Custom Search

Friday, December 8, 2017

WALTER SCOTT'S KILLER (EX-COP) GETS 20 YRS IN PRISON THANKS TO TRUMP






WALTER SCOTT'S KILLER GETS 20 YRS IN PRISON THANKS TO TRUMP:

BLACK MEN SHOULD NOT BE SHOT DEAD JUST BECAUSE THEY OWE CHILD SUPPORT.

BLACK MEN WHO OWE CHILD SUPPORT DESERVE FULL-TIME JOBS TO PAY THEIR DEBTS, NOT JAIL, NOR DEATH.

IF OBAMA WERE PRESIDENT, THAT WHITE OFFICER WOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED.

IF OBAMA WERE PRESIDENT, WALTER SCOTT'S MOTHER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A CHECK BUT NO JUSTICE.

FORGIVENESS DOES NOT ELIMINATE CONSEQUENCES.

WHITE POLITICIANS CAN REPRESENT BLACK VOTERS FAIRLY & PROPERLY REGARDLESS OF PARTY.

TAKE HEED ATLANTA (MARY NORWOOD).

TAKE HEED ATLANTA (MARY NORWOOD).


Sources: ABC News, Youtube


***** White ex-cop gets 20 years for Walter Scott slaying


One by one, relatives of the late Walter Scott urged a judge to mete out a significant punishment for Michael Slager, the white former police officer who fatally shot Scott, an unarmed black man, in the back after a 2015 traffic stop.

Through tears, Scott's family told Slager they felt sorrow for him and the loss his young children would feel in his absence. In the end, a judge sentenced Slager to 20 years in prison, giving the Scott family the justice they had sought ever since a stranger came to them with the shocking video of Scott being killed.

"I forgive Michael Slager. I forgive you," Scott's mother, Judy, said as she turned toward her son's killer. "I pray for you, that you would repent and let Jesus come in your life."

Sitting just a few feet away, Slager wiped tears from his eyes and mouthed: "I'm sorry."

The punishment wrapped up a case that became a rallying cry for the Black Lives Matter movement. Slager, 36, is one of only a few police officers to go to prison for a fatal shooting, and his sentence is by far the stiffest since the shootings came under extra scrutiny in recent years.

Attorneys for the former North Charleston officer said he shot the 50-year-old Scott in self-defense after the two fought and Scott grabbed Slager's stun gun. They said race didn't play a role in the shooting and Slager never had any "racial animus" toward minorities.

Still, Slager pleaded guilty in federal court to violating Scott's civil rights. As part of a plea agreement reached in May, prosecutors dropped state murder charges.

"This is a tragedy that shouldn't have happened," U.S. District Judge David Norton said.

Slager apologized to the Scott family, calling Scott's mother and brothers by their names.

"With my actions that day, Walter Scott is no longer with his family, and I am responsible for that," Slager said. Of their forgiveness, he added: "I am very grateful for that."

Slager's emotions stood in stark contrast to his stoic demeanor during his state murder trial when jurors deadlocked over a verdict. He has several weeks to appeal his sentence and will be housed at the Charleston County jail until he's assigned to a federal prison.

After the sentencing, Judy Scott and Walter's two brothers told reporters that, while they had made peace with the case, they remained adamant the officer should pay for his crime.

"Who are we not to forgive?" Rodney Scott said.

A bystander recorded the shooting on a cellphone, and it was shared around the world, setting off protests across the U.S. as demonstrators said it was another egregious example of police officers mistreating African-Americans.

Slager fired at Scott's back from 17 feet (5 meters) away. Five of eight bullets hit him.

The video was seized on by many as vivid proof of what they had been arguing for years: that white officers too often use deadly force unnecessarily against black people.

When the jury failed to reach a verdict in the state murder case, many black people and others were shocked and distressed, because the video seemed to some to be an open-and-shut case. Some despaired of ever seeing justice.

The shooting angered local African-Americans who complained for years that North Charleston police harassed blacks, pulling them over or questioning them unnecessarily as they cracked down on crime. But after the shooting, the Scott family successfully pleaded for calm, asking everyone to let the justice system run its course.

Two months after the shooting, a young white man killed nine black church members in a racially motivated massacre during a Bible study in Charleston. The family members of those victims struck a similar forgiveness tone after that attack.

Before Slager's sentence was handed down, the judge had to decide whether the shooting amounted to second-degree murder or manslaughter. Norton found that it was murder.

"No matter what sentence I give, neither the Scott family nor the Slager family is going to think that it's right," the judge said.

After the shooting, Slager picked up his stun gun and placed it next to Scott. Slager contended he was securing the weapon. Prosecutors think he put it there to bolster his self-defense story.

The judge also found that Slager obstructed justice when he made statements to state police after the shooting.

A pre-sentencing report for Slager found that he committed manslaughter and recommended 10 to nearly 13 years in prison. But the judge was not bound by that review.

If Slager had faced another state trial and been convicted of murder, he could have been sentenced to anywhere from 30 years to life in prison.

Convictions in police officer shootings are uncommon in the U.S. and prison time is even rarer.

South Carolina has been aggressive in charging white officers who shoot unarmed black people. Four have pleaded guilty in state or federal court in the past six years. But only Slager and former state trooper Sean Groubert, who shot a man as he tried to get his wallet during a seat belt violation check, will have been sent to prison. Groubert was sentenced to five years behind bars.



Wednesday, December 6, 2017

JOHN CONYERS IGNORED CLUES IT WAS TIME TO LEAVE OFFICE GRACEFULLY (TERM LIMITS)









JOHN CONYERS IGNORED CLUES IT WAS TIME TO LEAVE OFFICE GRACEFULLY:

GOOD POLITICIANS KNOW HOW TO GET ELECTED & KNOW WHEN IT'S TIME TO LEAVE.

JOHN CONYERS' CONGRESS SEAT IS NOT A MONARCHY:

HIS SEAT BELONGS TO ALL MICHIGAN VOTERS NOT THE CONYERS' FAMILY.

TERM LIMITS

TERM LIMITS

TERM LIMITS


Sources: Politico, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, YouTube


***** John Conyers Was An Icon. Then He Lost His Way.


It’s time to reckon with the legacy of a man who saw so much and stayed too long.



When, in that brief pillow of time between the Kennedy assassination and the escalation of the war in Vietnam, a 35-year-old John Conyers first ran for Congress, he had a method of connecting with voters—“a pet theory of personality projection,” Simeon Baker wrote in a 1965 profile in Ebony magazine: “Using his good looks as bait and charm as the sticking power, [Conyers] wooed women to support him.” “Sex appeal,” oozed a photo caption in the accompanying spread, was the bachelor’s “greatest asset in winning women’s votes.”

It’s indicative of the era in which the piece was written that Ebony framed Conyers’ political support among women this way despite the fact that the few women Baker includes in the story don’t seem to agree with the depiction. “Sure, he’s good-looking,” said one female supporter, but “what converted him into a winning candidate was his ability to make people feel important.”

“He became a symbol of the new middle-class Negro,” Baker wrote. “He vowed to represent people who are caught between the VIP class of Negro life and the lower class which is dependent on relief, low-income housing, and welfare.”

That John Conyers burned out a long time ago. And this week, any hope that something of the steady glow of a pilot light remained has been extinguished. On Tuesday morning, on the friendly airwaves of a Detroit radio station, Conyers resigned in disgrace following accusations from half a dozen women alleging various forms of sexual harassment, unwanted touching, assault—and the revelation, first reported by BuzzFeed, that his office used taxpayer money to try and cover it up.

It is an ignoble and overdue end to what has been, by any measure, a momentous public life. Conyers’ service in Congress has spanned 10 presidencies and 52 years—he’s been in the House for more than one-fifth of the entire existence of the U.S. Congress. In 1964, he went to Jim Crow Mississippi during Freedom Summer and offered legal representation to black voting-rights activists; one year later, he supported the Voting Rights Act as a member of House of Representatives. He was the only congressman ever endorsed by Martin Luther King Jr., and was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rosa Parks worked as an aide to him for 23 years. He introduced single-payer health-care legislation long before Bernie Sanders claimed “Medicare for All” as his own. He served on the Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, and was one of the original 20 names on President Richard Nixon’s “enemies list.” He was the top Democrat on the committee two decades later, when a president was impeached for the first time since Reconstruction. He was still on the committee a decade after that, when the nation elected its first black president—another young black attorney whose appeal was, in no small part, his ability to make people feel like they too were part of something larger than themselves. All of this is why House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called him an “icon” even as she was trying to nudge him into retirement.

Yet even as many black Detroiters saw Conyers as their champion against the elite and powerful few, Conyers—or, perhaps more accurately, those he surrounded himself with—sought to entrench themselves in the VIP class he once scorned. There can be no doubt that Conyers’ ordeal is of his own making—the accusations against him are serious and profoundly disturbing. But the political fallout from his surprising, bizarre nosedive off the national stage this week throws new light on the actions of those he’s depended on for decades, and whose influence has skyrocketed as old age has ravaged him. And in their slipshod attempts to build a Conyers dynasty, they’ve diminished the man who would be its patriarch.

The highlights of Conyers’ long career are, by now, somewhat familiar. But less known, at least nationally, are the lows.

There are, at age 88, natural questions about his mental state; he sometimes seemed confused in House proceedings, and even when he joined Mildred Gaddis’ morning show to resign on Tuesday, the host essentially had to remind him why he’d called in. For decades, the non compos mentis question has hung over Conyers—there was an incident in the early 1990s when he was supposedly found in the very early morning standing in the middle of Livernois Avenue in Detroit, barefoot and waving at cars. It was reportedly routine for staff members to find him in various states of undress—“his closet is in his office,” his former communications director explained to CNN—and at least one former staffer has alleged he showed up to a meeting clad only in underwear. Knowing this, there’s the inevitable question of why his inner circle wouldn’t step in as stewards. The answer, perhaps, is that they were too invested in his success.

There’s his bizarre relationship with his decades-younger wife, Monica, a roving tempest prone to Trumpian outbursts. The couple married in 1990—she’d been an intern in his office a year earlier—when the congressman was 61 and his bride was 25. From the beginning, the couple were dogged by rumors that their's was a marriage of convenience, or that one party was simply taking advantage of the other. Initially, at least, nobody seemed sure who was taking advantage of whom.

In 2005, Monica Conyers was elected to Detroit’s city council largely on the strength of her husband’s name. Her tenure in public office was memorable for its volatility. There was the time she threatened to shoot an aide to the mayor of Detroit; the time she had to be restrained during a city council meeting after an argument broke out and she made fun of another council member’s need for a hearing aid; the time she petulantly addressed city council president Ken Cockrel Jr. as “Shrek,” a “Li'l Marco”-esque jab at Cockrel’s gleaming bald pate and prominent ears; and her encore, a televised argument with an eighth-graderover whether this was or was not an appropriate way for a role model to act.

More damning were her crimes. In 2009, she pleaded guilty to federal charges that she’d accepted bribes from a wastewater-treatment contractor—making her the first Conyers forced from office. Though she’d later try, unsuccessfully, to withdraw her guilty plea, she was sentenced to three years in federal prison. After serving two, she was released into a halfway house, and in 2015, filed for divorce from the congressman, which apparently didn’t take; the couple renewed their vowsin 2016.

Last week, amid a glut of reporting on the assault and harassment allegations against her husband, Monica, once a mainstay of metro Detroit’s nighttime news broadcasts, emerged from the couple’s family home in the city’s University District/Palmer Park neighborhood to ask, angrily and rhetorically, whether the reporters outside would “go and stalk white people’s houses,” or whether “you just come to the black neighborhoods and stalk our houses?”

As the public face of her embattled husband over the past few weeks, she was joined by Sam Riddle, a Detroit political consultant and huckster known throughout the metro region for his attention-grabbing stints on local news shows—and of course, for his role as a top aide to Monica Conyers, where he helped facilitate bribes that landed Conyers in prison. For years, Riddle “seemed to play the role of Clyde Barrow to Monica Conyers’ Bonnie Parker,” Pulitzer-winning journalist Charlie Le Duff wrote in his book, “Detroit: An Autopsy.” In Riddle’s own trial on the bribery charges, federal prosecutors offered a wiretapped 2007 call in which Councilwoman Conyers told Riddle, “You’d better get my loot.” Faced with prosecution in 2009, Monica said she regretted working with Riddle: “If I was smart, I would have listened to my husband, and he never would have worked for me.”

To Michigan politicos, there’s another reason why Riddle’s re-emergence amid the sad coda of Conyers’ career is a flummoxing twist of events, especially given the very specific accusations the congressman has faced: In 2010, Riddle was sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of felonious assault and a gun crime after pulling a shotgun on his girlfriend during a domestic dispute. The mind strains to imagine a rationale for hiring someone with such a background to act as your “family spokesperson” under any circumstance, let alone when you’re facing allegations that you’ve assaulted women.

Across Detroit, there are still a great many people who see in Conyers a man who fights for them, a lion in winter. At a hastily organized rally on Monday, a cavalcade of black Detroit’s leaders came out to voice their unwavering support for him. The Rev. Wendell Anthony, the longtime head of Detroit’s chapter of the NAACP, spoke for many when he questioned why Conyers was being held to a different standard than other national politicians accused of sex crimes: “[I]f we’re going to raise this unholy and unlawful guillotine, calling for the head of John Conyers, then in fairness we must begin with the president of the United States.” “For those in the U.S. Congress to call for his resignation is shameful,” thundered Wayne County Executive Warren Evans as Riddle stood behind him. “Until we know what happened, I can’t fathom why a [Nancy] Pelosi or a [Michigan Congressman Dan] Kildee would ask for the resignation of a man who has not been given due process.”

It wasn’t all supposed to end this way. For more than a year, it was an open secret that when Conyers left office, he would be replaced by his great-nephew Ian, a sitting state senator from Detroit. In recent weeks, as the elder Conyers first voiced his intent to retire at the end of his current term, Ian’s candidacy became a surer and surer thing, culminating in the younger Conyers telling the New York Times in a Tuesday morning scoop that the congressman was going to announce his retirement and that he, Ian, was launching a congressional campaign.

The news jolted Detroit. And it led an irate Monica Conyers, the self-appointed carrier of the torch, to hatch a sloppily arranged change to the succession plan—one in which she would play a central role instead of being pushed aside.

On Tuesday, as John Conyers resigned, he stunned observers by endorsing his and Monica’s son, John Conyers III, as his successor. Conyers III, a 27-year-old who has never held elected office, is no stranger to controversy and comes pre-loaded with his own political scandal.

In 2010, he reported two laptops and $27,000 in concert tickets were stolen from a Cadillac Escalade he’d apparently been using for personal purposes despite the fact that its lease was registered to his father’s congressional office and was being paid with taxpayer money. Other photos online showed Conyers III, then 20, seated behind the wheel of the Cadillac while holding a bottle of Moët. More recently, NBC News reports that on Feb. 15, 2017, Conyers III was arrested in Los Angeles on suspicion of domestic violence; his girlfriend called law enforcement after he, in the words of the police report, “body slammed her on the bed and then on the floor where he pinned her down and spit on her,” before allegedly swinging a knife at her and cutting her arm.

His mother’s intervention sets up the spectacle of a free-for-all primary in which at least two members of the Conyers family seem intent to run.

In a since-deleted tweet, Ian Conyers suggested that Conyers III’s candidacy wasn’t the former congressman’s true wish, and, by name, pinned the credit/blame for the endorsement as someone else’s preference: “Monica - I spoke to my great uncle Thursday night via phone from hospital. His advice Run!”

The fight over John Conyers’ legacy will not end soon, perhaps not even in our lifetimes. But to some degree, its demise comes from the liberalism Conyers championed over more than a half-century—the belief that we can use our collective power to repair the wrongs of the past.

Conservatism has long had a posture that favors standing athwart history yelling stop, a belief in preserving the old way of doing things, standing up for tradition, living up to the nation’s past glories, working to make America great again. Liberalism isn’t so much about restoring the way things used to be as it is about overcoming history. And it’s because of this—and the forward march of progress—that what is acceptable to one generation of Democrats is no longer acceptable to another.

The present always stands in judgment of the past, and one generation’s liberal heroes become another’s problematic figures. Woodrow Wilson was a visionary idealist who sought to make the world safe for democracy—until he was remembered as a racist reactionary with Lost Cause sympathies.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the man who lifted the nation from the depths of the Great Depression, fought the powerful and moneyed, and expanded the scope of what we believed government could and should do—until the exclusion of black Americans from the New Deal and the internment of Japanese-Americans became stains on his legacy.

We now find ourselves in the middle of such a reckoning, as the sins of the past catch up to the reputations of the present.

Al Franken was the progressive intellectual with a scathing wit, the left’s answer to bloviating talk radio on the right—and he’s also a man accused of forcing himself on at least seven women.

Bill Clinton was The Natural, the man from Hope who charted a course for a new type of Democrat, oversaw an economy that gained 23 million new jobs, balanced the budget and built a bridge to the 21st century—and he’s also preyed on women, with errant sexual behavior ranging from the consensual-but-inappropriate (as with the Lewinsky affair) to charges of harassment (as with Paula Jones) and accusations of rape (as with Juanita Broaddrick).

John Conyers was a civil-rights hero, a voice in the wilderness who advocated far-left positions before they were fashionable, a champion for Detroiters—especially black Detroiters—who felt and still feel locked out of the room where decisions get made.

But whatever else he was, Conyers is also the man Courtney Morse says propositioned her when she was an intern, who after his advances were rebuffed, raised the specter of Chandra Levy; the man Elissa Grubbs says groped her in a church and regularly undressed in front of female staff; the man Marion Brown saysstroked her legs, propositioned her in a hotel room and “violated” her body.

And where once those abuses wouldn’t have been career-ending, today, people are starting to listen to what women are saying.

“He made people … believe in their own strength,” a Conyers campaign aide told Ebony in 1965. “He … showed them the value of sticking together.”

And that’s exactly what his accusers have done.


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


****** John Conyers could be replaced by his son — who has his dad's name but not his political resume


The son of Rep. John Conyers Jr. — the embattled congressman who announced his sudden retirement Tuesday — may be headed for his father’s seat, carrying on a decades-long political dynasty in Michigan.

Conyers (D-Mich.) resigned Tuesday amid allegations of sexual harassment.

In doing so, the erstwhile dean of the House endorsed his eldest son, John Conyers III, to take his place representing Michigan’s 13th Congressional District — even though the 27-year-old has never run for political office.

Tuesday evening in a statement posted on Twitter the younger Conyers said that he had not decided whether to enter the race but hoped “to come to a decision by the new year — once I have taken the time to thoroughly listen to our community.”

Conyers was one of his father’s fiercest defenders as the 88-year-old faced increasing pressure from Democratic leaders to step aside when a growing number of female former aides accused him of mistreatment and unwanted advances.

“It’s very unfortunate to see him fight so long for so many people and to automatically have the allegations assumed to be true,” John Conyers III told reporters last week, according to NBC affiliate WDIV. “And of course, with sexual assault, women are to be believed. But in this instance, he has no history of this.

“And I think that if we’re not going to make [Sen.] Al Franken resign when we have evidence of him groping a woman while she was asleep … it’s disconcerting to me to see the way my father is being treated after he’s given so much to this country, not just for black people but for people alike.”

Of his father, he added: “He fights for everyone.”

Here’s what we know about John Conyers III.

He lacks political experience

Steve Hood, a political consultant in Detroit, told the Detroit Free Press that not much is known about Conyers, at least in political circles.

Conyers is from Detroit and attended Morehouse College as well as New York University, according to his contributor bio on HuffPost.

That bio, whose details The Washington Post has not yet confirmed, identifies Conyers as “a partner at Detroit’s first minority run hedge fund” and “a seasoned multi-discipline consultant who has provided fundraising and social media services to both political and business clients.” It also says he served as an intern in the Department of Community Outreach in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. “John is committed to melding community engagement, entertainment and politics,” the bio states.

According to his Facebook page, Conyers is a managing partner at the Detroit hedge fund EIA Alpha Partners Fund Management and an owner/partner at Palette Agency in Los Angeles.

He caused public headaches for his father in 2010

In 2010, MLive.com reported that John Conyers III was cited for speeding in his father’s Cadillac Escalade — or rather, the government-leased vehicle his father used as a member of Congress.

There were also reports that year that the younger Conyers had driven the vehicle to a rap concert and that it was broken into, according to the news site. The then-20-year-old reported to policethat two laptops had been stolen from the Escalade, along with tens of thousands of dollars worth of concert tickets.

After the incident, the elder Conyers apologized.

“I have just learned about the inappropriate use of a congressional vehicle by my son over the Thanksgiving holiday,” he said in a statement at the time, according MLive.com. “I am sorry it happened and will make sure that it does not happen again.”

The Detroit Free Press reported that the congressman said he reimbursed the Treasury Department more than $5,600 for his son’s unofficial use of taxpayer money.

A photo on social media at the time showed his son in a Cadillac with a bottle of French champagne, according to an MLive.com article. The story’s headline: “The fabulous online life of John Conyers III, or why his family needs to do damage control immediately.”

He’s an opinionated writer

In a HuffPost op-ed, under the headline “Orange Watergate: The Inevitable Impeachment of the 45th President,” Conyers wrote that the “reactionary and cavalier nature of the president will ultimately be his down fall.

“As his approval ratings tumble and confidence wanes, expect the weight of possible impeachment to make his already poor decision making worse. Self-preservation is ultimately the downfall of the narcissist.”

In the wake of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Conyers wrote that the national debate should be about gun control, not mental illness, explaining: “I have dealt with Major Depressive Disorder since I was 15 years-old. I’ve not once thought about murder. I know right from wrong.

“My friends with bi-polar and depression and multiple personality disorder don’t think about hurting others, if anything we think about hurting ourselves.”

“So if you grapple with mental illness do not let the medias stigmatization of our ailments make you self-conscious,” he wrote in his October op-ed. “As much as they love to make us their scapegoats, It’s not our fault. You, as well as I, know we know right from wrong. When they need someone to blame they look to us first, when it’s time to lend their hand to help us they’re nowhere to be found.”

He’s a rapper

In a 2013 song, “Rich Glorious,” Conyers talked about his battles with the media amid his mother’s 2012 bribery conviction, as well as the Cadillac mishap, according to Roll Call.

“Hey f— making a living, boy, I’m trying to make history. So picture me letting the news nitpick at me,” Conyers said in the rap video, which showed an image from a news story about the incident.

He’s not the only Conyers vying for the congressional seat

State Sen. Ian Conyers, John Conyers Jr.’s great-nephew, has declared his intention to run in the special election.

Ian Conyers, who represents the 4th district in the state senate, graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor’s degree in government and a master’s in urban and regional planning, according to his biography.

He worked for then-District Mayor Adrian Fenty, who appointed Conyers as a community outreach and service specialist in Ward 6, according to his LinkedIn profile.

In 2012, Conyers served as a regional field director for President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, according to his online resume.

Four years later, the political operative became a politician, winning a special election to replace former state Sen. Virgil Smith. He later told Georgetown’s alumni newsletter: “We dispelled the myth that seniors and middle-aged voters don’t believe in young people.”

After John Conyers Jr. endorsed his own son for his seat, Ian Conyers told the Free Press he was surprised, saying: “I didn’t expect him to make an endorsement.”

Hood, the political consultant, described it as “a family in disarray.”

“You have the potential for two Conyers to go for the seat,” he told the newspaper.

He isn’t guaranteed the seat

Political insiders say the seat does not belong to anyone — a Conyers or not.

“There’s no guarantee that anyone named Conyers is going to be the next congressman representing Detroit,” said Sam Riddle, political director for the Michigan branch of the National Action Network. “We are on the verge of the biggest free-for-all politically you’ve ever seen in Detroit. There should not be an automatic ascension to that congressional seat because your last name is Conyers. The people in Detroit deserve the best candidate possible be elected to that seat represents poorest and blackest city.”


CORRINE BROWN - BLACK CONGRESSWOMAN GOES TO PRISON (FAKE CHARITIES)






CORRINE BROWN SENTENCED TO PRISON (FAKE CHARITIES):

BLACK POLITICIANS ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

BLACK MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CAN'T REST ON THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS LAURELS FOREVER.

BLACK POLITICIANS NO LONGER EFFECTIVE & JUST IN IT FOR $$$$ SHOULD RESIGN.

STOP MAKING BLACK PEOPLE IN AMERICA LOOK BAD.

I'M JUST SAYING.


Sources: NY Times, First Coast News, Youtube


***** Corrine Brown, Ex-Congresswoman Who Ran a Sham Charity, Gets 5 Years in Prison


Corrine Brown, a former longtime United States representative from Florida, was sentenced to five years in prison on Monday for operating a fraudulent charity that she used for more than $300,000 in personal expenses, including tickets for N.F.L. games and a Beyoncé concert.

A federal judge handed down the sentence in a Jacksonville, Fla., courtroom, excoriating Ms. Brown, 71, for abusing her powerful position in the House of Representatives for “entitlement and greed” to support a lavish lifestyle. Ms. Brown, a Democrat who represented parts of Jacksonville and northern Florida for nearly a quarter-century, must surrender to the authorities next month.

“Brazen barely describes it,” the judge, Timothy J. Corrigan of United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, said of Ms. Brown’s sham charity.

Ms. Brown was convicted in May on 18 criminal counts, including mail and wire fraud and filing false tax returns. She lost her re-election bid in the Democratic primary in August 2016, a few weeks after she was indicted.

Her lawyer, James Smith, said he planned to appeal the verdict and the sentencing. “The sentence was substantively unreasonable, and it was too harsh,” Mr. Smith said in an interview Monday evening. While sentencing guidelines called for a term of between more than seven years in prison up to nine years, Mr. Smith said that politicians convicted of similar crimes had received more lenient sentences.

Ms. Brown was among the first African-American politicians elected to Washington from Florida and burnished a reputation in state and national politics as a civil rights champion and as an advocate for the less fortunate. Because of that legacy, the charity, One Door for Education, may have seemed to donors as an extension of her passion.

Ms. Brown, along with two other people, collected more than $833,000 in charitable donations, telling benefactors that their money would help students pay for college and allow schools to receive computers. But One Door for Education did nothing of the sort.

Instead, the donations were funneled into Ms. Brown’s personal bank accounts and toward extravagant items. About $330,000 of the charity’s donations paid for events that included a Florida golf tournament, professional football games and a luxury stadium box for a Beyoncé concert.

“Ms. Brown leveraged the authority of her office and the relationships she had cultivated to illegal purpose,” Judge Corrigan said. “She cast aside the very laws that she helped to enact. The rules, she decided, did not apply.”

The One Door for Education charity was run by Ms. Brown, who personally solicited many of the donations; her chief of staff, Elias Simmons, known as Ronnie; and the organization’s president, Carla Wiley. Ms. Wiley started the charity in Virginia in 2011 but raised very little before she recruited Mr. Simmons to help. He brought in Ms. Brown to raise money.

While One Door for Education may have begun as an honest charity, it turned into a slush fund for all three, prosecutors said. Mr. Simmons withdrew $93,536 in cash from A.T.M.s and gave some of the money to Ms. Brown and kept the rest for himself, they said. Ms. Wiley also pocketed $182,730, prosecutors said.

While Ms. Brown pleaded not guilty and went to trial, both Mr. Simmons and Ms. Wiley pleaded guilty and testified against the former representative. The judge also sentenced them on Monday, with Mr. Simmons receiving four years in prison and Ms. Wiley 21 months.

At the hearing, Judge Corrigan noted that Ms. Brown had earned the respect and admiration of many people in her district during her time in Congress and the decade before that in the Florida House of Representatives. But the judge criticized her for showing no contrition for the crimes.

“She cannot be accorded the same sentencing consideration as someone who accepts responsibility for her wrongful action, expresses remorse and promises to make amends,” Judge Corrigan said.

Monday, December 4, 2017

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH)











SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH):

IRAN
LIBYA
SYRIA
YEMEN
SOMALIA
CHAD
NORTH KOREA
VENEZUELA

NEIL GORUSH BALANCES SCOTUS & RULES AS SCALIA MAY HAVE.

DEMOCRATS STOP WAITING FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT OR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AN ASSASSINATION.

INSTEAD KEY DEMS SHOULD BE STRATEGIZING TO WIN IN 2018 OR 2020.


Sources: BBC, CTV News, NY Times, TIME, Youtube


***** Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban to take full effect


The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go fully into effect.

But the directive against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen still faces legal challenges.

On Monday, seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions imposed by lower courts on the policy.

The ruling covers the third version of the directive that President Trump has issued since taking office.

The presidential proclamation also imposed restrictions on travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials, which have gone into effect.

In striking down the other parts, lower court judges had cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Further arguments will be heard this week by federal courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed an earlier version of the policy to take partial effect.

The president's travel bans have each been frustrated by the courts to some degree:

In January, he signed an order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending all refugee entry. The measure prompted protests and legal challenges across dozens of states
A revised version in March exempted green card holders and dual citizens. By June, the Supreme Court allowed most of it to go into effect, a including 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US, but granted a wide exemption for those with a "bona fide connection" to the US
President Trump's third order was announced in late September. It added non-Muslim-majority nations North Korea and Venezuela, provisions which lower courts have allowed to proceed
What have lower courts said?

In striking down the other parts, federal judges have cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Lower courts have also found the policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.

In October, a Maryland federal judge said: "The 'initial' announcement of the Muslim ban, offered repeatedly and explicitly through President Trump's own statements, forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in unequivocal terms."

A federal judge in Hawaii said the administration "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'".

A court in Virginia ruled: "The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.


Saturday, December 2, 2017

HILLARY CLINTON SLAMS GOP TAX REFORM BILL (2020)








HILLARY CLINTON SLAMS GOP TAX REFORM BILL (2020):

I UNDERSTAND HILLARY'S ANGER ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE SHE REALLY CARES.

BUT WHAT IS HILLARY'S POSITION ON MEN SEXUALLY HARASSING WOMEN & ABUSING WOMEN??

AND YES SHE SHOULD RUN AGAIN IN 2020.


Sources: HuffPost, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


***** Hillary Clinton Calls Senate Tax Bill 'Insulting Attack' On Americans


Hillary Clinton condemned the Republican tax bill that passed the Senate early Saturday morning during her appearance at a conference for young political activists later in the day.

“This could not be a more blatant and insulting attack on working Americans,” she reportedly told the audience at the Teen Vogue Summit in Playa Vista, California, where she was interviewed by “Black-ish” actress Yara Shahidi.

Clinton also criticized the bill for benefitting billionaires while eliminating cuts for teachers who buy school supplies for their students, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Shortly afterward, the former Democratic presidential candidate urged her social media followers to take an active role in the 2018 midterm election.

“This tax bill is only going to get worse as people learn more about it,” she said over Twitter. “There are 6 GOP Senators that have to run on it & 2 open seats in 2018.

We all need to get to work..”

Although President Donald Trump campaigned in part on a platform of tax cuts for the middle class, the GOP bill reserves its biggest benefits for the wealthiest Americans.

Republicans approved adding $1.5 trillion in national debt over 10 years on the belief it would be offset by economic growth. While many Americans will see some tax cuts, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the richest 20 percent of households will reap 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts over those 10 years.

Senators voted 51-49 to narrowly pass the measure, with just one Republican, Bob Corker of Tennessee, joining Democrats to oppose it. The Senate legislation will likely be combined with the tax bill passed by the House last month; both chambers would need to approve the new version before it crossed Trump’s desk.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the bill’s passage marked “a great day for the country,” while Trump thanked Republicans for their “hard work and commitment.”

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



****** Tax bill: Senate passes sweeping tax overhaul in early morning vote


The Senate narrowly passed Republicans' tax reform legislation early Saturday morning with no Democratic support, following a marathon voting session overnight.

The bill, approved just before 2 a.m. in a 51-49 vote, next heads to conference, where House and Senate negotiators will work out the differences in their bills. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was the only Republican to vote no on the measure. The House bill also passed with no Democratic support last month.

The legislation was officially released shortly before the vote, giving the public little time to examine the final details. Democrats were outraged, asking for more time to review the measure. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) claimed she was handed the amendments to be included in the bill not by any of her colleagues, but by a lobbyist. Lobbyists, her comment implied, saw the bill before Democratic members.

"Not a single member of this chamber has read the bill," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor before the bill passed. "It would be impossible."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who held a press conference after the bill's passage, suggested Democrats were only concerned about the legislative process because they were losing.

"You complain about process when you're losing," McConnell said. "And that's what you heard on the floor tonight."

McConnell also said he believes the bill will be revenue neutral, despite analyses suggesting it will add to the deficit.

"This is a great day for the country, it's been 31 years since we've done comprehensive tax reform," McConnell said.

President Trump hailed the bill's passage in a tweet Saturday morning, thanking Republicans for approving the measure.

Biggest Tax Bill and Tax Cuts in history just passed in the Senate. Now these great Republicans will be going for final passage. Thank you to House and Senate Republicans for your hard work and commitment!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2017
The Senate bill permanently lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent. Tax rates will also be cut for individuals, though their tax cuts will expire after a decade. The Senate bill keeps the same number of individual tax brackets, although it changes what those brackets are.

The Senate bill also repeals the individual mandate under Obamacare, something conservatives in Congress have long wanted. The House version does not touch the individual mandate.

The Senate bill, like the House bill, limits state and local income tax deductions to property taxes, with a cap of $10,000. The Senate bill increases the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000.

Republicans -- with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence -- approved a provision from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that expands a tax break for 529 contributions to K-12 schools. The Senate shot down an amendment From Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, to further expand the child tax credit in exchange for a corporate tax rate increase from 20 percent to just under 21 percent.

The Senate bill is expected to add more than $1 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation analysis. Republicans had hoped the bill would pay for itself, and there was some concern late Thursday the bill would be held up for fiscal reasons.

The bill's passage is a major accomplishment for Republicans, who have been unable to pass significant or complex legislation since they took control of the House, Senate and White House in January.


Friday, December 1, 2017

MIKE FLYNN PLEADING GUILTY DOES NOT IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP FROM OFFICE (FLYNN vs CONYERS)










MIKE FLYNN PLEADING GUILTY DOES NOT IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP FROM OFFICE:

FLYNN'S PLEA DOES NOT PROVE COLLUSION.

NATIONAL SECURITY PROBE WILL NOT IMPEACH TRUMP EITHER.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD NOT CELEBRATE PREMATURELY.

WHAT DEM LEADERS SHOULD FOCUS ON IS GETTING SEXUAL HARASSER JOHN CONYERS TO RESIGN.

MIKE FLYNN IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW & JOHN CONYERS IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW EITHER.

CONYERS IS A BLACK MAN WHO USED HIS POWER TO HURT PEOPLE NOT HELP PEOPLE.

CONYERS' DISRESPECT OF WOMEN MAKES MOST BLACK MEN IN AMERICAN SOCIETY LOOK BAD.


Sources: Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Michigan News, YouTube


****** Mike Flynn Pleads Guilty to Lying About Russian Contacts


~ Former national security adviser says he is cooperating with special counsel probe


Former national-security adviser Mike Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to federal investigators about his calls with the Russian ambassador and other issues and said he is cooperating with prosecutors, a sign that the special counsel’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election is reaching deeper into President Donald Trump’s inner circle.

In a 45-minute hearing in a Washington federal court, Mr. Flynn admitted he misled Federal Bureau of Investigation agents about a series of calls he had last December with the ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, about sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama Administration and about a United Nations resolution critical of Israel.

Mr. Flynn also acknowledged in court documents filed Friday that he had detailed conversations with Trump transition officials about the calls, and that a “very senior member” of the transition team had directed his contacts over the U.N. issue. A person familiar with the matter said that individual is Jared Kushner, a top White House adviser and the president’s son-in-law.

Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Mr. Kushner, didn’t return requests for comment. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators interviewed Mr. Kushner in recent weeks, focusing their questions exclusively on his interactions with Mr. Flynn, according to people familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors said Friday that Mr. Flynn consulted several times with top Trump transition officials on his contacts with Russia, suggesting Mr. Mueller is closely scrutinizing other prominent Trump associates. But his ultimate targets, and the exact nature of any potential wrongdoing, remain unclear.

Mr. Mueller is six months into a wide-ranging investigation into Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election and potential links between those efforts and the Trump campaign. In court documents, Mr. Mueller’s office said Mr. Flynn’s lies to the FBI impeded that investigation.

When asked by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras how he pleads to the charge against him, Mr. Flynn, flanked by his two lawyers, said softly, “Guilty, your honor.”

Given his cooperation, Mr. Flynn is expected to face at most six months in prison, depending on his “substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense,” according to his plea agreement.

Prosecutors didn’t elaborate Friday on who else they may be looking at. Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty only to one count of lying to the FBI, but a “statement of the offense” filed in connection with his plea detailed additional wrongdoing, including lying on a regulatory form about his private work directed by Turkish government officials.

Mr. Mueller’s decision not to file more serious charges against Mr. Flynn led many legal experts to infer that Mr. Flynn is providing significant information to the investigation.

“Mueller would not have accepted an agreement to plead to a single charge absent an arrangement of some sort, and presumably that is Flynn’s truthful testimony about other matters within Mueller’s jurisdiction,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a former federal prosecutor who was a deputy to special counsel Kenneth Starr during his investigation of President Bill Clinton.

In a statement Friday, Mr. Flynn said, “I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right.”

He added: “My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Mr. Flynn, who was a high-profile campaign surrogate for Mr. Trump but who lasted in his White House post for less than a month, becomes the most senior Trump associate to face criminal charges in the special counsel investigation. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Mr. Flynn led the crowd in chanting “Lock her up!” in reference to Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. On Friday, protesters outside the courthouse chanted as Mr. Flynn left: “Lock him up!”

Documents filed in federal court Friday detail Mr. Flynn’s misstatements to the FBI during an interview last January and depict a group of incoming Trump officials concerned about the Obama administration’s new sanctions on Russia and trying to figure out how to react to them.

Mr. Flynn “falsely stated” to the FBI that he hadn’t asked the Russian ambassador to refrain from escalating a response to the sanctions, a senior prosecutor in Mr. Mueller’s office, Brandon Van Grack, said in court. In fact, Mr. Flynn had called a senior official of the Trump transition team on Dec. 29—the day the sanctions were announced—to discuss “what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian ambassador,” according to a statement filed in connection with Mr. Flynn’s plea.

The unnamed senior official was with “other senior members” of the transition team at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s golf club in Florida, the document said. The official and Mr. Flynn discussed the fact that members of the transition team at Mar-a-Lago “did not want Russia to escalate the situation,” the document said.

Among the transition officials who met with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago that day were Stephen Miller, K.T. McFarland, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus, a Trump spokesman said at the time. Mr. Miller and Ms. Conway are now serving in the White House. Mr. Bannon and Mr. Priebus served as chief strategist and chief of staff, respectively, but were ousted over the summer. Ms. McFarland is Mr. Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Singapore.

“Immediately after his phone call,” Mr. Flynn called Mr. Kislyak and asked that Russia only respond “in a reciprocal manner,” the document said.

The next day, Dec. 30, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement that Russia wouldn’t take retaliatory measures, and Mr. Kislyak called Mr. Flynn on Dec. 31 to tell him Russia had “chosen not to retaliate in response to Flynn’s request.”

After his phone call, according to the document, Mr. Flynn spoke to “senior members” of the transition about his conversations with Mr. Kislyak and about Russia’s decision “not to escalate the situation.”
In addition to the sanctions issue, Mr. Flynn also lied about calls he made to “Russia and several other countries” about a U.N. resolution submitted by Egypt on Dec. 21, which criticized Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territories.

Mr. Flynn “falsely stated” that he only asked on the calls about the countries’ position on the votes, the document said. In fact, “a very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team directed Flynn” to contact the officials to “influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution,” the document said.

The document also said Mr. Flynn made “materially false statements” in a regulatory filing about his separate work for Turkish interests, including stating that his company “did not know whether or the extent to which” the Turkish government was behind the project.

Mr. Flynn is the fourth—and most prominent—figure to be publicly charged in Mr. Mueller’s investigation to date. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate who also worked with the campaign, Richard Gates, were indicted in October for prior work they did in Ukraine, unrelated to the Trump campaign.

Another adviser, George Papadopoulos, has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian go-betweens.

Former FBI Director James Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired in May, has testified that Mr. Trump asked him to back off his investigation of Mr. Flynn, which the president denies.

Prosecutors’ references Friday to Mr. Flynn’s conversations with other Trump transition officials suggest Mr. Mueller is scrutinizing the actions of other high-profile figures in Mr. Trump’s orbit. Mr. Kushner said in a statement to Congress in July that, at Mr. Trump’s request, he served as the main point of contact for foreign countries during the transition.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Friday’s plea shows that a Trump associate was “negotiating with the Russians against U.S. policy and interests before Donald Trump took office and after it was announced that Russia had interfered in our election.”

She added, “It’s critical that we determine whether Flynn spoke with the Russians on his own initiative and who knew and approved of his actions.”

A statement from White House lawyer Ty Cobb played down the guilty plea, noting that Mr. Flynn was in the job less than a month and had “entered a guilty plea to a single count.”

Mr. Flynn’s false statements, Mr. Cobb added, “mirror” similar ones he made to Vice President Mike Pence about his Russian contacts earlier this year, which the White House has said resulted in his resignation. “The conclusion of this phase of the special counsel’s work demonstrates again that the special counsel is moving with all deliberate speed and clears the way for a prompt and reasonable conclusion,” Mr. Cobb said.

U.S. investigators began scrutinizing Mr. Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador after the two spoke in a series of phone calls during the presidential transition in December 2016, according to people familiar with the investigation.

During those calls, Mr. Flynn discussed the potential easing of U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia after the Trump administration came to power in January, current and former officials said at the time, citing transcripts of intercepted communications between Mr. Flynn and Mr. Kislyak.


KATE STEINLE’S KILLER (JOSE INES GARCIA ZARATE) WILL BE PROPERLY PROSECUTED AFTER ALL: TRUE JUSTICE









KATE STEINLE’S KILLER (JOSE INES GARCIA ZARATE) WILL BE PROPERLY PROSECUTED AFTER ALL:

HE MURDERED AN INNOCENT WOMAN IN COLD BLOOD & SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.

IT’S NOT ABOUT POLITICS NOR NATIONALITY……..IT’S ABOUT TRUE JUSTICE.

ZARATE SHOULD BE IN PRISON FOR LIFE.


Sources: MSN, Fox News, YouTube


***** DOJ issues arrest warrant for undocumented immigrant acquitted in Kate Steinle killing


A Federal warrant has been issued for the arrest of a Mexican immigrant acquitted Thursday evening of murder charges in the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle.

Steinle's death has been taken up by opponents of so-called sanctuary cities.

They argue that stricter immigration enforcement would have kept Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, who is residing in the U.S. illegally and was deported five separate times before the 2015 shooting, off the streets.

The arrest warrant unsealed in the Western District of Texas by the Justice Department on Friday accuses Zarate of violating his supervised release.

Zarate was released from jail in 2015, despite a federal immigration detainer request. Months after his release, he allegedly shot and killed Steinle on a pier in San Francisco.

Zarate was acquitted on Thursday of murder and manslaughter charges after a weekslong trial. He was convicted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

President Trump seized on Steinle's killing as a presidential candidate, pointing to it as an example of the need to strengthen immigration laws. He chimed in on the subject after the verdict was announced Thursday night, calling it "disgraceful."

"No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration," Trump tweeted.

The Justice Department is also considering federal charges from Steinle's death.

"We're looking at every option and we will prosecute this to the fullest extent available under the law because these cases are tragic and entirely preventable," Sarah Isgur Flores, the department's director of public affairs, said on "Fox and Friends."

In a statement issued shortly after the verdict was rendered on Thursday, Tom Homan, the deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency would "work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country."


ROY MOORE vs JOHN CONYERS JR- DEMOCRATS' HYPOCRISY








ROY MOORE vs JOHN CONYERS JR- DEMOCRATS' HYPOCRISY:

PELOSI WANTED TO CRUCIFY MOORE BUT DRAGS HER FEET ON CONYERS & FRANKEN.

PELOSI ONLY PUTS WOMEN FIRST OVER POLITICS WHEN ITS ABOUT ABORTION NOT SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

WHERE IS DEMOCRATS' HONOR FOR WOMEN?


Sources: The Week, Meet The Press, Youtube


***** Democrats need to find some honor and get rid of Al Franken and John Conyers


America is in the midst of a reckoning about sexual misconduct, as a steady stream of men in the public eye have resigned or been fired from their jobs over sexual harassment and assault allegations.

Politicians have been no exception, with allegations coming against Republican Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore for allegedly harassing and assaulting teenagers — but also against Democratic members of Congress: Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) and Rep. John Conyers (Mich.).

As has become glaringly obvious, while the allegations against Moore are categorically worse than anything Franken or Conyers is accused of, harassment has no particular political affiliation.
Democrats need to find some honor and address their side of the sexual harassment problem, by forcing out Conyers and Franken. Not only do harassment victims deserve a measure of justice, Democrats' political reputation is on the line. These two — and I would guess probably a few others — need to go.

So far Democrats are only beginning to find their spines on this. When the first Franken allegations came out — from radio host Leeann Tweeden, that he had harassed, forcibly kissed, and then taken a shocking picture groping or nearly groping her while she was sleeping — Democratic Party hacks like Kate Harding wrote that he should not resignbecause Democrats are better on women's issues than Republicans. (Garrison Keillor said the idea of firing Franken was "absurd" before being firedover his own sexual harassment allegation.)

But as has also become very clear over the past few weeks, where there is one allegation, there are generally many. Some six different women in total have since come out with stories about Franken harassing, kissing, or groping them — most recently allegations of groping a veteran's breast in a photo-op, and a former elected official in New Hampshire who said he tried to give her an unwanted "wet, open-mouthed kiss."

When the allegations against Conyers came out (that he had exposed himself to his staff, as well as harassed, groped, and verbally abused them), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi first hemmed and hawed, suggesting on Meet the Press that because he is an "icon," he would do the "right thing" — not saying what that would be. Later, she finally joined several of her colleagues in saying he should resign. This might be because Conyers is 88 years old, and was recently hospitalized reportedly due to stress over the story. It seems likely he'll be gone soon in any case — though his lawyer recently said that "Nancy Pelosi did not elect the congressman, and she sure as hell won't be the one that tells the congressman to leave."

But as yet, there has been no sustained pressure from the rest of the Democratic caucus to actually force him out, and almost no pressure of any kind for Franken to leave.

The first and most important reason for these two men to go is that sexually harassing and assaulting women is a grotesque crime and anyone who does it is unfit to hold high office (or any office). As Justin Charity argues, even a new partial standard that senators are not allowed to get away with it would be a large political victory in itself against sexism and harassment. Arguing that the occasional sexual assault is simply the price to pay to keep Democrats in power (so they can pass stuff like 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave for some employees, I guess?) overlooks this enormous benefit.

Furthermore, axing these two would probably help Democrats politically, on net. They had the moral high ground against Roy Moore at first, but Franken and Conyers failing to resign make Democrats look like hypocrites, because they are. It muddles the case against Moore, and allows Republicans to excuse themselves for voting for him. Moore's Democratic opponent Doug Jones might well lose because of this cowardice.

Indeed, defending them is almost certainly not even the smart move in the narrowly cynical political sense. Minnesota has a Democratic governor, and so a replacement senator to serve out Franken's term would be of the same party. Conyers won his most recent election by over 60 points, so any replacement would certainly be a Democrat.

On the other hand, if these abusive men try to hang on to their seats, then they might well lose them in their upcoming elections. Conyers has so far promised not to run for re-election, but Hillary Clinton only won Minnesota by less than 2 points. Since the allegations, Franken's popularity has collapsed, falling from 53 percent to 36 percent. The opening for a Republican to win in 2020 would be a large one. The smartest move from a purely tactical standpoint would be for Franken to step aside and allow, say, Keith Ellison to step up. That way the incumbent can be a popular Democrat, and the party avoids a bitter primary battle.

One of the biggest problems with American politics is the distrust the population holds for elite politicians — perceiving them as a pack of amoral, dishonest, wagon-circling, featherbedding, logrolling, favor-trading, corrupt scumbags. This distrust is, to a great extent, deserved. One absolute necessity in rebuilding a measure of trust is for Democrats to behave honorably, and hold themselves to the standards they espouse. They can start by getting rid of the sexual predators in their midst.

GOP VOTES TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS (2018 & 2020)









GOP WORKS TO PASS TAX BILL WHILE DEMS PROTECT SEXUAL HARASSERS:

IS THIS HOW THE GOP PLANS TO WIN IN 2020?


Sources: NY Times, Bloomberg Politics, Youtube


****** Senate Weighs Changes to Tax Bill on the Same Day They Could Vote


• The Senate will convene at 10 a.m. Friday to continue the debate on taxes, ahead of a possible final vote later in the day.

• Republicans seemed to be inching toward victory on Thursday and picked up the support of Senator John McCain of Arizona.

• But they faced a setback late in the day when they were left scrambling to find hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue to satisfy concerns about the bill’s deficit effects.

• Lawmakers are now mulling options that would result in a tax increase down the road, including a possible increase in the corporate tax rate and the revival of the alternative minimum tax on wealthy individuals and some companies.

Republican leaders ended Thursday with the same problem they started with: They still need to secure 50 votes to be able to pass their tax bill.

Their effort appeared to be gaining momentum on Thursday, with talk of a final vote later that night or early Friday.

But by the end of the day, they were contending with twin setbacks, both involving how the bill would affect federal budget deficits.

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation said in an analysis released on Thursday afternoon that the legislation would add $1 trillion to federal budget deficits over a decade, even after accounting for economic growth.

In addition, a provision meant to prevent ballooning deficits ran into parliamentary problems. The provision would have increased taxes if economic growth fell short of expectations, but it was deemed by the Senate parliamentarian to run afoul of budget rules that must be followed if the bill is to be shielded from a Democratic filibuster.

Without the so-called trigger, the votes of a handful of Republicans, including Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared at risk.

“Senator Corker has been pretty clear he doesn’t want any deficit spending,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said on Thursday, adding that he did not agree with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s assessment.

To pass the tax bill in the Senate, Republican leaders can lose only two of their members, assuming Democrats are unified against the measure.

The Senate will convene on Friday morning and the debate on taxes will continue. At some point, the Senate will undertake a marathon of amendment votes known as a vote-a-rama. Eventually, there would be a final vote on the legislation.

But in the meantime, Republicans need to decide how they want to change their bill. To satisfy Mr. Corker, for example, Republicans were discussing putting in place tax increases that would take effect some years from now, a step that would soften the deficit effects of the legislation.

Will they decide to raise taxes?

The options under discussion to satisfy the deficit hawks could essentially result in a tax increase down the road. Lawmakers have talked about raising the corporate tax rate above 20 percent after a period of years. There’s also discussion about reviving the alternative minimum tax, or A.M.T., on high-net individuals and some companies.

Both of those ideas are unlikely to sit well with some Republicans, including those in the House, who could be criticized for essentially voting to increase taxes.

Lawmakers may decide that’s a risk worth taking or they could ultimately decide to jettison the deficit hawks’ concerns and lose their votes.

Several senators are worth watching.

As Republicans mull changes to their tax plan, the spotlight will focus on several senators with varying concerns.

Republican leaders do not need to win over all of these lawmakers. In fact, they could decide that some demands are simply not worth meeting — assuming they can satisfy other Republicans and therefore get the 50 votes they need. Vice President Mike Pence can also provide a tiebreaking vote.

At least a handful of senators have expressed concerns about the deficit, including Mr. Corker and Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and James Lankford of Oklahoma. Now that the trigger is dead, Republicans may need to come up with another idea to protect against piling up debt as a result of the tax overhaul.

Two Republicans, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Steve Daines of Montana, have objected to how the bill treats pass-through businesses, whose profits are distributed to owners and taxed at individual rates. In light of their concerns, Republicans plan to sweeten the tax treatment of these businesses.

Finally, there is Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who has her own concerns about the tax overhaul. She wants the bill to allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes, and adding that provision could help win her over.

METRO ACCESS - PARATRANSIT REMAINS BROKEN IN DC (GREASED PALMS)













METRO ACCESS - PARATRANSIT REMAINS BROKEN IN DC:

YET THE PROGRAM COLLECTS MORE FEDERAL FUNDS.

WHICH POLITICIANS' PALMS ARE BEING GREASED??

WHY NOT REPLACE CONTRACTORS WITH UBER & LYFT DRIVERS?

METRO ACCESS GROWING PROBLEMS INCLUDE.......

POLITICALLY-RIGGED CONTRACTS,
POOR MANAGEMENT,
HORRIBLE PERFORMANCE LEVELS,
SEVERE RETALIATION AGAINST WHISTLE BLOWERS,
EXTREME DISORGANIZATION,
RARE ON-TIME PICK-UPS,
DISABLED PASSENGERS FORCED TO RIDE FOR HOURS,
NEPOTISM,
DISPATCHERS DON'T KNOW WHERE DRIVERS ARE,
POWER STRUGGLES,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT,
HOTBED FOR SINGLE WOMEN LOOKING FOR SUGAR DADDIES IN THE WORKPLACE.


Sources: Washington Post, WTOP, Youtube


******* How problems with MetroAccess have left D.C.’s most vulnerable commuters stranded


Users of Metro’s service for the elderly and people with disabilities say they have recently endured hours-long waits for rides, spent entire afternoons in vans traveling nonsensical routes and watched as fellow riders soiled themselves on unreasonably long trips.

The routes that MetroAccess drivers must follow are not only unnecessarily long, but sometimes also take them in the opposite directions from their destinations, say customers, including some who are blind, medically fragile or use wheelchairs. One former customer said her doctor recommended she stop using the service to get to her lung cancer treatments because it was too stressful.

For MetroAccess’s 43,000 registered customers, the problems began last September with a sudden, seven-point drop in on-time performance. The share of excessively late trips nearly tripled from the month before. Metro officials have blamed soaring numbers of late and missed trips on a driver shortage.

“I feel like because I have a disability, I’m being treated like less than everyone else,” said Shannon Minnick, 46, who is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair.

Minnick, of Silver Spring, said she recently missed a doctor’s appointment after spending more than 2½ hours in a MetroAccess van for what is typically a 25-minute ride. On another recent trip, a driver taking her home from Rockville first picked up someone in Kensington, five minutes from her home, and then drove another passenger to north Silver Spring before heading south again to drop her off.

Nancy Childress, 63, of West Springfield, Va., recalled how one MetroAccess trip took so long this winter that another passenger soiled herself after being in the van for two to three hours.

“She couldn’t help it,” said Childress, who has trouble walking and balancing from being hit by a car two decades ago.

The driver disinfected the van, and they went on their way, Childress said.

Heidi Case, a disability advocate, said she knew a woman who almost called the police, frantic that she hadn’t heard from her severely disabled daughter who had been stuck in a van for more than two hours.

Those are the kinds of “disastrous things that are happening,” Case said. “It is a significant quality-of-life change.”

On-time performance remains near its lowest level since at least mid-2013. In April, 88 percent of customers were picked up on time — better than the 83 percent in the fall but still below Metro’s minimum target of 92 percent.

By April, the number of trips deemed “excessively late” — more than 20 minutes past the half-hour pickup window — had nearly doubled since last summer, from about 2,400 a month to 4,700. Incidents in which the driver never showed also doubled to almost 1,500 in April.

The number of botched and excessively late trips make up a relatively small portion — about 3 to 4 percent — of MetroAccess’s overall service. But with about 8,000 trips a day, the percentages mask thousands of missed appointments, late arrivals at work and frustrated customers who rely on the service to live independently.

While high driver turnover has been a problem in the paratransit industry for decades, Metro officials say the growth in services such as Uber and Lyft has further cut into the driver pool. The shortage worsened just as ridership was picking up from the summer lull, Metro officials said, even though the agency’s own data shows usage actually dropped by 9,500 passengers between August and October.

Christian Kent, Metro’s assistant general manager for access services, said contractors were down about 100 drivers in September, leaving the companies 10 percent short of the 1,000 needed for full service. As the driver shortage increased throughout the fall, Kent said, on-time performance couldn’t recover, even in months when ridership dropped.

“The contractors experienced a more competitive driver market than they have had to deal with in the past, and the number of people who applied for jobs with MetroAccess was lower than we’ve seen in the past,” Kent said.

Transit agencies are required to provide paratransit service under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and MetroAccess is the fifth-largest such program in the country. Usage has more than doubled in the past 14 years, from just under a million trips in 2003 to more than 2 million trips. It is the agency’s fastest-growing and most expensive service.

Metro spends about $100 million annually to provide Metro¬Access service via five contractors. The transit agency subsidizes 92 percent of the costs, with the rest covered by fare revenue.

Rides cost two times the equivalent bus or rail fare, with a maximum $6.50, for a trip that costs the agency an average of $50.

Customers must make a reservation a day in advance and are given a 30-minute pickup window. As a ride-sharing service, there are typically multiple passengers per van.

Many of those who rely on MetroAccess cannot easily navigate Metro or afford taxis or ride-hailing services.

Kent said a trip is considered late if it is even one minute outside the 30-minute pickup window.

Just because on-time performance dropped, he said, that doesn’t mean “that suddenly every trip is egregiously late.”

Contributing to the problem are the computer-generated routes that drivers are required to follow — even if they don’t make sense in terms of geography or time.

Documents obtained through a public records request show that MetroAccess contractors began “dropping” routes at a precipitous clip last August, meaning the companies didn’t have enough drivers to accept all the trips that the computer assigned them.

During some months last fall, as many as 1,337 trips had to be reassigned among available drivers.

Fewer drivers means those on hand must cover larger areas and have more trips tacked on to their routes, Kent said. Accommodating these “add-on” trips causes the circuitous routes that customers have complained about.

Steve Polkinghorn, of Burke, Va., said his commute home from his job in Arlington County used to rarely exceed 90 minutes. Now it can take more than two hours. That’s because the drivers who pick him up at his Crystal City office often head into the District to pick up another passenger before turning around and slogging through traffic back to Northern Virginia to take him home.

“Why am I driving due north when I live due south?” said Polkinghorn, who has multiple sclerosis.

Cindy LaBon, who is blind, said out-of-the-way routes have left her and her guide dog stuck in a van up to three hours.

In the fall, LaBon said, a fellow passenger who was mentally disabled began crying after the driver passed her street to drop off someone else miles way. The woman had already been in the van for three hours on a trip from Lanham to Silver Spring.

Two weeks ago, LaBon said, she spent more than two hours trying to get from Burtonsville to Gaithersburg — both in Montgomery County — in a van that first took her to Northwest Washington.

“They don’t know geography,” LaBon, 68, said of whoever sets the drivers’ routes. “They don’t even put trips [together] going in the same direction.”

While the computer suggests three options, staff members in the scheduling center can override the software, Kent said.

“On days when we have surging ridership and depleted drivers to route, sometimes the dispatchers don’t have an ideal choice coming out of the computer,” Kent said. “We are very much aware of the issue.”

Metro has fined the three companies that provide drivers — Transdev, First Transit and Diamond Transportation — almost $1 million each in contract “damages” since the fall.

But Metro officials say they’ve also cut the companies a financial break to help them hire more drivers. The agency has greatly reduced future financial penalties, in some cases by 90 percent, for six months, according to Metro. Transdev also has been allowed to use temporary drivers, a Metro spokeswoman said. And the agency recently agreed to pay the contractors “slightly” more so they could raise wages.

“It’s very difficult for them to put out the extra cash to pay drivers at a higher wage scale if, simultaneously, we’re taking the money back from them in damages,” Kent said.

Transdev, the company responsible for half of MetroAccess rides, blamed the sudden downturn on the difficulty of recruiting drivers, “given the current robust labor force and low unemployment rate.” The company said it had been fully staffed a year before the performance drop, but suddenly attrition rose and driver training classes shrank. Meanwhile, ridership increased in the fall just as back-to-school-and-work traffic jumped.

First Transit, which is responsible for 35 percent of Metro¬Access trips, said it faces the same problems attracting drivers. By fall, the company was short 35 to 50 drivers, spokesman Jay Brock said last month, and the workforce hadn’t fully recovered. Brock said the company is participating in job fairs, increasing its marketing and undertaking grass-roots efforts to attract new hires.

“We’re screening, interviewing, taking [applicants] through our background checks and trying to get them on the road and behind the wheel,” Brock said.

John Gray, acting project manager at MV Transportation, which manages the MetroAccess call center, directed reporters’ questions to Metro.

Kate Walden, a spokeswoman for Diamond Transportation, which provides 15 percent of MetroAccess trips, said driver shortages are occurring nationwide. She said the company is now “nearly fully staffed” for MetroAccess and is “aggressively recruiting to ensure we have a full complement of drivers this summer.”

A union representing paratransit drivers says Metro is letting contractors off the hook for poor service. A key problem, they say, remains the “poverty wages” drivers receive. The companies recently agreed to increase wages to at least $15 an hour, union officials said. For example, Transdev drivers who were making $13.85 an hour saw their wages increased to $16 an hour.

“You cannot operate a public service with a sweatshop employment model,” said Todd Brogan, a union organizer with Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1764 at a recent demonstration urging Metro to stop using contractors for paratransit.

[Transit service for elderly, people with disabilities sees sharp decline]

Kent said training classes are now full and efforts continue to hire more drivers to meet the growing demand. The agency said late Friday that they were fully staffed. Metro also recently began receiving 207 new vans to replace older ones and expand the fleet by 25 vehicles.

The five-year MetroAccess contract expires in June 2018, and the agency is putting the new one out for bid. The agency also is exploring ways to partner with Uber, Lyft and other transportation services to provide same-day paratransit service at a fraction of the cost.

Kent said MetroAccess will improve, even as the number of people needing it continues to grow.

“There’s really not a choice,” Kent said. “MetroAccess is our responsibility to our customers with disabilities. We must provide it under the ADA, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

KATHLEEN RICE vs NANCY PELOSI - CONYERS & DEMS' FUTURE (CIVIL WAR)









KATHLEEN RICE vs NANCY PELOSI - CONYERS & DEMS' FUTURE (CIVIL WAR):

RICE REPRESENTS DEMOCRATS' FUTURE (2018, 2020).

PELOSI REPRESENTS DEMOCRATS' PAST (2008, 2012, 1990s).

JOHN CONYERS SHOULD RESIGN BUT PELOSI & OTHER OLDER LEADERS APPEAR TO BE PROTECTING HIM.

IS PELOSI AFRAID OF TERM LIMITS ON THE HORIZON??


Sources: CNN, Daily Beast, Politico, Business Insider, The Hill, Youtube


****** Dem lawmaker: Pelosi harassment response set women back 'decades'


Her defense of John Conyers as 'an icon' squandered the party's moral authority, Rep. Kathleen Rice says.

A Democratic congresswoman laced into Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, suggesting the top House Democrat “set women back and — quite frankly, our party back — decades” by failing to more forcefully confront allegations of sexual harassment by veteran Democratic Rep. John Conyers.

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York said Pelosi’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday — when she raised questions about the accounts of Conyers’ accusers and described the Michigan Democrat as an “icon” — ceded the party’s moral high ground on sexual harassment issues, especially because one of Conyers’ accusers is bound by a nondisclosure agreement.

“I think that her comments on Sunday set women back and — quite frankly, our party back — decades,” said Rice, who is advocating for legislation that would expose a slew of hidden, taxpayer-funded settlements for sexual harassment by lawmakers and aides.

Rice said Pelosi’s comments were particularly egregious in light of President Donald Trump’s tacit embrace of Roy Moore, the Alabama GOP Senate candidate accused of molesting a minor.

“I think that we ceded the moral high ground on Sunday when our leader said on ‘Meet the Press’ that John Conyers was an icon and we don’t even know who these women are, when she was fully aware that the woman in question was bound by a nondisclosure agreement,” Rice said. “I think we had an opportunity to stake that moral high ground when you have a president who is supporting a man for Senate who — all credible allegations that have not been refuted — showed him to be a predator of teenage girls.”

A Pelosi spokesman said Rice’s comments were not an accurate portrayal of the minority leader’s sentiment.

“The leader was very clear on Sunday that no matter how great an individual’s legacy, it’s not a license for harassment,” said the spokesman, Drew Hammill.

Hammill also noted that Pelosi, in her “Meet the Press” interview, said she favored eliminating nondisclosure agreements that silenced victims from speaking out.

“[A]ll of these nondisclosure agreements have to go,” she told NBC’s Chuck Todd in the interview. Since that interview, Hammill added, Pelosi has said she believes Conyers’ accusers and subsequently spoke to one of them about her story. She also has signaled support for legislation from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) that would reform the system of harassment reporting in Congress to protect victims.

Rice was among of a group of Democrats who vocally opposed Pelosi’s reelection as Democratic leader when the caucus voted after the November election to give Pelosi another term.

Rice’s comments escalate her already pointed criticism of Pelosi’s leadership — and of her Democratic colleagues, who she said earlier Wednesday were not confronting sexual harassment issues within their own ranks seriously enough. She’s one of three Democratic lawmakers, along with Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who have called for Conyers to resign immediately.

Rice left early Wednesday from a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting and told reporters she bailed because she didn't think her colleagues were approaching the harassment issue seriously. A Democratic aide said Rice exited after Pelosi spoke about the issue and also missed at least a portion of the comments from eight Democratic lawmakers who addressed harassment issues.

"There was a lengthy discussion of sexual harassment policies and reforms needed," the aide said.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

JOHN CONYERS JR NEEDS TO RESIGN NOW, END OF STORY (TERM LIMITS)









JOHN CONYERS JR NEEDS TO RESIGN NOW, END OF STORY (TERM LIMITS):

IT'S NOT ABOUT HIM. IT'S ABOUT RESPECTING WOMEN & THE DEMOCRAT'S PARTY FUTURE (2018 & 2020).

HE PAID TO SETTLE A SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT.

IS JOHN CONYERS ABOVE THE LAW?

WHAT HAS CONYERS DONE FOR MICHIGAN LATELY?

HOW EFFECTIVE IS CONYERS TODAY?

AGE & RACE DOESN'T MATTER.......HOW EFFECTIVE ARE YOU IN THE 21st CENTURY??

POLITICIANS CAN'T LEAN ON THEIR PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOREVER.

THAT'S WHY CONGRESS NEEDS TERM LIMITS.


Sources: NY Times, ABC News, CNN, Youtube


****** John Conyers Scandal Highlights Divisions, Generational and Gender


WASHINGTON — Representative John Conyers Jr., who took his Michigan seat in the House in 1965, has served in Congress longer than his fellow Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, has been alive.

So when Mr. Conyers, 88, stepped aside as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee amid swirling allegations of sexual improprieties, it fell to Mr. Jeffries, 47, to hint that the accusations that cost Mr. Conyers his position may hasten broader changes to the Democratic Party that began with the election of President Trump.

“House Democrats have been in transition since the 2016 election with younger members being given the opportunity to be on the playing field in a meaningful way,” Mr. Jeffries said. “This moment that we are in, it may accelerate the elevation of younger voices.”

Sexual assault, harassment and other vulgarities have rocked Hollywood, scarred Silicon Valley and darkened media offices from New York to Washington. But the sexual harassment scandal surrounding Mr. Conyers, the longest serving member of the House, has highlighted schisms that are as much about generations as they are about gender.

Especially among Democrats, Mr. Conyers’s troubles have generated friction between the party’s aging leadership and rank-and-file, and underscored the difficulty that newer members of the House have in rising up in a system where leadership positions, including committee chairmanships, are determined almost solely by seniority.

The three top Democrats in the House — Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California, Steny Hoyer of Maryland and James E. Clyburn of South Carolina — are all in their late 70s. Mr. Conyers has been the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee — either as chairman or ranking member — for 10 years.

And for many of them, the response to the Conyers imbroglio has been telling. Mr. Conyers has denied all the charges, but under pressure, did relinquish his post. Mr. Clyburn suggested that for all he knew, “all of this could be made up.”

Ms. Pelosi, the minority leader, swiftly called for an ethics investigation last week after news broke that two aides had accused Mr. Conyers of sexual harassment, and that he had paid a settlement to one. By Tuesday afternoon, she was working quietly behind the scenes with Congressional Black Caucus members who were trying to persuade Mr. Conyers to resign, according to a senior Democratic aide. His lawyer said he had no immediate plans to do so.

But her path to that point has been meandering. Ms. Pelosi offered an awkward defense of Mr. Conyers on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, saying, “Just because someone is accused — and was it one accusation? Is it two? I think there has to be — John Conyers is an icon in our country.” That earned her scathing reviews.

Melanie Sloan, a respected ethics lawyer in Washington who worked for Mr. Conyers in the mid-1990s, was so incensed by the performance that she called Ms. Pelosi’s staff and reminded them that Mr. Conyers had verbally abused her and had once summoned her to his office while he was wearing his underwear. That prompted Ms. Pelosi to switch course again.

“I find the behavior Ms. Sloan described unacceptable and disappointing,” she said in a statement. “I believe what Ms. Sloan has told me.”

Another Conyers staff member, Deanna Maher, came forward Monday to tell The Detroit News that Mr. Conyers had made unwanted sexual advances toward her three times.

Younger Democrats have been far less equivocal than their leaders. Representatives Kathleen Rice of New York and Pramila Jayapal of Washington say Mr. Conyers should resign.

Mr. Jeffries, who said he supports Ms. Pelosi’s leadership, is among a number of House Democrats who lamented in interviews that the party must have a reckoning over the way it promotes younger, newer members.

Ms. Pelosi has been pushing in various ways to create opportunities for less senior members. As part of that effort, Mr. Jeffries, along with Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island and Cheri Bustos of Illinois, now lead the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. The group is charged, in part, with revamping the messages Democrats use to appeal to voters.

Representative Beto O’Rourke, Democrat of Texas, said that even after three terms in Congress, he feels frustrated by a Democratic Party that seems wedded to older members and stale ideas. He said he has tried to make the best of his time by working on veterans and armed forces issues, but he will relinquish his seat next year for a long-shot run at Ted Cruz’s Senate seat.

In so doing, he is following the path of other rising Democratic stars, such as Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen, who left the House to pursue other political posts.

“There’s not really a path or the means to really reflect the diversity in ideas and geographical representation and tenure of service,” said Mr. O’Rourke, who was among 63 Democrats who did not support Ms. Pelosi’s bid to be re-elected as minority leader last year.


Mr. O’Rourke said Republicans do a better job of promoting younger members, in part because they limit, to six years, the length of time a member can be chairman or chairwoman of a committee. Democrats do not impose term limits on committee leaders or so-called ranking members, the top slot for lawmakers who are in the minority.

Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., a former lieutenant governor of Virginia, added that if Democrats want to appeal to young people, young people need to be at the forefront of leadership.

“The best organizations are the ones that blend the éminence grise wisdom with the energy of young men and young women,” he said. “I’m not sure we do that very well.”

But Democrats must be careful if they decide to shake up the seniority system, said Representative Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat who is in her third term on Capitol Hill.

Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus are concerned that their members might be pushed out of top positions on committees — including Homeland Security, Financial Services, and the Education and the Work Force committee — if Democrats change seniority rules.

“I want to make sure we continue the diversity we have in the Democratic Party,” said Representative Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York and a member of the black caucus. “A way that African-Americans and Hispanics particularly have able to been make sure that they have been in committee leadership positions is that there has been a seniority system.”

The leadership has been making changes to the party structure since 2016, when Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio challenged Ms. Pelosi. His campaign pushed Ms. Pelosi to back a number of changes, including creating vice ranking member slots on each committee for younger members.

“It’s been no secret that I think we need new people stepping up across the board in the party providing leadership,” Mr. Ryan said.

As vice ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Jamie Raskin, a freshman Democrat from Maryland, has managed floor debate on nine bills, he said.

Mr. Jeffries worries that as lawmakers debate the direction of the party and the rules for its leadership, they will lose sight of their broader mission.


“The worst thing we could do right now is conduct ourselves in a circular firing squad based on a generational divide,” he said. “We should be united and disciplined in executing the mission of taking back the House, because nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. Period. Full stop.”