 offer to him.”?

It wouldn’t make a difference. Federal prosecutors would go after him with a vengeance on bribery and witness-tampering charges. And it is a virtual certainty that they would get a conviction.

There is good reason for that. The law recognizes that the money could serve as an inducement for the witness to lie. Even though the defendant tells him to “tell the truth,” the witness knows that the fifty grand is being paid to him to help the defendant get acquitted, especially since it is payable after the trial is over. The temptation to lie, in return for the money, becomes strong, which is why the law prohibits criminal defendants from engaging in this type of practice.

Suppose a federal prosecutor says to a witness,

“You are facing life in prison on the charges we have brought against you. But if you ‘cooperate’ with us to get John Doe, we will adjust the charges so that the most the judge can do is send you to jail for only 5 years at most. If you are really ‘cooperative,’ we will recommend that the judge give you the lowest possible sentence, perhaps even probation. Oh, one more thing, we want to make it clear that we do want you to tell the truth.”

Do you see the problem? The temptation to please the prosecutor with “cooperation” becomes tremendous. If the witness can help secure a conviction of Doe, he stands to get a much lighter sentence for his successful “cooperation.” The inducement to commit perjury oftentimes takes over, notwithstanding the prosecutor’s admonition to the witness to “tell the truth.”

Defenders of this corrupt process say that without it, prosecutors could never get convictions. That’s pure nonsense. For one thing, prosecutors can secure a conviction against the witness and then force him to testify once his case is over. That’s because a person whose case is over is unable to rely on the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying in the case against John Doe.

Moreover, the prosecutor can give what is called “use immunity” to the witness, which then forces him to testify in the case against Doe. Use immunity is not full immunity from prosecution. It simply means that the prosecutor cannot use the witness’s testimony against Doe to convict the witness at his trial. The prosecutor must convict him with other evidence.

But even if it means that the prosecutor is unable to secure some convictions, the question has to be asked: Do we want prosecutors securing convictions in this way? After all, there is a related question that must be asked: How many innocent people are convicted by perjured testimony from a witness who is doing his best to “cooperate” with the prosecution in the hope of getting a lighter sentence?

Given all the accolades being accorded Mueller, it is a shame that he has chosen to go down the same corrupt road that all other federal prosecutors have traveled. He didn’t have to do that. He could have led the way out of this immoral morass by taking a firm and public stand against this corrupt procedure. The fact that he has chosen instead to participate in it is a shame, to say the least.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2C18SBK Tyler Durden

Huge North Carolina Fentanyl Bust Turns Out To Be 13 Pounds of Sugar

|||New Hanover County Sheriff's OfficeIn July, New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office (NHCSO) made a big fuss about a huge fentanyl bust.

Sheriff Ed McMahon proudly boasted “one of the largest seizures in the state” after the NHCSO’s Gang Task Force seized an estimated $2 million worth of ‘the deadly opioid fentanyl’ during a raid. Three Wilmington residents were arrested as a result. “When you think about this poison—this fentanyl—one grain can kill you,” McMahon said. “Our detectives are having to gear up with all this safety equipment before we go in. Once they get in, if we find something—any kind of drugs that we think may be fentanyl—we stop, we have to get our CSI team to come in and we test that in a lab now under special conditions. So we do all that, it makes it that much more dangerous for our local law enforcement officers.”

Months after McMahon made his alarming statements, Lt. Jerry Brewer announced that a private lab found the “fentanyl” was actually “a combination of simple and complex carbohydrates.” In other words: sugar.

The false positive came from a field test kit used by CSI in the bust. The field test kit was invented and administered by Scott Company Drug Testing, which was founded by a retired DEA agent and forensic chemist. According to its website, the field test kit uses “reagents that have held up in court since 1978.” The company also assures the integrity of officers and their investigations. Despite this promise, Brewer confirmed that it was in fact possible for the field test kit to make false identifications of fentanyl, as it had in this case.

In a four-page release to WECT, the company said, “Under certain circumstances, sugar substances can mimic a false positive result.” The company also stated that it would be providing more training about the nature of “presumptive tests,” on which the kit relies, and confirmatory tests, which uses additional measures to make conclusions about a substance.

This is not the first time a false positive in a field test kit led to a drug arrest. A 65-year-old retiree, Daniel Rushing, was awarded $37,500 from the city of Orlando, Florida, after being pulled over in a traffic stop by police. An officer used a field test kit to test the white substance present in his vehicle. After officers first tried to identify the substance as crack cocaine, they eventually arrested Rushing for the possession of methamphetamine “with a weapon,” despite the fact he legally possessed a concealed carry in his vehicle. A lab test later revealed that the suspicious white substance was glaze from the doughnuts Rushing ate in his vehicle.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2NyFhB9
via IFTTT

Wells Fargo Fires Over A Dozen Bankers For Doctoring Expense Receipts

In what may be the most innocent violation to emerge out of Wells Fargo in years, the WSJ reports that Wells has fired or suspended more than a dozen employees in its investment bank and is investigating dozens of others over violations of the company’s expense policy regarding after-hours meals.

According to the report, Wells Fargo employees ranging from analysts to managing directors in New York, San Francisco and Charlotte, doctored receipts on dinners that they charged to the bank.

“We became aware that certain Wells Fargo Securities team members were not complying with the after-hours meals reimbursement policies after they were brought to the attention of our leaders by concerned team members,” a Wells Fargo spokeswoman said in a statement. “We took action to address the issue and we continue to investigate the matter.”

Wells Fargo, like most other big banks, reimburses staffers for food that they order when they have to stay late at the office to work on deals and other assignments for clients. Some bankers have been known to fabricate the receipts entirely, getting reimbursement cash for a “meal” that was never ordered.

In this particular case, the violation was far less serious: as the WSJ reports, executives within the investment-bank division learned that some employees regularly placed dinner orders through delivery services like GrubHub, Seamless or Square’s Caviar earlier than the policy allowed, the people said. Later, employees allegedly altered the time stamps on emailed receipts to make their meals eligible for reimbursement.

That discovery kicked off an internal review into months of expense filings that resulted in employees being fired or placed on administrative leave and that caused a delay in bonuses that were due to analysts earlier this summer, the people said. Since May, at least nine Wells Fargo analysts and associates have been terminated or have resigned voluntarily after the bank alleged they altered their meal receipts, according to a review of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority records. Banks generally have 30 days to update Finra records.

Of course, as anyone on Wall Street knows, this is a generally accepted practice across most banks, where management typically turns a blind eye and pretends not to notice this modest perk, traditionally taken advantage of by junior bankers, and which ultimately does not hurt shareholders as most of the expenses end up getting comped by clients as part of a far bigger bill.

According to some studies, fake expensing by bankers had been a major driver for the New York restaurant industry which was hurt in the aftermath of the financial crisis, when banks clamped down on the practice of expensing large meals altogether.

However, some more enterprising companies found workarounds: last year, Maloney & Porcelli created an “expense-report generator” that lets you take the total you spent on your meal (or essentially any figure that you choose) and created fake cab, office supply, and cheap-o meal receipts so your boss won’t know about the filet mignon and merlot you had on the company’s tab.

Some took offense at this perk that allowed starving bankers to go back to enjoying their $21 shrimp cocktails, $44 rib steaks ($10 sides are extra), and $46 filet mignons. Incidentlaly, Maloney & Porcelli, is located in the middle of Bank Row in Manhattan’s Midtown East, at the nexus of JP Morgan, UBS, and the former Bear Sterns buildings. Praised as the “best business lunch in NYC” by Gourmet Magazine, they were certainly feeling the pinch.

And now in order to demonstrate just how “clean” it is, Wells decided to pull the practice altogether and soon most other banks will have to follow suit.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Pn2GpD Tyler Durden

After a Shocking Murder Conviction, the Texas Cop Who Shot Jordan Edwards Is Going to Prison

|||Mesquite Independent School DistrictA jury’s conviction of former Texas Police Officer Roy Oliver in the death of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards came as a shock to many. Officers who shoot civilians often escape punishment, even when evidence of wrongdoing is substantial. Now, Oliver has been sentenced for murder. The sentence, however, is much lighter than Edwards’ family had hoped.

After spending hours deliberating, a jury agreed on Wednesday evening to sentence Oliver to 15 years in prison for Edwards’ death. He must also pay a $10,000 fine. According to FindLaw, a murder conviction can carry a sentence anywhere between five and 99 years in state prison.

Charmaine Edwards, Jordan’s mother, reacted to the sentence by saying, “This is a start for us and we can get some kind of closure.”

Edwards died after attending a party in Balch Springs, Texas, in May 2017. Officers like Oliver arrived on the scene in response to a call about underage teen drinking. Edwards, his brother, and his friends attempted to leave the party. Oliver claimed that the car in which Edwards sat backed up “in an aggressive manner” toward him and his partner. He began shooting. In an unusual twist, Police Chief Jonathan Haber publicly contradicted Oliver after the initial reporting, saying that the car was actually driving forward.

A jury found Oliver guilty of murder on Tuesday. He was found not guilty of two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by a public servant.

NBC DFW reports that Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson stated that the length of Oliver’s sentence meant that he was not eligible for an appeal bond. Because of this, he was immediately taken into custody. His legal team has already made plans to appeal the verdict. Bob Gill, the attorney representing Oliver, said, “I think what we want people to take from this is that anytime a police officer is called upon and forced to exercise his deadly force option, it’s a tragedy for both the officer and the family of the deceased involved.” Gill was referring to Oliver’s defense of the shooting. Body camera footage shown the jury, however, showed the car driving away from Oliver when he opened fire. Still, Oliver maintained during the trial that he had to use lethal force as a “car is a deadly weapon.”

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2wuaxuk
via IFTTT

“Sloppy” Carl Bernstein Hits Back At Trump: “I Stand By My Reporting” 

Journalist Carl Bernstein hit back against insults lobbed by President Trump on Wednesday, saying he stands by his July report that then-candidate Trump had prior knowledge of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, something which Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, was allegedly prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller.

“I have spent my life as a journalist bringing the truth to light, through administrations of both parties,” Bernstein tweeted at Trump. “No taunt will diminish my commitment to that mission, which is the essential role of a free press. @CNN stands by its story, and I stand by my reporting,” tweeted Bernstein. 

Bernstein’s tweet follows a similar defense from CNN, which reads “Make no mistake, Mr. President, CNN does not lie.” 

Except here’s the lie:

Lanny Davis – Cohen’s attorney and lifelong friend of the Clintons later admitted that he was the source for CNN’s story amid massive backpedaling over the claim, yet CNN specifically notes in the article that Davis declined to comment: 

Contacted by CNN, one of Cohen’s attorneys, Lanny Davis, declined to comment.

So either Davis is lying or CNN is, and CNN hasn’t refuted Davis’s claim that he was a source. Instead, they doubled down and insisted he wasn’t the only source. 

In a Wednesday night tweet, President Trump wrote “CNN is being torn apart from within based on their being caught in a major lie and refusing to admit the mistake,” Trump tweeted Wednesday evening. “Sloppy @carlbernstein, a man who lives in the past and thinks like a degenerate fool, making up story after story, is being laughed at all over the country! Fake News”

Degenerate fool? 

Does Trump know something we don’t? A 1989 Wahington Post exposé on Bernstein offers some clues – revealing that his angry, cheated-on ex-wife published a novel which “portrays a Bernstein-like character as an emotionally empty, self-absorbed, narcissistic man capable of having sex with venetian blinds.

When ABC Washington offered Bernstein a job as the Washington bureau chief in the 80s, the “power seemed to go to his head,” reported the Post. (h/t Josh Caplan)

“I gotta tell you, at ABC, he was just a terrible screw-up. It’s awful to say it. It was awful to watch it.” About this time, people noticed that Bernstein was drinking more heavily. His life had gone beyond chaotic. While Nora was pregnant with their second child, Bernstein had his now-notorious affair with Margaret Jay, wife of the British ambassador. –Wahington Post

Perhaps this is what the President was referring to? 

Later Wednesday evening, a feisty President Trump tweeted: “Lanny Davis admits being anonymous source in CNN Report.” @BretBaier  Oh well, so much for CNN saying it wasn’t Lanny. No wonder their ratings are so low, it’s FAKE NEWS!”

Nearly two hours after Trump’s first tweet, Don Jr. chimed in, calling Bernstein a “leftist hack” peddling “literal fake news.” 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2N4n0OX Tyler Durden

How McCain Paved the Way for Trump: New at Reason

John McCain held Donald Trump in deserved contempt, and Trump mocked and detested him in return. But in a sense, writes Steve Chapman, Trump is one of the best things that ever happened to McCain. He gave the senator from Arizona so many chances to display his admirable qualities that you could forget he had others.

There is no denying McCain’s sterling virtues: bravery, service to his country, bipartisan spirit, candor, indomitability, and more. His 2008 campaign yielded two moments that showed him at his best. The first was when he corrected a woman who told him Barack Obama is “an Arab.” The second was his gracious concession speech on election night.

But overall, notes Chapman, his time as the Republican nominee exposed a different side of McCain that should not be forgotten, even as the nation mourns his passing. Often his campaign was nasty, dishonest, and irresponsible. Worse, it helped turn the Republican Party into a vehicle that could be commandeered by Donald Trump.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2PSVToP
via IFTTT