Saturday, May 26, 2018

Hogg Is Going To Overstep His "Assumed" Power. His Antics Might Work Now But Not Long Term


Publix acquiesces to ‘die-in’ protests organized by anti-NRA activist David Hogg



Publix acquiesces to ‘die-in’ protests organized by anti-NRA activist David Hogg
Parkland activist David Hogg planned "die-in" protests to pressure Publix grocery stores to stop donating money to a pro-NRA candidate for governor in Florida. (Image Source: YouTube screenshot)




Publix, the grocery store company, has caved to pressure from a protest led by David Hogg that included “die-in” disturbances at their stores.
Here’s what happened
The Parkland massacre survivor began calling for a protest against the company over campaign donations they had made to Adam Putnam, a Republican candidate for Florida governor who was supportive of the NRA.
“Anyone who supports an NRA sellout is an NRA sellout,” Hogg tweeted. “That is why I am calling on everyone to stop shopping at Publix until they pull their endorsement of Putnam publicly.”
Hogg began to plan “die-in” protests where his accomplices lie down in Publix grocery stores and pretend to be dead while holding campaign signs and chanting slogans. The disturbance is meant to pressure the company to give in to their political requests.
Hogg was also demanding that Publix double the amount it had given to the pro-NRA candidate and donate that amount to the Stoneman Douglas Victims fund.
Videos of the protests were spread online by supporters of the anti-NRA campaign, and through lavish coverage from the media.
On Friday, Publix released a statement vowing to end their political contributions and review their donations process.
“We regret that some of our political contributions have led to an unintentional customer divide instead of our desire to support a growing economy in Florida,” thestatement read. “As a result of this situation, we are evaluating our processes to ensure that our giving better reflects our intended desire to support a strong economy and a healthy community.”

Another Democrat Stung Bu #MeToo Movement

Three women accuse Iowa governor candidate of sexual misconduct






Three women accuse Iowa governor candidate of sexual misconduct
© YouTube
Democratic Iowa gubernatorial candidate Nate Boulton has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, the Des Moines Register reported Wednesday.
Three women told the newspaper that Boulton, one of multiple Democrats running in June's primary for his party's nomination, touched them in a sexual manner without their consent.
One woman said Boulton repeatedly grabbed her from behind at a bar in 2015, while two others say the candidate inappropriately touched them more than a decade ago when they and Boulton were students together in law school.
Boulton said in a statement to the Register that he remembered the situations differently, but would not deny the accusations and apologized for misreading social situations.
“I don’t have the same recollection,” he told the Register. “But I am not going to offer any additional context to this, other than to say if someone’s perspective is that it was inappropriate and I crossed a line and I misread a situation in a social setting, I do apologize," he said.
“I think if I add context it quickly becomes victim-blaming, and I don’t want to go down that path," he added.
Boulton is in second place among the six Democrats vying for the nomination, according to a recent Des Moines Register poll which shows him trailing businessman Fred Hubbell by 11 points. He told the newspaper that he does not anticipate dropping out of the race over the allegations.
“I think I owe it to those people who have supported me to have that vision tested at the ballot box,” he said.
The winner of June's Democratic primary will face incumbent Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, previously the state's lieutenant governor, who was sworn in after former Gov. Terry Branstad was selected as President Trump's ambassador to China.
Reynolds, as Branstad's running mate, won reelection in 2014 with 59 percent of the vote.

What Do You Do When You Know You Have Done Wrong? You Delay, You Obfuscate, You Posture.

Byron York: FBI appears ready to miss another deadline in Trump-Russia probe

Friday is the deadline for the FBI and Justice Department to give the Senate Judiciary Committee key documents in the Michael Flynn case.
It won't happen, because that's not how the current FBI and Justice Department deal with congressional demands involving the Trump-Russia affair. But sooner or later, Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is likely to get his way.
In a May 11 letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Grassley noted that more than a year ago, on Feb. 15, 2017, the Judiciary Committee requested a copy of the transcript of a Dec. 2016 phone call between Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. It was that call that led the FBI to go to the White House to question the newly installed national security adviser on Jan. 24, 2017, just four days into the Trump administration. And it was that questioning that led to Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI.
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
The Judiciary Committee request was bipartisan. But the Justice Department refused to hand over the document. Instead, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed the committee on Flynn and other issues on March 15, 2017.
"Director Comey specifically told us during that briefing that the FBI agents who interviewed Lt. General Michael Flynn 'saw nothing that led them to believe [he was] lying,'" Grassley wrote. Comey "led us to believe … that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute [Flynn] for false statements made in that interview."
On Dec. 1, 2017, with special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the case, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI.
Now, with Flynn awaiting sentencing, Grassley wants the information he asked for more than a year ago. Plus, he wants the FBI agents' contemporaneous report on the interview, known as a 302, and any other notes or documents relating to the interview (the interview was not recorded.)
It seems certain that the Justice Department, in conjunction with Mueller's office, will refuse, citing an ongoing investigation. That will be true until Flynn is sentenced, or until his case concludes in some other way.
There is no way to predict when that will happen. But tea-leaf-readers watching the Flynn case have noticed one small development that might be a hint things are wrapping up.
On Jan. 31, 2018, Flynn and Mueller jointly asked the court to put off sentencing. "Due to the status of the special counsel's investigation, the parties do not believe that this matter is ready for a sentencing hearing at this time," they wrote. They asked for and received a 90-day extension, until May 1.
Then, on May 1, the parties again declared themselves unready for sentencing. But this time they asked for a 60-day delay, until no later than June 29. It also was granted.
Does the request for a 60-day extension, rather than another 90-day extension, mean the Flynn case is nearing conclusion? The people who know are refusing to talk. But it could be a clue.
One last thing. At the end of his letter, Grassley asked the FBI to "make Special Agent Joe Pientka available for a transcribed interview with committee staff." Pientka is thought to be one of the two agents (with Peter Strzok) who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017, and who Comey said did not believe Flynn was lying. Pientka's account of the Flynn interview would be critical to understanding the case — and in terms of public credibility, Pientka would not have the baggage of Strzok, whose text exchanges with fellow FBI agent Lisa Page are under investigation both inside the Justice Department and on Capitol Hill.
If past patterns hold, the FBI will deny the Pientka request, too.
But at some point, perhaps not too long from now, the Flynn case will end. And then, the Justice Department's, and Mueller's, "ongoing investigation" reason for withholding information will no longer apply. No doubt they will try to find another reason to keep the information from Congress. But in the end, Congress, in the person of Grassley, will probably win.