Showing posts with label conflicts of interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflicts of interest. Show all posts

Monday, May 7, 2018

Trump Hints At Legal Action Against Mueller’s Team: The ’13 Angry Democrats’


President Donald Trump suggested Monday that “13 angry Democrats” on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team could face legal action over alleged “conflicts of interest.”  This comes after the investigation has already run into numerous snags, including Mueller’s inability to produce any evidence.


“The 13 Angry Democrats in charge of the Russian Witch Hunt are starting to find out that there is a Court System in place that actually protects people from injustice…and just wait ’till the Courts get to see your unrevealed Conflicts of Interest!” Trump said.




Trump did not provide proof of the alleged conflicts, yet Mueller has yet to provide any evidence in his two-year-long investigation that would warrant keeping it open.  CNN has reported that several members of Mueller’s team have donated to Democrats, and the dossier which allegedly spurred the investigation was paid for by Hillary Clinton’s team.  Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election also has been being pushed hard by propagandists and puppets in the mainstream media.


As if it adds any credence, CNN thought it noteworthy to mention that Mueller is a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, and the man who appointed him as special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, was appointed by Trump. So if Mueller is a Republican, then Trump probably wasn’t referring to him as one of the ” 13 angry Democrats.” But that’s only if one was expecting CNN to not spin this into some kind of propaganda piece.


Trump has repeatedly denied collusion with Russia to win the election, and considering the investigation into such has gone on for two years without any evidentiary basis for it, it certainly looks like it’s a witch hunt.  He denied that he’s obstructed the probe and has defended his actions as “fighting back” against “the Russia Witch Hunt.”




“There is no O, it’s called Fighting Back,” the President tweeted, later suggesting that the investigation was being dragged out so it could damage Republicans in the midterm elections.




Several of the questions that Mueller is interested in asking Trump have been leaked. Many are related to possible obstruction of justice actions. Trump said last week that such questions amount to a “setup and trap” and that it would “seem very hard to obstruct justice for a crime that never happened!”


Last month, Trump hinted to Fox & Friends that he might “at some point” step in and take some kind of action against the Justice Department, which is overseeing the special counsel investigation.

 

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Power Tripping Cop Sued for Pulling Over Ambulance Carrying a Patient to Intimidate Them

kentucky


Jackson, KY – Most people may see nothing wrong with a town councilman becoming a police offer, but what if that councilman cop also owns an ambulance company, and begins pulling over competing ambulances—then does he have too much power?


The answer is still “No” in the city of Jackson, Kentucky, despite the fact that the taxpayer-funded Kentucky Association of Counties is now paying a $26,000 settlement to Emergency Medical Technician Jason Crigger.


Crigger filed a lawsuit against Breathitt County Special Deputy and Councilman Steve McIntosh, claiming that McIntosh had no legitimate reason to pull over the ambulance he was driving in June 2016.



“Never gave me a reason that he pulled me over….Never accused me of any traffic violations or anything of the sort. It appeared to me he just pulled me over to try to threaten and intimidate us,” Crigger said.



This accusation is just the latest in a series of alleged conflicts of interest Crigger claims McIntosh has in his official positions as an officer of the law, a businessman and a town councilman.


Advertisment



Mountain News WYMT reported that when one of its reporters attempted to talk to the Jackson city councilman, he refused to be recorded on camera. He did reportedly say that he had good reasons for pulling Crigger over—but refused to say what those reasons were.


Jay Arrowood, owner of Arrow-Med Ambulance, Inc. told reporters he believes that the city needs to “jerk this guy’s badge.”



The two competing ambulance companies have been locked in a series of legal battles. McIntosh is suing Arrow-Med in another lawsuit that alleges the company had defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of more than $1 million.



READ MORE:  Cop Involved in Quadruple Murder and Cocaine Conspiracy Kills Himself as Feds Try to Arrest Him



At the time McIntosh pulled Crigger over, there was a patient riding as a passenger who had just undergone dialysis and was being transported back home. Arrowood didn’t appreciate the officer’s actions and remarked:



“Mr. McIntosh needs to work on improving his own service versus trying to put our service out of business,” Arrowood said. “If you’ll pull an ambulance over for no reason, hindering patient care, there’s nothing that you won’t do.”



Crigger is suing for damages related to his “humiliation and suffering, punitive damages against McIntosh and an injunction preventing anyone acting in concert with McIntosh to stop interfering with Arrow-Med,” according to Mountain News.



Predictably, Breathitt County Sheriff Ray Clemons told Mountain News he was not aware of any wrongdoing on behalf of his deputy. However, Arrowood says the harassment has been going on for years.


As The Free Thought Project has reported, altercations between police officers, EMTS, and even fireman are nothing new. In 2009, Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper Daniel Martin pulled over ambulance drive Maurice White, choked him, and proceed to arrest him.


White objected to being pulled over while transporting a passenger in need of emergency medical care. But that didn’t stop Martin, and his superiors took his side. Not only was Martin allowed to keep his job with the OKHP, but he was later involved in another scandal where he showed an inappropriate photo to another officer.


Having a police officer who is also a town councilman is a conflict of interest enough for a sheriff who’s worth his weight in salt to deny employment. But having an officer who owns a competing ambulance company, who then pulls over his competition is a blaring display of both police corruption and political corruption. If Sheriff Clemons is truly concerned with maintaining the public’s trust, he may need to revisit his decision to keep such an officer on the force.




READ MORE:  VIDEO: Cyclist Unlawfully Accosted & Charged by a Tyrant Cop -- But He Fought Back and Won!



In the case of Jackson, Kentucky, while Crigger will receive a $26,000 settlement, the burden to pay the bill is on the taxpayers—not McIntosh, who still remains in his capacity as a sheriff’s deputy.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Food Industry Study Slams Recommended Sugar Intake Limits

A study made headlines after stating that there is no way of knowing just how much sugar consumption is too much, and the methods used to create dietary sugar intake limits are flawed.


CNN’s headline reads: “How much sugar is OK? Paper adds to debate.” Hmm, not really. The study was funded by the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a nonprofit with ties to Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Mars, and Kraft Foods. [1]


There’s not much of a debate when the companies funneling money into research make soda, candy, and processed foods.




The Claims


The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that people consume no more than 10% of their daily calories from sugar. It’s much easier to consume that amount than you might think. Drinking just 1 can of soda can put you over the recommended limit. So it’s not surprising that Coca-Cola – yet again – has its tentacles in a study hinting that you might be able to consume even more of the sweet stuff.


Study author Bradley Johnston, a clinical epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, says those recommendations “are not trustworthy.”


Johnston reviewed the studies and methodology used to create the guidelines. He doesn’t disagree that people should limit their sugar intake, but he says there is no solid answer to the question: “How much is too much?”


Johnston says:


“Sugar should certainly be limited in the diets of children and adults, no question.”


The epidemiologist argues that there is no convincing evidence to support cutting sugar intake to 10%, or even 5%.


He explains:


“There’s a lot of uncertainty about the thresholds that appear in guidelines. What’s happening is that guideline panelists are making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence.”


Source: McMaster University Daily News – Bradley Johnston

The paper reviewed 9 sugar-intake guidelines from around the world, including the WHO’s guideline and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which were updated in 2016.


Furthermore, Johnston argues, current guidelines on dietary sugar do not adhere to standards set by the American non-governmental organization Institute of Medicine in 2011.


He says:


“Although our findings question the specific sugar recommendations from guidelines produced by leading authorities, the findings should not be used to justify high or increased consumption of sugary foods and beverages.


… results from our review should be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [2]





What in the Hell is Going on Here?


Johnston and his colleagues seem to have arrived at some relatively benign conclusions. They don’t recommend that people start eating more sugar. They don’t even really suggest that eating more sugar might be safe.


So what in the hell is going on here?


If there is one thing the 2016 political season taught us, it’s that planting even the smallest doubt in people’s minds can have an overwhelming effect. That is what’s going on here.


The likes of Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, and Kraft are trying to plant doubts in people’s minds. And why wouldn’t they? It’s good for business. Inevitably, at least a few people will have that extra piece of chocolate, that extra glob of mac ‘n’ cheese, or 1 more can of soda because, after all, no one is sure how much sugar is bad for you.


Source: Business Insider

There will be people who get duped, but Johnston’s conclusions haven’t duped many scientists. They see what’s going on here, and they’re calling him out on it.


Read: PepsiCo Sued for Allegedly Misleading Buyers of Sugar-Laden Naked Juice


Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University who was written extensively about the soda industry, says:


“This is a classic example of industry-funded research aimed at one purpose and one purpose only: to cast doubt on the science linking diets high in sugars to poor health. This paper is shameful.” [1]


Dr. Dean Schillinger, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco who wrote an editorial accompanying the study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, says:


“In essence, this study suggests that placing limits on ‘junk food’ is based on ‘junk science.’ Studies are more likely to conclude there is no relationship between sugar consumption and health outcomes when scientists receive financial support from food and beverage companies.” [2]


Gosh, y’think? The sugar industry in the 1960’s paid Harvard scientists to downplay the link between sugar consumption and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the cause instead. It worked magically. Fat became the enemy of health, and the market was soon flooded with all sorts of low-fat and non-fat foods. And those foods generally contain about 20% more sugar than full-fat products.


In the study, the researchers wrote that “the rationale and evidence used to make each recommendation were inconsistent.” [2]


Baloney, says Schillinger. For one thing, he explains, the researchers reviewed guidelines published over a 20-year period. It’s no surprise that they found inconsistencies, as “science evolves over time.”


According to Schillinger, Johnston and his crew failed to even use proper research methods in their work. He says:


“In addition, their claims regarding the low quality of guidelines are based on the application of inappropriate metrics.”


He says that one of the methods the “scientists” used in the paper “is the wrong tool for the job and virtually guaranteed that they would falsely conclude that guidelines are of low quality.”



He also cites the sugar industry-fat debacle of the 60’s, calling it a “major limitation.”


In October, the American Journal of Preventative Medicine revealed how Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have sponsored national health and medical organizations. (In that case, even the American Diabetes Association, a government organization, took money from the companies.)


Schillinger says:


“Added sugars not only provide unnecessary and ’empty’ non-nutritious calories but also appear to affect unique and specific unhealthy metabolic pathways that contribute to obesity and diabetes and heart disease, irrespective of calories.


We are in a public health war against diabetes, and we need to create smart strategies to win this war and prevent needless suffering and death. This is serious business.”


There is no doubt that the added sugars pushed on buyers by Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, and Kraft, are causing disease, limb amputations, and deaths, Schillinger says.


“Nearly all experimental studies that examined whether eating added sugars contributes to obesity and [Type 2] diabetes-related outcomes show a cause-and-effect relationship.” [1]


Johnston swears that he, and ILSI, have good intentions:


“We hope that the results from this review can be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.” [3]


If the spoonfuls of added sugar don’t make you sick, the veiled attempts at making more money off of the poor health of the average buyer just might.


Sources:


[1] NPR


[2] CNN


[3] Fortune


McMaster University Daily News


Business Insider



Storable Food


About Julie Fidler:


Author Image
Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Trump’s Son-in-Law & Top Advisor Failed to Disclose Soros, Goldman Sachs Ties, & $1 Billion Debt

kushner



President Trump’s son-in-law and top White House adviser, Jared Kushner failed miserably in disclosing the most pertinent information conceivable — business ties to billionaire globalist and manipulator, George Soros, PayPal co-founder, Peter Thiel, and Goldman Sachs — and that he owes fully $1 billion in loans.


Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal reports,


“Mr. Kushner’s stake in Cadre—a tech startup that pairs investors with big real-estate projects—means the senior White House official is currently a business partner of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and billionaires including George Soros and Peter Thiel, according to people close to the company.


“The Cadre stake is one of many interests—and ties to large financial institutions—that Mr. Kushner didn’t identify on his disclosure form, according to a Wall Street Journal review of securities and other filings. Others include loans totaling at least $1 billion, from more than 20 lenders, to properties and companies part-owned by Mr. Kushner, the Journal found. He has also provided personal guarantees on more than $300 million of the debt, according to the analysis.”



To hold a position of power as high up in the Trump White House as Kushner, such connections and associations must be reviewed by ethics officials for potential conflicts of interest — in particular, to ensure political decisions will not serve either the adviser or his father-in-law.


According to one of his attorneys, Jamie Gorelick, Kushner owns a company called BFPS Ventures LLC — the parent or umbrella over Cadre — but the latter and ostensively more disputatious startup is not reported anywhere in the adviser’s mandatory financial disclosure forms.


Gorelick assured the WSJ the real-estate firm, Cadre, is indeed mentioned in a revised financial disclosure form, but that cannot be released to the public prior to analysis by ethics officials.


Further, none of Kushner’s whopping $1 billion debt total had been fleshed out in those disclosures.



READ MORE:  Trump Flip-Flops on 5 Key Campaign Promises in a Day — War Spending Now Priority



Despite the astronomical I.O.U. tallies and potentially explosive ties to the billionaire contentious provocateur, Soros — who, incidentally, provided Kushner a $250 million line of credit — Gorelick insisted any revision to a financial disclosure form is considered “very normal,” since attorneys, not Kushner, prepared the information.



She added Trump’s son-in-law had indeed previously discussed the newly revealed information with the Office of Government Ethics and he has already “resigned from Cadre’s board, assigned his voting rights, and reduced his ownership share.”


Thus far, the Office of Government Ethics has not responded to the Journal’s request for comment on the matter.


Former Federal Election Commission chair, Trevor Potter, aligned with other ethics experts in noting the business ties through Cadre and related debts must ordinarily be disclosed — but stopped short of calling the failure to publicly disclose the information a substantive violation of rules.


However, business connections and related debts, they said, must be disclosed to officials so that Kushner would be forced to recuse himself upon any future conflicts of interest where investors and businesses could stand to gain from such a high-level association and vice versa.


“Mr. Kushner,” the WSJ continues, “the 36-year-old scion of a real-estate family, agreed with federal ethics officials to divest more than 80 assets after he and his wife Ivanka were hired by her father, President Donald Trump, to be senior aides. White House officials have said some of the sales were needed to avoid potential conflicts between Mr. Kushner’s far-reaching job duties and his personal financial interests.”


All told, Trump’s adviser retained some 200 assets worth $116 million, largely in properties throughout the United States — but has refused to place those assets into a blind trust, as called for by ethics experts.


Kushner cofounded Cadre in 2014 with his brother, Joshua, and a longtime friend and business partner, Ryan Williams — and substantial assistance from a number of high-powered Goldman Sachs investors, including Thiel.


Cadre then garnered a $250 million line of credit from billionaire George Soros, who — known in the U.S. primarily for financial and political support of the Democrat Party, and thus also a general adversary of Republicans — also reportedly invested heavily in the company in 2015, prior to Trump’s bid for the presidency was announced.


The Journal also notes that, although Kushner putatively stepped back from positions of authority in Cadre, as owner, he retains the power to “influence the [firm’s] management or policies,” as stated in public information from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.


Chief Executive Williams asserted Cadre has cooperated with regulators in updating disclosures to “reflect Jared’s non-operational, non-management relationship with the company, which has been in place since the inauguration.”


“BFPS Ventures, the company that Mr. Kushner’s lawyer says holds his Cadre stake, is shown on his financial disclosure form as owning unspecified New York real estate valued at more than $50 million. The form adds that ‘the conflicting assets of this interest have been divested,’” the Wall Street Journal explains.


An analysis by the outlet found Kushner’s assets could be easily tied to multiple U.S. and foreign Big Banks, private equity firms, and government-owned lenders.


And lenders to Kushner — allocated for real estate or to him, directly — the Journal found, “include Bank of America Corp. , Blackstone Group LP, Citigroup Inc., UBS Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. Royal Bank of Scotland didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment; representatives of the other firms declined to comment.”


While a number of investors and associates of Kushner’s declined to comment on these revelations, those who did, dismissed the news as typical and unconcerning to the public.


“Anything that presents a potential for the conflict of interest should be disclosed so that the public and the press can monitor this,” Potter told the Journal, while downplaying the severity of previously undisclosed information.


Unnamed sources told the Journal Kushner would indeed recuse himself in matters pertaining to Deutsche Bank or RBS, to which he provided personal guarantees on loaned funds.



However, Kushner’s legerdemain in failing to disclose debts to Bank of America, Blackstone Group, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, and RBS, until now, should not exactly instill confidence in any declarations of transparency on financial matters.