hotfudgedetroit.com

D-Day wrote:Help an out-of-towner, here. And I mean this in all seriousness. Didn't Flint voluntarily disconnect from the Detroit water system a few years ago to "save money"? Why is this Snyder's fault to the point that he should be indicted and thrown in the can? Woudln't this fall on the Flint City Council (which I would imagine is just as comical as Detroit's)?

middle aged female wrote:

D-Day wrote:Help an out-of-towner, here. And I mean this in all seriousness. Didn't Flint voluntarily disconnect from the Detroit water system a few years ago to "save money"? Why is this Snyder's fault to the point that he should be indicted and thrown in the can? Woudln't this fall on the Flint City Council (which I would imagine is just as comical as Detroit's)?

They were under one of Snydley's EMs at the time it was found out that the Flint water was so corrosive that it was leeching lead out of the pipes in Flint and he chose to ignore the warnings by the EPA and other orgs. His own cheif of staff sent out an email saying that they were blowing off the people of Flint and they needed to do something. The issue was known almost a year ago now and he chose to turn a blind eye.

D-Day wrote:

middle aged female wrote:

D-Day wrote:Help an out-of-towner, here. And I mean this in all seriousness. Didn't Flint voluntarily disconnect from the Detroit water system a few years ago to "save money"? Why is this Snyder's fault to the point that he should be indicted and thrown in the can? Woudln't this fall on the Flint City Council (which I would imagine is just as comical as Detroit's)?

They were under one of Snydley's EMs at the time it was found out that the Flint water was so corrosive that it was leeching lead out of the pipes in Flint and he chose to ignore the warnings by the EPA and other orgs. His own cheif of staff sent out an email saying that they were blowing off the people of Flint and they needed to do something. The issue was known almost a year ago now and he chose to turn a blind eye.

Thanks......and that's not good

frank - up in grand blanc wrote:

D-Day wrote:

middle aged female wrote:

D-Day wrote:Help an out-of-towner, here. And I mean this in all seriousness. Didn't Flint voluntarily disconnect from the Detroit water system a few years ago to "save money"? Why is this Snyder's fault to the point that he should be indicted and thrown in the can? Woudln't this fall on the Flint City Council (which I would imagine is just as comical as Detroit's)?

They were under one of Snydley's EMs at the time it was found out that the Flint water was so corrosive that it was leeching lead out of the pipes in Flint and he chose to ignore the warnings by the EPA and other orgs. His own cheif of staff sent out an email saying that they were blowing off the people of Flint and they needed to do something. The issue was known almost a year ago now and he chose to turn a blind eye.

Thanks......and that's not good

The genesis of this was the royal screw job that DWS was perpetrating upon Flint. Up here (there, really; they're north of even me) there's long been howling about the rocket that the price of water has been on. People became pissed enough that local communities banded together, formed a water authority, bought land, and for the past couple of years have been laying down their own water system that will draw from Lake Huron. Brothers up here be poor, you know, and even with the $1 billion or so that the authority will cost there will be substantial savings. Very hard to argue with the effort, especially for Flint, because they are and long have been in a tight position: so broke that there are only a handful of cops -like maybe a half dozen- on the street at any given moment. Turning to the Flint river for water was meant to be a stopgap measure until the new line becomes operational.

I give Flint a load of credit for doing what seemed right to get their financial house in order. The new water authority is a regional effort, but as a casual observer it seems that Flint is far more inclined to cooperate with its region than Detroit has ever been, and cutting the cord with Detroit appeared to be another indicator of their maturity. The city tried to do the right thing by its citizens by going to a source for water that they could more easily afford.

Did the state ignore or bury evidence? I hope not. To date my read is that the situation is more of a case of bad luck (who would have guessed that river water would be too acidic for the local supply lines?) than a conspiracy to light up the people of Flint.

middle aged female wrote:I think just the color that the water was coming out of the faucets should have been a warning sign and the city/state should have started banning that water long before this

Dark money's servant in Lansing delivers

Late in the final evening of the Michigan Legislature's 2015 session, Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons, R-Alto, asked her colleagues in the Michigan House to take up SB 571.

The 12-page bill, which made some minor changes to Michigan’s campaign finance law, was not a controversial one. State senators had adopted it unanimously after hearing testimony that it would reduce unnecessary paperwork for both corporations and labor unions seeking to fatten their political war chests.

The House elections committee Lyons chairs had recommended the bill for approval by the full House with no objections from any its three Republican or two Democratic members.

But as it turned out, Lyons and Speaker Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, had no intention of sending SB 571 to Gov. Rick Snyder in its current form. As they saw it, the innocuous bill provided ideal camouflage for the more sweeping rewrite of campaign finance law both had in mind.

In a move that blind-sided her Democratic colleagues entirely and left many members of her own Republican caucus confused, Lyons introduced a substitute for SB 571 that was more than four times the length of the original.

It was 10 p.m.

The breadth of the changes proposed in the amended bill was remarkable. Besides muzzling public school districts in the 60 days preceding any bond issue election, the revised bill licensed candidates and political action committees to retroactively violate Michigan’s $68,000 cap on PAC spending.

The super-charged SB 571 also made it easier for corporations to deduct money for their own PACs from their employees’ paychecks while forbidding them from making similar deductions on behalf of labor unions, even if their unionized employees consented.

None of the changes had been the subject of any public hearing or discussion. Democrats were given no opportunity to offer their own amendments, or even read the now-53-page bill before Republicans called for a vote.

Republicans had been provided with a copy of Lyons’ amended bill in their party caucus earlier that day, but many complained that they, too, were reduced to accepting Lyons’ assurances that it contained nothing objectionable — assurances some members would later regard as disingenuous.

By evening’s end, the House and Senate had both adopted the revised bill on party line votes, with just four Republicans — two in the House, and two in the Senate — joining Democrats in opposition.

House Minority Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills, was left to marvel at the audacity of the GOP coup.

“The bill does a lot of things, but mostly it’s about increasing the volume of political contributions and making it harder for voters to learn who’s contributing,“ Greimel said Friday. “I’ve talked to thousands of voters about the political process in Michigan, and I’ve never heard a single one say we needed more money and less disclosure.”

I and a lot of other journalists have spent weeks trying to discern precisely for whom Rep. Lyons was carrying water when she surprised her colleagues with the myriad changes in her substitute bill. Friday, three days after I sought illumination from Cotter’s office and two days after Snyder signed the bill into law, Lyons responded via e-mail to some of my questions.

“Reports that the changes were not discussed among the Republican House members or that they were not provided information are false,” Lyons said, although she conceded that neither the nonpartisan House Fiscal Committee nor its Senate counterpart had had time to prepare the analysis customarily provided for other bills.

When I asked her about the impetus for language permitting PACs to make retroactive contributions to a candidate’s campaign — even if those contributions exceeded the legal limit for that election cycle — Lyons said the idea was her own but had received the blessing of Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, whose office oversees elections and the enforcement of election campaign finance rules.

(Johnson’s spokesperson said the Secretary of State's Office provided "technical assistance" to Lyons but was "neutral" on the amended bill. The Secretary of State has been aggressive in prosecuting candidates who accepted contributions like the ones authorized by SB 571.)

Lyons was less certain about the origin of language ham-stringing labor unions’ collection of political donations.

"I do not recall who brought this concern forward, as there were many stakeholders interested in the bill,” Lyons said in an e-mail.

What about the language muzzling public school districts and municipalities for two months before an election? (Even Republicans who supported Lyons’ bill now worry it will deprive voters of critical information.)

“I do not recall who brought this concern forward,” Lyons repeated.

There’s an old saying that victory has one thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. In fact, all of the most controversial provisions in Lyons’ bill have been quietly championed by charter school advocacy groups bankrolled by Dick DeVos and other DeVos family members, who are among the state Republican Party’s most generous donors. But this may be one of those rare instances in which victory, if not exactly an orphan, prefers anonymity.

Now in her third and final House term, Lyons reportedly aspires to run for Kent County Clerk, and eventually Secretary of State, when her legislative tenure expires. What could she have been thinking when she agreed to become dark money’s servant in Lansing?

After her campaign to rewrite Michigan’s campaign finance rules to the advantage of her party and its most important donors, who would trust her with the authority to oversee Michigan elections?

As for the legislative process, what Lyons and her colleagues have done makes a mockery of that, too. They might as well have collected all those “How a Bill Becomes Law” pamphlets the Legislature hands out to visiting school children and set them afire in the House chamber.

The furtive path of SB 571 makes clear how a bill becomes law in this state capital. It’s not a spectacle anyone would want young children to see up close.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/brian-dickerson/2016/01/09/elections-law-architect/78431822/

New Breeding Program Aimed At Keeping Moderate Republicans From Going Extinct


http://www.theonion.com/article/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep-27371

Expert says Michigan officials changed a Flint lead report to avoid federal action

http://michiganradio.org/post/expert-says-michigan-officials-changed-flint-lead-report-avoid-federal-action#stream/0

Trump says he won’t participate in GOP debate on Fox News

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump abruptly announced here Tuesday that he would not participate in Thursday’s scheduled debate, escalating his off-and-on feud with Fox News Channel and throwing the GOP campaign into turmoil.

Trump’s assertion, which his campaign manager insisted was irreversible, came less than one week before the kickoff Iowa caucuses. He once again defied the conventional rules of politics, and used his power and prominence to shape the campaign agenda and conversation.

So far, Trump’s untraditional moves have only expanded his support, but his threatened boycott leaves him open to criticism that for all his tough talk he is ducking face-to-face confrontations with his opponents and scrutiny from the Fox moderators.

Given Trump’s past flirtations with boycotting Fox, many will doubt his declaration until they see the other candidates take the debate stage on Thursday night without him.

The Republican debates have become must-see television, in part because of the allure of Trump’s star power and unpredictable candidacy. But he said Tuesday that he thinks Fox and other television networks have been taking advantage of him by selling advertisements for their debates at a high premium.

“Why should the networks continue to get rich on the debates?” Trump told reporters at a news conference in Marshalltown. “Why do I have to make Fox rich?”

The debate is scheduled to be in Des Moines on Thursday, and Trump said he would instead host a competing event in the state designed to raise money for wounded veterans.

Trump is the first candidate in modern memory to say he would withdraw from a debate at such a consequential moment on the primary calendar.

Trump long has objected to the participation of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as one of the three moderators, claiming she has treated him unfairly with both her questioning of him at last August’s debate and her commentary since then.

Trump also said that a “wise-guy press release” that the network issued earlier on Tuesday belittling him was inappropriately antagonistic and childish.

Fox’s statement said that network officials “had learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president.”

The statement added that Trump “has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.”

After reading it, Trump said: “I said, ‘Bye-bye.’ ”

“Fox is playing games,” Trump said. “They can’t toy with me like they toy with everybody else. Let them have the debate. Let’s see how they do with the ratings.”

Earlier Tuesday, Fox News Channel Chairman and Chief Executive Roger Ailes said the network would defend Kelly even if it means losing Trump in the debate.

“Megyn Kelly is an excellent journalist, and the entire network stands behind her,” Ailes said. “She will absolutely be on the debate stage on Thursday night.”

In Iowa, Trump is in a fierce and increasingly nasty fight with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. Both men have traded places atop recent polls here, and the outcome of Monday’s caucuses could have a profound effect on the direction of the nominating contest.

By announcing that he will not debate, Trump likely will dominate news coverage and deny Cruz and other opponents a face-to-face confrontation before Iowa Republicans go to caucus.

Trump’s decision also allows him to avoid direct questioning from Kelly and her co-moderators, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace, at a time when he has come under increased scrutiny over his past positions on social issues that are important to many Iowa Republicans.

The reaction from Trump’s rivals ranged from criticism to mockery.

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has been Trump’s most persistent tormentor of late, immediately tweeted: “.@realDonaldTrump Do you know who else is scared of tough qs from Fox & @megynkelly? Barack Obama. Enough whining.”

Cruz said on Mark Levin’s radio show: “If Donald is afraid to defend his record, that speaks volumes. If he thinks Megyn Kelly is so scary, what does he think he’ll do with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin?”

Cruz challenged Trump to a one-on-one debate sometime over the next week.

“I’m happy to go an hour and a half mano-a-mano — me and Donald with no moderators anytime before the Iowa caucuses,” he said.

At an event Tuesday night, Cruz said: “Donald is a fragile soul. You know, if she asks him mean questions, I mean his hair might stand on end.” He likened it to skipping a job interview.

The Republican National Committee, which sanctions and helps organize the official debates, vowed late Thursday not to intervene in Trump’s dispute with Fox.

“Candidates can choose whether to participate in a debate or not,” RNC chief strategist and spokesman Sean Spicer said.

When Trump addressed reporters before a rally in Marshalltown, he said he “most likely” would skip the debate. He then said the decision was “pretty irrevocable.”

This was not the first time Trump had threatened to boycott a debate, though in the past the threats were merely stunts.

Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, insisted this time was different. Speaking to reporters at the back of the venue while Trump was rallying his supporters, Lewandowski vowed that the decision was final.

“He’s definitely not participating in the Fox News debate,” Lewandowski said. “His word is his bond.”

Asked whether there was anything Fox executives could do to persuade Trump to reconsider, Lewandowski said that there was not and that there were no ongoing negotiations between the campaign and the network.

The Trump campaign later issued a statement affirming the decision, saying: “Unlike the very stupid, highly incompetent people running our country into the ground, Mr. Trump knows when to walk away. Roger Ailes and FOX News think they can toy with him, but Mr. Trump doesn’t play games.”

Earlier in the day, Trump and his advisers had been preparing for the debate. Adviser Sam Clovis was putting together briefing books and assisting with policy discussions, and newly hired adviser Stephen Miller was set to join him.

Trump signaled on Monday that he had reservations about the debate, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he had issues with Kelly. “I don’t like her,” Trump told Blitzer. “She doesn’t treat me fairly.”

Trump and Kelly tangled at the first GOP debate in August in Cleveland. Kelly asked Trump to explain offensive comments denigrating women, and he took offense to the question.

Later he escalated the attacks against Kelly. In an interview with CNN two days after the debate, Trump said: “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes — blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base.”

Since then he has carried on his feud with the Fox anchor. On Tuesday, explaining his decision not to debate this week, he referred to Kelly as a “lightweight” and a “third-rate reporter.”

Throughout the controversy, Kelly has held her ground, saying her questions were tough but fair.

Fox News issued a statement late Tuesday night alleging that Lewandowski threatened in a Saturday phone call a repeat of the “rough” treatment Kelly received following her August clash with Trump.

“Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats,” the statement read. The network added: “We can’t give in to terrorizations toward any of our employees. Trump is still welcome at Thursday night’s debate and will be treated fairly.”

Some of Trump’s supporters said in interviews Tuesday night that they support his decision because they think he has been treated unfairly in past debates.

“It could turn out to be a very smart move on his part, because one of the moderators is Megyn Kelly, and him and her don’t get along real well — they’re almost like an ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend,” said James Wachendorf, 30, who awaited Trump at a rally in Iowa City.

Wachendorf’s wife, Tara, 27, said of Trump: “Everything that he does is so well-thought-out. He’s good at creating controversy, and that’s what’s bringing him more voters. People like that.”

The couple wore matching red Make America Great Again hats, and they both plan to caucus for Trump on Monday. They said they watch all of the debates. But if Trump doesn’t show on Thursday, they said they might not tune in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-wont-participate-in-gop-debate-on-fox-news/2016/01/26/58fa0b2e-c490-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

Six Oregon occupiers arrested, one person killed in confrontation with police

Six people involved in the armed occupation of a central Ore. wildlife refuge were arrested after a traffic stop during which shots were fired. Another unnamed individual was killed during the confrontation, the FBI and Oregon State Police announced Tuesday.

Authorities said that shots were exchanged during a traffic stop along Highway 395 around 4:25 p.m. local time. Police were carrying out a federal probable cause arrest for a number of people involved in the armed standoff at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, which has been occupied since Jan. 2.

The Oregon State Police said Tuesday night that an incident team has been dispatched to investigate the officer-involved shooting. No law enforcement personnel were injured in the confrontation about 15 miles north of Burns, Ore.

Five people were arrested at that time, including occupation leaders Ammon and Ryan Bundy. One person was killed during the exchange of gunfire; police said information about that person will not be released until they can be identified by the medical examiner’s office. Another of the arrested individuals was injured and taken to a local hospital, but has since been arrested and taken into custody.

A sixth person involved in the occupation, Joseph Donald O’Shaughnessy of Cottonwood, Ariz., was arrested about an hour and a half after the initial confrontation.

All of people arrested face federal felony charges for impeding federal officers.

In addition to O’Shaughnessy and the Bundy brothers, the FBI statement said that Brian Cavalier, Shawna Cox and Ryan Waylen Payne were arrested.

St. Charles Health System in Bend told Oregon Public Broadcasting that a helicopter had been dispatched to Harney County and will be transporting patients to its level II trauma center. The Harney County Hospital is on lockdown, as well as a section of Highway 395 near Burns, Ore.

Anthony Bosworth a Yakima, Wash., resident who has been at the Malheur Refuge, told OPB that Ammon Bundy was headed to a meeting in John Day, Ore., Tuesday, about 100 miles from the occupied refuge. Bundy never showed up in the city.

After the march, Ammon Bundy urged rally-goers who wanted to “take a hard stand” to get in their trucks and follow him to the refuge, according to several people in attendance.

The occupiers say they aim to “take back” the federally-controlled land for the county and private use.

Ammon Bundy, 40, has lived in Arizona and Idaho and describes his supporters as “militia men.” His brother Ryan, 43, runs a construction company in Cedar City, Utah. In 2014, their father Cliven Bundy spearheaded an armed standoff with federal agents in Nevada.

In a video posted New Year’s Day, Ammon Bundy described the occupation as a “righteous cause” that he and others were obligated to take on.

“I began to understand how the Lord felt about Harney County and about this country, and I clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased,” he said.

The occupation at the Malheur refuge has sparked a tense debate in this rural part of Oregon about land use and the power of the federal government. It has also attracted anti-government activists from across the West.

Ryan Payne, an army veteran from Montana and one of the six people arrested Tuesday, had participated in Cliven Bundy’s standoff in Nevada in 2014, according to the Oregonian. After reading about the family’s dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing fees, he drove 12 hours overnight to their ranch, an act that reportedly impressed Bundy.

Payne has been a fixture in the standoff since the beginning. As protesters gathered in Burns late last month, just before the beginning of the occupation, Payne told the Oregonian that the “militia” would defend Harney County residents if they decided to defy law enforcement and establish a sanctuary for the Hammonds.

“We’re sending the message: We will protect you,” Payne said.

Cox, another of the arrested occupiers, spoke to Fox about the occupation in early January. A resident of southern Utah, she read aloud a letter on behalf of the group of occupiers, who call themselves “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.”

The letter demanded that the Hammonds’ case be reviewed by an “independent evidential hearing board.”

The occupation of the refuge has been condemned by local and federal officials, who say that the takeover has cost taxpayers some half a million dollars.

After news that the Bundys and others have been arrested, Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) applauded the law enforcement response.

“I am pleased that the FBI has listened to the concerns of the local community and responded to the illegal activity occurring in Harney County by outside extremists,” he said in a statement. “The leaders of this group are now in custody and I hope that the remaining individuals occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge will peacefully surrender so this community can begin to heal the deep wounds that this illegal activity has created over the last month.”

Meanwhile, an image posted on the Bundy Ranch Facebook page condemned what happened.

“Tonight peaceful patriots were attacked on a remote road for supporting the constitution. One was killed,” it read. “Who are the terrorists?”

Jason Patrick, a participant in the occupation who was at the Malheur refuge Tuesday night said that the arrests doesn’t change the occupiers’ demands. He wouldn’t say how many people remain at the refuge, or who else was with him.

“Right now, we’re doing fine,” he told The Washington Post by phone. “We’re just trying to figure out how a dead cowboy equals peaceful resolution.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/five-oregon-occupiers-arrested-one-person-killed-in-confrontation-with-police/

Ammon Bundy... “I began to understand how the Lord felt about Harney County and about this country, and I clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased,”

“Tonight peaceful patriots were attacked on a remote road for supporting the constitution. One was killed,” it read. “Who are the terrorists?”

Jason Patrick, a participant in the occupation who was at the Malheur refuge Tuesday night said that the arrests doesn’t change the occupiers’ demands. He wouldn’t say how many people remain at the refuge, or who else was with him.

Mad Max wrote:Ted Cruz is being declared the presumptive winner of the Iowa Caucus. Now it's time for him to go the way of Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.