Christie, C Gov
pension plan? bloviator gravitas?
bak 8 23
jail kushner dad as DA
trump nearly killed with covid tho knew infected
3 at bottom have taken on trump crimes
Chris Christie questions Trump’s 'mental health' following 'crazed lunatic' swipe - Alternet.org
an 8 23
former New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie's super PAC has taken donations from GOP megadonors Anthony Scaramucci and Harlan Crow, who came under scrutiny earlier this year for providing luxurious gifts to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, CNN reports.
Christie, who announced his presidential bid last month, has been condemned by some of his fellow Republicans over openly and repeatedly criticizing former President Donald Trump amid his legal troubles, as well as his less conservative views on culture war issues.
However, according to CNN, the former governor's harsh critiques have not prevented him from receiving financial support from several high-profile GOP donors like Crow and Scaramucci, who each donated $100,000 to Tell It Like It Is PAC.
READ MORE:**Piers Morgan to Chris Christie: 'Maybe you’re not a conservative'**
The news outlet notes Murray Kushner, uncle to Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, also contributed $100,000 to the PAC.
Aside from the pair's contributions, CNN reports:
The Tell It Like It Is PAC reported receiving nearly $5.9 million in the first half of 2023, according to a report it filed Monday with Federal Election Commission. It only reported receiving contributions between May 30 and June 30 in this filing.
Additionally, the report notes the PAC's "single largest donation was $1 million from a limited liability company called SHBT LLC that was established last year in Texas.
9 22 seems odd?
https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/chris-christie-attacked-joe-biden/
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said that he felt personally attacked because President Joe Biden talked about "MAGA" Republicans during a recent speech with a "blatantly red background."
In a speech earlier this month, Biden warned that "equality and democracy are under assault" by followers of former President Donald Trump.
"If the Democrats think that it's a winning argument for them in the midterms to do what the president during that speech and attack, personally attack the people who have supported Donald Trump, 74 million of them who voted for him in 2020," Christie said on ABC's This Week program. "He ran to be a uniter! He ran and said he was going to bring the country back together and then he stood on that stage with a blatantly red background, surrounded by Marines and attacked 74 million people."
"You're not a MAGA Republican," host Terry Moran noted. "Did you feel attacked?"
"I did!" Christie exclaimed. "Because I voted for Donald Trump in 2020. So, you know, I think it was wrong of the president to do that."
Watch the video below from ABC or at this link:
gop civil war // liz c?
Christie torched for his disastrous Trump prediction as he tries to rehabilitate his image
November 16, 2021
In recent weeks, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — once an outspoken Donald Trump supporter — has been promoting himself as someone who has a conservative post-Trump vision for the Republican...
https://www.alternet.org/2021/09/matt-gaetzs-100000-donation-to-a-chris-christie-nonprofit-raises-questions-report/
is he ideol entre, pol op? grifter? all? everyone just freelances in their niche and when they score/do some damage to someone's rep, they get paid?! rewarded by clicks? ctt gig? book deal, fox appearance?
is Christie a weak squish target b/c he did not bounce back from covid and told ppl to wear masks?
https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/steve-bannons-darkest-plot-yet-is-starting-to-implode
alexh
During the final days of President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been desperately fighting to remain relevant in Trumpworld. Bannon's ideas for getting Trump reelected range from firing FBI Director Christopher Wray to smearing former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. And in his desperation, Bannon has even been attacking major Trump allies like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General William Barr and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
Vice's Emanuel Maiberg is reporting that "a series of videos and photos which appear to show Hunter Biden having sex are going viral on a Chinese-language news and video sharing website" co-founded by Bannon. Maiberg notes that "the videos are often narrated by users in English with a Chinese accent, and claim that the explicit photos and videos of Hunter Biden are proof that he's compromised by the Chinese government."
So far, however, efforts by Bannon and Giuliani to smear Hunter Biden haven't made a difference in the presidential election. And even the far-right Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas told Axios' Jonathan Swan that the e-mails and videos on a hard drive allegedly belonging to the former vice president's son aren't having an impact. Cruz told Swan, "I don't think it moves a single voter."
Reporter Madeline Peltz describes Bannon's recent attacks on fellow Trump supporters in an article published by Media Matters this week.
"Poor Steve Bannon," Peltz writes. "As the Hunter Biden hard drive story is lowered into the grave of failed October surprises, he's run out of options to insert his 'influence' into the election media cycle. Having failed to recreate his media manipulation successes of 2016, the former White House chief strategist is melting down and attacking his would-be allies."
Peltz notes how obsessed Bannon has been with getting Wray fired as FBI director.On October 25 in Axios, Swan and his colleague Alayna Treene reported that Trump, according to sources, plans to fire Wray as well as CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper if he is reelected. But as Bannon sees it, Trumpworld isn't going after Wray aggressively enough — and he wants to see Wray fired right away, not after the election.
"In the past few days," according to Pentz, Bannon has "lambasted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General William Barr and even Donald Trump himself — calling them 'weak' for not pushing for, or bringing about, the immediate firing of FBI Director Christopher Wray."
Trump has clearly been increasing angry with Wray in recent months, stemming from disagreements over multiple issues. Most notably, Trump is outraged that Wray hasn't gone after the president's political enemies, has emphasized the serious threats of right-wing violence and white supremacy, diminished the significance of antifa and left-wing violence, and failed to provide support for Republicans' attacks on the integrity of mail-in voting.
The contents of a hard drive that supposedly belonged to Hunter Biden were first reported by the New York Post, and Bannon and Giuliani collaborated on that story. But Bannon, according to Peltz, has lashed out at Giuliani for not being hard enough on Wray.
"On October 29," Peltz reports, "Bannon attacked Giuliani even though they've been working together to launder the bogus story that first appeared in the New York Post, calling him 'one of the weak guys around' Trump."
In a transcript of that October 29 conversation, according to Peltz, Bannon declared, "Wray must be fired this morning" — and Giuliani agreed with firing Wray, but not until after the election. Bannon, in response, told Giuliani, "You're one of the weak guys around him. You're getting weak on me, Rudy. No, you're weak. You sort of sound like Chris; you spent too much time with Chris Christie. You're getting weak."
Bannon also slammed Barr as "another weak link in this chain."
In an October 29 broadcast of "War Room," Bannon ranted against Wray as well as Trump allies who he believes haven't done enough to get him fired.
"Fire him today," Bannon declared. "Do not wait. You show weakness — the president is showing weakness by waiting. There's not one person in this country, not one voter that will not vote for you by firing Wray. And don't let theweakpeople around you convince you of that.Be strong, be who you are, be what your presidency is about."
==
made peace w/ kush?
https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/chris-christie-and-jared-kushner-are-helping-trump-prepare-for-his-debates-with-biden/
an 220
how Chris Christie’s opioid commission shaped the Trump administration’s anti-drug efforts
==
==
c str doc, djt wanted him as vp to hang out w/ but forced t take vpence
pension plan?===
https://www.alternet.org/2019/09/report-reveals-that-like-everything-else-about-gop-tax-scam-program-purported-to-help-the-poor-really-just-another-handout-to-the-rich/
no lnx
Report reveals that ‘like everything else’ about GOP tax scam, program purported to help the poor really ‘just another handout to the rich’
Written by Jessica Corbett / Common Dreams September 2, 2019
Urban policy experts along with progressive groups and politicians responded with outrage to a New York Times report published Saturday that detailed how the Trump administration’s “signature plan” to help low-income communities across the United States with a multibillion-dollar tax break has “fueled a wave of developments financed by and built for the wealthiest Americans.”
The tax break was part of the legislation critics dubbed the GOP tax scam, which Republicans forced through Congress and President Donald Trump signed into law in December of 2017. Linking to the new report, the progressive advocacy organizationMoveOn tweeted, “Like everything else about the GOP’s 2017 tax scam, a program supposedly meant to benefit poor communities is just another handout to the rich.”
According to the Times:
Among the early beneficiaries of the tax incentive are billionaire financiers like Leon Cooperman and business magnates like Sidney Kohl—andMr. Trump’s family members and advisers.
Former Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey; Richard LeFrak, a New York real estate titan who is close to the president; Anthony Scaramucci, a former White House aide who recently had a falling out with Mr. Trump; and the family of Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, all are looking to profit from what is shaping up to be a once-in-a-generation bonanza for elite investors.
The purpose of the program, as the Times explained, “was to coax investors to pump cash into poor neighborhoods” by allowing them “to sell stocks or other investments and delay capital gains taxes for years—as long as they plow the proceeds into projects in federally certified opportunity zones.”
However, instead of low-income communities reaping the benefits of such investments, “billions of untaxed investment profits are beginning to pour into high-end apartment buildings and hotels, storage facilities that employ only a handful of workers, and student housing in bustling college towns, among other projects,” the Times reported.
Though the report sparked immediate criticism of the program, Yonah Freemark, a doctoral candidate in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning, noted on Twitter that “we always knew that this was going to happen—it’s how the bill was written.”
==
moneyball lewis
That had been the first hint Christie had of trouble. He had asked Kushner what that was about, and Kushner had simply said, Trump ran a very unconventional campaign, and he’s not going to follow any of the protocols. The next hint that the transition might not go as planned came from Pence – now, incredibly, the vice-president-elect. Christie met with Pence the day after the election, to discuss the previous lists of people who had been vetted for jobs.The meeting began with a prayer, followed by Pence’s first, ominous question: “Why isn’t Puzder on the list for labour?” Andrew Puzder, the head of CKE Restaurants, the holding company for the fast-food chains Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr, wanted to be the secretary of labour. Christie explained that Puzder’s ex-wife had accused him of abuse (although she later retracted the allegation) and his fast-food restaurant employees had complained of mistreatment. Even if he was somehow the ideal candidate to become the next secretary of labour, he wouldn’t survive his Senate confirmation hearings. (Trump ignored the advice and nominated Puzder. In the controversy that followed, Puzder not only failed to be confirmed, but also stepped down from his job.)
==
==
ran hard for trump VP as his last shot at retaning power at convention, attacks hillary:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/05/05/fox-s-kilmeade-i-let-myself-down-not-following-when-trump-brought-jfk-conspiracy-fox-friends/210256
lakof direct causation problem again?
Chris Christie’s Debunked Clinton Claim About Boko Haram Comes Straight From Right-Wing Media
Research
July 20, 2016 1:05 PM EDT ››› CYDNEY HARGIS
During his speech at the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie echoed the right-wing media myth that as secretary of state, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton personally “fought” to keep Nigerian group Boko Haram off the terror watch list, which resulted in the abduction of hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls -- a claim media fact-checkers debunked.
Christie Claimed Clinton “Fought” To Keep Boko Haram Off Terrorism Watch List In Convention Speech
Christie: Because Clinton “Fought For Two Years To Keep An Al Qaeda Affiliate Off The Terrorist Watch List, ... These Terrorists Abducted Hundreds Of Innocent Young Girls.” During his speech at the July 19 Republican National Convention, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie claimed that “In Nigeria, [presumptive Democratic presidential nominee] Hillary Clinton amazingly fought for two years to keep an Al-Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list,” referring to the extremist group Boko Haram. Christie argued that “because of this reckless action … terrorists abducted hundreds of innocent young girls.” From the July 19 speech:
Since the Justice Department refuses to allow you to render a verdict, let's present the case now, on the facts, against Hillary Clinton. She was America's chief diplomat. Look around at the violence and danger in our world today every region of the world has been infected with her flawed judgment.
[...]
In Nigeria, Hillary Clinton amazingly fought for two years to keep an Al-Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list.
What happened because of this reckless action by the candidate who is the self proclaimed champion of women around the world? These terrorists abducted hundreds of innocent young girls two years ago.
These schoolgirls are still missing today.
What was the solution from the Obama/Clinton team? A hashtag campaign! Hillary Clinton, as an apologist for an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Nigeria resulting in the capture of innocent young women guilty or not guilty? She fights for the wrong people. [NJ.com, 7/19/16]
Right-Wing Media Previously Hyped This False Claim
Fox & Friends: Clinton “Made Sure” Boko Haram Was “Not Placed On The Terror List,” Which “Perhaps Could Have Saved These Girls Earlier." Fox hosts Steve Doocy and Elisabeth Hasselbeck blamed Clinton for refusing to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO), claiming that if she had done so, it "could have saved these girls earlier." From the May 8, 2014, edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:
STEVE DOOCY (CO-HOST): This is really something. We've with been telling you over the last couple of days about this terrorist group called Boko Haram out in Africa, how they've killed an entire village. They have since, in the last couple of weeks, they have kidnapped 300 young girls. They're going to sell them into slavery.
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): And prior to that, boys.
DOOCY: They burned a bunch of boys. They burned down a village. It's all bad. And now, word is, because we did not place them on the terror list, of officially known terrorist groups, it's going to be harder to go after them. And who exactly made sure that they were not placed on the terror list? Hillary Clinton.
[...]
ELISABETH HASSELBECK (CO-HOST): And the rights of women and young girls, those were pillars of what she wanted to accomplish in her time at the State Department. But right here, what she didn't actually tweet, and perhaps because it was over 140 characters, was the fact that her own State Department, as Steve just mentioned, did not place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations, which would have forbidden any sort of authority to increase securities to them, increase assistance to Nigerian security forces in that area, and perhaps could have saved these girls earlier. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/8/14]
National Review:"The Excuses Now Being Offered In Explanation Of Clinton's Dereliction Are Specious." National Review'sAndrew McCarthy claimed that Clinton “protected” Boko Haram as secretary of state and that “the excuses now being offered in explanation of Clinton’s dereliction are specious" and "ridiculous." McCarthy wrote that Clinton was "appeasing Islamists." From the May 8, 2014, article:
The excuses now being offered in explanation of Clinton’s dereliction are specious. As Rogin explains, Clinton’s State Department claimed that Boko Haram was merely a local group with parochial grievances that was not a threat to the United States. Have a look, though, at the State Department’s list, here. Several of the listed groups are waging local terrorist campaigns that do not threaten our country—the Basque ETA, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Real Irish Republican Army, etc. A significant reason for having the list is to promote international cooperation against terrorism and discourage its use against anyone anywhere. The fact that a terrorist organization may have only local grievances and may not directly imperil the U.S. has never been thought a reason to exclude it from the list.
Fox News has further reported another rationale of Clinton apologists: Hillary did not want to raise Boko Haram’s profile and assist its recruiting which, they reason, would be the effect of designation by the Great Satan. That is ridiculous. The main point of having the list, and the sanctions that accompany a terrorist designation, is to weaken the organization by depriving it of assets and material support. The logic of what Clinton supporters are claiming is that U.S. counterterrorism law — much of which was put in place by the administration of President Bill Clinton — does more harm than good. Does anyone think they really believe that?
What happened here is obvious, although the commentariat is loath to connect the dots. Boko Haram is an Islamic-supremacist organization. Mrs. Clinton, like the Obama administration more broadly, believes that appeasing Islamists--avoiding actions that might give them offense, slamming Americans who provoke them--promotes peace and stability. [National Review, 5/8/14]
Hot Air: "The Responsibility For This Failure Rests Directly With Hillary Clinton." The conservative blog Hot Air wrote that “the responsibility for this failure” to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization was Clinton’s and that the decision enabled the group to commit acts of terrorism, including the mass kidnappings. Hot Air also brushed aside Clinton's support of U.S. intervention in the Nigerian kidnappings, writing, "Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn't fight them with real resources when she had the chance." From the May 8, 2014, post:
Boko Haram has wreaked havoc in Nigeria and portions of surrounding nations since 2009, when the Nigerian government tried to crack down on their arms-gathering operations. The group of Islamist terrorists had been known for much of that time to have ties to al-Qaeda, both ideological and tactical. Hundreds, perhaps thousands died in terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013, many of them targeted for their Christianity. And yet, not until November 2013 did the US finally list Boko Haram as a terrorist group.
Why? We should ask Hillary Clinton
[...]
It’s true that not every local grievance requires a State Department designation, but Boko Haram allied itself with al-Qaeda and provided it tactical support, at least. That should have prompted State to act, especially with the consensus within the national-security communities demanding it — repeatedly. Instead, Hillary Clinton refused to act in order to keep up a pretense that “al-Qaeda was on the run.”
Now Hillary wants to fight Boko Haram with hashtags. Too bad she didn’t fight them with real resources when she had the chance. [Hot Air, 5/8/14]
Newt Gingrich: State Department Under Clinton “Wouldn’t Even List [Boko Haram] As A Terrorist Group.” Former Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich blamed Clinton for not listing Boko Haram a terrorist organization in 2015 speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit, even though. “last year Boko Haram killed more people than Ebola.” From CSPAN’s broadcast of the Iowa Freedom Summit:
NEWT GINGRICH: You see people all around the planet, this is a global war, and yet they insist on talking about it by geography. So, we’re going to really focus on Northern Syria. Well, there are thousands of jihadists who have come to Northern Syria from all around the world, over a thousands from France alone. Over 600 from Great Britain. over 100 from the United States. This is a global war. In Nigeria, Boko Haram has 10,000 fighters, and last year Boko Haram killed more people than Ebola. But the State Department, for years under Secretary Clinton, wouldn’t even list them as a terrorist group, even though their initial base camp was called Afghanistan, in honor of the Taliban. Now, you would think somewhere in here, people would get a hint. [CSPAN, Iowa Freedom Summit, 1/24/15]
Fact-Checkers Point Out Christie’s Claim Has Long Been Debunked
Politico: Clinton “Was Heeding The Advice Of Numerous Regional Experts” And There Is Doubt About “Whether The Designation Could Have Prevented” The Abduction Of School Girls. Politico fact-checked Christie’s claims about Clinton’s foreign policy record as secretary of state, noting that Clinton “was heeding the advice of numerous regional experts who argued in an open letter that” designating Boko Haram a terrorist group “could elevate the group's prestige” and that “It is not clear that the group ever pledged formal allegiance to al Qaeda, and the two groups were sometimes described as rivals.” Politico also explained that Boko Haram was designated a terrorist group a year before the Nigerian schoolgirls were abducted, “raising the question of whether the designation could have prevented their abduction.” From the July 20 Politico report:
Christie said that Clinton "fought" to keep the radical Islamist group Boko Haram off an official State Department terrorism watch list before she left government in 2012. In 2014, the group abducted hundreds of young women and girls who are still missing. Clinton, Christie concluded in perhaps his most explosive allegation, was "an apologist for an al Qaeda affiliate in Nigeria resulting in the capture of hundreds of young women."
It's true that Clinton opposed designating Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization, an act that imposes financial sanctions and other legal penalties on named groups and their supporters. While that may be hard to understand—the group already had a clear record of violence and radicalism — she was heeding the advice of numerous regional experts who argued in an open letter that doing so could elevate the group's prestige. The Nigerian government also opposed the designation.
John Kerry did name Boko Haram a terrorist organization after succeeding Clinton in 2013. But the girls were kidnapped the following year, raising the question of whether the designation could have prevented their abduction.
Finally, Christie described Boko Haram as "al Qaeda affiliate." It is not clear that the group ever pledged formal allegiance to al Qaeda, and the two groups were sometimes described as rivals. (Boko Haram publicly pledged allegiance to ISIS last year.) [Politico, 7/20/16]
CNN: “No Evidence” Clinton Personally “‘Fought’” To Keep Boko Haram Off Terror List. CNN’s Reality Check Team gave Christie’s claim a “false” rating, noting the lack of evidence that Clinton “was personally responsible for the delay in the designation.” CNN also pointed out the “delay” did not result in the kidnapping of Nigerian school girls, which occurred after Clinton left the State Department. From the July 20 fact-check (emphasis original):
Boko Haram, an affiliate of al Qaeda, was never designated a foreign terrorist organization during Clinton's leadership of the State Department. The department eventually labeled the group a terrorist organization while under Kerry in December 2013.
[...]
The kidnapping of the 200 Nigerian school girls occurred in April 2014.
While Clinton was head of the State Department at the time, Christie says she "fought" to keep them off the list and there is no evidence that she herself was personally responsible for the delay in the designation. Our verdict: false. [CNN.com, 7/20/16]
Wash. Post: “No Evidence That Clinton Played A Role Or ‘Fought’ To Keep Boko Haram Off The List” Or “That A Terrorist Designation Any Sooner Would Have Prevented” The Mass Kidnappings. Washington Post fact-checkers Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee wrote that “Christie grossly simplifie[d] a complex debate at the State Department -- which actually did not involve Clinton personally.” The Fact Checker blog noted that State Department officials conceded they could have moved faster with Boko Haram’s designation, but that “there is no evidence that Clinton played a role” and that there is also “no evidence” that the terrorist designation “any sooner would have prevented the kidnapping of the girls.” The fact check also pointed out that the hashtag campaign “came after Clinton had left the State Department.” From the July 19 article:
Christie grossly simplifies a complex debate at the State Department — which actually did not involve Clinton personally.
In 2014, the Fact Checker closely examined this issue, concluding that claims that Clinton was responsible for the decision betrays a misunderstanding of how the State Department works. Yes, Clinton was secretary of state in 2012. Designations of foreign terrorist groups are ultimately issued by the secretary of state. But the decision on how to handle the group was resolved before it ever reached her level, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.
State Department officials in 2012 vigorously debated how to treat Boko Haram, with the Bureau of Counterterrorism, headed then by Assistant Secretary Daniel Benjamin, leaning toward designation, and the Africa bureau, headed then by Assistant Secretary Johnnie Carson, urging caution. One big issue was that Nigeria was a government close to the United States — and Nigeria was adamantly opposed to the designation, arguing it risked entrenching Boko Haram. Nigerian officials also argued that a terrorist designation — which halts any flow of funds to the entity or people associated with it — would make it difficult for humanitarian aid to continue in the region where Boko Haram operated.
There was another, complicating issue: U.S. officials thought the Nigerian army had engaged in brutal human rights abuses in its efforts to fight Boko Haram. So a compromise was reached internally: The administration would name three leaders of Boko Haram as specially designated global terrorists while holding out the possibly of a broader designation of the entire group as a means of improving the behavior of Nigerian forces battling Boko Haram.
In any case, in 2013, the State Department formally designated Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization. Officials later conceded that, in retrospect, they could have moved a bit faster, but there is no evidence that Clinton played a role or “fought” to keep Boko Haram off the list. The internal debate did not rise to her level; it was handled by the deputy secretary of state.
There is no evidence that a terrorist designation any sooner would have prevented the kidnapping of the girls. As for the hashtag campaign, that came after Clinton had left the State Department. [The Washington Post, 7/19/16]
ABC: Clinton “Publicly … Denounced [Boko Haram].” An ABC News fact check rebutted Christie’s claim that Clinton personally “fought” to keep Boko Haram off the terrorist organization list and “responded to its mass kidnapping with a ‘hashtag strategy,’” noting that she publicly denounced the group and that “she was not Secretary of State when the kidnapping happened.” From the July 19 fact check (emphasis original):
Claim: Hillary Clinton is an “apologist” for Boko Haram. She and Obama responded to its mass kidnapping with a “hashtag campaign.”
Rating: False. It is based on a true fact, that Clinton’s State Department declined to list Boko Haram as a terrorist group out of concern that doing so would raise the group’s profile. But publicly Clinton has denounced the group, and she was not Secretary of State when the kidnapping happened.
[...]
Background: In 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. declined to list Boko Haram, the terrorist group that would abduct more than 200 schoolgirls from Chibok in 2014, as a foreign terrorist organization, against the recommendations of DOJ, FBI, CIA, and lawmakers, Josh Rogin reported for The Daily Beast in 2014.
That move, however, appears to have been based on a disagreement over whether listing Boko Haram would elevate its status. A State Department official said as much to Rogin in the same story. The assertion that she is an “apologist” appears to be a rhetorical exaggeration criticizing that decision. But publicly, Clinton has denounced Boko Haram. [ABC News, 7/20/16]
==
The largest single donation to America Leads, a group supporting Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, came from a Boston investor seeking to build a $4 billion casino resort there. At least five donors to Mr. Walker’s super PAC are companies that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid from Wisconsin’s economic development agency, according to state records.
==
not invited to cpac last yr but does well 2015?
===
The moderators of Republican presidential debates seem to have decided not to bother asking climate science deniers — which include most of the candidates — about climate change. On Wednesday, the third GOP debate had only one question about climate change and it was directed at New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of the few candidates who acknowledges the climate is warming and one of the only two Republicans to have said anything about climate change in a previous prime-time debate. Last time, he just agreed with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s false talking points about how climate action is too expensive.
This time Christie’s answer was more in-depth. Unfortunately, it was just as dishonest and ignorant as Rubio’s. Here’s a transcript, lightly edited to cut out Christie’s trademark bullying of the moderator, CNBC’s John Harwood:
Harwood: Gov. Christie, you’ve said something that many in your party do not believe, which is that climate change is undeniable, that human activity contributes to it, and you said, “The question is what do we do to deal with it?” So, what do we do?
Christie: Well, first off, what we don’t do is do what Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Barack Obama want us to do, which is their solution for everything: put more taxes on it, give more money to Washington, D.C., and then they’ll fix it. Well there’s no evidence that they can fix anything in Washington, D.C.
Harwood: What should we do?
Christie: … We’ve laid out a national energy plan that says that we should invest in all types of energy … If you ask who the top three states are that produce solar energy — California and Arizona are easy, but No. 3 is New Jersey. Why? Because we worked with the private sector to make solar energy affordable and available to businesses and individuals in our state. We need to make sure that we do everything we can across all kinds of energy: natural gas, oil, absolutely, but also, where it’s affordable, solar. Wind in Iowa has become very affordable and it makes sense. That’s the way we deal with global warming, climate change, or any of those problems — not through government intervention, not through taxes. And for God’s sake, don’t send Washington another dime until they stop wasting the money that we’re already sending there.
Let’s take look at Christie’s claims:
• New Jersey is third in solar energy production because “we worked with the private sector to make solar energy affordable and available to businesses and individuals in our state.”
Christie actually weakened New Jersey’s renewable energy goal. His predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, set a goal of getting 30 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2021; Christie lowered that to 22.5 percent. The director of the Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter, Jeff Tittel, attributes the state’s strength in total solar deployment to Christie’s predecessors. “Under Christie, we went on monthly solar installation from second in the nation down to eight, and we are still No. 3 on overall installation because of past administrations. We will be fourth soon,” says Tittel. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, New Jersey is third in cumulative installed solar capacity, but fifth in solar capacity per capita and not even in the top 10 for the percentage of new electrical capacity that comes from solar.
We reached out to Christie’s spokesperson for comment on what solar policies Christie was referring to at the debate and response to Tittel’s criticism, but have not heard back yet. It’s possible Christie was referring to a 2012 bill he signed to reinvigorate the New Jersey solar market after it hit hard times in 2010 and 2011.According to Greentech Media, that law accelerated requirements for solar under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard, made regulatory changes to facilitate net-metering, and encouraged solar installation on brownfields and landfills. In other words, Christie used “government intervention” to facilitate and even require private sector adoption of a cleaner source of energy — just like Obama and Clinton would.
• “What Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Barack Obama want us to do [is] put more taxes on it, give more money to Washington, D.C., and they’ll fix it.”
That’s not an accurate description of Obama’s or Clinton’s climate change plans. Obama’s Climate Action Plan involves no new taxes. Rather, he is boosting energy efficiency and renewables through gradually implemented regulatory actions like the Clean Power Plan. Clinton’s climate agenda isn’t fully fleshed out, but thus far it contains no taxes either. Clinton pledges to complete implementation of the Clean Power Plan and to increase incentives for renewables. Even many of those who do support a carbon tax, including a number of conservative public intellectuals, don’t want to “give more money to Washington, D.C.” — they want to charge polluters a fee and rebate the revenue to taxpayers.
• “We need to make sure that we do everything we can across all kinds of energy: natural gas, oil, absolutely, but also, where it’s affordable, solar.”
Huh? If you are trying to solve climate change, then it is obviously counterproductive to “do everything we can” to increase production of oil, which is the second-largest source of carbon emissions after coal. Natural gas isn’t a great solution either; it may produce electricity with a lower greenhouse gas footprint than coal, but studies suggest that methane leakage during natural gas production and transport could wipe out the fuel’s climate benefit. And when Republicans talk about promoting natural gas, they also tend to mean encouraging the exportation of liquefied natural gas, which has an even larger climate impact because of all the energy required to cool the gas, transport it across the ocean, and then regasify it.
In fact, Christie’s reputation for being a relative moderate on climate change is largely undeserved. He withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade system in the Northeast that would have raised more than $100 million for the state. New Jersey environmentalists deplore his recordon climate change, conservation issues, and mass transit, for which he has cut funding. Hurricane Sandy devastated his state’s coast, but his administrationconspicuously avoids mentioning any possible connection between Sandy and sea-level rise or climate change. Christie dismisses questions about the effect of climate change on storm intensity as “esoteric theories.” The standards of flood-proofing required to rebuild on the Jersey Shore do not take account of climate change and projected sea-level rise. Christie presents himself as a hard-headed pragmatist, but his climate change record and comments are more like that of a right-wing ideologue.
--
1% of 9 billion see trms
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/nyregion/exxon-mobil-settles-with-new-jersey-over-environmental-damage.html
==
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a potential contender for the Republican presidential nomination, thinks climate change is real and caused — at least in part — by human activity, according to MSNBC.
Christie said he believes there’s “no use in denying global warming exists” but that he’s skeptical about most of the mainstream approaches to dealing with it. That includes cap-and-trade programs and unilateral steps to reduce America’s carbon footprint, such as President Barack Obama’s proposed restrictions on power plant emissions.
Christie’s comments essentially matched those he made in back in 2011, the last time he spoke publicly about the issue. In some respects, his position is refreshingly distinct from those of his probable rivals in 2016. Many of the GOP contenders — for example, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio — sit somewhere on the spectrum of climate change denial. But at the same time, Christie’s track record in New Jersey suggests that as president, he’d be unlikely to actually do much to confront global warming, even if he thinks it’s happening. As Climate Progress put it:
As governor, Christie withdrew New Jersey from the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program aimed at reducing emissions, in 2011. Last year, Christie called RGGI “a completely useless plan” and said that he “would not think of rejoining it.” Christie even vetoed an attempt by the New Jersey state legislature to rejoin RGGI … New Jersey also doesn’t have a statewide climate change plan — the state is the only one on the eastern seaboard to not have one in place or be in the process of developing one, according to the Georgetown Climate Center.
Christie’s logic — that even if climate change is real, there’s nothing we can do to stop it — is out of step with mainstream science. And it ignores the growing international political momentum around climate action, which Obama has sought to lead. Moreover, if Christie thinks that kind of rhetoric is going to help him score points with Republican voters in the wake of the federal indictments handed down last week in the Bridgegate scandal, he has a long way to go: The latest polling puts Christie behind all of his serious opponents for the nomination.
==
A bill that would allow New Jersey municipalities to sell their public water utilities to private, for-profit corporations without putting the measure to voters is awaiting Gov. Chris Christie’s signature.
Until now, any municipality in New Jersey that sought to sell off its water system to a private bidder had to hold a public vote. But a bill passed with bipartisan support by the state’s Senate last week would allow municipalities with aging and deteriorating water systems to put their systems up for sale without holding a referendum.
NJ voters have approved the sale of water systems to private developers in about 45% of the state–making New Jersey one of the more receptive states in the union to privatization. It seems a bit strange that there would be a need to cut the citizens out of the decision making process.
A report from Corporate Accountability International found that privatization of water supplies was often followed by rate increases. In Bayonne, New Jersey, a 2012 contract with United Water led to an 8.5 percent rate increase in the first year, according to the nonprofit. And a 2010 report from Food and Water Watch found that customers in New Jersey municipalities with private water systems paid on average 64 percent more than others in the state.
But New Jersey, as with many states across our country has spent next to nothing on its infrastructure over the past decades and now the water systems are in bad shape.
So the bill, with minimal amendments, is fast-tracking through New Jersey legislature.
The amendments were approved unanimously 24-0, on Monday by the Senate.
The sponsors of the “Water Infrastructure Protection Act” have said the legislation is aimed at getting investment into public water systems that have been neglected to the breaking point. State Sen. Joseph Kyrillos (R-Monmouth) told NJ Advance Media last month that sales will not happen “willy nilly” – and many other people in the Garden State already are already supplied by private companies.
Opponents of the bill bring up this wacky idea:
Why don't our municipalities spend our tax money on building and maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure?
Maybe it's because the guy with the pen has already cut hundreds of millions out of environmental protections in the state of New Jersey. Chris Christie looks the part of a gangster and a bully but he's just doing what everyone else in his party has been doing for years. Privatizing our infrastructure.
ORIGINALLY POSTED TO WEINENKEL ON MON DEC 29, 2014 AT 10:26 AM PST.
ALSO REPUBLISHED BY CHRISTIE WATCH AND NEW JERSEY KOSSACKS.
TAGS
==
icn 8/14
Christie Vetoes Popular Fracking Waste Ban, Saying It's Unconstitutional
Christie's national ambitions seen by critics as a factor in fracking greenlight.
===
http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/20140809/obama-action-group-joins-fight-against-christies-climate-pact-exit
6/14
Will Gov. Chris Christie Re-embrace Cap & Trade in Wake of EPA Rule?
hree years ago New Jersey's governor peremptorily walked out on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, saying the novel cap-and-trade scheme for Northeast power plants wasn't right for his state.
Now Gov. Chris Christie finds himself under pressure from several forces—including the Obama administration and local grassroots groups—to return to RGGI's embrace.
"It's the obvious thing for New Jersey to do," said Seth Kaplan of the Conservation Law Foundation. "All you need to do is pick up the phone and say, 'whoops, sorry!'"
When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed new rules on June 2cracking down on carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel plants, the agency suggested that one of the smartest ways for states to meet its targets would be to form multistate emissions markets –or to join existing ones, like RGGI. The flexibility to trade carbon allowances would lower compliance costs, the agency said.
But ever since a federal cap-and-trade bill passed the House during President Obama's first year in office, only to die in the Senate, any use of markets to regulate carbon dioxide has become anathema to conservative Republicans. Christie's spurning of RGGI's version was widely seen as a matter of presidential primary positioning, and he's shown no sign of reversing course.
But that could change—especially if he decides his presidential prospects are waning.
"I predict that New Jersey will rejoin RGGI when and if Gov. Christie accepts that he is not a viable candidate for the Republican presidential nomination," saidRobert Stavins, a prominent environmental economist at Harvard University.
The pressure was already on even before the EPA issued its proposed rule, aimed at reducing emissions from the power sector by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Last March, environmentalists won a New Jersey court case finding that Christie's cut-and-run withdrawal from RGGI was illegal because he did it by fiat, without any due process such as hearings or public comment. In July, the state will commence just that kind of formal process, as Christie's environmental agency tries to codify its separation from RGGI into an official divorce.
RGGI advocates plan to use the agency's public hearings to argue that it would be wiser for New Jersey to reverse course and rejoin the regional arrangement than to go it alone. To stay aloof would be to forfeit the financial benefits of the cap-and-trade approach, while the state attempts to cut its carbon pollution by 48 percent by 2030, the target set for New Jersey under EPA's proposal.
"Our argument for the state to rejoin RGGI got a big shot in the arm from the EPA," said Doug O'Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, one of the groups involved in the tug of war. "The EPA proposal and our victory really put the screws into the Christie administration. The administration is in an uncomfortable place right now. They'd hoped they could pull us out of RGGI and be done with it."
==
http://www.alternet.org/environment/chris-christies-tesla-ban-challenged-nj-legislators
===
AlterNet [1] / By Lynn Stuart Parramore [2]
How Corrupt Politicians Like Chris Christie Partner with Wall Street to Rip Off American Retirements
March 18, 2014 |
Wall Street loves to celebrate its knack for innovation, and it's hard to disagree. The ingenuity financiers have mustered to scam Americans out of their retirements is truly a wonder to behold.
Working through well-funded media campaigns and strategic investments in politicians who carry out their plans, the Wizards of Wall Street have done a triple whammy on any hope we had for a decent retirement. They’ve attacked Social Security and pretended that it’s unaffordable and/or insolvent, they’ve worked to move us into fee-riddled private investment accounts, and they’ve looted our pensions.
They couldn’t have done it without friends like Gov. Chris Christie. Over in New Jersey, the big man is showing us how it’s done.
First, a little recap of how we’ve been screwed so far.
Private equity billionaire Pete Peterson is the Big Kahuna of Social Security-bashing, shoveling money toward folks like Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, co-chairs of Obama’s deficit commission, who have worked overtime since the financial crisis to con the American people into accepting cuts to the country’s most successful anti-poverty program under the threat that the deficit is growing —except, oops, now it’s actually shrinking!
Nonsense aside, Wall Street has gotten its way with Social Security before, such as the 1983 deal under Reagan, which, still unknown to many Americans, chopped the program and forced a higher retirement age onto young people who could not vote at the time, up two years, from 65 to 67. Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan, foe of Social Security and worshipper of Wall Street, was instrumental in getting that deal done.
Then there’s the 401(k), foisted on the American public 30 years ago as a rising tide of laissez-faire fanatics convinced policymakers to move us into do-it-yourself retirement plans. A study by the think-tank Demos revealed that the typical 401(k) steals an average of nearly $155,000 [3] from a median-income, two-earner family over a lifetime of saving through hidden fees. The plans have also been shown to drive inequality and make ordinary people more vulnerable to economic shocks. Despite these dismal results, politicians across the country are pushing more Americans into 401(k)s. Republicans in Florida, Kansas, Illinois and elsewhere have been trying to move public workers into them, and Democrats with Wall Street ties have often joined in the effort: Former Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley, who now advises an investment firm, was part of the (failed) effort [4] to force Kansas state employees into 401(k)s, calling the effort to transfer investment risk onto workers “innovation.”
The innovative folks on Wall Street have also concluded that as long as you have pensions around, you might as well loot them. Financiers have aggressively promoted the idea of moving pensions from safe investments like treasuries into “alternative investments” on which they can charge ridiculous fees and deliver subpar results.
Robert Johnson, executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, has been researching the so-called pension crisis in the U.S. and has found that underfunding is not nearly as widespread as the media, stoked by anti-pension campaigners with deep pockets, has portrayed (see my AlterNet article on his research [5]). Further, he found that places where funding problems do exist are often troubled by corruption. Pay-to-play schemes and bribery are common, and barring obvious corruption, big money politics often has a deciding influence over the management and allocation of pensions. Political scientist Thomas Ferguson has pointed out [6] that local and state politicians are relying more and more on Wall Street and other anti-pension business interests for funding, and this creates incentives to move pensions from safe vehicles to more risky things like hedge funds and private equity.
For a perfect example of how this works, look no further than Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
As Lee Fang of the Nation Institute has reported [7], Governor Christie wasted little time after his election to launch a fear-mongering campaign to “reform” New Jersey’s pension system by raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. But somehow that process of reform also included bringing Wall Street into the game — despite the fact that Christie has pummeled his predecessor, John Corzine, for doing just that. After Christie’s election, the man who had helped bankroll his campaign, one Paul Singer, hedge fund manager and head of the conservative Manhattan Institute, would see his investment in Christie pay off big-time. A gold-plated bromance blossomed between the two men. As Fang writes:
“In his second year in office, Christie’s administration proposed giving Singer’s hedge fund, Elliott Associates, a contract to manage $200 million in state public pension funds. Elliott Associates won the contract in 2012. Singer again demonstrated his political loyalty to Christie in December 2013, shortly after Christie became chair of the RGA, a coveted post for GOP presidential aspirants. This time, Singer gave the group $1.25 million, making him the largest contributor that year and significantly enlarging the RGA’s war chest under Christie.”
Singer wasn’t the only Wall Streeter to win big. Hedge fund manager Dan Loeb, another close ally of Christie, “also won big contracts to manage state retiree money under the governor.”
The foxes came racing into the henhouse, tumbling over one another to get a piece of the action, bent on maximizing returns to Wall Street and minimizing benefits for hard-working people. Lee states:
“Under Christie, the amount of retiree money in the hands of outside managers, such as private equity firms or hedge funds like Singer’s, dramatically increased, while the share going to less risky and more traditional investments like treasury notes or the S&P 500 declined.”
That same hustle is happening in other parts of the country, and your state or city could well be next. Over in Rhode Island, State General Treasurer and Wall Street veteran Gina Raimondo, a Democrat now running for governor, has been touted as a hero of pension reform. But her reform has also focused on moving pension funds into Wall Street vehicles. The New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson questioned Raimondo’s activities back in October 2013 in an article aptly titled “How to Pay Millions and Lag Behind the Market [8].” Morgenson described an investigation into the pension system’s recent plunge into alternative investments which highlighted the high costs, risks and poor returns:
“The investigation, by Benchmark Financial Services, a forensic firm hired by a Rhode Island council of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, concluded that the $7.7 billion Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island was at risk because of its increased concentration in high-cost and opaque alternative investments. The union represents workers whose pensions are invested by the state.
In less than two years, the Rhode Island pension system has ramped up its investments in hedge funds, private equity and venture capital from zero to almost $2 billion, or more than one-quarter of its assets under management. But this mix of investments hasn’t outperformed the fund’s peers, the Benchmark report said. For the year ended June 30, 2013, the fund returned 11.07 percent, versus 12.43 percent earned by the median public pension fund.”
When I saw her at an event in the fall of 2013, I attempted to question Raimondo on the issue of subpar returns, which she denied was an issue at all until I held up the Morgenson article, at which point she and her press secretary scrambled away with my card, promising to be in touch. I never heard from them.
Before her election, Raimondo was a partner at Point Judith Capital, a venture capital firm. As Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi has reported [9], Wall Street has lavished her campaigns with cash:
“Donors from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, Bain Capital and JPMorgan Chase showered her with money, with more than $247,000 coming from New York contributors alone. A shadowy organization called EngageRI, a public-advocacy group of the 501(c)4 type whose donors were shielded from public scrutiny by the infamous Citizens United decision, spent $740,000 promoting Raimondo's ideas.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The wolves of Wall Street are salivating for your retirement funds, and they are dressing in sheep’s clothing and talking to us about “reform” and “responsibility” in order to do it. We can’t fire them, but at least we have a chance to do something about the politicians who do their dirty work — namely, send them packing.
==
icn 2/14 In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced a series of aggressive rebuilding initiatives to protect New Yorkers from future climate-related threats.
But less than a mile away in New Jersey, just across the Hudson River, political leaders reacted in a much different way.
To them, the October 2012 superstorm was just a rare event, not a preview of what scientists expect global warming to bring to the East Coast in the coming decades.
When asked in May about Sandy's connection with climate change, Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, said the question was "a distraction" and that global warming was an "esoteric" theory.
That philosophy has permeated New Jersey's post-Sandy recovery effort.
Instead of planning for future climate threats, New Jersey focused on rebuilding quickly to get people back into their homes and to get the tourist industry up and running for the lucrative summer season. As a result, the state spent billions of federal aid dollars to rebuild boardwalks, businesses and houses almost exactly as they stood pre-storm.
The coastal protection measures New Jersey has proposed, such as dune systems or flood gates, will defend communities only at current sea levels—not the 3.5 feet of sea level rise that New Jersey is expected to see by 2100. The state has partnered with six New Jersey universities to study how communities were flooded by Sandy, but that research will not consider how those communities, or others, may be affected under future climate scenarios.
"Our research doesn't really look at climate change. That is not an objective New Jersey has right now," said Tom Herrington, a physical oceanographer at the Stevens Institute of Technology who has been mapping Sandy's effects on the Hudson River shoreline for the NJDEP.
Nowhere on the Governor's Office of Recovery and Rebuilding webpage do the words climate change, global warming, or sea level rise appear, not even under the site's "resiliency" section.
New Jersey's rebuilding strategy is leaving its residents vulnerable to future climate change-related threats, several environmentalists, policy experts and scientists told InsideClimate News....
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) prides himself on his record of fighting pork in the state legislature. But he's never taken that mandate as literally as he did Thursday, when he vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of gestation crates on pig farms in New Jersey.
The bill, S. 1921, passed the state Assembly by a vote of 60 to 5 and the state Senate by a vote of 29 to 4 in May, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting the effort to prohibit farmers from using any confinement method that would prevent pigs from turning around or laying down. A poll taken in the state showed that 89 percent of voters were in favor of Christie signing the measure into law [pdf].
The bill's passage was hailed by animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States, as an important symbolic victory for their movement. Though major buyers, such as McDonald's and Smithfield Foods, have recently announced plans to stop buying pork from farmers that use gestation crates, 83 percent of American pigs still spend some time in them, and their use remains legal in 41 states, including all the major pork-producing states. Recent efforts to pass such legislation in four other states have failed, though a bill remains on the table in Massachusetts.
But agricultural interest groups have been pressuring Christie's office to veto the bill for the past six weeks. They argued that gestation crates are not only the cheapest method of raising sows, but also the best for their health, because they allow the farmer total control over the animals' upbringing. And on Thursday, Christie sided with the hog farmers.
In his statement on the decision [pdf], he noted that "neither the American Veterinary Medical Association nor the American Association of Swine Veterinarians advocates" banning the use of gestation crates, and suggested that the legislature continue to take its cues on animal welfare from the state's Department of Agriculture, which opposed the bill.
The National Pork Producer's Council applauded Christie's veto. "It's important that these things are defeated, because we don't need outside groups telling farmers how to raise their animals," spokesman Mark Warner told The Huffington Post.
It's unclear what practical impact the veto will have on animal welfare, if any. New Jersey is among the smallest hog-farming states in the country, with just 700 pigs residing in the Garden State [pdf]. Still, animal rights advocates were unequivocal in their denunciation of Christie's veto.
"From our perspective, even one gestation crate is too many," said ASPCA attorney Debora Bresch, who lobbied for the bill in New Jersey.
"It seems odd that anyone would want to be on the side of such a barbaric practice," added Bruce Friedrich, senior advocacy director at Farm Sanctuary. "When you compare badly on animal welfare with Smithfield and McDonald's, you might want to reconsider your position."
Friedrich chalked Christie's rejection of the gestation crate ban up to his busy schedule. "My suspicion is that the governor didn't fully consider the issue. He's had an awful lot on his plate recently," he said.
Though the pork lobby was among the groups that allegedly encouraged Christie to veto the bill, New Jersey pig farmers aren't necessarily thrilled about it.
Michael Clampffer of Mosefund Farm is one of the biggest hog farmers in the state; he raises 150 heritage breed pigs on 15 acres of land in Sussex County. He has never used a gestation crate and says he never would. "It's inhumane," he explained. "It's not good for the animals. They like to be outdoors, rooting around in the mud and basking in the sun."
He worries that the continued legality of gestation crates in New Jersey could make it hard to market his pork.
"This is one of the big black marks in people's minds about pork, that the animals aren't raised well," he said. "This bill could have changed that in New Jersey. Vetoing it strikes me as detrimental to the movement of eating local and sustainable."
Yet Warner, of the National Pork Producer's Council, insisted that the veto is an important deterrent to future efforts to ban gestation crates in larger pork-producing states, such as Iowa. He said that discontinuing the use of gestation crates would require farmers to dedicate more space and labor to each sow, increasing the cost of pork.
And that, he said, is a central motive of groups like the Humane Society: "That's part of their goal -- to reduce the amount of meat we eat."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/chris-christie-gestation-crate_n_3512521.html?view=print&comm_ref=false
===
6. Chris Christie, New Jersey
Chris Christie likes to bluster and swagger – it's sort of his calling card. He's frequently caught saying awful things—like a comment he made this winter on a marriage equality referendum. Christie said, “The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.”
But what's he really up to? Well, he's getting sued, for one thing, for unilaterally pulling New Jersey out of a 10-state initiative aimed at curbing air pollution from power plants. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environment New Jersey filed a lawsuit, claiming the move violates a state law that required Christie to notify the public of his intent to pull out and allow for a public comment period.
He's also pushing more tax cuts, including $1.57 billion in business tax breaks supposedly creating jobs—$900 million to companies that, according to the New York Times, have only promised to create 2,364 positions. That's $387,537 in tax credits per job, the Times noted. Why do we get the feeling that those jobs won't be $300,000-a-year positions?
And teachers, who Christie famously called "political thugs," are still on his hit list, though so far, his education agenda has been stalled. He's trying to get rid of teacher tenure, making it easier to fire teachers and cut down on state aid for public schools, as well as push charter schools.
One teacher, however, has taken her fight to another level—Marie Corfield, the teacher in the famous YouTube video sparring with Christie over his education policies, just won a Democratic primary for a state assembly seat. Should she win, she'll have a lot more opportunities to fight Christie's attacks on teachers.
zuck
On February 14, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg hosted a political fundraiser in his Palo Alto, California home for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R). For those unfamiliar with the pairing, Zuckerberg and Christie first teamed up in 2010 when Zuckerberg donated**$100 million**to the Newark school system.
The event was met with controversy, however, as 40 people**protested**Chris Christie’s budget cut of**$7.5 million**in funding for Planned Parenthood. Demonstrators claimed that the Republican governor is anti-women and chastised Zuckerberg for supporting him. This critique was a bit disingenuous as Christie**donated**to Planned Parenthood in 1994 while opposing public funding for it in his run for Freeholder of Morris County.
In response, Facebook spokesman**Andrew Noyes stated**, “Mark and Priscilla have worked closely with Governor Christie on education reform in the Newark school system. They admire his leadership on education reform and other issues and look forward to continuing their important work together on behalf of Newark’s school children.”
The fundraiser is an important breakthrough for Governor Christie as it demonstrated his ability to appeal beyond the traditional Republican base. Zuckerberg is listed as “**no preference**” for political party under the Santa Clara registrar of voters (and there’s no mention of it on his Facebook page). The Facebook CEO hosted a town-hall style**meeting**for Obama in 2011, as well.
**Facebook’s PAC**is careful to donate to candidates on both sides of the aisle. It has donated to Republican House Speaker John Boehner and senators Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). Beneficiaries from the Democratic Party include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and senators Chris Coons (D-DE), and Dick Durbin (D-IL).
As the 2012**presidential election**showed, previous fundraising norms are obsolete and candidates are far better off relying on private contributions than agreeing to the public financing system for campaigns. Obama and Romney each raised and spent almost**$1 billion**this past election season.
Since launching his campaign in December, Christie has raised over**$2 million**, including $1.6 million from 420 people who donated the state allowed maximum of $3,800. This does not include donations under $300, donations in the month of February, or the governor’s haul from the aforementioned fundraiser with Zuckerberg. Likewise, Christie’s national popularity will help him substantially in the gubernatorial race and provide a substantial base of donors to return to should he run for president in 2016.
For any potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, the ability to appeal to the moderate undecided voter base is absolutely crucial. With New Jersey’s Republican governor reaping in the benefits of networking in Silicon Valley, the rest of the GOP should learn from Christie. The conservative base is not the only place where the Republican Party can raise money, especially when the politically unaffiliated have deep pockets as well.
Welcome to the nightmare. Singer, Langone and the Kochs last month decided to elect Chris Christie for us.palast
As of 2013, there is no drilling for natural gas in New Jersey. The state legislature has said there is the "potential for massive natural gas deposits in beds of Utica shale – a ridge of which lies beneath Sussex and Warren counties." Others like Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state DEP, has said "there is no frackable shale in New Jersey that can produce energy."[1]
The state Legislature passed bills in 2011 and 2012 calling for a ban on fracking, citing unknown environmental and health effects. Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed the 2011 bill, changing the all-out ban to a one-year moratorium.[2] The moratorium expired in January 2013.[3]
In May 2012, environmental groups called on the New Jersey Legislature to ban the treatment, disposal, and storage of any hydraulic fracturing waste in the state.[4] Data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection showed waste from Pennsylvania had gone to NJ facilities in Elizabeth, South Kearny, and Carteret.[5] In September 2012 Christie vetoed a bill that would have banned New Jersey treatment plants from accepting fracking wastewater.[6]
There are current and proposed natural gas pipelines beneath the state.[7]
==
remarks at koch conf 9/11
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/audio-chris-christie-koch-brothers-seminar?page=2
9. Chris Christie
Governor of New Jersey
Before: "In a Christie administration, we can and will enforce environmental protections while encouraging emerging industries to grow our economy and create sustainable jobs," he said in October 2009, while reveling in the endorsement of the New Jersey Environmental Federation.
After: In May 2011, he pulled New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the only operational cap-and-trade system in the country. "The whole system is not working as it was intended to work. It is a failure," he said -- after he undermined its effectiveness by raiding $65 million from a RGGI-generated fund that was supposed to support energy efficiency and renewable energy. His pullout could "doom U.S. climate policy," Brad Plumer speculates. On June 7, 2011, Christie said he planned to cut the state's renewable-energy goal from 30 percent by 2021 to 22.5 percent.
Read more about Christie and environmental issues.
pulls out of cap and trade:
http://www.grist.org/politics/2011-05-27-confused-chris-christie-embraces-climate-science-rejects-action
In most of the democratic world, it's possible to be a conservative leader who doesn't completely dismiss climate science. In fact, it's common. The dismissive position of the American Right's elite is unique.
This was embarrassingly clear at the recent International Security Forum, where European military leaders urged Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to take seriously the threat of famine, war, and instability driven by global warming. Graham's pathetic reply? He said a forceful national climate bill "just doesn't play with the public anymore."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie brings the latest evidence that there's no room in the Right's top ranks for anything but suspicion of climate science. Here's his response to a town hall question on Tuesday:
Mankind, is it responsible for global warming? Well I'll tell you something. I have seen evidence on both sides of it. I'm skeptical -- I'm skeptical. And you know, I think at the end of this, I think we're going to need more science to prove something one way or the other.
Christie ran for governor of a decidedly blue state last year (it hadn't elected a Republican to statewide office in 12 years) with an energy platform that included tax credits for wind-energy businesses and policies to continue the state's solar energy growth.
But as his rumored presidential ambitions have gotten more and more attention (he's been showing up on lists of possible 2012 contenders and finished first in an October Tea Party straw poll), Christie's faced pressure from the establishment Right to abandon such positions. Americans for Prosperity, an astroturf group funded by the petroleum company Koch Industries, is lobbying both Christie and the state legislature to quit the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program for power plants in 10 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.
Dropping out would wreak havoc on RGGI, which has cut emissions, raised money for retrofitting jobs programs, and produced none of the market corruption predicted by critics. Quitting would also cause major headaches for energy companies trying to make long-term plans. New Jersey's largest utility, the coal-and-nuclear-invested PSEG, supports the program and wants to stay in, an executive told me last week.
But leaving RGGI would be a way for Christie to prove his bona fides to conservative taste-makers.
"It's difficult for him to be a credible option for conservatives nationally if he doesn't take a stand on cap and trade, and that's why we think we'll be able to appeal to him," Phil Kerpen, director of policy at Americans for Prosperity, told *Politico* earlier this fall.
Christie hasn't said publicly what he plans to do with RGGI. His town hall comments last night don't suggest a vigorous defender of clean-energy investment. And by killing the ARC rail-tunnel project last month, he's shown he's willing to block major regional cooperation. (It also earned him a $271 million bill for transportation funding he must return to the feds.)
He's also raided the state's revenue from RGGI -- $65 million -- to plug holes in the state budget. The state's Global Warming Response Act says 80 percent of that money should go toward energy-related projects. You can argue that the money is better used preventing teacher or firefighter layoffs, but the raid undermines the effectiveness of cap-and-trade, which is meant to provide both a cap on pollution and revenue (from permits that polluters buy) to invest in energy efficiency. Christie's move doesn't signal much faith in the program.
He wouldn't be the first governor to become more radical to pursue presidential ambitions. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) also abandoned his clean-energy leadership (and his most significant legislative accomplishments) when the "drill, baby, drill" non-solution rose to prominence in 2008.
In Michigan, voters elected one of the only Republican candidates who took a more nuanced position on clean-energy and smart-growth development this fall in Rick Snyder, a former Gateway software executive and venture capitalist. Progressives in the state are calling on him to make good on his tentative support for green transportation projects. It'll be interesting to see if there's room in the GOP for anything like that.
Jonathan Hiskes is a Grist staff writer. He reports, tweets, and wants to learn about everything.
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-10-christie-finds-the-rights-kingmakers-demand-orthodoxy-on-climate
makes bones in SHAC
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009
U.S. Attorney Whose Office Prosecuted SHAC 7 Runs for Governor
The man whose office prosecuted the SHAC 7 is running for governor of New Jersey.
.JPG){kind=link}
But "This American Life" from Chicago Public Radio criticized Christopher J. Christie, former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, for his work on a different case.
Last week it re-aired an hourlong segment from 2005 that analyzed a terrorism case he led and about which he boasts on his campaign Web site.
Long story short: The U.S. government pegged Hemant Lakhani as a suspected terrorist. An undercover agent posed as an arms dealer, and Lakhani agreed to sell him a missile. After a year, though, Lakhani still couldn't find one. The government got tired of waiting, and, instead of realizing this guy wasn't a terrorist but a bumbling idiot, the U.S. government (acting undercover) sold him an inoperable missile. He was sentenced to 47 years in prison after he "sold" it to the undercover agent.
This case brought to mind that of Eric McDavid, an environmentalist who was lured by an FBI informant, "Anna," into "conspiring to sabotage federal facilities." (This case was prosecuted by another gung-ho U.S. attorney's office -- in California.)
This post, though, isn't about whether Hemant Lakhani was guilty or not guilty. It's about a man who has advanced his career by prosecuting dubious "terrorism" cases -- like that of the SHAC 7.
In the SHAC 7 case Christie's office prosecuted -- as terrorists -- activists who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights.
These six people -- the organization itself was the seventh "member" -- operated a Web site that reported on legal and illegal actions against Huntingdon Life Sciences and its vendors.
Five undercover investigations inside HLS labs have shown workers punching beagle puppies in the face, dissecting live monkeys and falsifying scientific data.
Although the SHAC 7 never committed any of the illegal acts that they posted on their Web site, Christie and his office went after them hard.
"This is not activism. This is a group of lawless thugs attacking innocent men, women and children," U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said. "We will not stand by and let any group or individuals violate federal law through violence and intimidation, no matter what cause they profess to advocate for in the process."
The federal law Christie cited was the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (now the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), which labels an act a crime if it "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so."
The loss of property here was profits.
Christie said the following of the Lakhani case:
There are good people and bad people. Bad people do bad things. Bad people have to be punished. These are simple truths. Bad people must be punished.
When it comes to the SHAC 7 case, Christie and I differ on who the bad people are.
http://diggingthroughthedirt.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-attorney-who-prosecuted-shac-7-runs.html malware?
will p
The World Takes? How corporations and politicians turned animal rights activists into terrorists," Herbivore, Volume 13, 26-48.
By WILL POTTER
On some days in Trenton, N.J., the only thing separating the grey Delaware River from the grey horizon of office buildings and the flat grey sky is a big sign in glowing neon red.
"TRENTON MAKES, THE WORLD TAKES" runs 254 feet across the Lower Trenton Toll Supported Bridge, which spans the Delaware River. The capital san serif letters average nine and half feet tall by six and a half feet wide, and weigh about 300 pounds each. It took four sign technicians, a crane, and $383,427 for Trentonians to adamantly refurbish the dilapidated slogan in 2005. The phrase’s 1,500 linear feet of glass tubing can be finicky. Sometimes an E or an A will burn out. Sometimes an entire word. But when that neon is lit up, Trenton defiantly shines.
The city has maintained that proclamation since 1911, when the Chamber of Commerce held a contest for a slogan that would remind thousands of passengers on Pennsylvania Railroad’s Main Line that Trenton had made it. Steel. Pottery. Wall plaster. Anvils. Mattresses. Bricks. Rubber. Linoleum. Trenton was "the nation’s tire capital." Trenton made the steel rope that held up massive suspension bridges. And Trenton made the world’s largest bathtub, to be used by the massive President William Howard Taft.
S. Roy Heath won that contest, and $25, for "The World Takes, Trenton Makes." But that needed some editing. Who could put the world before Trenton?
* * *
Over the years, the world stopped taking. Through the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, Trenton’s manufacturing base eroded. The Roebling wire rope plant, once supplier for the Brooklyn Bridge and Slinky, shut down. The Wire Rope District now exists in name only.
In 1924, about one out of every two jobs in the county came from manufacturing. Now it’s about one out of every 25.
Some manufacturing plants still hum. But the economic backbone of Trenton is now the state government and the pharmaceutical industry. Trenton, and the rest of New Jersey, now depends on making laws and drugs.
Pfizer, Wyeth, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Sandoz, Glaxo Smith Kline, Chiron, Covance, and 245 other pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies call New Jersey home, according to a directory maintained by Rutgers University. They’re the heavy hitters in "the medicine chest of the nation," as former Governor Christie Whitman called her state.
"What automobiles are to Michigan and oil to Texas," one industry group head has said, "The pharmaceutical and medical device industry is to New Jersey."
Some state leaders fear the nation’s medicine chest going the way of Motor City. The pharmaceutical job market is shrinking by three or four percent in New Jersey, while it increases by 40 percent or more elsewhere. Nevada and Pennsylvania, among others, are trying to siphon off some of New Jersey’s financial flow. CEO Magazine’s "Best and Worst State Report" for 2005 ranked New Jersey 46th. The state must act swiftly to secure its position as the pharmaceutical capital of the world. The neon writing is on the wall.
To the global pharmaceutical industry, though, there’s an even bigger problem brewing in New Jersey. This is ground zero in a new War on Terrorism. It’s here that Huntingdon Life Sciences, the notorious contract animal testing company, is based. It’s here that animal rights activists launched a historic campaign against the lab that rattled the industry to its core. And it’s here, in Trenton, that six of those activists were convicted on "terrorism" charges for attempting to shut down one of the last things New Jersey makes.
* * *
Five undercover investigations inside HLS labs have shown workers punching beagle puppies in the face, dissecting live monkeys and falsifying scientific data. One investigator, Michelle Rokke, wrote in her diary:
"I saw him pick a dog up off the floor by his front leg and toss him in a cage… when he tried to close the cage door one of the dogs tried to get out. He repeatedly slammed the cage door on the dog’s head."
Armed with this information, animal activists in England—the other location of an HLS lab—launched an international campaign called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Their goal wasn’t to simply expose the abuse, or call for reform. Their goal was to put the lab out of business.
Following the lead of effective anti-apartheid divestment campaigns in the 1980s, activists knew the only way to change a business practice is to aim for the bottom line.
They brought the company to its knees, primarily through a Wall Street level knowledge of how corporations operate. The SHAC USA website schooled activists in business savvy: primers on investors, market makers, and pink sheets. It also listed home and work addresses for anyone doing business with HLS, from bankers on down to toilet paper suppliers.
Activists took to the streets, the phones, and executives’ homes with bullhorns, phone blockades and plenty of smart-ass, aggressive rhetoric. All actions related to the campaign—both legal and illegal—got posted on the SHAC website: news of legal protests, leafleting, speaking events and video screenings—and also anonymous communiqués.
*"Arghh Matee’
In the wee hours of Tuesday, July 24th, we paid a visit to the home of Brian G Rogan President of Capital Markets to The Bank of New York, Plum Point Rd. in Sands Point, LI, NY. 20 holes were drilled in the right side of his 30 foot yacht, and one 6inch by 6inch hole was sawed through the right hull.
Various workings of the boat were also tampered with. As the boat began to take on water it was cut loose and pushed out to sea, we left before confirming whether or not the boat sunk. Both the boat and his personal dock were left covered with painted slogans denouncing BNY’s involvement with Huntingdon Life Sciences, the largest reading ‘money means nothing- life Means everything.’
Upon escape we cut through his estate to his personal Flag Pole, his Amerikkkan Flag was lowered and discarded like the trash it is, and replaced with the only flag that matters, a pirate flag!
For the 500 lives lost today at HLS, and for our brother Carlo Guliani who was shot and killed this week protesting the Group of Eight Summit in Genoa,
Our hearts bleed for you!
The P.A.L.
Pirates for Animal Liberation
HLS thar she blows!"*
Other posted actions include subscribing a CEO to porno mags, setting off stink bombs in offices, and paint-stripping cars. They were sometimes crude (calling a church and accusing a CEO that attends of fondling children) and often ominous (phrases like "we know where you live" appear in many communiqués). SHAC unabashedly supported all of it.
It worked. The lab now teeters on the brink of economic collapse, after more than 160 companies, including Marsh Inc., UPS, and Fedex, have pulled out. The New York Stock Exchange dropped HLS in 2000, and the London Stock Exchange followed in 2001.
The tactics worked a little too well. Industry groups and pharmaceutical corporations knew that if activists brought a multinational corporation to its knees, they wouldn’t stop there. Greg Avery, a SHAC UK organizer, has bluntly said as much: "When it closes we will move on somewhere else until all animal testing is banned in this country." HLS is just the training ground, and the pharmaceutical industry knows it.
Industry groups launched a massive scare-mongering media campaign to label activists as "terrorists" for campaigning to put the lab out of business, and to link them—ideologically, at least—with the underground actions of groups like the Animal Liberation Front. Corporations targeted by SHAC hit back with lawsuits and restraining orders, but the campaign kept moving.
In May, 2004, the government and industry groups tried something new. They charged
Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius Fullmer, John McGee and the organization SHAC with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 1992. The law got little attention when it was passed except from groups like the National Association for Biomedical Research that pushed it through.
It created the crime of "animal enterprise terrorism" for anyone who travels in "interstate or foreign commerce" (like crossing state lines or using the mail) and "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so."
The government first used the law in 1998, charging Peter Young and Justin Samuel with animal enterprise terrorism for releasing thousands of mink from Wisconsin fur farms. Samuel pleaded guilty, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay over $360,000 in fines. Young was on the run for seven years, and then caught in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison.
Ostensibly, that’s what the law was meant to do: go after the activists who "cause the loss of any property," who sneak into labs and steal/liberate animals. The law, industry groups said, was needed to go after the underground.
* * *
The Department of Justice press release proclaimed, "Militant Animal Rights Group, Seven Members Indicted for National Campaign to Terrorize Company and Its Employees."
"This is not activism. This is a group of lawless thugs attacking innocent men, women and children," U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said. "We will not stand by and let any group or individuals violate federal law through violence and intimidation, no matter what cause they profess to advocate for in the process."
The defendants were never charged with mailing anthrax-laced letters, planting pipe bombs, hijacking airplanes or any action most reasonable people would consider terrorism. And in their 27-page indictment, not once were SHAC activists accused of any of the crimes posted on the website, let alone any "attacking innocent men, women and children." They weren’t charged with smashing windows, gluing locks or breaking into labs. They "conspired" to put the lab out of business by running a website:
"On or about July 10, 2002, a smoke bomb was set off at the offices of a subsidiary of M. Corp. in Seattle, Washington causing the evacuation of a high-rise office tower, and a second smoke bomb was set off at the offices of M. Corp. in Seattle, Washington, causing the evacuation of that high-rise office tower as well. After these events, the SHAC Website posted a report about the smoke bomb attacks."
No activist has been charged with the smoke bomb action. The feds have generally had a hell of a time catching the saboteurs responsible for actions like this. Underground activists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990, according to the F.B.I., and there are 150 pending "eco-terror" investigations. Law enforcement agents haven’t been able to find the members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front responsible for the attacks, so they went after those in the spotlight. Think red baiting, with a green twist.
Here’s an example of one of the actions tied to the defendants in the indictment:
SHAC "caused the website www.stephenskills.com to be launched in order to apply pressure on
S. Inc. to cease doing business with HLS."
Apparently these news postings and website launchings were so "terrorizing" that the government couldn’t even name corporations that have been targeted in the indictment. They are only identified by single letters, like "S. Inc." or "M. Corp."
"Because of the nature of the campaign against these companies, we didn’t want to subject them further to the tactics of SHAC," said Michael Drewniak, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, in an interview.
* * *
Activists, reporters and anyone else paying attention can read between the lines. These businesses are some of the wealthiest on the planet: They need no corporate witness protection program. This was one small maneuver in a broader War on Terrorism, to redefine the victim. The victim is not the Beagle puppy being punched in the face because the lab tech can’t find a vein. The victim is not the activist being charged with "terrorism" for defending the tactics of others. The victim is the corporation, whose profits were so ruthlessly assaulted.
Lunch breaks during trial gave jurors and defendants about 30 minutes to find some food and rush back to the courtroom. Even if they had longer, it probably wouldn’t have helped the defendants. Of all the things Trenton makes, vegan food, it seems, is not one of them.
During one break in the trial, I visited the Trenton Federal Courthouse "cafeteria" with some of the defendants. They knew the routine, and so did the woman behind the counter. The "animal rights terrorists" had a special menu, not listed alongside the other items on the rectangular white board with black block-letter stickers.
"Soy hot dog?," she asked, smiling. She snapped on a pair of latex gloves, pulled limp, flesh-colored Tofu Pups from their clear plastic wrapper, briefly microwaved them on paper plates, and plopped them on bleached white bread. We each paid about $4.
"I already feel like I’m in prison," someone said, only half joking. There probably wouldn’t be Tofu Pups in prison.
There wasn’t much talking during lunch. The tactic, I believe, was to finish the Tofu Pup as quickly as possible and leave the crinkling linoleum, folding chairs, and discolored wall paneling behind.
We headed out the door, and toward the elevators that lead back to the courtroom. As we passed the metal detectors, a group of attorneys stopped us. One of them asked: "Are you all law students?"
What else could they be? Not criminals. Not terrorists. Andy wore spotless, tailored three-button mod suits, often with a bright pink shimmering tie. Jake looks like who is: a clean-cut kid from Connecticut more comfortable in cargo pants and a hoodie than court clothes. Darius works as a paramedic in New Jersey. Josh, a filmmaker, would flip through skateboarding magazines or sometimes talk about hardcore bands between court proceedings. Lauren seemed to comfortably fit the law student image, maybe because she had planned on taking the LSAT until cops stormed her house with guns drawn. I glanced at the other attorneys flowing through the metal detectors, trailed by other activists in their own court clothes.
"No," Lauren said, smiling, and without hesitation. "We’re on trial for terrorism!"
The security guard scanning briefcases on a six-foot conveyor belt laughed.
* * *
I sat in the overflowing courtroom for the SHAC7 sentencing, sandwiched between aNew Jersey activist and a mustached local reporter. As I watched the six 20-something defendants in their thrift-store court clothes comfort their mothers while standing tall, shoulders back, for their friends, I felt like I was watching history. I don’t mean that in a Red Scare kind of analogy, although that is clearly applicable. I mean that a surreal feeling struck me. In 10, 20, 50 years, young people will look at this trial, just as we look at past eras of repression, and wonder: "How did you let this happen?"
How did we let this happen?
Here’s how a sentencing hearing for a federal case usually works. The judge makes a statement about the federal sentencing guidelines, if they apply, and their parameters. The prosecutors then generally ask for sentences somewhere in the middle or on the high end of those guidelines. Defense attorneys respond with a series of nitpicky points about the sentencing recommendations, using legal jargon the defendants and family members don’t understand, and argue that their client should receive a reduced sentence. Sometimes they submit letters from friends or family members saying that Johnny is a "fine young man" or that Jane is an "upstanding person who made a poor decision." Sometimes defendants say they have seen the light, and realized the error of their ways. Sometimes they cry.
Here’s how a sentencing hearing for animal rights activists convicted of "terrorism" charges for running a website works. The judge made a statement outlining the outlandish sentencing guidelines—higher than most rapists and violent criminals face. The government asked the judge to throw the book at these "extremists." One by one, the defense attorneys fight for a month here and a month there, anything to keep these activists from spending their 30s in prison. The defendants stare ahead blankly. The defense attorneys don’t just submit letters of support, they submit tomes. The judge raises a bound book submitted by Jake Conroy’s attorney, with letters from professors, friends, and activists that say they have been inspired by Jake’s compassion. The judge says she has rarely seen anything like this in any case.
The prosecutors don’t give an inch.Charles McKenna, the chief assistant U.S. attorney for New Jersey, who was the prosecutor in the case, rises from his seat after each speech by a defense attorney, and lets his voice reach a nearly vitriolic fervor.
Some activists laughed, others simply shook their heads at the absurdity of it all.
"Kevin Kjonaas was drunk with power."
"[Lauren Gazzola] had the bullhorn and was clearly the person in charge."
"Jake is not a man of compassion."
Nobody laughed.
Pressed up against activists in the back row, I could feel their muscles tense. A man across the aisle with a freshly shorn head and a sharp three-button suit bit his clenched fist and flexed the muscles in his left hand. I kept the corner of my eye on him, waiting for him to jump from the pew and disrupt this spectacle.
He didn’t. The spectacle continued, with McKenna saying that Jake and the others had "good homes, good schools," and they "chose to throw it all away." He sounded like he was describing bank robbers or meth addicts, not individuals using their First Amendment rights.
The defendants were sentenced to between one and six years in prison.
Activists lurked around the courtroom after the sentencing. Those that were turned away from the overflowing courtroom rushed in to ask what happened. Nobody seemed to know what to say.
The defendants put their game faces back on. They pressed the flesh and thanked everyone for coming. They did their best to remain strong and lift everyone’s spirits. "It could have been worse."
The local press rushed the defendants and prosecutors with skinny notebooks in hand. I felt like such a horrible reporter. What do you say to someone who has just been sentenced for "terrorism"? It reminded me of working the cop shop at The Chicago Tribune, and having to write about murders and dead siblings found in storage lockers, and having to ask people how it made them feel. What a ridiculous question, but reporters always ask it.
Instead I told Josh and Jake that I strongly disapproved of their pastel colored shirts. Josh, who had his sentencing postponed until the next day, asked if I knew someone who had a tie: he ran out of clean court clothes. I started to take off mine, but he just laughed. "Dude, skinny ties are for skinny guys. I’ve got a little bit more to love."
Outside the Trenton courthouse was part press conference part family reunion. Reporters kept asking activists to talk to them about the case and how they felt. "Are you a reporter? I’m not going to answer any of your questions." In this Green Scare, they said, who would want to have their picture in the paper at an "eco-terrorism" trial?
* * *
"This is just the starting gun," proclaimedDavid Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry front group.
The SHAC7 faced a double-edge sword going into trial. If they lose, they go to prison, and are labeled "terrorists" for the rest of their lives. No more law school. No more working as paramedic. No more graphic design. Nobody wants to hire a convicted "terrorist." If they win, it could be the foundation of an even harsher political crackdown.
But in a testament to the power of the Green Scare, the SHAC7 have been cut by both edges of that blade simultaneously. They were convicted. Yet they are still a threat.
That’s the message of industry groups constructing their most ambitious scare-mongering campaign yet. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been in the works, in various forms, since 1992. It has always stalled out, usually in committee. But now, bolstered the conviction of the SHAC7, industry groups want more.
Some of the pharmaceutical powerhouses from the nation’s medicine chest have made their presence known in Washington as the architects of this Green Scare. Pfizer, Wyeth, Glaxo Smith Kline, Chiron, and Covance have all backed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The SHAC campaign came a little too close to home. They don’t want to be next.
Industry groups pushed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through the Senate, where it passed by unanimous consent. Not one senator voiced opposition. When midterm elections shifted control of both the House and Senate to Democrats, industry groups knew they had to work fast. They knew that a Republican White House, plus a Republican Senate, plus a Republican House equaled the best chances they’ve had in years to steamroll this bill through Congress.
Their "eco-terrorism" bum rush worked: the law passed the House on the first day back from midterm elections as part of what’s called the "suspension calendar." That’s D.C. speak for a House procedure to usher through non-controversial bills. Only six members of Congress were in the room when the bill passed. Only one, Representative Dennis Kucinich, raised any objections.
Perhaps the best disturbing segment of the whole scare-mongering debacle was when Representative JamesSensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns, essentially giving the Green Scare a green light.
The law created stiffer penalties than the original Animal Enterprise Protection Act and expands its scope to include "any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise."
One section of the legislation targets anyone who "intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation."
The problem is that the word "eco-terrorism" is being batted around recklessly by industry groups in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children’s movie "soft-core eco-terrorism for kids." They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare-mongering: that’s the point. In light of this political climate, it’s impossible to discuss "reasonable fear," because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable–into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.
Here’s a very likely scenario: A group of activists holds a loud protest outside an executive’s home or office on a daily basis, as part of a national campaign. Activists yell and chant as people enter the building. Some wear masks or bandanas (which are increasingly common at protests, because activists fear being "blacklisted"). There have also been illegal actions like "vandalism" and "property damage" in the name of the same cause (which has been the case in every social movement, ever).
Activists clearly intend to "interfere with" the operations of animal enterprise. Toss in the climate of fear that industry groups have created, plus the raucous nature of the protest and the fact that it’s part of a coordinated campaign, and suddenly this First Amendment activity becomes "terrorism" under the law (through a "course of conduct" involving harassment, intimidation, vandalism… whatever they can get to stick). Through scare-mongering, the unreasonable becomes reasonable.
* * *
Underground activists won’t lose much sleep over the SHAC trial or this legislation. Their actions are already illegal (and they know it). The government has already labeled them the "number one domestic terrorist threat." And yet they continue to demonstrate that heavy-handed police tactics will not deter them.
Shortly after the sentencing of the SHAC7, anonymous activists sent a communiqué claiming credit for rescuing 23 rabbits from a vivisection lab in rural Massachusetts. They dedicated the raid to the SHAC 7. Six of the rabbits are named Jake, Lauren, Kevin, Andy, Josh, and Darius, after the defendants. (Who knew the balaclava-and-bolt-cutter set was so PR savvy?)
"And while the SHAC-7 will soon go to jail for simply speaking out on behalf of animals, those of us who have done all the nasty stuff talked about in the courts and in the media will still be free," the communiqué said. "So to those who still work with HLS and to all who abuse animals: we’re coming for you, motherfuckers."
Meanwhile, the government and corporations will continue coming for legal, above-ground activists.
Through my interviews with grassroots animal rights activists, national organizations, and their attorneys, I have heard widespread fears that the word "terrorist" will one day be turned against them, even though they use legal tactics. That grey fog of fear has seeped into every part of the movement. It clings to activists’ clothes, to their hair, like the cigarette stench lingering from last night’s drink at the bar. Even the most industrious activists, plugging away at campaign after campaign, have admitted that they can’t shake that fear. And the fog, it seems, is spreading. Some anti-abortion organizations, like the Thomas More Society, have already raised concerns that "eco-terrorism" legislation and rhetoric could become a model for labeling other activists as terrorists.
Other social movements have not rushed into the neon spotlight in the defense of animal rights activists, though, and they probably won’t any time soon. Animal activists have magnificently alienated themselves from other progressive activists, producing stunts and sound bites, costs be damned. Meanwhile, the New McCarthyists have constructed a scare-mongering campaign built not to destroy the underground, but to destroy the animal rights movement itself. It will be up to animal rights activists to challenge the architects of this Green Scare head on, to build bridges to other social movements, and to speak openly and honestly about the fear that, if ignored, could raze everything they’ve created. Until then, others will remain at a safe distance. They will be waiting to see how much the animal rights movement takes.
Tagged as: ACLU, Andy Stepanian, Animal Enterprise Protection Act, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA),Darius Fullmer, HLS, Jake Conroy, Josh Harper, Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola, SHAC 7 - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty Activists Convicted of Terrorism, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
A after serving as First Assistant Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. His practice will focus on white-collar criminal defense, internal investigations, corporate compliance, and commercial litigation. As the second-ranking official in the Attorney General's office, Mr. Solano coordinated the policies, operations, and investigations of the Department of Law and Public Safety, consisting of approximately 9,100 employees, including more than 600 lawyers. He was responsible for day-to-day oversight of the Division of Criminal Justice, the Division of Law, the Division of Consumer Affairs, including the Bureau of Securities, the Division of State Police, and the Office of State Police Affairs. Prior to joining the Attorney General's office in 2008, Mr. Solano was a partner in a leading New Jersey law firm, where he concentrated on white-collar criminal, complex civil, and appellate law. Prior to that period of private practice, he served for more than five years in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Newark, working in the appeals division, the terrorism unit of the criminal division, and the special prosecutions division. During his career as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Solano prosecuted cases involving mail and wire fraud, violations of federal anti-corruption statutes, tax fraud, export control law violations, and pharmaceutical and other product diversion schemes, and also argued appeals before the Third Circuit. friedman kaplan and edelman |
http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases08/pr20080929c.html
On Charles McKenna’s desk at the state’s Homeland Security headquarters is a clock, a gift from a Bronx public school. That’s where he mopped the floors while a law student.
Taped to the top of the clock is a visitor pass from his FBI background check almost 20 years ago, when McKenna joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Newark. That’s where he prosecuted criminals and terrorists.
Home • The FactCheck Wire • Spinning Gov. Chris Christie’s Greatest Hits
Spinning Gov. Chris Christie’s Greatest Hits
Posted on May 21, 2012
- “Creating jobs.” But the state has added only 37,100 jobs since he took office in January 2010. New Jersey and national unemployment rates were identical (9.7 percent) when Christie became governor. The state’s unemployment rate is now 9.1 percent — a full percentage point higher than the national average and fifth highest among all states.
- Putting “more money in our classrooms.” That’s false. Christie cut direct state aid for K-to-12 programs when he took office by $1 billion — from $8 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $7 billion in fiscal year 2011. He proposes to spend $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2013, but that’s still less than the 2010 funding level.
- Overhauling the state’s pension system that “saved our pensions.” But it may be premature to declare victory. Christie last year signed a law that required public employees to pay more into the pension system and suspended cost of living increases for retirees. But four months later, the state disclosed in bond documents that its unfunded pension liabilities — which dropped after the law was signed — are expected to rise again because the state is underfunding the system.
‘Creating Jobs’?
The ad, which is called “Direction,” is the work of the Committee for Our Children’s Future, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. The group spent $2.1 million on TV ads supporting Christie in January and February of this year, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a unit of Kantar Media. Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Committee for Our Children’s Future, says the organization will spend $1.6 million on the new ad, which started airing May 17.
The latest ad comes as the Republican governor is trying to pass a state budget — and as speculation is increasing that he might be a potential vice presidential running mate for likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Christie was an early supporter of Romney’s presidential bid and is one of several Republican officeholders mentioned as a VP candidate. The Committee for Our Children’s Future has connections to the Romney campaign. Jones, the group’s spokesman, recently joined the Romney campaign, and his firm, the Black Rock Group, has done work for the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.
The new ad features testimonials from people who identify themselves as independents, Democrats and Republicans. They praise Christie and “reformers from both sides” — although no one else is named — for moving the state in the right direction. One man says Christie and reformers are “creating jobs.” It’s true that New Jersey has seen a slight increase in total jobs since January 2010, when Christie took office. But the state’s job growth is lagging the nation as a whole.
http://www.alternet.org/print/labor/chris-christie-wisconsins-scott-walker-are-right-wing-soul-brothers-what-it-means-unions-and
Chris Christie & Wisconsin's Scott Walker Are Right-Wing Soul Brothers: What It Means for Unions and Progressives
By Christie's deeds and his words, he is clearly committed to the death of the labor movement and every other sort of social progress.