Politics

Latest news about politics

Rubio says U.S. diplomats will help monitor peace in Gaza; There is ‘no plan B’

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that diplomats will help American military officers monitor the cease-fire in Israel and Gaza.

Rubio is visiting Israel as part of a series of visits by American officials that have been in Israel this week.

While touring the new Civil-Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat Friday, Rubio made the comments.

“There’s going to be ups and downs and twists and turns, but I think we have a lot of reason for healthy optimism about the progress that’s being made,” The New York Times reported that Rubio said.

Steven Fagin, ambassador to Yemen, will lead the effort at the center, the State Department said.

A reporter asked on Friday if Israel would need to apply for permission from the United States to resume fighting. “I wouldn’t phrase it that way,” Rubio responded, The Washington Post reported. “The bottom line is that there’s no nation on Earth that’s contributed more to help Israel and its security.”

Israelis have been increasingly alarmed at the United States’ presence in the cease-fire, wondering how much control America will have over Israel.

The United States is also committed to Israel’s long-term security, including ensuring that Hamas is demilitarized, Rubio said.

There is “no plan B,” he said. “It’s not just the United States. … Over two dozen countries signed onto this, including regional Arab countries … that there would be a demilitarized Gaza and that there would not be a Hamas with the capability to threaten Israel.”

On Thursday, a far-right faction in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted to annex the West Bank, drawing rebuke from President Donald Trump, Rubio and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump, in an interview with Time Magazine, said that he would not allow it.

“We don’t think it’s going to happen,” Trump said. “Because I gave my word to the Arab countries. Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.”

Earlier this week, Vance arrived in Israel with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and investor Jared Kushner. They opened the CMCC in Israel, and Vance said the peace plan is “durable.”

Rubio said he plans to join Trump in Qatar to fly to Asia this weekend to attend leadership summits in Malaysia and South Korea, the Post reported. He said he also plans to visit Japan.

Source link

Ex-LAPD officer indicted for murder in on-duty killing of homeless man

Los Angeles County prosecutors unsealed an indictment Friday against a former LAPD officer responsible for the 2015 on-duty shooting of an unarmed man in Venice.

The ex-cop, Clifford Proctor, pleaded not guilty to the charges during a brief hearing in a downtown courtroom.

Wearing an orange jumpsuit, Proctor, 60, leaned over several times to whisper to his attorney but otherwise said little during the hearing, a portion of which was held behind closed doors. He waived a reading of the indictment. He will remain in custody with no bail, and is expected to return to court for a hearing early next month.

Proctor’s lawyer, Anthony “Tony” Garcia, said he would reserve comment until he’d had a chance to review the case.

But he questioned the timing of the charges, which came more than a decade after the incident in question.

The L.A. County District Attorney’s office reviewed the case when it was fresh and “determined there was nothing to proceed,” Garcia said.

Proctor was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport last week when U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents noticed he had an active warrant. Proctor has been living abroad for several years, according to sources who were not authorized to speak publicly about the pending case.

Proctor resigned from the LAPD in 2017. While still with the department, he shot and killed Brendon Glenn, a 29-year-old homeless man, after a dispute outside of a Venice bar in 2015. Glenn and his dog had been kicked out of the Bank of Venice restaurant for causing a disturbance.

Proctor and Glenn got into an argument and the officer ordered Glenn to leave the area. Glenn responded by hurling several racial epithets at Proctor. Both men are Black, according to court records.

Glenn then got into an argument with a bouncer outside of a different bar, and Proctor and his partner moved to make an arrest. During the ensuing struggle, Proctor shot Glenn twice in the back. Proctor alleged Glenn reached for his partner’s gun, but footage from the scene appeared to contradict that claim.

Glenn’s hand was never seen “on or near any portion” of the holster, according to a report made by the city’s Police Commission in 2016, and Proctor’s partner never made “any statements or actions” suggesting Glenn was trying to take the gun.

Former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck called for Proctor to be charged with manslaughter in the wake of public outrage over the killing, but ex-Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey declined to prosecute. After being elected on a police accountability platform in 2020, her successor, George Gascón hired a special prosecutor to reexamine charges against several L.A. County law enforcement officers in on-duty killings, including Glenn’s death.

Last year, sources told The Times that a warrant had been issued for Proctor’s arrest. Gascón and his chosen special prosecutor, Lawrence Middleton, repeatedly declined to comment on the case.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who fired Middleton shortly after taking office last year, has not given updates on the case. Hochman hired another special prosecutor, Michael Gennaco, to oversee Middleton’s pending cases.

Hochman’s appetite to prosecute Proctor is unclear. He was often critical of Gascón’s decision to employ a special prosecutor during the 2024 campaign cycle, and Hochman’s close ties to law enforcement have left some skeptical of his willingness to pursue difficult cases involving on-duty misconduct.

Source link

S. Lebanon residents struggle under Israeli attacks, rebuilding woes

This is a view of rubble of what once was the Meis Al Jabal public secondary school in in the Marjayoun district of southern Lebanon, on Monday. The school had been hit by Israeli air strikes during the war between Israel and Hezbollah. Photo by Wael Hamseh/EPA

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Oct. 24 (UPI) — The inhabitants of southern Lebanon continue to live under the shadow of war, enduring near-daily Israeli airstrikes, intensive shelling and persistent drone activity that inflict further casualties and destruction, deepen suffering and shatter what remains of daily life.

A cease-fire accord brokered by the United States and France on Nov. 27 intended to end Israel’s devastating war against the Iran-backed Shiite Hezbollah militant group has failed to halt hostilities or restore calm to the embattled region.

Interpreting the truce accord as granting it the right to respond to any emerging threat, Israel has continued its attacks without restraint across southern Lebanon and beyond.

The post-truce phase has proven even more difficult and uncertain than the war itself, which began on Oct. 8, 2023, when Hezbollah entered the conflict by opening a front in support of Gaza.

Suspected Hezbollah positions and efforts to prevent the group from regrouping and rearming have not been Israel’s only targets. The strikes now also include private construction equipment businesses, bulldozers, excavators and anything related to rebuilding while showing no restraint toward civilians — whether in vehicles, on motorcycles or even at home.

The most intense strikes occurred Oct. 11, targeting bulldozer and excavator yards in the al-Msayleh area, where more than 300 vehicles worth millions of dollars were destroyed. One Syrian passerby was killed, and seven people, including two women, were wounded.

A week later, a quarry and cement-asphalt factory in the village of Ansar, in the Nabatiyeh district, was hit by another Israeli attack and destroyed. Israel claimed that the targeted facilities were being used by Hezbollah to produce cement for rebuilding infrastructure that had been demolished during the war — an allegation strongly denied by the plant’s managing director.

“We are a 100% civilian institution and have nothing to do with anything else,” Ali Haidar Khalifeh, who is running the targeted cement factory, told UPI. “We are a registered company with around 70 employees and a large-scale production, serving dozens of clients, distributors and suppliers from across all regions of Lebanon.”

Khalifeh, who estimated the losses at more than $15 million, said it was inconceivable to hide “weapons, missiles or military infrastructure” in the plant.

“The enemy [Israel] needs no excuse or reason. … The message is clear: it is forbidden to rebuild,” he said. “It is also meant to frighten businessmen and investors, to keep them away from southern Lebanon.”

Even civilian engineers, who assist in assessing the damage inflicted on houses and villages during the war, have been threatened and targeted.

Tarek Mazaraani was one of them. He, his family and neighbors endured a frightening experience when an Israeli drone flying over several villages in southern Lebanon broadcast a voice message calling his name and warning that he was “dangerous,” telling people to keep away from him.

At first, when his friends started sending him videos of the drone, Mazraani thought it was a joke. He soon realized it was “something serious.”

His three sons, including 8-year-old twins, began to cry, while neighbors in the compound where he was temporarily living in the village of Zawtar al-Sharkiyeh in the Nabatiyeh district rushed to his house to bid farewell before leaving for safer locations. His family packed their belongings and went to relatives in a nearby village, while he quickly headed to Beirut.

“I was surprised. … I am a simple civilian engineer and don’t belong to any party or provoke anyone,” Mazraani told UPI, adding that he felt guilty for his family and neighbors, who had to “live through the tension” and leave their homes.

He asked why Israel had “created all this terror” if its intention was to kill him, adding, “They could have done so without even a warning.”

It could well have been a warning to him and others not to deal with Hezbollah, directly or indirectly. Earlier this year, while unemployed, he briefly worked as part of a team of engineers assessing war damage with “Jihad al-Binaa,” a Hezbollah-affiliated development and reconstruction organization.

Probably, he said, his other “sin” was trying to help displaced people return to their border villages, which had been reduced to rubble during the war, and seek compensation.

Mazraani was forced to leave his border village of Houla, where his house had been badly damaged by intensive Israeli bombardment. He then established the “Gathering of Residents of Southern Border Villages,” composed of displaced people from 45 villages, to draw attention to the plight of some 80,000 inhabitants who remain displaced and without resources.

Israel is making it clear, residents say, that it will not allow reconstruction in southern Lebanon or international funding unless Hezbollah is fully disarmed and the Lebanese government accepts direct negotiations on security arrangements.

Even prefabricated houses, water tanks and small vans are not permitted and are being destroyed. With the olive harvest season beginning, farmers in the border areas must obtain permission from Israeli authorities to harvest and are usually accompanied by the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeeping forces.

According to a Lebanese Army source, Israel has been using Hezbollah and its alleged efforts to rebuild military infrastructure as a pretext to block any reconstruction efforts and hinder a return to normalcy.

The source explained that destroying cement plants and bulldozers, threatening engineers and imposing curfews were intended to block the return of inhabitants to their villages and establish a security belt in the area until an agreement with Lebanon could be reached.

“These are also political pressures exerted on the government,” he told UPI.

Referring to recent Israeli war threats, drills on its northern front and intensified drone surveillance over Beirut — specifically targeting the presidential and government palaces — the source explained that “it is a psychological war aimed at dragging the government into accepting direct negotiations [with Israel], while the drones are searching for new targets.”

With the Army successfully advancing in taking control of southern Lebanon, the source confirmed that “there is no Hezbollah presence” along the border or south of the Litani River, as stipulated by the cease-fire agreement.

Regarding growing fears that Israel might be preparing to escalate the war on Lebanon, he said, “It can — as no one is deterring it, and it listens to no one except [U.S. President Donald] Trump.”

Many Lebanese, especially the inhabitants of southern Lebanon believe the war was never truly over, and that the truce accord merely prolonged the conflict to Israel’s advantage.

“The first thing we want is safety and security — to stop the fire so we can go back and rebuild our villages and homes,” said Mazraani, who said he was exhausted by the war, echoing the wish of many others in southern Lebanon.

Source link

‘Can’t control’ US tariffs: Canada ‘stands ready’ to resume trade talks | Trade War

NewsFeed

Canadian PM Mark Carney says Ottawa “can’t control” US trade policy but will “stand ready” to resume talks “when the Americans are ready.” His remarks came after President Donald Trump halted negotiations and accused Canada of “cheating” over ads opposing US tariffs.

Source link

Who are the private donors funding Trump’s White House ballroom? | Construction News

United States President Donald Trump has begun construction of a $300m ballroom on the site of what was the White House’s East Wing.

The construction, which began on Monday, is the first major structural change to the complex since 1948. It involves tearing down the existing East Wing, which had housed the first lady’s offices and was used for ceremonies.

The work is being funded via private donations from individuals, corporations and tech companies, including Google and Amazon, raising uncomfortable questions about the level of access this might give donors to the most powerful man in the country.

A pledge form seen by CBS News indicated that donors may qualify for “recognition” of their contributions. Further details of this have not emerged, however.

How much will the new ballroom cost?

The estimated cost of building Trump’s ornate, 8,360sq-metre (90,0000sq-ft) ballroom, which he says will accommodate 999 people, has varied since plans were announced earlier this year.

In a statement made in August, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated the cost would be about $200m. However, this week, Trump raised that to $300m.

Construction began during a US government shutdown and, therefore, without the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission, the federal agency responsible for overseeing these operations, which is closed.

trump ballroom
US President Donald Trump holds up a rendering of the planned ballroom in the Oval Office of the White House on October 22, 2025 [Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images]

Who is funding the ballroom?

On Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc. I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway – with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!”

He added that he himself will also be contributing to the bill: “The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly.”

However, it seems that at least some of the donations are being made as part of deals struck with Trump over other issues.

YouTube will pay $22m towards the ballroom construction as part of a legal settlement with Trump pertaining to a lawsuit he brought in 2021 over the suspension of his account after the Capitol riot that year when his supporters stormed the seat of Congress on January 6 in a bid to prevent the transfer of the presidency to Joe Biden. YouTube and Google have the same parent company, Alphabet.

The White House did not disclose how much donors would contribute. Other prominent donors – some of which have had recent legal wrangles in the US – were on a list the White House provided to the media. They include:

Amazon

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with Amazon over allegations that the multinational tech company founded by Jeff Bezos had enrolled millions of consumers to its streaming platform, Prime, without their consent and made it difficult to cancel the subscriptions.

Under the settlement, Amazon will pay $2.5bn in penalties and refunds, fix its subscription process and undergo compliance monitoring.

Apple

US-based multinational Apple – which produces the iPhone, iPad and MacBook – is headed by CEO Tim Cook.

On Tuesday, Apple asked a US appeals court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling in April that prevents it from collecting commissions on certain app purchases.

Coinbase

Coinbase is the largest US cryptocurrency exchange. It is led by CEO Brian Armstrong.

On September 30, a US federal judge ruled that shareholders could pursue a narrowed lawsuit accusing the company of hiding key business risks, including the risk of a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the risk of losing assets in bankruptcy.

Google

Last month, the US Department of Justice won a major antitrust case against Google. A federal court ruled that the tech giant illegally monopolised online search and search advertising.

Lockheed Martin

Aerospace and defence manufacturer Lockheed Martin is headed by President and CEO Jim Taiclet.

In February, Lockheed Martin agreed to pay $29.74m to resolve federal allegations that the company had overcharged the US government by submitting inflated cost data for contracts of F-35 fighter jets from 2013 to 2015.

Microsoft

The CEO of the tech group is Satya Nadella, who earned a record $96.5m in fiscal year 2025.

Lutnick family

The Lutnick family is associated with businessman Howard Lutnick, who is also Trump’s commerce secretary.

Lutnick is the CEO of the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald. His company Cantor Gaming has previously been accused of repeatedly violating state and federal laws, Politico reported in February.

Winklevoss twins

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss are listed as separate donors.

The brothers are US investors and entrepreneurs, known for cofounding the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini and Winklevoss Capital.

Last month, the SEC agreed to settle a lawsuit over Gemini’s unregistered cryptocurrency-lending programme offered to retail investors.

Who else is on the list?

Other companies, conglomerates and individuals on the list include:

  • Altria Group
  • Booz Allen Hamilton
  • Caterpillar
  • Comcast
  • J Pepe and Emilia Fanjul
  • Hard Rock International
  • HP
  • Meta Platforms
  • Micron Technology
  • NextEra Energy
  • Palantir Technologies
  • Ripple
  • Reynolds American
  • T-Mobile
  • Tether America
  • Union Pacific
  • Adelson Family Foundation
  • Stefan E Brodie
  • Betty Wold Johnson Foundation
  • Charles and Marissa Cascarilla
  • Edward and Shari Glazer
  • Harold Hamm
  • Benjamin Leon Jr
  • Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Foundation
  • Stephen A Schwarzman
  • Konstantin Sokolov
  • Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher
  • Paolo Tiramani

Is the private funding of Trump’s ballroom ethical?

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein told Al Jazeera that the private funding violates the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The Anti-Deficiency Act is a US federal law that decrees the executive branch of government cannot accept goods or services from private parties to conduct official government functions unless Congress has specifically signed off on the funds.

The act protects the “congressional power of the purse”, Fein said.

“Think of this analogy: Congress refuses to fund a wall with Mexico. Could Trump go ahead and build the wall Congress refused to fund with money provided by Elon Musk or other billionaire pals of Trump?”

Fein added: “Trump is completely transactional. Funders of the ballroom will be rewarded with regulatory favours or appointments or given pardons for federal crimes.”

Source link

‘Occupation, expulsion and colonisation’: Israeli protesters block Gaza aid | Israel-Palestine conflict

NewsFeed

Footage shows Israeli protesters blocking aid trucks at the Kerem Shalom crossing. They say Hamas broke ceasefire terms. WHO warns deliveries remain only a “fraction of what’s needed” and estimates $7 billion to rebuild Gaza’s shattered health system.

Source link

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James will make her first court appearance in mortgage fraud case

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James is set to make her first court appearance in a mortgage fraud case on Friday, the third adversary of President Trump to face a judge on federal charges in recent weeks.

James was indicted earlier this month on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Va. The charges came shortly after the official who had been overseeing the investigation was pushed out by the Trump administration and the Republican president publicly called on the Justice Department to take action against James and other political foes.

James, a Democrat who has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times, has denied wrongdoing and decried the indictment as “nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.”

The indictment stems from James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk, where she has family. During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise.

Rather than using the home as a second residence, the indictment alleges, James rented it out to a family of three. According to the indictment, the misrepresentation allowed James to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

James drew Trump’s ire when she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

James’ indictment followed the resignation of Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after he resisted Trump administration pressure to bring charges. Siebert was replaced with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former Trump lawyer who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor and presented James’ case to the grand jury herself.

On Thursday, lawyers for James asked for an order prohibiting prosecutors from disclosing to the news media information about the investigation, or materials from the case, outside of court.

The motion followed the revelation from earlier this week that Halligan contacted via an encrypted text messaging platform a reporter from Lawfare, a media organization that covers legal and national security issues, to discuss the James prosecution and complain about coverage of it. The reporter published the exchange that she and Halligan had.

“The exchange was a stunning disclosure of internal government information,” lawyers for James wrote.

They added: “It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation.”

The motion also asks that the government be required to preserve all communications with representatives of the media as well as to prevent the deletion of any records or communications related to the investigation and the prosecution of the case.

Separately on Thursday, defense lawyers said they intended to challenge Halligan’s appointment, a step also taken this week by attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey in a different case filed by Halligan. Comey has been charged with lying to Congress in a criminal case filed days after Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute him, and he has pleaded not guilty.

A third Trump adversary, former national security adviser John Bolton, pleaded not guilty last week to charges against him of emailing classified information to family members and keeping top secret documents at his Maryland home.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage fraud allegations against Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, whom Trump has called to be prosecuted over allegations related to a property in Maryland. In a separate mortgage investigation, authorities have been probing allegations against Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who is challenging a Trump administration effort to remove her from her job. Schiff and Cook have denied wrongdoing.

Finely and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Source link

Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi speaks on economy, security in address to parliament

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi delivered her first policy speech to the parliament Friday, focusing on economic security and boosting defense spending.

Takaichi, 64, became prime minister on Tuesday and is the first woman to lead Japan. She is the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, which is conservative and nationalist.

She plans to pursue aggressive fiscal spending to revitalize Japan’s economy and boost defense spending to address security challenges, she said in her speech Friday, Kyodo reported.

“Wage growth outpacing inflation is necessary, but simply leaving the burden to business will only make it harder for them,” The Japan Times reported Takaichi said. She said her government will soon create an economic stimulus package backed by a supplementary budget.

Takaichi said her administration will tackle rising costs of living as a “top priority,” and said she will raise defense spending to 2% of the gross domestic product by March, two years ahead of target.

“I will turn (people’s) anxieties about the present and future into hope and build a strong economy,” Takaichi said. “We need to proactively promote the fundamental strengthening of our nation’s defense capabilities” to deal with “various changes in the security environment,” Takaichi said.

She said she will abolish the provisional gasoline tax rate, which was a campaign promise, to help reduce inflation. The prime minister said she would do it during the current session, which goes through Dec. 17. That tax has been in place since 1974.

Lifting the nontaxable income level from $6,700 to $10,473 this year is another plan she put forward to boost the economy.

Addressing another campaign promise, she said the government will begin discussions on creating a second capital to be a backup in a crisis. This was a pet project of the JIP, the far right political party with which she and the LDP formed a coalition. Called the Osaka Metropolis Plan, its goal is to reduce the concentration of power in Tokyo, Japan Wire said.

Source link

Labor unions donate tens of millions to Newsom’s Proposition 50

With the fate of President’s Trump’s right-wing agenda at stake, the California ballot measure crafted to tilt Congress to Democratic control has turned into a fight among millionaires and billionaires, a former president, a past movie-star governor and the nation’s top partisans.

Californians have been inundated with political ads popping up on every screen — no cellphone, computer or living-room television is spared — trying to sway them about Proposition 50, which will reconfigure the districts of the largest state congressional delegation in the union.

Besides opposing pleas from former President Obama and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s powerful, left-leaning labor unions are another factor that may influence the outcome of the Nov. 4 special election.

Unions representing California school teachers, carpenters, state workers and nurses have plowed more than $23 million into efforts to pass Proposition 50, according to an analysis of campaign finance disclosure reports about donations exceeding $100,000. That’s nearly one-third of the six-figure donations reported through Thursday.

Not only do these groups have major interests in the state capitol, including charter school reform, minimum wage hikes and preserving government healthcare programs, they also are deeply aligned with efforts by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats to put their party in control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 election.
“There are real issues here that are at stake,” said veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman, who has represented several unions that have contributed to Newsom’s committee supporting Proposition 50.

“There’s always a risk when making sizable donations, that you’re putting yourself out there,” Kaufman said. “But the truth is on Proposition 50, I think it’s much less calculated than normal contributions. It really is about the issue, not about currying favor with members of the Legislature, or the congressional delegation, or the governor. Even though, of course, it benefits them if we win.”

High stakes brings in big money from across the nation

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 committee has raised more than $116 million, according to campaign disclosure filings through Thursday afternoon, though that number is sure to increase once additional donations are disclosed in the latest fundraising reports that are due by midnight Thursday.

The multimillion-dollar donations provide the best evidence of what’s at stake, and how Proposition 50 could determine control of the House during the final two years of Trump’s presidency. If the Democrats take control of the House, not only could that derail major parts of Trumps agenda, it probably would lead to a slew of congressional hearings on Trump’s immigration crackdown, use of the military in American cities, accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from Qatari’s royal family, the cutting of research funding to universities and the president’s ties to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among many others.

The House Majority PAC — the Democrats’ congressional fundraising arm — has donated at least $15 million to the pro-Proposition 50 campaign, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) was in Los Angeles to campaign for the ballot measure last weekend. Obama joined Newsom on a livestream promoting the proposition Wednesday, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hosted a bilingual phone bank in Los Angeles on Thursday.

“Make no mistake about what they’re trying to do and why it’s so important that we fight back,” Martin said. “We’re not going to be the only party with one hand tied behind our back. If they want a showdown, we’re going to give them a showdown and in just a little under two weeks it starts right here with Prop. 50 in California.”

Billionaire financier George Soros — a generous donor to liberal causes and a bogeyman to Republicans — has contributed $10 million. Others have chosen to fund separate entities campaigning in favor of Proposition 50, notably billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer, who chipped in $12 million.

On the opposition side, the largest donor is Charles Munger Jr., the son of the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has contributed $32.8 million to one of the two main committees opposing Proposition 50. The Congressional Leadership Fund — the GOP’s political arm in the House — has donated $5 million to the other main anti-Proposition 50 committee and $8 million to the California Republican Party.

Although Republicans may control the White House and Congress, the California GOP wields no real power in Sacramento, so it’s not surprising that Republican efforts opposing Proposition 50 have not received major donations from entities with business before the state.

The California Chamber of Commerce opted to remain neutral on Proposition 50. Chevron and the California Resources Corp., petroleum companies that have given to California Republicans in the past, also remain on the sidelines.

In contrast, Democrats control every statewide office and hold supermajorities in both houses of the California Legislature. The pro-Proposition 50 campaign has been showered with donations from groups aligned with Sacramento’s legislative leaders — with labor organizations chief among them.

Among the labor donors, the powerful carpenters unions have donated at least $4 million. Newsom hailed them in July when he signed legislation altering a landmark environmental law for urban apartment developments to boost the supply of housing. The California Conference of Carpenters union has become one of the most pro-housing voices in the state.

“This is the third of the last four years we’ve been together signing landmark housing reforms, and it simply would not have happened without the Carpenters,” Newsom said at the time.

Daniel M. Curtin, director of the California Conference of Carpenters, pointed to a letter he wrote to legislators in August urging them to put redistricting on the ballot because of the effect of Trump’s policies on the state’s workers.

“These are not normal times, and this isn’t politics as usual. Not only has the Trump administration denied disaster assistance to victims of California’s devastating forest fires, he’s damaging our CA economy with mass arrests of law-abiding workers without warrants,” wrote Curtin, whose union has 70,000 members in the state. “The Trump administration is now unilaterally withdrawing from legally binding union collective bargaining agreements with federal workforce unions. The President has made it clear that this is just the beginning.”

Proposition 50 was prompted by Trump urging Republican leaders in Texas to redraw their congressional districts to boost the number of GOP members in the House and keep the party in control after the 2026 election. Newsom sought to counter the move by altering California’s congressional boundaries in a rare mid-decade redistricting.

With 52 members in the House, the state has the largest congressional delegation in the nation. But unlike many states, California’s districts are drawn by an independent commission created by voters in 2010 in an effort to end partisan gerrymandering and incumbent protection.

The state’s districts would not have been redrawn until after the 2030 U.S. census, but the Legislature and Newsom agreed in August to put Proposition 50, which would give Democrats the potential to pick up five seats, on the November ballot.

Money from California unions pours in

Although much of the money supporting the efforts comes from wealth Democratic donors and partisan groups aimed at helping Democrats take control of Congress, a significant portion comes from labor unions.

The Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 700,000 healthcare workers, social workers, in-home caregivers and school employees and other state and local government workers, has contributed more than $5.5 million to the committee.

On Oct. 12, the union celebrated Newsom signing bills ensuring that workers, regardless of immigration status, are informed about their civil and labor rights under state and federal law as well as updating legal guidance to state and local agencies about protecting private information, such as court records and medical data, from being misused by federal authorities.

“Thank you to Governor Newsom for … standing up to federal overreach and indiscriminate, violent attacks on our communities,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California, said in a statement.

Huerta was arrested during the first day of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles in June and charged with a felony. But federal prosecutors are instead pursuing a misdemeanor case against him, according to a Friday court filing.

An SEIU representative did not respond to requests for comment.

The California Teachers Assn., another potent force in state politics, has contributed more than $3.3 million, along with millions more from other education unions such as the National Education Assn., the California Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers.

CTA had a mixed record in this year’s legislative session.

Newsom vetoed a bill to crack down on charter school fraud, Senate Bill 414. The CTA opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to target fraud in some of the schools, and had urged the governor to reject it.

Newsom signed CTA-backed bills that placed strict limits on ICE agents’ access to school grounds. But he also vetoed union-backed bill that would have required the state Board of Education to adopt health education instructional materials by July 1, 2028.

CTA President David Goldberg said their donations are driven not only by issues important to the union’s members, but also the students they serve who are dependent on federally funded assistance programs and impacted by policies such as immigration.

“It’s about our livelihood but it really is about fundamental issues … for people who serve students who are just incredibly under attack right now,” Goldberg said.

“The governor’s support for labor would be exactly the same with or without Proposition 50 on the ballot. But he would acknowledge this year is more urgent than ever for labor and working people,” said Newsom spokesperson Bob Salladay. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to collective bargaining, to fair wages and safe working conditions. He would be backing them up under any circumstances, but especially now.”

Critics of Proposition 50 argue that these contributions are among the reasons voters should oppose the ballot measure.

“The independent redistricting commission exists to prevent conflicts of interest and money from influencing line drawing,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Voters First Coalition, the committee backed by Munger Jr., who bankrolled the 2010 ballot measure to create the independent commission. “That’s why we want to preserve its independence.”

Other labor leaders argued that although they are not always in lockstep with Newsom, they need to support Proposition 50 because of the importance of Democrats winning the congressional majority next year.

Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the powerful California Labor Federation, said the timing of the member unions’ donations of millions of dollars to Newsom’s ballot measure committee for an election taking place shortly after the bill-signing period was “unfortunate” and “weird.”

“Because we have so many bills in front of him, we were gun-shy,” she said, noting that the federation has sparred with the governor over issues such as the effect of artificial intelligence in the workplace. “Never be too close to your elected officials. Because we see the good, the bad, the ugly.”

Times staff writers Andrea Flores and Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

Source link

Letitia James to be arraigned in mortgage fraud case

Oct. 24 (UPI) — New York Attorney General Letitia James will be arraigned Friday for her charges of lying on a mortgage application, a prosecution pushed by President Donald Trump.

James’ arraignment will be in Norfolk, Va., in the first court appearance since her indictment on Oct. 9. A grand jury in the U.S.District Court of Eastern Virginia indicted James on the criminal charges after the Justice Department alleged she falsely claimed a Norfolk, Va., property that she bought in 2020 would be her primary residence to get better mortgage terms.

James is expected to plead not guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of making a false statement to a financial institution.

The indictment came a few weeks after Trump posted on Truth Social that Attorney General Pam Bondi should prosecute James, former FBI director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Bondi also recently indicted former national security advisor John Bolton.

James is accused of lying about the purpose of a house purchase in Norfolk in 2020. She said on the mortgage application that it would be her primary home, but instead made it a rental. She allegedly rented it to a family of three. But her great-niece has lived in the home since 2020 and testified to a grand jury that she has never paid rent. James has only reported $1,350 in rent on her taxes.

Career federal prosecutors decided against prosecuting James, but Trump forced out Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney overseeing the office, and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide. Halligan brought the case against James and got the indictment.

Trump dislikes James because she filed a civil fraud lawsuit in 2022, accusing Trump of giving false property valuations and estimates of Trump’s net worth in order to get beneficial loan rates and insurance deals he wouldn’t otherwise have gotten. Trump lost the case and was ordered to pay $364 million. A judge later overturned the fine for being excessive.

Halligan made headlines on Tuesday for her messages to a reporter who wrote an article about the case in the New York Times. Halligan allegedly harassed reporter Anna Bower on Signal for 33 hours.

James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, asked the court to intervene and warn Halligan about making extra-judicial comments about the case.

“These extrajudicial statements and prejudicial disclosures by any prosecutor, let alone one purporting to be the U.S. attorney, run afoul of and violate the federal rules of criminal procedure, the code of federal regulations, this court’s local rules, various rules of ethical and professional responsibility and [Department of Justice’s] justice manual,” Lowell wrote in a filing, The Times reported. He wanted the judge to warn Halligan “to prevent any further disclosures by government attorneys and agents of investigative and case materials, and statements to the media and public.”

Source link

Contributor: Left and right have united in favor of puerile, violent rhetoric

In recent weeks, American politics have stopped resembling a democracy and started looking more like a Manson family group chat, with a flag emoji right next to the “pile of poo” emoji in our bio.

First it was the Young Republicans (you know, the nerds who used to wear ill-fitting sports jackets and drone on about budgets) who were caught on Telegram saying things such as “I love Hitler,” calling Black people “watermelon people,” and joking about gas chambers and rape. Hilarious, right?

Then came Paul Ingrassia, Trump’s now-aborted nominee to head the Office of Special Counsel, who texted that he has “a Nazi streak” and that Martin Luther King Jr. Day belongs in “the seventh circle of hell.

But the moral rot isn’t exclusive to Republicans. Not to be outdone, Democrat Jay Jones (who is currently running for attorney general in Virginia) was caught with texts from 2022 saying another Virginia lawmaker should get “two bullets to the head,” and that he wished the man’s children would “die in their mother’s arms.”

Charming.

Meanwhile, in Maine’s race for the U.S. Senate, old posts on Reddit reveal that Democrat Graham Platner — oysterman, veteran and self-described communist — said that if people “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle, they ought to do some reading of history.”

Did I mention that he called police officers “bastards,” broadly criticized rural white folks and had a tattoo on his chest that resembled Nazi imagery?

What we are witnessing is a trend: Bipartisan moral collapse. Finally, something the two parties can agree on!

Keep in mind, these are not randos typing away in their parents’ basements. These are ambitious young politicos. Candidates. Operatives. The ones who are supposed to know better.

So what’s going on? I have a few theories.

One: Nothing has really changed. Political insiders have always done and said stupid, racist and cruel things — the difference is that privacy doesn’t exist anymore. Every joke is public, and every opinion is archived.

It might be hard for older generations to understand, but this theory says these people are merely guilty of using the kind of dark-web humor that’s supposed to stay on, well, the dark web. What happened to them is the equivalent of thinking you’re with friends at a karaoke bar, when you’re actually on C-SPAN.

For those of us trying to discern the difference, the problem is that the line between joking and confession has gotten so blurry that we can’t tell who’s trolling and who’s armed.

Two: Blame Trump. He destroyed norms and mainstreamed vulgarity and violent rhetoric. And since he’s been the dominant political force for a decade, it’s only logical that his style would trickle down and corrupt a whole generation of politically engaged Americans (Republicans who want to be like him and Democrats who want to fight fire with fire).

Three (and this is the scary one): Maybe the culture really has changed, and these violent and racist comments are revelatory of changing hearts and worldviews. Maybe younger generations have radicalized, and violence is increasingly viewed as a necessary tool for political change. Maybe their words are sincere.

Indeed, several recent surveys have demonstrated that members of Gen Z are more open to the use of political violence than previous generations.

According to a survey conducted by the group FIRE, only 1 in 3 college students now say it is unacceptable to use violence to stop a speaker. And according to the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, “53 percent of those aged 18-34 – approve of one or more forms of hostile activism to bring about change.” This includes “threatening or committing violence, and damaging public or private property.”

Of course, it’s possible (and probably likely) that some combination of these theories has conspired to create this trend. And it comes on the heels of other trends, too, including the loss of trust in institutions that began somewhere around the Nixon administration and never reversed.

Put it all together, and we’ve arrived at a point where we don’t believe in democracy, we don’t believe in leaders, and we barely believe in each other. And once you lose trust, all that’s left is anger, memes and a primal will to power.

Worse, we’ve become numb. Every new scandal shocks us for approximately 15 minutes. Then we scroll to another cat video and get used to it.

Remember the Charlie Kirk assassination? You know, the gruesome murder that freaked us all out and led to a national discussion about political violence and violent rhetoric? Yeah, that was just last month. Feels like it was back in the Eisenhower administration.

We’re basically frogs in a pot of boiling political sewage. And the scariest part? We’re starting to call it room temperature.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Source link

Inflation report expected Friday after government workers called back to office

1 of 2 | A portrait of President Donald Trump is draped on the front of the Department of Labor Headquarters in Washington, D.C., on August 30. On Friday, the department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to release the Consumer Price Index report. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Bureau of Labor Statistics is set to release the Consumer Price Index report Friday, two weeks after calling back economists and other employees to prepare the document despite the government shutdown.

The CPI report was originally scheduled to be published Oct. 15, but the shutdown delayed work. However, federal law requires the Social Security Administration to make its cost-of-living adjustment annually based on inflation from the third quarter.

That adjustment, known as COLA, must be published by Nov. 1, though it was originally expected to be released in mid-October.

The BLS called back economists and IT specialists to prepare the report the second week of October.

Economic experts expect Friday’s report will show that inflation has risen to its highest level since May 2024 — 3.1%, ABC News reported. The Federal Reserve‘s target annual inflation rate is 2%.

NBC News reported the report is expected to be released at 8:30 a.m. EDT.

Thursday marked the 23rd day the government was closed for business pending the passage of a stopgap funding bill, making it the second-longest federal shutdown in U.S. history. Friday is Day 24.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La.,, speaks during a press conference on the 23rd day of the government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Source link

Asylum seekers face deportation over failure to pay new fees — before being notified

Late last month, an immigrant seeking asylum in the U.S. came across social media posts urging her to pay a new fee imposed by the Trump administration before Oct. 1, or else risk her case being dismissed.

Paula, a 40-year-old Los Angeles-area immigrant from Mexico, whose full name The Times is withholding because she fears retribution, applied for asylum in 2021 and her case is now on appeal.

But when Paula tried to pay the $100 annual fee, she couldn’t find an option on the immigration court’s website that accepted fees for pending asylum cases. Afraid of deportation — and with just five hours before the payment deadline — she selected the closest approximation she could find, $110 for an appeal filed before July 7.

She knew it was likely incorrect. Still, she felt it was better to pay for something, rather than nothing at all, as a show of good faith. Unable to come up with the money on such short notice, Paula, who works in a warehouse repairing purses, paid the fee with a credit card.

“I hope that money isn’t wasted,” she said.

That remains unclear because of confusion and misinformation surrounding the rollout of a host of new fees or fee increases for a variety of immigration services. The fees are part of the sweeping budget bill President Trump signed into law in July.

Paula was one of thousands of asylum seekers across the country who panicked after seeing messages on social media urging them to pay the new fee before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1.

But government messaging about the fees has sometimes been chaotic and contradictory, immigration attorneys say. Some asylum seekers have received notice about the fees, while others have not. Misinformation surged as immigrants scrambled to figure out whether, and how, to pay.

Advocates worry the confusion serves as a way for immigration officials to dismiss more asylum cases, which would render the applicants deportable.

The fees vary. For those seeking asylum, there is a $100 fee for new applications, as well as a yearly fee of $100 for pending applications. The fee for an initial work permit is $550 and work permit renewals can be as much as $795.

Amy Grenier, associate director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Assn., said that not having a clear way to pay a fee might seem like a small government misstep, but the legal consequences are substantial.

For new asylum applications, she said, some immigration judges set a payment deadline of Sept. 30, even though the Executive Office for Immigration Review only updated the payment portal in the last week of September.

“The lack of coherent guidance and structure to pay the fee only compounded the inefficiency of our immigration courts,” Grenier said. “There are very real consequences for asylum-seekers navigating this completely unnecessary bureaucratic mess.”

Two agencies collect the asylum fees: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), under the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), under the Department of Justice, which operates immigration courts.

Both agencies initially released different instructions regarding the fees, and only USCIS has provided an avenue for payment.

The departments of Homeland Security and Justice didn’t respond to a request for comment. The White House deferred to USCIS.

USCIS spokesman Matthew J. Tragesser said the asylum fee is being implemented consistent with the law.

“The real losers in this are the unscrupulous and incompetent immigration attorneys who exploit their clients and bog down the system with baseless asylum claims,” he said.

The Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP), a national membership organization, sued the Trump administration earlier this month after thousands of members shared their confusion over the new fees, arguing that the federal agencies involved “threaten to deprive asylum seekers of full and fair consideration of their claims.”

The organization also argued the fees shouldn’t apply to people whose cases were pending before Trump signed the budget package into law.

In a U.S. district court filing Monday, Justice Department lawyers defended the fees, saying, “Congress made clear that these new asylum fees were long overdue and necessary to recover the growing costs of adjudicating the millions of pending asylum applications.”

Some of the confusion resulted from contradictory information.

A notice by USCIS in the July 22 Federal Register confused immigrants and legal practitioners alike because of a reference to Sept. 30. Anyone who had applied for asylum as of Oct. 1, 2024, and whose application was still pending by Sept. 30, was instructed to pay a fee. Some thought the notice meant that Sept. 30 was the deadline to pay the yearly asylum fee.

By this month, USCIS clarified on its website that it will “issue personal notices” alerting asylum applicants when their annual fee is due, how to pay it and the consequences for failing to do so.

The agency created a payment portal and began sending out notices Oct. 1, instructing recipients to pay within 30 days.

But many asylum seekers are still waiting to be notified by USCIS, according to ASAP, the advocacy organization. Some have received texts or physical mail telling them to check their USCIS account, while others have resorted to checking their accounts daily.

Meanwhile the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) didn’t add a mechanism for paying the $100 fee for pending asylum cases — the one Paula hoped to pay — until Thursday.

In its Oct. 3 complaint, lawyers for ASAP wrote: “Troublingly, ASAP has received reports that some immigration judges at EOIR are already requiring applicants to have paid the annual asylum fee, and in at least one case even rejected an asylum application and ordered an asylum seeker removed for non-payment of the annual asylum fee, despite the agency providing no way to pay this fee.”

An immigration lawyer in San Diego, who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution, said an immigration judge denied his client’s asylum petition because the client had not paid the new fee, even though there was no way to pay it.

The judge issued an order, which was shared with The Times, that read, “Despite this mandatory requirement, to date the respondents have not filed proof of payment for the annual asylum fee.”

The lawyer called the decision a due process violation. He said he now plans to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, though another fee increase under Trump’s spending package raised that cost from $110 to $1,010. He is litigating the case pro bono.

Justice Department lawyers said Monday that EOIR had eliminated the initial inconsistency by revising its position to reflect that of USCIS and will soon send out official notices to applicants, giving them 30 days to make the payment.

“There was no unreasonable delay here in EOIR’s implementation,” the filing said. “…The record shows several steps were required to finalize EOIR’s process, including coordination with USCIS. Regardless, Plaintiff’s request is now moot.”

Immigrants like Paula, who is a member of ASAP, recently got some reassurance. In a court declaration, EOIR Director Daren Margolin wrote that for anyone who made anticipatory or advance payments for the annual asylum fee, “those payments will be applied to the alien’s owed fees, as appropriate.”

Source link

U.S. senators intensify Palisades fire probe. Eaton is mostly ignored

The firestorms that broke out in January ravaged two distinctly different stretches of Los Angeles County: one with grand views of the Pacific Ocean, the other nestled against the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains.

But so far, a push from congressional Republicans to investigate the Jan. 7 firestorm and response has been focused almost exclusively on the Palisades fire, which broke out in L.A.’s Pacific Palisades and went on to burn parts of Malibu and surrounding areas.

In a letter to City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, two U.S. senators this week intensified that investigation, saying they want an enormous trove of documents on Los Angeles Fire Department staffing, wildfire preparations, the city’s water supply and many other topics surrounding the devastating blaze.

U.S. Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asked for records related to several issues raised during and after the Palisades fire, including an empty reservoir and the failure to fully extinguish a previous fire that was later identified as the cause.

In contrast, the letter only briefly mentions the Eaton fire, which broke out in the unincorporated community of Altadena and spread to parts of Pasadena. That emergency was plagued by delayed evacuation alerts, deployment issues and allegations that electrical equipment operated by Southern California Edison sparked the blaze.

Both fires incinerated thousands of homes. Twelve people died in the Palisades fire. In the Eaton fire, all but one of the 19 who died were found in west Altadena, where evacuation alerts came hours after flames and smoke were threatening the area.

Scott and Johnson gave Harris-Dawson a deadline of Nov. 3 to produce records on several topics specific to the city of L.A.: “diversity, equity and inclusion” hiring policies at the city’s Fire Department; the Department of Water and Power’s oversight of its reservoirs; and the removal of Fire Chief Kristin Crowley by Mayor Karen Bass earlier this year.

Officials in Los Angeles County said they have not received such a letter dealing with either the Palisades fire or the Eaton fire.

A spokesperson for Johnson referred questions about the letter to Scott’s office. An aide to Scott told The Times this week that the investigation remains focused on the Palisades fire but could still expand. Some Eaton fire records were requested, the spokesperson said, because “they’re often inextricable in public reports.”

The senators — who both sit on the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs — opened the probe after meeting with reality TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost a home in the Palisades fire and quickly became an outspoken critic of the city’s response to the fire and subsequent rebuilding efforts. At the time, the senators called the Palisades fire “an unacceptable failure of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.”

The investigation was initially billed as a look at the city’s emergency preparations, including the lack of water in a nearby reservoir and in neighborhood fire hydrants the night of the fire. The Times first reported that the Santa Ynez Reservoir, located in Pacific Palisades, had been closed for repairs for nearly a year.

The letter to Harris-Dawson seeks records relating to the reservoir as well as those dealing with “wildfire preparation, suppression, and response … including but not limited to the response to the Palisades and Lachman fires.”

Officials have said the Lachman fire, intentionally set Jan. 1, reignited six days later to become the Palisades fire. A suspect was recently arrested on suspicion of arson in the Lachman fire. Now, the senators are raising concerns about why that fire wasn’t properly contained.

The sweeping records request also seeks communications sent to and from each of the 15 council members and or their staff that mention the Palisades and Eaton fires. At this point, it’s unclear whether the city would have a substantial number of documents on the Eaton fire, given its location outside city limits.

Harris-Dawson did not provide comment. But Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who serves on the council’s public safety committee, made clear that he thinks the senators are confused by Southern California’s geography — and the distinctions between city and county jurisdictions.

“MAGA Republicans couldn’t even look at a map before launching into this ridiculous investigation,” he said. “DEI did not cause the fires, and these senators should take their witch hunts elsewhere,” he said in a statement.

Officials in L.A. County, who have confronted their own hard questions about botched evacuation alerts and poor resource deployment during the Eaton fire, said they had not received any letters from the senators about either fire.

Neither Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger — who currently serves as board chair — nor Supervisor Lindsey Horvath had received such a document request, according to their aides. Barger represents Altadena, while Horvath’s district includes Pacific Palisades, Malibu and unincorporated communities affected by the Palisades fire.

Monday’s letter also seeks records “referring or relating to any reports or investigations of arson, burglary, theft, or looting” in fire-affected areas, as well as the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht, the Palisades fire arson suspect. It also seeks documents on the council’s efforts to “dismantle systemic racism” — and whether such efforts affected the DWP or the Fire Department.

Alberto Retana, president and chief executive of Community Coalition, a nonprofit group based in Harris-Dawson’s district, said he too views the inquiry from the two senators as a witch hunt — one that’s targeting L.A. city elected officials while ignoring Southern California Edison.

“There’s been reports that Edison was responsible for the Eaton fire, but there’s [nothing] that shows any concern about that,” he said.

Residents in Altadena have previously voiced concerns about what they viewed as disparities in the Trump administration’s response to the two fires. The Palisades fire tore through the mostly wealthy neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades and Malibu — home to celebrities who have since kept the recovery in the spotlight. Meanwhile, many of Altadena’s Black and working-class residents say their communities have been left behind.

In both areas, however, there has been growing concern that now-barren lots will be swiftly purchased by wealthy outside investors, including those who are based outside of the United States.

Scott, in a news release issued this week, said the congressional investigation will also examine whether Chinese companies are “taking advantage” of the fire recovery. The Times has not been able to independently verify such claims.

Source link

Domestic violence allegations from 1996 surface against chief of Donald Trump’s campaign

Donald Trump’s effort to overcome his deep unpopularity among female voters was dealt a setback Friday as decades-old domestic violence allegations surfaced against Stephen K. Bannon, the controversial new chief executive of his campaign.

In January 1996, according to a police report, Bannon grabbed his wife’s wrist and neck, then smashed a phone when she tried to call 911 from their Santa Monica home. Police photographed “red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck,” the report said.

Years earlier, three or four other arguments also “became physical,” Bannon’s wife, Mary Louise Piccard, told police. The couple divorced soon after the 1996 altercation.

Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and witness intimidation, and the Los Angeles Municipal Court issued a domestic violence protective order against him, according to a statement Santa Monica city officials issued Friday. Bannon pleaded not guilty, records show.

The case was dismissed when Piccard did not show up for trial in August 1996, according to the statement. Politico and the New York Post first reported on the case Thursday.

Details of the case emerged just hours after Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, faulted him for hiring Bannon last week in the latest shake-up of his campaign’s high command.

Clinton portrayed Bannon as a right-wing extremist who promoted racist, “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-women” ideas as chairman of the Breitbart News Network website.

Bannon, 62, took a leave from Breitbart last week to serve as CEO of the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign. The Trump campaign did not respond to inquiries about the police report.

Alexandra Preate, Bannon’s spokeswoman at Breitbart, declined to comment on the specific allegations, apart from noting that the charges were dismissed.

“He has a great relationship with his ex-wife,” she said.

The abuse allegations against Bannon surfaced as Clinton and her allies have been highlighting Trump’s history of making derogatory remarks about women. Clinton led Trump among female voters 58-35% in a Washington Post/ABC News poll at the beginning of August, and 60% of those polled overall said they saw Trump as biased against both women and minorities,

In March, police filed a battery charge against a previous Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, after he yanked and bruised the arm of Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a Trump event in Florida. Prosecutors declined to prosecute the case.

If Trump had vetted Bannon before hiring him, his ex-wife’s accusations should have been disqualifying, said Katie Packer, who was deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and led an effort to block Trump from getting the GOP nomination.

“Given the questions that women already have about how Trump views women and how he has treated women historically, elevating someone like this to such a high position only reinforces the idea that Trump doesn’t respect and value women,” Packer said.

Charlie Black, a Republican strategist who has informally advised the Trump campaign, said the allegations against Bannon fell into a “gray area” because the charges were dropped. But “of course it’s an issue,” he added, “because he’s in a position of CEO of the campaign.”

Piccard, who was Bannon’s second wife, did not respond to a phone message seeking comment.

She and Bannon, a former investment banker, were married in April 1995, three days before their twin daughters were born. Shortly before 9 a.m. on New Year’s Day 1996, police received a 911 call from their home in Santa Monica, but the line went dead. The police report gave this account:

An officer went to the front door and was greeted by Piccard, who appeared “very upset.” She burst into tears and took several minutes to calm down.

Bannon had slept on the living-room couch the night before, and he “got upset” in the morning when Piccard made noise while feeding the twin babies. When Bannon started to leave, she asked for a credit card for groceries, but he refused and went to his car, Piccard told police.

She followed him outside, told him she wanted a divorce and said he should move out. He laughed at her and told him he would never leave, according to Piccard. She said she spat at him when he was sitting in the driver’s seat of his car.

“He pulled her down, as if he was trying to pull [her] into the car, over the door,” the report said. Bannon grabbed her neck, pulling her toward the car again, and she struck him in the face and ran back into the house. She told Bannon she was dialing 911, and he “jumped over her and the twins to grab the phone.”

“Once he got the phone, he threw it across the room,” the report said. “After this, Mr. Bannon left the house.”

Piccard, whose name was blacked out in the police report, “found the phone in several pieces and could not use it.”

“She complained of soreness to her neck,” the officer wrote in the police report. “I saw red marks on her left wrist and the right side of her neck.”

Court papers in the divorce and child custody proceedings show Bannon was living primarily in Tucson at the time, to work on Biosphere 2, a desert refuge enclosed in a glass dome for research.

Piccard won custody of the twins in the divorce. During Bannon’s visit with the babies about nine months after the incident, in September 1996, he spanked one of them, Piccard wrote in child custody court papers. The twins were 17 months old at the time.

“I restrained him and told him that it was not acceptable to hit our daughter (he believes in corporal punishment),” Piccard wrote. Bannon “screamed at me” and “stormed out of the house.”

In March 1997, Piccard wrote that she only wanted to restrict Bannon’s visits with the children to neutral sites because he “has been verbally abusive to me in front of the girls and I do not feel safe meeting him” elsewhere.

[email protected]

Twitter: @finneganLAT

Hillary Clinton is exploring the outer limits of fundraising like no presidential nominee ever has

Donald Trump’s shifting talk on immigration shows his struggle to reach beyond his core supporters

Can Donald Trump really round up and deport 11 million people?


UPDATES:

5:55 p.m.: This article was updated with a statement from Santa Monica officials detailing the charges against Bannon.

This article was originally published at 4 p.m.



Source link

POLITICS 88 : Republican Rivals Debate in Atlanta : Bush and Dole Clash Over Trade Policy, Cutting Deficit

Vice President George Bush and Sen. Bob Dole, chief rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, clashed over trade policy and derided each other’s plans for reduction of the federal deficit at a presidential campaign debate here Sunday.

“I don’t think we should go down the protectionist road,” Bush declared in warning against tougher trade measures now pending in Congress at the debate staged here in Georgia to focus attention on the candidates’ views in advance of the March 8 Super Tuesday Southern primaries.

“The best answer (to the nation’s trade problems) is open markets,” Bush said, adding that he was concerned about “the inevitability of retaliation” against the United States by foreign trading partners.

But Dole, who is supporting stronger trade measures on Capitol Hill, disagreed sharply. “Every time I hear the word retaliation I am reminded that Japan and South Korea and Taiwan already block Florida oranges and Georgia peaches and Alabama melons.” Dole contended that an Alabama melon would cost about $55 in Japan because of that country’s restrictive trade practices.

‘Talking About Jobs’

“Let’s be realistic,” the Kansas lawmaker said. “We’re talking about American jobs, not protectionism.”

On the issue of the budget deficit, Dole dismissed a four-year budget spending freeze advocated by Bush as a “four-year cop-out” because the plan limits only overall spending rather than specific programs.

“He’s just going to freeze bad programs for four years and not do anything about it,” said Dole, who favors a one-year across-the-board ceiling on all spending programs, except aid for the needy. Dole contended that in four years Bush’s plan would leave the nation with a deficit of $153 billion.

But Bush disputed Dole’s figures and argued that the senator’s proposal “would cut into the muscle of defense.”

“How does your plan work?” Bush demanded of Dole.

“How does your plan work?” Dole shot back.

A Spirited Argument

Bush made his most spirited argument for his deficit plan in an exchange with New York Rep. Jack Kemp, who is vying with Pat Robertson, former religious broadcaster, to become the conservative alternative to either of the two front-runners.

Responding to Kemp’s charge that the budget freeze proposals meant that national security would be sacrificed “on the altar of mindless budgeting,” Bush said: “The freeze I’m talking about provides the President with flexibility.”

“The point is, Jack, you don’t care about deficits, you never have. You don’t think they’re important. And they are public enemy No. 1.”

“George Bush is now making my speech,” grumbled Dole, who has sought to depict himself in the campaign as the chief Republican foe of budget deficits.

Although Kemp and Bush argued about budget policy, the two were by and large in agreement in opposing changes in trade policy in contrast with Dole and Robertson. Trade has become a hot issue in the Super Tuesday Republican presidential campaign in large measure because of the impact of textile imports on the economies of South Carolina and other textile-producing states in this region.

Dole and Robertson both support trade legislation, which Bush and Kemp oppose.

‘Sounds Like Gephardt’

“Your trade talk sounds like Dick Gephardt,” Kemp told Dole at one point, referring to Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, who has based much of his drive for the Democratic presidential nomination on a controversial proposal to give the United States the power to retaliate against unfair foreign trade practices.

Earlier in the debate, Robertson introduced the trade issue into the discussion. “People that I’ve talked to can’t abide the thought that America is going to be No. 2 in the world in the 21st Century,” Robertson said. Decrying the rise of textile imports from China and the Soviet Union, the former broadcaster said: “I don’t believe we can continue to permit the deindustrialization of America.

“I’m for free trade in this country but it’s got to be fair. And I think if those people don’t deal fairly with us, it’s high time we started getting tough with them. I don’t want to preside over Uncle Sucker, I want to preside over Uncle Sam.”

But Kemp promptly took issue with that argument in impassioned terms.

‘Barriers to Imports’

“If we’re going to go to Iowa, Pat and Bob,” he said, addressing Robertson and Dole, “and tell the folks in Iowa we want to boost exports of grain and corn and soybeans and then go to South Carolina, as you both have done, and tell them you’re going to put up barriers to imports, we will be making a mistake under your leadership.”

Kemp charged that such a shift in trade policy would be like “the mistake that was made in 1929 and 1930 when a Republican Congress caused the worst trade war in the history of this world with the Smoot-Hawley tariff act.”

Calling for lower tax rates on labor and capital and stable exchange rates to spur economic growth, the New York congressman warned that putting up trade barriers “is not just protectionist, it is mindless with regard to the fact that we have to compete in an export war.

“So let’s not make the mistake we made in the 1930s.”

Sunday’s debate, like the debate staged here Saturday for Democratic presidential candidates, was sponsored by the Atlanta Constitution-Journal. It brought together all of the 1988 GOP presidential contenders for the first time since the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 16.

Republican Survivors

A prior effort to assemble all the Republican survivors on one platform failed 10 days ago in Dallas when Dole and Robertson refused to participate, charging that the arrangements in Bush’s home state unfairly favored the vice president.

Since winning the New Hampshire primary, Bush has seemed relaxed and confident on the stump, bolstered not only by his victory in the Granite State but also by his financial resources and his reputedly powerful organization in most of the 14 Southern and border Super Tuesday states.

The vice president’s chief rival, Dole, won the South Dakota primary and the Minnesota caucuses last week. But Dole’s satisfaction with those successes was dimmed by evidence of discord within his campaign organization, signaled most notably by the firing of two key advisers, David Keene and Donald Devine, by campaign Chairman William Brock.

Meanwhile Robertson campaign strategists have been concerned about the potential impact on his candidacy of the disclosures of the sexual misadventures of television evangelist Jimmy Swaggart.

For his part, Kemp, short on money and lacking the sort of Southern base Robertson can rely on among evangelical Christians, must win the backing of hard-core conservatives to stay in the race. His first objective is to finish ahead of either Bush or Robertson in the South Carolina Republican primary next Saturday, the results of which are expected to have considerable symbolic impact on the March 8 vote.

Source link

Showdown at Rocky Flats : When Federal Agents Take On a Government Nuclear-Bomb Plant, Lines of Law and Politics Blur, and Moral Responsibility Is Tested

Barry Seigel, a Times national correspondent, is the author of “Death in White Bear Lake” and “Shades of Gray,” both published by Bantam Books. His last story for this magazine was about the University of Wisconsin’s effort to outlaw hate speech

WHEN FBI AGENT JON LIPSKY PROPOSED IN JUNE, 1988, THAT they “do Rocky Flats,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Ken Fimberg gave him the type of look you’d direct at someone who’d just said something intriguing but utterly wacky. Lipsky was neither surprised nor offended, for he more or less shared this response. They were sitting in Fimberg’s office in the federal courthouse building in downtown Denver. With them was William Smith, an Environmental Protection Agency investigator. As Lipsky’s suggestion hung in the air, the three men couldn’t suppress their grins. Yeah, sure, Fimberg thought, we’re going to prosecute Rocky Flats for environmental crimes. For the moment, they all pretended it was a crazy joke.

The Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, after all, was a top-secret, high-security, 100-building fortress spread over some 400 acres on a mesa 16 miles northwest of Denver. You couldn’t just stroll in there. They had guards who were allowed to shoot. They also had missiles–real anti-aircraft rockets. The potential political controversies looked even nastier than the firepower. Although operated under contract by Rockwell International since 1975, Rocky Flats in fact belonged to the United States Department of Energy. There’d never been a criminal environmental case brought against a federal facility. If the U.S. attorney’s office in Colorado were to go after Rocky Flats, one federal agency in effect would be raiding another. The tangled mass of murky environmental law was hard enough to navigate without that complication. “Doing Rocky Flats” would be a huge, unimaginable undertaking.

The idea was tantalizing to Fimberg, though. Then 34, he was not unfamiliar with the weapons plant. A dozen years before, studying at the University of Colorado in Boulder, just up the road from Rocky Flats, he’d sometimes driven by the place at night. In the dark, surrounded by a perimeter of lights, sitting up on that plateau giving off a yellow-tinted glow, Rocky Flats made quite an impact. Its troubled, 35-year-long history made an even bigger one. From government studies and press reports, Fimberg knew of the two explosive fires, one in 1957 that had spewed unfiltered plutonium into the air and another in 1969. He knew of the 5,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated oil that had leached into the soil between 1964 and 1967. He knew of the toxic materials such as beryllium and tritium that had leaked for years into the ground water. He knew of the lawsuits by neighbors that had forced the government in 1984 to buy a 6,550-acre buffer zone around Rocky Flats. He knew that about 1.8 million people lived within 50 miles of the plant.

He now also knew what Lipsky and Smith had turned up during a discreet, yearlong preliminary investigation. Their reports were spread out on the desk between them. They looked interesting.

The prosecutor and two agents eyed each other. Working together the year before on another case, they’d convicted Protex Industries Inc. for exposing three employees to toxic substances–the first such “knowing endangerment” conviction in the nation. The Protex verdict was six months behind them, though. They’d had plenty of time to catch their breath and pat themselves on the back.

Their jokes about the Rocky Flats idea trailed off. Well, why not do Rocky Flats?

Looking back now at this moment in Ken Fimberg’s office, it is tempting to ask whether there ever would have been a Rocky Flats prosecution if the three men sitting there that day had fully grasped what they were getting into. Fimberg, after all, would eventually find himself taking on not just a giant DOE nuclear weapons plant but also 40 years of deeply institutionalized public policy. For pushing his case too hard, he’d eventually face restraints and a change of heart from his politicized Department of Justice supervisors. For pushing too softly, he’d end up being investigated and denounced by an outraged congressional subcommittee. For being beset by ambivalence, he’d get flattened by a runaway grand jury that disagreed with him not so much over the facts as over what to make of them.

Only much later would Fimberg realize that he’d created these problems by inadvertently tackling several complex and ambiguous questions. When broad elements of the federal government disregard the law, who is to blame? Are people to be called criminals if they act in accordance with a pervasive institutional culture? Should Rocky Flats managers be indicted for carrying out the will of their supervisors and employers? For that matter, should grand jurors obey court officers, and prosecutors bow to their bosses, even when they think doing so is wrong? In the end, these were the issues at the heart of the Rocky Flats investigation. Ken Fimberg’s inquiry eventually would become a disturbing exploration into the personal moral responsibility not just of bomb-plant managers but also of their judges–the 23 grand jurors and Fimberg himself.

Perhaps Fimberg would have pursued Rocky Flats even if he’d known he’d have to confront all this. After all, he left a big commercial law firm for the U.S. attorney’s white-collar-crimes unit because he’d tired of “moving big amounts of money from one pocket to another” and thought there were “more important things to do.” He’d clerked for the Environmental Defense Fund and served on the board of the Colorado Wildlife Federation because of a passion for the wilderness. He’d studied moral philosophy and political science at Boulder, and the law at Harvard, because he’d always been interested in “how the legal system forms social values.”

In the end, though, it was not just ethics or idealism or the environment tugging at Fimberg on this June morning. Unvarnished ambition lured as well. Here was a new goal, a larger challenge, a chance once more for a big win.

“Do you know,” Fimberg asked his colleagues, “just how hard Rocky Flats is going to be?”

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN ROCKY FLATS AROUSED PRIDE AND PATRIOTISM, not prosecutors. Against the context of the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, the discovery of plutonium and the spread of fallout shelters, the Denver Post in a March 23, 1951, headline felt inspired to announce “There’s Good News Today–U.S. to Build $45 Million A-Plant Near Denver.” The plant’s chief task, to manufacture plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs, was carried out under a cloak of secrecy and an autonomy that few disputed. The country wanted to make bombs, not worry about the environment.

Even in later years, after environmental concerns mounted and Congress adopted statutes such as the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the politicians either exempted DOE bomb plants from the new laws or fudged the issue with vague language. Then, when efforts to regulate weapons plants did begin in the early 1980s, DOE managers fiercely resisted, insisting environmental laws like RCRA didn’t apply to the particular type of waste they generated. Rocky Flats managers often blindfolded EPA investigators before leading them through the plant. The regulatory agencies may not have liked that, but they played along, negotiating “compliance agreements” and “memos of understanding” whose deadlines were rarely met.

It was against this backdrop that EPA investigator Bill Smith brought a curious document to FBI Agent Jon Lipsky in May, 1987. The two of them sat hunched together in Lipsky’s cubicle in the FBI’s Denver office, staring at Smith’s prize. It was an internal DOE memo directed to Mary L. Walker, then the department’s assistant secretary for environment, safety and health. The memo had been written 10 months before, by Walker’s assistant, John Barker, to brief her about yet another compliance agreement DOE was supposed to sign with the EPA and the Colorado Department of Health. This one would finally clarify that RCRA did indeed apply to some of Rocky Flats’ hazardous waste. As usual, DOE was resisting.

“The language seeks to ‘finesse’ the issue of EPA’s authority. . . .” Barker informed Walker. “The only question is one of whether there is a sufficient degree of vagueness and ambiguity; the proposed language provides this.” DOE should not fight this deal, Barker advised. “The compliance posture of Rocky Flats makes it a poor candidate for testing fine points of law. . . . Much of the good press we have gotten from the Agreement in Principle has taken attention away from just how really bad the site is. . . . We have basically no RCRA groundwater monitoring wells. Our permit applications are grossly deficient. Some of the waste facilities there are patently ‘illegal.’ We have serious contamination.” Failure to sign the deal would “suggest that direct, harsh enforcement action . . . will be more expeditious and productive.”

Lipsky understandably found this memo interesting. Then in his early 30s, he was a onetime Las Vegas street cop who had worked his way into the FBI through bulldog persistence. Lipsky had a casual manner, an unimposing build and a taste for the type of lackluster sport coats and checked socks favored by cautious back-room clerks. Lipsky also had a taste for the public corruption beat, particularly environmental crimes. He’d attended training sessions, he’d lectured other FBI agents, he’d been lead investigator in 13 environmental cases. In the Mary Walker memo he smelled his 14th.

Ken Fimberg was intrigued but hesitant when Lipsky and Smith first came to him. Born and raised in Oklahoma City, Fimberg’s commitment to the environment was undeniable, his reputation for integrity squeaky clean. He hiked, he climbed mountains, he rafted rivers, he led a boys’ camping and sports program at his local church, he volunteered as a Big Brother. Full-faced, almost burly, with a mustache and an earnest manner, he liked to thrash out issues with others. He also, though, liked to temper his instincts with a certain rational calculation. He tended to frame and qualify his remarks with the logic of a lawyer.

This bent toward caution prevailed at first. Fimberg knew the movement of prosecuting environmental crimes was still in its infancy. Those few who ventured into the new field usually ended up wrestling with obtuse regulations and mountains of complicated documents. White-collar crime was not sexy. You needed to master a computer database rather than a witness in an interrogation room. You also needed to hold your own with meddlesome Department of Justice supervisors in Washington who didn’t always share their line prosecutors’ enthusiasm for environmental-crime enforcement.

“It’s too early to tell,” Fimberg told the agents that first summer. “Keep poking around. Be discreet. I won’t stop you.”

When they returned to Fimberg a year later, in June, 1988, Lipsky and Smith brought not just suspicious memos, but particulars. The numbers didn’t add up. The numbers didn’t match the permits. The numbers didn’t match the available storage space. Where was all that waste going? The incinerator in Rocky Flats Building 771 seemed to provide the answer. The DOE and Rockwell had always insisted this incinerator was exempt from RCRA regulation because it was a “plutonium recovery” facility, one of those exclusions Congress had given bomb plants. But Lipsky believed the 771 incinerator was in fact burning hazardous wastes, not recovering plutonium. The waste had to be going somewhere. Lipsky was sure it was going up in smoke.

Fimberg considered the reports before him. “I think we have enough to go forward,” he finally told the agents.

Together, the three made an initial presentation that August to acting U.S. Atty. Michael Norton. For a while, Norton held off making a decision. Then an event at Rocky Flats changed the equation.

On Sept. 29, a DOE inspector named Joseph Krupar, while inspecting Building 771, walked unprotected into a radioactive zone that had no warning signs. Understandably disturbed, Krupar railed at assorted DOE and Rockwell supervisors. Building 771 is out of control, he later told FBI agents; in fact, he charged, Rockwell places production over safety all over Rocky Flats. On Oct. 7, DOE responded by ordering the temporary shutdown of Building 771.

Two weeks later, Fimberg, Lipsky and Smith met in the U.S. attorney’s conference room with Norton and other top managers from the FBI and the prosecutor’s office. Fimberg did the talking. “Here’s what we see so far,” he said. “I think it’s enough to go forward on. We’ve done as much as we can in this low-key way. Now we’ve got to be overt.”

A row of skeptical faces stared back at him.

“Are you sure you want to go after this?” Norton asked.

Mike Norton did not bring to this meeting much experience in the field of criminal law. In fact, he had never tried a criminal case in his life. A former regional head of the General Services Administration and twice an unsuccessful Republican candidate for Congress, Norton had been named U.S. attorney by President Ronald Reagan the previous spring and had not yet been confirmed. Partly because of Norton’s brusque manner and partly because nothing in his career suggested much preparation for the role of prosecutor, all sorts of critics had objected to his appointment, calling it a “political cookie” for a Republican loyalist. Whether or not that was fair, Norton undeniably was obliged to rely on the experienced trial lawyers in his department. By then he had come to rely on Fimberg particularly.

Yes, Fimberg said. Let’s do Rocky Flats.

Thus did Operation Desert Glow begin. All decisions would be made by Fimberg in agreement with him, Norton said. Potential targets would include Rockwell International, Rockwell’s employees and DOE employees; sovereign immunity protected the Department of Energy itself. They would need a special grand jury. They would need a search warrant.

Everyone looked at each other. They were going to raid Rocky Flats. The Department of Justice was going to raid the Department of Energy.

TO FIMBERG, FROM THE SKY, THE ROCKY FLATS WEAPONS PLANT–bounded by state highways, a series of holding ponds and a high chain-link fence–resembled nothing so much as an aging industrial foundry. It was early morning on Dec. 9, six weeks after Norton flashed the green light. Fimberg was sitting next to Lipsky in the FBI’s eight-seat prop plane, surrounded by a mess of infrared surveillance equipment, looking down at his target.

This is sort of strange, he thought. They were on a spy mission, not unlike Cold War U-2 pilots flying high over the Soviet Union. Except they were in Colorado, flying over a U.S. government facility.

Studying a monitor connected to the infrared cameras, Fimberg could see white plumes rising from a smokestack and white streams leading toward a body of water. On an infrared image, white signifies a hot spot–thermal activity. An EPA agent on board nudged Fimberg and Lipsky, pointing to the monitor. “Take a look at that,” he said.

Late that night, and again on two more evenings in mid-December, the FBI plane overflew Rocky Flats. Then, in early January, EPA experts in Las Vegas delivered their analyses.

The smokestack plume came from the Building 771 incinerator, one infrared expert said. Even though it was supposedly shut down, it was “thermally active” late on the nights of Dec. 9, 10 and 15. So was a holding pond that on paper had been closed two years before because of leaks. A hot stream of wastes was also flowing from the sewage-treatment plant to Woman Creek, an illegal direct discharge. Samples from one such direct discharge strongly suggested that “medical waste” was coming from some sort of “research laboratory” dabbling in “experimental” chemicals.

Fimberg was excited. Amid the tangle of mind-numbing RCRA regulations, here, he thought, might be some pretty sexy smoking guns: a clandestine midnight incinerator burn, direct toxic discharges into public water supplies, an exotic lab, concealment. White-collar environmental crimes didn’t usually provide anything nearly as dramatic as the AK-47s and sacks of cocaine shown off by criminal prosecutors before crowded press conferences. But this one might.

Fimberg began regularly flying to Washington to brief various Justice Department supervisors. Up the department’s ladder he climbed, repeating his dog-and-pony show. Each time he’d first draw skepticism, if not disbelief. Oh, come on, you’re not serious, we’re not going to do Rocky Flats, they’d say. Each time Fimberg would bring them around.

On Jan. 10, Don Carr, the acting head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, finally gave conceptual approval for a raid of Rocky Flats. In March, Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh signed off. In early June, Thornburgh, Norton, FBI Director William S. Sessions, EPA administrator William K. Reilly and Adm. James D. Watkins, secretary of the Department of Energy, signed a memo of understanding about what was to happen. At 9 a.m. on June 6, the raid began.

Jon Lipsky and Bill Smith led a small team through the main entrance on State Highway 93. Ostensibly, they were on their way to a prearranged meeting with Rocky Flats officials to talk about recent threats from the environmental group Earth First! But once in the meeting room, they revealed the true reason for their visit and slapped copies of the search warrant into the startled hands of DOE and Rockwell officials.

“You can’t be serious,” stuttered Dominic Sanchini, Rockwell’s manager at Rocky Flats.

“We are serious,” replied FBI Special Agent Thomas J. Coyle.

Then 62, Sanchini was a balding, jowly Rockwell veteran with a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, a law degree and a background in the development of rocket engines. As the search unfolded, Sanchini told the agents he’d seen notices of noncompliance from various regulatory agencies, but they were always minor and immediately corrected. Problems got solved if DOE wanted to pay for them.

On the fourth day of the search, according to FBI reports, Agent Edward Sutcliff, looking into a cabinet along the west wall of the manager’s office, came upon a large box of steno pads. Sanchini said those were diaries he had kept while working for NASA. He was planning to write a book.

Sutcliff began searching an adjoining middle cabinet. That cabinet has stuff from my old job, Sanchini said. Just as the Rocky Flats manager mouthed those words, Sutcliff discovered in the cabinet, under a foot-high stack of documents, another pile of steno pads. The FBI agent began leafing through the pages. They appeared to be Sanchini’s diary of events at Rocky Flats.

“Environment becoming a big deal. The EPA can destroy us,” read one entry from July 1, 1986. “Don’t tell press. . . . Tie mind, mouth and asshole together,” read another, referring to a discovery of ground-water contamination. “DOE doesn’t follow the law,” read an entry from May 6, 1987.

All told, the search took 18 days, involved 75 FBI and EPA agents and yielded 184 boxes of documents. When it was over, prosecutors and agents hauled their booty to the special office space they’d secured in downtown Denver.

Now, Fimberg thought, we’ll see if we have a story to tell.

WHEN WES MCKINLEY FOUND A POSTCARD IN HIS MAILBOX ONE afternoon in July, 1989, summoning him to federal grand jury duty in Denver, he didn’t know what to make of it. In truth, he didn’t know what a grand jury was. The term conjured in his mind the vague image of a ponderous group cloaked in judicial robes.

McKinley’s confusion was understandable. Then 45, married and the father of four, he lived where he’d always lived, on a ragged cattle ranch 300 miles from Denver in the barren southeast corner of Colorado. His father had worked this same land before him, and his grandfather had homesteaded it in 1909. There was no way to travel between McKinley’s home and Denver other than charter a plane or make the five-hour drive on two-lane state roads, so he’d always managed to stay fairly isolated from the outside world.

That is not to say McKinley was a rube. Far from it. He had a degree in math and physics from a four-year state college in Oklahoma, and he mixed fairly well with urban types when they showed up for the twice-a-year “city slicker” cattle drives he ran, at $1,000 per guest. He had a jaunty humor and the look of a real cowboy, what with the mustache, the week-old beard just turning to gray, the jeans, the boots, the spurs, the red bandanna, the dirty white cowboy hat and the ragged strands of dark brown hair hanging over his ears and neck. It is true that when he took his hat off, revealing a crown as bald as an egg, the passing effect was somewhat droll. But McKinley was, indeed, a cowboy. The manure on his spurs was the real thing, not the sort slung about in corridors of power in downtown Denver or Washington.

The grand jury postcard in hand, McKinley drove 18 miles north up the unpaved road that leads from his home to the tiny settlement of Walsh, where he continued on to the town of Springfield. There he showed the postcard to an old lawyer friend of his, who explained about grand juries and how Wes had a duty as a citizen if called to serve on one. That sounded fine to McKinley. In the one-room schoolhouse he had attended as a kid, they used to teach citizenship. They used to say the Pledge of Allegiance and mean it. He’d willingly serve if picked.

When McKinley finally managed to locate the federal courthouse in downtown Denver on Aug. 1, 1989, and the meeting room where he was to report, he found himself amid a group of 50 people. Up front, someone was explaining that 23 of them would be picked to serve on a special federal grand jury. They’d be investigating Rocky Flats.

This puzzled McKinley. He recollected that there used to be a hippie camp out near Rocky Flats back in the ‘60s. McKinley raised his hand. “What’s Rocky Flats?” he asked.

Numbers pulled from a bowl determined which 23 of the 50 in the room would serve on the grand jury. One by one, the group took shape. Although chosen by random draw, they looked to be the result of nothing so much as a Hollywood casting director’s call.

There was Jerry Joyner, an overweight, outgoing former police detective in Shreveport, La., with a drawn-out Southern manner full of deference to women and backslapping good ol’ boy charm to men. There was Jerry Sandoval, an earnest and soft-spoken Denver bus driver who worried about losing overtime pay and being away from his family for so long. There was Paul Herzfeldt, a withdrawn, slump-shouldered equipment repairman who chain-smoked and had big rings around deep-set eyes. There was Shirley Kyle, a hairdresser and wheat farmer’s wife from the tiny east Colorado town of Flagler, who welcomed the grand jury summons as a chance to get out and see the world. There was Connie Modecker, an outspoken and devout believer in the Marian sect of the Catholic Church, who feared any disruption of her ordered life but was certain God had a reason for her being called to jury duty. There was Rebecca Walker, a plump woman from a remote northwestern reach of Colorado, whose journey, a one-hour drive through the Colorado National Monument followed by an eight-hour bus ride into Denver, was 10 miles longer even than Wes McKinley’s.

“You’ve met them before” is how grand juror Ken Peck likes to describe his colleagues. “You’ve seen them at Disneyland, you’ve seen them in their pickups.”

Ken Peck, as it happened, was himself a bit more complicated. The 23rd and last grand juror selected, Peck was a Denver lawyer with links to both Colorado Republican politics and Rocky Flats. In 1987, Peck had circulated petitions and written letters for Businesses Against Burning Radioactive and Hazardous Wastes, a group that fought plans to incinerate hazardous mixed wastes at Rocky Flats.

It is hard to see just how Peck ended up being allowed on the grand jury. U.S. Atty. Mike Norton admits he was “acquainted” with Peck from Republican political circles and was “aware of some involvement he’d had with Rocky Flats,” but he “wasn’t clear just what it was.” Pre-selection questioning of the potential grand jurors didn’t provide any further clarification.

“Anyone else have any activity with the EPA or Colorado Department of Health?” U.S. District Judge Sherman G. Finesilver asked at one point.

“Just to clarify your question, you are saying in an employment capacity?” Peck responded.

“Employment or contract capacity also,” the judge replied.

Hearing that, Peck held his tongue. “It was never asked. They almost got to it, but they didn’t,” he explained much later.

After the 23 Colorado citizens were selected, Judge Finesilver spent an hour reading Special Grand Jury 89-2 its instructions. Listening, the grand jurors hung on every word.

“It is every person’s duty to conform his acts to the laws enacted by Congress,” the judge began. “All are equal under the law, and no one is above the law. . . . If 12 or more members of the grand jury after deliberation believe that an indictment is warranted, then you will request the United States attorney to prepare a formal written indictment. . . . The federal grand jury . . . is independent of the United States attorney. . . . It is not an arm of the United States attorney’s office. Please keep in mind, you would perform a disservice if you did not indict where the evidence warranted an indictment. . . . The government attorneys cannot dominate or command your actions. . . . You must be strong and faithful in the discharge of your office.”

In the following months, the grand jurors would reread the transcript of Judge Finesilver’s remarks time and time again. They would invoke the judge’s words as gospel. In fact, Wes McKinley’s wife, Jan, grew so tired of his reading her passages from the instructions that he finally took a green marker and highlighted the sections he wanted her to remember.

“We did exactly as we were told to do,” McKinley says now, looking back at all that has happened. “We didn’t have any choice. It’s a real simple thing. People blow it up, make it complicated. But it’s simple. All we had to do is refer to the judge’s instructions. We did exactly that.”

THE RAID OF ROCKY FLATS AND THE IMPANELING OF SPECIAL Grand Jury 89-2 had an immediate impact on several fronts.

On Sept. 22, 1989, Energy Secretary Watkins terminated Rockwell’s contract as the Rocky Flats manager, one day after the company argued in court that it couldn’t fulfill its DOE contract without violating environmental laws. On Sept. 28, the EPA put Rocky Flats on its Superfund cleanup list as a dangerous site. On Nov. 13, Watkins shut down Rocky Flats’ plutonium operations in response to a warning about plutonium in the plant’s ventilation ducts. On Dec. 1, standing inside the Rocky Flats plant, speaking over a public-address system to all 6,000 employees, Watkins denounced his own department’s past handling of the weapons facility and unveiled sweeping plans for reform.

Ken Fimberg’s case appeared to be on a roll. But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, the prosecutor’s case just then had started to unravel.

The sequence began with the sort of startling revelation prosecutors most fear. One morning that October, Fimberg for the first time met in person the EPA expert who’d provided their infrared analysis. At a meeting to prepare for a grand jury appearance, they sat down to once more walk through what they had.

“The high temps you got mean they were running the incinerator, right?” Fimberg asked again. “It couldn’t be from the building’s heating system?”

The expert told Fimberg he couldn’t really say that.

Fimberg stared at him.

“What about the hot streams into the creeks?” the prosecutor asked. “Aren’t they coming straight from the sewage plant?”

Maybe not, the expert said. It looks more like runoff from the hillside.

“Wait a minute,” Fimberg said. “You’ve already told us that it was. Important decisions were made based on this.”

The EPA expert squirmed and shrugged but offered little more. The guy is backing off, a dismayed Fimberg realized. The guy is flip-flopping.

Without the infrared evidence, they didn’t have their smoking guns. It didn’t mean the midnight incinerator burn didn’t happen, but how to prove it? They had Building 771 oxygen sheets showing a big drop on Dec. 6, and only the incinerator used oxygen. That was enough for Lipsky. But Fimberg didn’t think that was enough to convince a jury.

In time, a good number of other allegations contained in the prosecutors’ search-warrant affidavit began to fall apart.

The exotic lab stuff went first. They’d been able to detect only trace amounts of those mysterious medical chemicals and couldn’t track them back to a particular source. That didn’t mean it didn’t happen, Fimberg knew. But to make a charge, he needed a source.

The 771 incinerator stuff didn’t so much collapse as wither. Yes, they’d been storing and burning hazardous waste in the 771 incinerator for years without a permit. But it turned out you could argue forever over whether it was a type of waste subject to RCRA and EPA jurisdiction. If it was radioactive waste, it was exempt. But what if it was a mixture of radioactive and other hazardous wastes? Not until 1987 had DOE conceded that mixed wastes were subject to RCRA.

Even then, the DOE and Rockwell general counsels stuck to their claim that the 771 incinerator was an exempt plutonium-recovery operation, although no plutonium had actually been recovered there for 10 years. Only when a DOE lawyer heard this fact directly from Rocky Flats laborers–potential witnesses–did Rockwell and DOE abandon this claim. Until then, Fimberg discovered to his considerable chagrin, his own Justice Department had filed legal briefs supporting the DOE’s position.

How could he prove criminal intent? For that matter, how could he keep the jurors awake long enough to explain the whole mess?

He’d started with a hypothesis, he’d tested the hypothesis, the hypothesis had changed. Whatever he dug out now would be much harder to get. Whatever he got now would come from slogging through millions of documents, tracking down hundreds of people, running dozens of witnesses before the grand jury.

To be precise, it would come from 3.5 million documents, 800 interviews and 110 grand jury witnesses. That was the well from which the Colorado investigators eventually pulled their case.

It was, when they finally shaped it, a much more subtle prosecution than they’d first imagined. No longer did it involve clandestine midnight incinerator burns. Now their case focused on a litany of spills, leaks and contamination by a weapons plant that for many years had been ceaselessly generating tons of hazardous wastes it couldn’t legally treat, store or dispose of.

According to FBI reports and court records, FBI agents and prosecutors in time discovered that Rockwell workers had been mixing hazardous and other wastes with concrete to form giant one-ton solid blocks called “pondcrete,” which they’d then stored under tarps on uncovered asphalt pads. Other types of waste they’d piped into a series of holding ponds, even after regulators had closed the ponds because of ground-water contamination. Liquid effluents from the sewage plant, meanwhile, had been “spray irrigated” over open fields through a network of sprinklers, mainly to avoid the cost–and the regulatory and public scrutiny–that would come from directly discharging waste water into creeks.

Most of this had been done without permits, sometimes without telling the EPA or DOE. The pondcrete was supposed to get shipped elsewhere eventually, while the liquids were to be absorbed into the ground or evaporated by the sun. But that is not what had happened.

What were supposed to be rock-solid blocks of pondcrete turned out to be more like putty. Some were part liquid. To test the consistency, workers often stuck their thumbs into the blocks. Piled atop each other, unprotected from the elements, the blocks began to sag and leak. Liquids containing nitrates, cadmium and low-level radioactive waste began to leach into the ground and run downhill toward Walnut and Woman Creek. There they would sometimes meet the liquids spray-irrigated through a system of sprinklers, for they had also run off into the creeks. Far more effluent had been sprayed than the fields could possibly absorb, particularly since the spraying continued even when the fields were saturated or frozen solid by ice and snow.

By the spring of 1987, FBI agents and prosecutors found, a number of Rockwell employees and outside inspectors had started regularly reporting these conditions to Rocky Flats supervisors. For the most part, there was no response. Except, that is, from the supervisor who threatened workers with big fines if pondcrete production goals weren’t met. And from the foreman who told his workers to “cap” the soft pondcrete blocks by throwing fresh concrete over the spots where inspectors usually stuck their instruments.

Certain memos from DOE regional managers might also be construed as a form of response. One urged DOE headquarters to “send a message to EPA that DOE and its contractors are willing to ‘go to the mat’ in opposing enforcement actions at DOE facilities.” According to an FBI report, when DOE inspector Joseph Krupar did warn Rocky Flats manager Dominic Sanchini about split and leaking pondcrete blocks, Sanchini responded by telling Krupar he was going to “define his access” at the plant. Then Sanchini put a barbed-wire fence and “unauthorized personnel keep out” signs around the pondcrete blocks.

In a way, it seemed to Fimberg, all this was just as shocking as the smoking guns. The investigators had found a pervasive, long-term pattern of disregard for environmental laws, by both the government and its contractors. The DOE had allowed Rockwell to “capture” Rocky Flats. Rockwell even wrote DOE’s letters and permit applications; DOE staffers just retyped them on their letterhead and signed them.

In truth, Fimberg’s team had not exactly discovered this situation. It was known–if not to every citizen, certainly to regulators, politicians and a portion of the informed public–that mountains of hazardous wastes were seeping into the air and the ground at most DOE weapons plants. The situation just had never been regarded as a proper target for criminal prosecution, until the Colorado team fixed on this notion. By November, 1990, Fimberg had come to realize he’d unwittingly taken on not just a weapons plant and its managers but also 40 years of public policy.

He wrestled with the implications. No longer could he pin all the blame on a handful of individuals, particularly since the man most responsible at Rocky Flats–manager Dominic Sanchini–had that month died of cancer. Still, environmental laws hadn’t arrived at Rocky Flats overnight. It seemed to him that Rockwell’s crimes were serious and pervasive. There was still surely a case here to prosecute. There was still surely an important story to tell.

Or so Fimberg thought. Others, it turned out, thought differently. Fimberg, it soon became clear, had lost more than evidence over the months. He’d lost the enthusiasm of his boss.

U.S. Atty. Mike Norton had no desire to prosecute 40 years of public policy. The Republican appointee particularly had no desire to prosecute a dozen years of Reagan-Bush Administration public policy. He’d gotten pulled into this with promises of midnight incinerator burns and exotic labs. He felt betrayed by the FBI and EPA agents’ initial reports.

“We frankly bought into the idea that this place was operating clandestinely, illegally and in a fashion in total disregard for environmental laws,” Norton later explained. “I’m not going to prosecute conduct well known to regulators, for which there was no known scientific solution.”

Perhaps Fimberg in time could have rekindled Norton’s interest, given the U.S. attorney’s trust in the veteran prosecutor. Perhaps Fimberg in time could have convinced Norton he still had a case. By late 1990, however, the Rocky Flats prosecution was no longer a matter of conversation only in the Colorado U.S. attorney’s office. By then, the Justice Department in Washington was sitting at the table with Norton and Fimberg. By then, the Justice Department was making clear that it was in charge.

THE LEGACIES OF THE Ronald Reagan and George Bush administrations are many, but surely one that ranks among the most ignominious is the degradation of the Justice Department. Even Republicans in Washington concede that over the past decade, Justice gained a reputation as the most thoroughly politicized and ethically compromised department in the government.

First under Edwin Meese III, appointed attorney general in 1985, then under Dick Thornburgh and William P. Barr, many of the department’s activities were directed to achieving political goals. According to critics, hiring was based on political loyalty, legal decisions on political ideology. Driven by political appointees who burrowed their way into the bureaucracy, the core agenda involved attacking civil rights gains, criminal defendants’ rights, pornographers and abortion rights. No goal was more favored, though, than reining in the enforcement of newly emerging environmental criminal laws.

The notion of imprisoning 50-year-old white-collar industrial managers just didn’t appeal to everyone who occupied desks at the White House and Justice Department during the Reagan-Bush years. That, at least, has been the conclusion of three recent congressional subcommittee investigations into federal environmental prosecutions. In all sorts of cases, the Democrat-controlled subcommittees kept finding the same story: intervention, restrictions, delays, reduced charges and micro-management of line prosecutors by “Main Justice.” There was, the investigators found, a particular unwillingness at Justice to prosecute individuals or establish personal accountability, especially when the case involved large companies.

In a number of these cases–including Rocky Flats–the principal point man for the Justice Department was Barry Hartman. Hartman is brashly outspoken. Originally from Pennsylvania, he served there in the mid-1980s as deputy general counsel to Gov. Dick Thornburgh, then went into the garment manufacturing business in New Jersey, where he also worked for the 1988 Bush campaign. When Thornburgh became attorney general, he brought Hartman along and eventually placed him in the Environment and Natural Resources Division, first as the No. 2 man, later as its acting head. By then, congressional investigators concluded, Hartman had developed his own independent ties to the White House.

He denies such connections and defends his record, noting that his critics have singled out a handful of the more than 1,000 environmental cases he oversaw. But Hartman’s name almost always came up when congressional investigators asked line prosecutors about political compromise in the Justice Department. Among these prosecutors, one congressional report concluded, “Hartman was viewed as highly antagonistic to environmental criminal prosecutions generally. . . . Hartman once described himself as a ‘political hack’ . . . and many assistant U.S. attorneys feel that this self-depiction is, if anything, understated. Thought to have close ties to industry groups and lobbying organizations, Hartman is generally blamed for the hostile reception given many environmental cases at the divisional level.”

As 1990 drew to an end, Hartman’s impact on the Rocky Flats case became increasingly obvious. “Mr. Norton was in consultation with Barry Hartman throughout Mr. Hartman’s time as the acting assistant attorney general,” recalls Peter Murtha, a Justice Department lawyer who worked with the Colorado team on the Rocky Flats prosecution. “I think it is fair to say that Mr. Norton wanted to make sure that Mr. Hartman felt comfortable with the decisions that he, Mr. Norton, was making throughout the case.”

Making Hartman feel comfortable, it soon became clear, meant never talking with gusto about Rocky Flats. Hartman had soured on the case even more than had U.S. Atty. Norton. “It was a very expensive investigation,” Hartman says now. “Time was ticking. It was costing money. The midnight burning was not panning out. Instead, they’d found stuff was being flushed down toilets into the ground. Now it’s a major investigation into illegal toilets. So the pondcrete didn’t set and leaked. So they f—-d up. Can it be done legally? Can it be done physically at all? It was looking like it was going to be a dirty case.”

Given Hartman’s attitude, it isn’t hard to see why some members of the prosecution team responded positively when Rockwell’s attorneys first broached the subject of a plea bargain at a meeting in Norton’s office on Dec. 17, 1990. Here, after all, was a way out of their ever-widening and increasingly unpopular morass.

Fimberg was still arguing for an aggressive posture. If they were going to settle, he wanted at least misdemeanor indictments against individuals and a punishing fine of $50 million to $80 million against Rockwell. But Peter Murtha, the liaison with Washington, saw it differently. He was so cautious and skeptical, his colleagues sometimes joked that he’d never seen a case he liked. Murtha thought the Rocky Flats case was worth somewhere between $4 and $10 million.

Worried about Fimberg’s ambitions for the case, Murtha wrote a memo to Hartman on Dec. 28, 1990: “We thought it would be appropriate to bring to your attention what may potentially be a substantial disagreement between the United States attorney’s office and the Environmental Crimes Section about what an appropriate plea agree would include. . . . The crux of the potential issue is what this case is worth.” Notes taken a month later, during a Jan. 23, 1991, conference call between Denver prosecutors and Justice Department managers, suggest Norton had already swung from Fimberg to Hartman. “Bottom line, no individual felony charges,” the notes read. “Norton: no misdemeanor charges either . . . no fraud; no false statements. . . . Probably be a deal breaker.”

Fimberg kept fighting all that winter and spring with ever-diminishing effectiveness. Setback followed setback. First, the prosecutors learned that the DOE’s longtime policy of indemnifying its contractors meant the Energy Department–and thus taxpayers–would have to pay any fine levied against Rockwell at trial. That meant only if they settled could they make Rockwell pay its own fine.

Then the prosecutors realized they couldn’t prove a public health impact beyond Rocky Flat’s boundaries. They had plenty of evidence of ground-water contamination and toxic runoff into holding ponds and creeks. But they couldn’t track it from there into the public drinking water supply, at least not on a regular or measurable basis. The downstream city of Broomfield had never seen a blip during its constant monitoring of the Great Western Reservoir.

Nor had scientists ever measured unusual health problems in the area. Maybe there’d been contamination sometime, maybe there were undetected long-term effects. A special Colorado Department of Health panel was talking about signs of radioactive tritium in certain surface waters and plutonium concentrations in sediment at the bottom of the Great Western and Standley Lake reservoirs. But as usual in environmental studies, the scientists were saying all conclusions were premature.

Rockwell, meanwhile, had managed to make an end run around the Colorado prosecutors, as often happened in criminal environmental prosecutions against big corporations. For months, Rockwell attorneys had been campaigning for a review of the case by the Justice Department. On April 9, they finally got their opportunity.

The meeting took place in the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s cavernous conference room in Washington. Richard Stewart, then the division’s head, sat at one end of the conference table, with Fimberg on his left and Hartman on his right. Vincent Fuller, a partner at the powerful and politically connected Washington law firm of Williams & Connolly, sat at the other end. Fuller’s animated presentation lasted 20 minutes. At its core was the notion that Rockwell had done no wrong and that the Department of Energy was at fault.

The DOE’s priority was the production of nuclear warheads, so for many years the department quite consciously failed to bring an aging complex into compliance with a rapidly expanding body of environmental law, Fuller argued. Rockwell acted in good faith, following the DOE’s direction, restrained by DOE budgets. There were no rogue actors. Since Rockwell was following the federal government’s own priorities, it’s wrong to now punish Rockwell if you decide those priorities were misguided.

Besides, Fuller continued, the search was based on sensational allegations that were never proven. Justice probably wouldn’t even have authorized the search without them. And Rockwell’s role has to be considered against the extraordinary regulatory confusion surrounding the application of environmental laws to DOE facilities. The laws themselves are full of ambiguity.

What’s more, Fuller reminded them, Rocky Flats is far from unique–every other DOE facility suffers from the same type of environmental problems. Look at the Fernald plant in Ohio. Look at Hanford, Oak Ridge, West Valley, Savannah River. All have waste storage, treatment and disposal problems. No DOE contractor is able to conform to the letter of environmental laws while running these facilities. No other contractor has faced criminal sanctions, though. Is this fair?

After the Rockwell lawyers filed out of the conference room, all eyes swung to Fimberg for his response. He hesitated, and for good reason.

Underlying the defense attorney’s arguments, Fimberg knew, were the critical and complicated questions at the heart of the Rocky Flats controversy. Ever since the Manhattan Project, the Energy Department and its predecessor agencies indeed had established a widespread institutional culture that had gone on for 40 years, unchallenged by Congress or regulatory agencies. It was a terrible culture–but how do you indict a culture?

On the other hand, Fimberg wondered, what is a culture but a set of individuals acting on the basis of certain values? Couldn’t Rockwell have gone to the DOE and flatly said, we can’t execute our contract without violating the law? Once you put that in a memo, isn’t the Energy secretary going to have to approve violations of the law–or change things? Were violations at other DOE plants really a fair defense? If everyone in the room is nodding his head, does that make it right?

Fimberg had been wrestling with these questions for months. To him, the matter was complex. To him, there were no easy answers. On the one hand, he had to admit that Fuller was making some legitimate points. On the other hand, there still was no denying that Rockwell had violated the law.

“Same old song,” he finally told his waiting colleagues, glancing at Fuller’s now empty seat. From his superiors’ looks, Fimberg understood that the prospect of indicting DOE people was fading. But Fimberg flew back to Denver that afternoon still clinging to the notion of indicting Rockwell’s supervisors at Rocky Flats. All we need, he told himself, is one more revelation, one more discovery.

What looked to be the breakthrough finally came just days later. Until then, the prosecutors had failed to get any insiders to turn informant. One evening, Fimberg had even met with the steelworkers’ union, inviting their cooperation, but he’d gotten nowhere. Rockwell is paying for their employees’ lawyers and keeping track of the workers’ contacts with the FBI, Fimberg had reasoned, while the union is protecting all those $48,000-a-year blue-collar jobs. Now, on April 19, Fimberg turned up the pressure–he mailed official warning letters to eight targets of the grand jury investigation. The maneuver worked. Thus pressured, two lower-level targets soon responded with offers of information about their supervisors.

Armed with these offers, an encouraged Fimberg told FBI Agent Jon Lipsky he thought they could indict three top-level Rockwell managers. Lipsky heartily agreed. Draft indictments were drawn up against several Rockwell officials for the illegal and improper storage of pondcrete, for the runoff of pondcrete into Woman and Walnut creeks, for the knowing failure to stop spray-irrigated sewage effluent from flowing into Woman and Walnut creeks, and for false statements to DOE about the use of closed solar ponds. A prosecutor’s memo called these “only the strongest charges.”

Hartman and Norton weren’t buying it, though. They didn’t care about Fimberg’s new informants or any other breakthrough. In fact, Hartman had decided there should never have been a criminal prosecution brought against Rocky Flats of any sort. He wanted to settle; he wanted to move Rocky Flats off the table.

This was not an entirely indefensible position. With all its complications and vagaries, Rocky Flats surely was a prime candidate for a deal. The critical question, though, was what kind of deal. How tough a settlement to insist upon?

At Fimberg’s urging, Norton had started negotiations that spring by proposing a fine of $52 million. Rockwell responded with a figure closer to $1 million, and a list of core demands that included no individual indictments and no charges of fraud, false statements or conspiracy. Rockwell also wanted a public denial from the prosecutor of the more sensational charges, such as midnight burning. By early July, Norton had pretty much come around to Rockwell’s way of thinking.

On July 8, the U.S. attorney in a memo informed Fimberg he planned to settle for $15 million and announce the settlement in a joint news conference with Rockwell, where he’d “advise that some of the more sensational allegations did not bear out.” Fimberg expressed dismay. A mutually agreed upon statement would be hard to achieve, he wrote back. “They will want bare bones–when do we get to tell our story? This will lend itself to characterizations of collusion, of a sweetheart deal. . . . I have real concern that $15 million is low, in terms of political, public and judicial acceptability.”

Despite Fimberg’s objections, Norton the next day formally offered to settle for $15 million, to be paid by Rockwell without the DOE indemnity. There would be no false statement, conspiracy or fraud charges and no individual indictments if the company pleaded guilty to seven less punishing felonies.

They were still months away from finalizing the deal, but for all intents, the investigation was over. In late July, Peter Murtha, the liaison from the Justice Department, told FBI Agent Lipsky to stop trying to develop evidence for individual indictments. They won’t be part of the plea agreement, Murtha advised, so don’t spin your wheels.

Appalled, Lipsky called supervisory Special Agent Robert J. Chiaradio at FBI headquarters in Washington. Chiaradio confirmed Murtha’s instructions and suggested that Lipsky get in line. Stop whining, stop causing problems, Chiaradio said. The directive, he explained, had come from Neil Cartusciello, head of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes section. Cartusciello thought there was “insufficient evidence” to pursue individuals.

Perhaps Cartusciello did indeed reach this conclusion on his own. Since he was new to his job, however, it is likely that he was briefed by the man who’d hired him, and who had just that month taken over as head of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division: Barry Hartman.

Lipsky next turned to Fimberg. He found the prosecutor in his office one morning that July. What’s going on? Lipsky asked, shutting the door and throwing himself into a chair. What’s the status on individuals?

Fimberg and Lipsky eyed each other. It was almost three years to the day since the two men, sitting just where they were now, had excitedly started plotting to “do Rocky Flats.” They were still friends, but relations had started to wear thin. Lipsky thought Fimberg was pulling back, losing his nerve. Fimberg thought Lipsky was letting his judgment get colored by what he wanted to see.

We had the evidence, Lipsky said. You said so yourself, just two months ago.

Fimberg looked away.

Perhaps someone less beset by a sense of complexity, someone less torn by ambivalence, someone more stubborn or more gripped by a single-minded sureness would have held his position. Fimberg, however, wavered now in the face of the isolation from his fellow prosecutors. Wavered just as a DOE manager might have while trying to honor environmental laws from within a hostile institutional culture. Playing the hero, asserting personal moral responsibility, was not such a simple matter after all. “I was only one of four on the team, and the only one pushing for individual indictments,” Fimberg would later say. “No one else had the slightest interest.”

By now, at any rate, his own vision of the case was shaded. Fimberg couldn’t agree with Lipsky on the midnight incinerator burn. He did believe Rocky Flats managers had used the plutonium recovery claim as a way to avoid regulation of the 771 incinerator. DOE on a broad institutional level had endorsed and directed this practice, though, so whom to charge? He also saw some basis for nailing individuals on false statement charges–Rockwell managers had not disclosed some pondcrete leaks and spills or the use of the closed solar ponds. But a plea bargain was now on the table. It would be hard to win at trial, and if they did, the taxpayer would end up paying Rockwell’s fine. If a good deal is likely, what’s the trade-off in the real world?

“I know it’s hard,” he told Lipsky. “There were tough decisions to make. It turned into an increasingly difficult case. This is the best we can do. Other people feel even more strongly on that point than me. It’s a disappointment, I know. But it’s just not going to happen.”

Lipsky leaned forward, his hands on Fimberg’s desk. We could have indicted people, he said.

Fimberg studied Lipsky. He wished he could have a single perspective, like Jon had. Life would be much simpler, he imagined, if he saw only black and white.

“Jon,” he said, “I was outvoted.”

Fimberg didn’t completely surrender. On Aug. 5, days after his confrontation with Lipsky, Fimberg wrote Norton: “It’s my overall sense, Mike, that Rockwell’s achieved its big ticket items. The dollars, while not insignificant, will hardly break the company, and no individuals will be charged. . . . I will continue in my designated role as pushing for the most aggressive settlement possible.”

On Aug. 29, Fimberg wrote Norton again: “I just don’t think Main Justice has the same ‘fire in the belly’ that we do, and I get concerned that they will give up too much just to ‘get it done.’ ”

Since the meeting with Rockwell’s lawyers in Washington that spring, however, Fimberg’s thoughts increasingly had been shifting from the details of the prosecution to the prospect of a grand jury report. Two years before, they’d given the Justice Department’s criminal division two reasons why they wanted to impanel the Colorado district’s first special grand jury: The possibility of a lengthy investigation that would require the “complete energies” of a grand jury, and the possibility of a grand jury report on “issues that did not lead to indictment.” Only a special grand jury can focus on a single case, and only a special grand jury can write such a report.

“One of the important reasons that I requested that a special grand jury be convened . . . was its statutory ability to issue a report,” Norton would later recall. “I believed this ability was critically appropriate. . . . There was recognition, at an early time, that the investigation might disclose important matters which would not be appropriate for indictment, but nonetheless would be appropriate for public disclosure.”

Provided with these reasons, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division had approved the special grand jury. So had Chief U.S. District Judge Sherman Finesilver, who’d specified in his instructions that “the special grand jury may submit a report to the Court concerning non-criminal misconduct. . . . Thus, through the vehicle of this special grand jury, the public may be assisted in learning of the facts as they relate to Rocky Flats.”

If they had to settle without individual indictments, Fimberg decided in the summer of 1991, they could at least tell the public what has been going on at Rocky Flats and other DOE plants over the past 40 years. If they couldn’t indict an institutional culture in court, they could at least denounce it in public.

Fimberg knew the Rocky Flats grand jurors would jump at the chance to write a scathing report. After meeting monthly for almost two years with Wes McKinley, Ken Peck and the 21 others, he knew just how angry they were at what they’d been hearing. He needed only to harness their anger.

The grand jury report now was paramount for Fimberg. The grand jury report now represented the last, best chance he had to save his case–and himself.

Source link

Why 25-year-old Mahnoor Omer took Pakistan to court over periods | Gender Equity

Growing up in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Mahnoor Omer remembers the shame and anxiety she felt in school when she had periods. Going to the toilet with a sanitary pad was an act of stealth, like trying to cover up a crime.

“I used to hide my pad up my sleeve like I was taking narcotics to the bathroom,” says Omer, who comes from a middle-class family – her father a businessman and her mother a homemaker. “If someone talked about it, teachers would put you down.” A classmate once told her that her mother considered pads “a waste of money”.

“That’s when it hit me,” says Omer. “If middle-class families think this way, imagine how out of reach these products are for others.”

Now 25, Omer has gone from cautious schoolgirl to national centrestage in a battle that could reshape menstrual hygiene in Pakistan, a country where critics say economics is compounding social stigma to punish women – simply for being women.

In September, Omer, a lawyer, petitioned the Lahore High Court, challenging what she and many others say is effectively a “period tax” imposed by Pakistan on its more than 100 million women.

Pakistani governments have, under the Sales Tax Act of 1990, long charged an 18 percent sales tax on locally manufactured sanitary pads and a customs tax of 25 percent on imported ones, as well as on raw materials needed to make them. Add on other local taxes, and UNICEF Pakistan says that these pads are often effectively taxed at about 40 percent.

Omer’s petition argues that these taxes – which specifically affect women – are discriminatory, and violate a series of constitutional provisions that guarantee equality and dignity, elimination of exploitation and the promotion of social justice.

In a country where menstruation is already a taboo subject in most families, Omer and other lawyers and activists supporting the petition say that the taxes make it even harder for most Pakistani women to access sanitary products. A standard pack of commercially branded sanitary pads in Pakistan currently costs about 450 rupees ($1.60) for 10 pieces. In a country with a per capita income of $120 a month, that’s the cost of a meal of rotis and dal for a low-income family of four. Cut the cost by 40 percent – the taxes – and the calculations become less loaded against sanitary pads.

At the moment, only 12 percent of Pakistani women use commercially produced sanitary pads, according to a 2024 study by UNICEF and the WaterAid nonprofit. The rest improvise using cloth or other materials, and often do not even have access to clean water to wash themselves.

“If this petition goes forward, it’s going to make pads affordable,” says Hira Amjad, the founder and executive director of Dastak Foundation, a Pakistani nonprofit whose work is focused on promoting gender equality and combating violence against women.

And that, say lawyers and activists, could serve as a spark for broader social change.

The court docket describes the case as Mahnoor Omer against senior officials of the government of Pakistan. But that’s not what it feels like to Omer.

“It feels like women versus Pakistan.”

Activists of Mahwari Justice, a menstrual rights group, distributing period kits to women in Pakistan [Photo courtesy Mahwari Justice]
Activists of Mahwari Justice, a menstrual rights group, distributing period kits to women in Pakistan [Photo courtesy Mahwari Justice]

‘It’s not shameful’

Bushra Mahnoor, founder of Mahwari Justice, a Pakistani student-led organisation whose name translates to “menstrual justice”, realised early just how much of a struggle it could be to access sanitary pads.

Mahnoor – no relation to Omer – grew up in Attock, a city in the northwestern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province, with four sisters. “Every month, I had to check if there were enough pads. If my period came when one of my sisters had hers too,” finding a pad was a challenge, she says.

The struggle continued in school, where, as was the case with Omer, periods were associated with shame. A teacher once made one of her classmates stand for two entire lectures because her white uniform was stained. “That was dehumanising,” she says.

Mahnoor was 10 when she had her first period. “I didn’t know how to use a pad. I stuck it upside down; the sticky side touched my skin. It was painful. No one tells you how to manage it.”

She says that shame was never hers alone, but it’s part of a silence which starts at home and accompanies girls into adulthood. A study on menstrual health in Pakistan shows that eight out of 10 girls feel embarrassed or uncomfortable when talking about periods, and two out of three girls report never having received information about menstruation before it began. The findings, published in the Frontiers in Public Health journal in 2023, link this silence to poor hygiene, social exclusion and missed school days.

In 2022, when floods devastated Pakistan, Mahnoor began Mahwari Justice to ensure that relief camps did not overlook the menstrual needs of women. “We began distributing pads and later realised there’s so much more to be done,” she says. Her organisation has distributed more than 100,000 period kits – each containing pads, soap, underwear, detergent and painkillers – and created rap songs and comics to normalise conversations about menstruation. “When you say the word ‘mahwari’ out loud, you’re teaching people it’s not shameful,” she says. “It’s just life.”

The same floods also influenced Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, though her nonprofit has been around for a decade now. Its work now also includes distributing period kits during natural disasters.

But the social stigma associated with menstruation is also closely tied to economics in the ways in which its impact plays out for Pakistani women, suggests Amjad.

“In most households, it’s the men who make financial decisions,” she says. “Even if the woman is bringing the money, she’s giving it to the man, and he is deciding where that money needs to go.”

And if the cost of women’s health feels too high, that’s often compromised. “[With] the inflated prices due to the tax, there is no conversation in many houses about whether we should buy pads,” she says. “It’s an expense they cannot afford organically.”

According to the 2023 study in the Frontiers in Public Health, over half of Pakistani women are not able to afford sanitary pads.

If the taxes are removed, and menstrual hygiene becomes more affordable, the benefits will extend beyond health, says Amjad.

School attendance rates for girls could improve, she said. Currently, more than half of Pakistan’s girls in the five to 16 age group are not in school, according to the United Nations. “We will have stress-free women. We will have happier and healthier women.”

Lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, the co-petitioner with Mahnoor Omer, in the case demanding an end to the 'period tax'. [Photo courtesy Ahsan Jehangir Khan]
Lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, the co-petitioner with Mahnoor Omer, in the case demanding an end to the ‘period tax’ [Photo courtesy of Ahsan Jehangir Khan]

‘Feeling of justice’

Omer says her interest in women’s and minority rights began early. “What inspired me was just seeing the blatant mistreatment every day,” she says. “The economic, physical, and verbal exploitation that women face, whether it’s on the streets, in the media, or inside homes, never sat right with me.”

She credits her mother for making her grow up to be an empathetic and understanding person.

After completing school, she worked as a gender and criminal justice consultant at Crossroads Consultants, a Pakistan-based firm that collaborates with NGOs and development partners on gender and criminal justice reform. At the age of 19, she also volunteered at Aurat March, an annual women’s rights movement and protest held across Pakistan on International Women’s Day – it’s a commitment she has kept up since then.

Her first step into activism came at 16, when she and her friends started putting together “dignity kits”, small care packages for women in low-income neighbourhoods of Islamabad. “We would raise funds with bake sales or use our own money,” she recalls.

The money she was able to raise enabled her to distribute about 300 dignity kits that she and her friends made themselves. They each contained pads, underwear, pain medication and wipes. But she wanted to do more.

She got a chance when she started working at the Supreme Court in early 2025, first as a law clerk. She’s currently pursuing postgraduate studies in gender, peace and security at the London School of Economics and says that she will go back to Pakistan to resume her practice after she graduates.

She became friends with fellow lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, who specialises in taxation and constitutional law. The plan to challenge the “period tax” emerged from their conversations.

“He pushed me to file this petition and try to get justice instead of just sitting around.”

Khan, who is a co-petitioner in the case, says that fighting the taxes is about more than accessibility and affordability of sanitary pads – it’s about justice. “It’s a tax on a biological function,” he says.

Tax policies in Pakistan, he says, are written by “a privileged elite, mostly men who have never had to think about what this tax means for ordinary women”. The constitution, he adds, “is very clear that you cannot have anything discriminatory against any gender whatsoever”.

To Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, the fight for menstrual hygiene is closely tied to her other passion – the struggle against climate change. The extreme weather-related crisis, such as floods, that Pakistan has faced in recent times, she says, hit women particularly hard.

She remembers the trauma many women she worked with after the 2022 floods described to her. “Imagine that you are living in a tent and you have mahwari [menstruation] for the first time,” she says. “You are not mentally prepared for it. You are running for your life. You don’t have access to safety or security. That trauma is a trauma for life.”

As temperatures rise on average, women will need to change sanitary pads more frequently during their periods – and a lack of adequate access will prove an even bigger problem, Amjad warns. She supports the withdrawal of taxes on sanitary pads – but only those made from cotton, not plastic ones that “take thousands of years to decompose”.

Amjad is also campaigning for paid menstruation leave. “I have come across women who were fired because they had pain during periods and couldn’t work,” she says. “When you are menstruating, one part of your brain is on menstruation. You can’t really focus properly.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the taxes are hoping that Omer’s petition will pressure the Pakistani government to follow other nations such as India, Nepal and the United Kingdom that have abolished their period taxes.

Taking on that mantle against the government’s policies didn’t come easily to Omer. Her parents, she says, were nervous at first about their daughter going to court against the government. “They said it’s never a good idea to take on the state,” she says.

Now, they’re proud of her, she says. “They understand why this matters.”

To her, the case is not just a legal fight. “When I think of this case, the picture that comes to mind … It’s not a courtroom, it’s a feeling of justice,” she says. “It makes me feel a sense of pride to be able to do this and take this step without fear.”

Source link

SAFE and SOUND : Behind the Proliferation of Private Home Security Services: Proposition 13–and Fear Itself

Brian O’Connor thinks part of his success is due to California voter approval of Proposition 13, the landmark property tax reduction proposal that catalyzed the taxpayer revolt more than a decade ago.

He is the general manager of the Bel-Air Patrol, which operates Los Angeles’ oldest private residential security patrol service. Since Proposition 13, the company has greatly expanded its territory and number of clients, he said.

Business is good and getting better for a growing number of such companies that deploy armed and unarmed guards to watch over Southern California neighborhoods. In fact, such businesses are growing all over the nation.

Residential guard services are a fast-growing segment of the security guard business, says Robert McCrie, editor of Security Letter, a trade publication. He estimated that residential guard services account for 10% to 15% of the nation’s $6.5-billion annual security guard bill. “The growth has been quite unmistakable since World War II. One reason is that people simply feel afraid,” said McCrie, who is also a professor of security management at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

More Seek Permits

The public’s perception that government services have declined in California since the passage of Proposition 13 adds to the fear, O’Connor said. People feel that their local police departments are stretched too thin, he said. “The police obviously have to prioritize where they concentrate their effort,” he said.

People also want more control of their personal safety, he said. The average homeowner can’t control the police, but he can hire and fire private security firms at will, he said.

Within the city of Los Angeles, about 50 firms have Los Angeles Police Department permits to offer residential patrol service. Many more operate in the county, and “there may be some operating illegally (in Los Angeles),” said Det. Richard Rudell, chief of the permit section of the Los Angeles Police Commission.

Rudell said he has noted a steady increase in the number of firms applying for permits in recent years, although “some have subsequently gone out of business.” Every year, a number don’t renew their permits, he says.

Security guards do not have police powers. For example, guards patrolling a neighborhood may not detain someone believed to be acting suspiciously, said Lt. Fred Nixon, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesman.

Like anyone, they may make a citizen’s arrest of a person caught committing a crime. Guard companies claim that their presence deters crime, but independent statistical studies aren’t available to verify that claim.

“The police department believes that a highly visible patrol tends to deter crime,” Nixon said. “That is not a vote for or against private patrols. (The patrol) is only part of the equation.”

Private companies offer different levels of services. The larger security alarm companies provide armed guards to respond to an alarm. Other services simply drive through a neighborhood, or by an individual residence, or stop and inspect the exterior of properties. Still others provide mail and newspaper pickups for clients who are out of town and an escort service for clients fearful of entering an empty house after being away for a period.

Added Problems

Although the concept of security patrols seem simple, it’s not that easy for small operators–who are the vast majority of patrol businesses–to make a patrol service a success, said Robert Rockwell, a Walnut Creek, Calif., security management consultant.

Patrol services have all the challenges of hiring and supervising personnel as other guard companies, he said, with the additional burden of purchasing and maintaining vehicles that are driven constantly, he said. They also have the complication of getting a sufficient client base and calculating patrol routes under a price structure that will produce a profit, he said.

Because of the complications, many of the nation’s largest providers of security guards have shied away from that segment, he said, although many will provide a stationary guard for an apartment building, or gated community. (The largest segment of the security guard business is providing on-site guards for businesses and factories.)

Many larger companies that offer residential patrols are essentially in the business of selling security alarms.

Rockwell is also vice president of California Contract Security Guard Service, a trade group of 125 companies. “Very few of our members are involved,” he said.

Most residential patrols are small, perhaps operating with two or three people, he said. “One guy starts a patrol business where he does the patrols himself. Then he hires somebody else to take (another) shift,” Rockwell said.

Thomas Walthen acquired residential patrols in 30 cities across the country, including one in Los Angeles, when his Van Nuys-based California Plant Protection bought the venerable Pinkerton Security Service in 1987, creating a tie between CPP/Pinkerton and Borg-Warner’s security business as the nation’s largest provider of security guards.

High Accident Rate

(Borg-Warner includes Burns International Security Services, Wells Fargo Guard Services and Baker Industries, the parent of the Bel-Air Patrol). The acquisition put Walthen in a business segment that he abandoned 20 years ago. Unlike many services in the old days, Pinkerton has developed a “substantially sophisticated patrol service,” Walthen said.

Nevertheless, he added, “We’re still in the process of evaluating the operation. It looks like a profitable arm,” he said. But there are some problems. “The ratio of accidents to miles driven seem to be terribly out of line,” he said, and nobody seems to know why.

Although relatively big companies are in the minority among those offering residential patrols, they are among the best known in Southern California. A familiar sight throughout affluent neighborhoods are lawns and gardens sprouting signs for Bel-Air, MacGuard Security Services and Westec Security, a unit of Japan’s SECOM Co. All three sell alarm systems and offer armed response to alarms as well as neighborhood patrols.

“We’re not a security guard company. We sell a concept of security,” said Westec President Michael Kaye, explaining how the company’s alarm systems interact with a staff of almost 800 people. About 200 are guards on patrol. The company views itself as playing an “observe and report” role for the police. However, he said, the company plays a crucial prevention role.

“We’ve found time and time again that if a patrol is in a neighborhood, there is less crime. Burglars are basically lazy and will take the path of least resistance,” he said. Westec cites the experience of three Westside communities where it has tracked crime statistics before and after patrols.

Incidents Drop

One area with 400 homes had several burglaries a month before Westec began patrols seven years ago. Since patrols started, there have been no more than three burglaries a year and only one in 1988. Another neighborhood with 500 homes reported seven to 10 robberies a month before the patrols, the company said, but in the nine years of patrols, there have been less than six a year. Thus far in 1988, there have been three incidents.

A community of 250 homes reported several burglaries a month before the Westec patrols began seven years ago, the company said, but has had no more than two per year since. There haven’t been any incidents reported in 1988, the company said.

“We’re in the public relations and protection business,” said O’Connor, the retired British policeman who runs Bel-Air Patrol. “We’re never in conflict with law enforcement because we aren’t in that business,” he added.

Source link

Jobs and economic struggles of Californians light up central to clash between candidates for governor

Four of California’s gubernatorial candidates tangled over climate change and wildfire preparedness at an economic forum Thursday in Stockton, though they all acknowledged the stark problems facing the state.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, stood apart from the three other candidates — all Democrats — at the California Economic Summit by challenging whether the spate of devastating wildfires in California is linked to climate change, and labeling some environmental activists “terrorists.”

After a few audience members shouted at Bianco over his “terrorists” comment, the Democratic candidates seized on the moment to reaffirm their own beliefs about the warming planet.

“The impacts of climate change are proven and undeniable,” said Tony Thurmond, a Democrat and California superintendent of public instruction. “You can call them what you want. That’s our new normal.”

The fires “do have a relationship with climate change,” said former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Besides environmental issues, the hour-and-a-half forum at the business-centric California Forward’s Economic Summit focused primarily on “checkbook” topics as the candidates, which also included former state Controller Betty Yee, offered gloomy statistics about poverty and homelessness in California.

Given the forum’s location in the Central Valley, the agricultural industry and rural issues were front and center.

Bianco harped on the state and the Democratic leaders for California’s handling of water management and gasoline prices. At one point, he told the audience that he felt like he was in the “Twilight Zone” after the Democrats on stage pitched ways to raise revenue.

Other candidates in California‘s 2026 governor’s race, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra and former Rep. Katie Porter, were not present at Thursday’s debate. Former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon planned to come, but his flight from Los Angeles was delayed, audience members were told.

All are vying to lead a state facing ongoing budget deficits caused by overspending. A state Legislative Analyst’s Office report released this month cited projected annual operating deficits ranging from roughly $15 billion to $25 billion through 2029. At the same time, federal cutbacks by the Trump administration to programs for needy Californians, including the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program, will put more pressure on the state’s resources.

All of the candidates had different pitches during the afternoon event. Asked by moderator Jeanne Kuang, a CalMatters reporter, about ways to help rural communities, Thurmond cited his plan to build housing on surplus property owned by the state. He also repeatedly talked about extending tax credits or other subsidies to groups, including day-care providers.

Yee, discussing the wildfires, spoke on hardening homes and creating an industry around fire-proofing the state. Yee received applause when she questioned why there wasn’t more discussion about education in the governor’s race.

Villaraigosa cited his work finding federal funds to build rail and subway lines across Los Angeles and suggested that he would focus on growing the state’s power grid and transportation infrastructure.

Both the former mayor and Yee at points sided with Bianco when they complained about the “over-regulation” by the state, including restrictions on developers, builders and small businesses.

Few voters are probably paying much attention to the contest, with the battle over Proposition 50 dominating headlines and campaign spending.

Voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether to support the proposition, which is a Democratic-led effort to gerrymander California’s congressional districts to try and blunt President Trump’s attempt to rig districts in GOP-led states to retain control of the House of Representatives.

“Frankly, nobody’s focused on the governor’s race right now,” Yee said at an event last week.

Source link