Just settled for half a mil.

Login to view embedded media

I hope so

Will proctor stay?

Spring practices start tomorrow.

What are the main things you're watching for Iowa over this spring window?

Haven't listened to this in a while

Login to view embedded media

Very over rated

The attorney general said publicizing the politically damaging document was consistent with the tradition of transparency for such reports.

Attorney General Merrick Garland dismissed as “absurd” the idea that he should have edited or withheld a special counsel report slamming President Joe Biden’s memory.

In his first remarks responding to criticism of his decision to release special counsel Robert Hur’s report last month referring to Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” Garland said Thursday that publishing the full report on Biden’s handling of classified information was consistent with the tradition of transparency for such reports.

“The idea that an attorney general would edit or redact or censor the special counsel’s explanation for why the special counsel reached the decision the special counsel did — that’s absurd,” Garland told reporters.




Hur concluded no criminal charges were warranted against Biden relating to mishandling of classified material he obtained before he became president.
But many Biden supporters and some former prosecutors slammed Hur’s report for including gratuitous language about Biden that his political opponents were sure to leverage to underscore perceptions that Biden, 81, is fading mentally and physically even as he runs for reelection.
Biden responded angrily to aspects of the report, including the shot at his memory.
“I’m well meaning, and I’m an elderly man, and I know what the hell I’m doing. I’ve been president and I put this country back on its feet,” he said shortly after its release.
Biden’s lawyers complained in writing to Garland about the substance and tone of the report before it was released, but a senior career official wrote back saying the language was appropriate.
Speaking Thursday at a press conference to announce an antitrust suit against Apple, Garland addressed the controversy over Hur’s report for the first time. The attorney general noted the president’s promise to respect the independence of the Justice Department and said neither Biden nor his aides had reached out to him to say he should have altered the report or kept it from being released.
“No one from the White House has said that to me,” Garland said.
Asked whether Garland’s denial was in tension with the Biden lawyers’ letter, a Justice Department official who was granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter noted that the letter from the president’s attorneys never asked directly for changes to the report or that it be kept from the public.

Garland also defended the move, which produced days of negative headlines about the president’s memory, as in keeping with a long tradition of making such reports from independent prosecutors public.

“It’s consistent with the precedents, the full disclosure of all special counsel reports in the entire 25 years in which the regulation has been in effect,” the attorney general said.

Justice Department veterans largely agreed that Garland had no choice but to release the full report, particularly after the White House, too, opted against asserting executive privilege or seeking any redactions. Not only had Garland previously pledged to release the report in full, anything less would have drawn suspicion, not to mention fury from Capitol Hill.

Biden’s attorneys also sharply disputed Hur’s characterizations in letters exchanged with the special counsel’s team prior to the release of the report, calling it a bad-faith representation that they didn’t apply to other witnesses who failed to recall minute details of events that occurred years earlier.

Hur was appointed by President Donald Trump as the U.S. attorney for Maryland and worked at a law firm before being tapped by Garland to head the Biden classified-documents probe. He spent hours fielding questions from Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

Put his ass in jail

Former president Donald Trump is preparing to bring back into his campaign fold a man convicted of multiple crimes and whom a bipartisan Senate report labeled a “grave counterintelligence threat” because of his ties to a Russian spy.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

It sounds like an uncharitable summary, but that’s about the size of it.

Trump has long surrounded himself with and even hired colorful and problematic characters. But the idea of bringing Paul Manafort back for another round might take the cake.
The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey reported Monday that Trump plans to do just that. Four people close to Trump said he was expected to hire Manafort as a campaign adviser later this year, with potential jobs centering on the Republican National Convention and/or fundraising. While Trump has shelved plans to hire certain people after backlashes — think far-right provocateur Laura Loomer — he is reportedly determined to rehire Manafort.



The move would be characteristically defiant. Trump pardoned Manafort after losing the 2020 election, claiming he had been treated unfairly and sparing him years more in confinement after his convictions for money laundering, obstruction and foreign lobbying violations. And Trump has broadly dismissed the Russia probe that ensnared Manafort as a “hoax.”

But importantly, the finding that Manafort was a “grave counterintelligence threat” and that the man he worked with during the 2016 campaign was a “Russian intelligence officer” was not from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia report. Rather, it came in a later, bipartisan 2020 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. (That committee’s acting chairman at the time: Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.)
So what do those two reports say about Manafort and the risks he would seem to pose by working with a potential future president?



Particularly relevant were the findings that Manafort effectively became a conduit for potential Russian influence.
The key findings from the Senate report:

• “The Committee found that Manafort’s presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for the Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump Campaign.”
• “The Committee assesses that [Russian intelligence officer Konstantin] Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services, and that those services likely sought to exploit Manafort’s access to gain insight info the Campaign.” (Kilimnik has denied ties to Russian intelligence.)
• “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”

The Senate report also repeatedly cited the fact that there remained much we didn’t know about the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. It said that was largely because Manafort repeatedly lied about these subjects, thereby obscuring “the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.” This raised the prospect that there was more actual collusion beneath the surface.
And crucially, it casts those lies as both inexplicable — because Manafort had entered into a cooperation agreement and was risking more prison time — and conspicuous, given that the lies focused almost exclusively on his ties to Kilimnik.



“Manafort’s true motive in deciding to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik is unknown,” the committee report said, “but the result is that many interactions between Manafort and Kilimnik remain hidden.”
An important question from there is whether Manafort knew or believed he was working with a Russian spy. To the extent we have a window into it, their work together involved sharing Trump campaign polling data and discussing proposals related to Ukraine.
Manafort told Mueller’s investigators that Kilimnik was not a spy, but the reports contain evidence that he at least suspected it. Fellow top Trump campaign aide Rick Gates told Mueller’s team that Gates suspected Kilimnik was a spy and shared that view with Manafort and others. Gates said that Manafort would occasionally insert false statements into discussions with Kilimnik to see if he would pass along that information. The Senate report also says that Manafort told former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych to have Kilimnik probed to make sure they could have “sensitive” conversations in Kilimnik’s presence.



“Manafort, like others who dealt with Kilimnik, at some point harbored suspicions that Kilimnik had ties to intelligence services,” reads a footnote in the Senate report. “Manafort was undeniably aware — often from first-hand experience — of suspicious aspects of Kilimnik’s behavior and network.”
Also relevant are Manafort’s potential actions to further Kilimnik’s — and by extension, per the Senate report, Russia’s — interests.
One involves a Ukraine “peace plan” that Manafort later acknowledged to investigators was effectively a “backdoor” for Russia to gain control of parts of eastern Ukraine. Manafort told them that he cut off conversation on the subject and told Kilimnik the plan was crazy. But the Senate report said Manafort “continued working with Kilimnik on the plan, including efforts to draft a poll to test aspects of the plan as late as 2018.”



The most tantalizing prospect laid out in the Senate report is that Manafort might not have served just as a conduit for information or influence, but that he might have actually played a role in Russia’s hacking and leaking of Democrats’ emails in 2016.
The report was clear that this was something of a black box and that there is not “reliable, direct evidence” that either Manafort or Kilimnik were involved. Then it adds: “Two pieces of information, however, raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations.”
Precisely what the information is, we still don’t know. Most of the next two pages were redacted. And again, the report notes that Manafort’s lack of transparency makes all of this difficult to suss out.
But the fact that the bipartisan Senate report included it, along with other warnings about Manafort, would seem extremely relevant in a moment in which the potential next president is looking to hire him — again, and despite it all.

Live: S&P 500 closes at a fresh record, Nasdaq jumps nearly 3% fueled by Nvidia
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/21/sto...are|com.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard

Caitlin is on the cover of SLAM Magazine. The gold edition of the cover already sold out.

Login to view embedded media
The coolest thing is that Caitlin isn’t the only Hawkeye included in her feature.

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media

Over 140 Democrats in the House of Representatives are pushing for measures that could potentially restrict veterans’ Second Amendment rights. Their proposal targets veterans who receive disability benefits and raises concerns about the implications for those who may struggle with managing their finances due to mental or physical challenges.

Veterans who receive disability benefits have the autonomy to use those benefits as they see fit. However, if they face challenges in managing their finances, the VA may appoint a fiduciary to oversee their funds. This precautionary measure has sparked debate among veterans, many of whom view it as unnecessary oversight. What’s particularly alarming is the provision that prohibits veterans with assigned fiduciaries from owning guns.

Senator John Kennedy drafted an amendment to address this issue, successfully passing it in the Senate. However, House Democrats responded by urging the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to implement alternative measures.

These include seeking judicial orders for veterans deemed mentally incompetent, conducting studies on veterans’ mental health and gun-related incidents, and utilizing state extreme risk protection order laws.

Critics argue that such measures effectively weaponize mental health to deprive veterans of their Second Amendment rights. This approach raises questions about the fairness and effectiveness of targeting veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country. It’s a contentious issue that pits concerns about public safety against individual rights and freedoms.

The reality is that many veterans depend on their firearms for protection and recreation. They’ve risked their lives in service to their country and shouldn’t face undue restrictions on their constitutional rights. Moreover, the VA’s track record in addressing veterans’ mental health issues leaves much to be desired, further complicating the situation.

People in the comments share their thoughts: “Let’s give immigrants the right to own guns without citizenship! but keep veterans from owning guns how is this even a thing!”

Most commenters are shocked by this: “THIS right here is why veterans DO NOT go to the VA for help. We’ve abandoned our veterans!”

The commenters have a lot of questions: “So the individuals who risk their lives so we can be free, have no right to own a firearm? How was this allowed in the first place?”

One person concluded: “The mere fact that a vet might allow you to take their guns proves how civilized they are. The fact that you want to take their guns shows how evil and unprincipled you are!”

Rather than focusing on restricting veterans’ gun rights, there should be a concerted effort to address the underlying issues affecting their mental health. Investing in better mental health care for veterans is paramount. It’s time to prioritize support and rehabilitation over punitive measures that unfairly target those who have already made significant sacrifices.

What do you think? How can policymakers strike a balance between public safety concerns and veterans’ rights to gun ownership? What alternatives exist to effectively support veterans with mental health challenges without infringing on their constitutional rights?

How can we ensure that veterans receive the mental health care and support they need without stigma or discrimination? What role should the VA play in addressing veterans’ mental health issues, and how can its services be improved?

The post Democrats Demand The Ability to Block Veterans From Owning Guns appeared first on United Liberty.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1f96d487444d7784e55a0b06d96df2&ei=14#image=11

I'm curious what you think. Personally, I'm a cynic and thanks to gambling, I figure anything close is rigged.

Holy shit. Nothing like trying to block your own teammates shot.

Login to view embedded media

The Republicans are working hard to make the state’s hotels dirty and unsafe.

Bill eliminating regular health and safety inspections of hotels and motels in Iowa passes​

by Paul BrennanMar 20, 2024
https://littlevillagemag.com/bill-e...-and-motels-in-iowa-passes/?share=reddit&nb=1


The Iowa Senate gave final approval on Tuesday to a bill that addresses the failure of the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing’s (DIAL) decade-long failure to follow state law and inspect hotels and motels once every two years by eliminating the law requiring those inspections.

HF 2426 repeals the biennial hotel inspection requirement, and instead requires a property only be inspected “pon receipt of a verified complaint signed by a guest of a hotel and stating facts indicating the place is in an insanitary condition.” This is what has already been occurring for the last 10 years.

DIAL stopped conducting the mandatory inspections in 2014, moving to a system where it conducts an inspection when a new hotel or motel opens, and after that, only in response to a complaint being filed. DIAL never publicized that change, and its decision not to follow state law didn’t become public knowledge until October 2022 when it was uncovered by Clark Kauffman of the Iowa Capital Dispatch.

DIAL Director Larry Johnson told Kauffman he couldn’t explain why the department made the decision to stop routine inspection, because it occurred during the Branstad administration and was in place when Johnson was appointed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2019. Johnson continued the practice in place when he took over, rather than follow Iowa Code.

Once Gov. Reynolds signs HF 2426 into law, Iowa Code will be changed to accommodate DIAL’s preferred practices.

During the floor debate on the bill in the House last month, Rep. Jeff Cooling pointed out that it’s “impossible to say what issues have gone undetected in Iowa’s uninspected hotels” since DIAL stopped routine inspection. The Cedar Rapids Democrat then read off a list of problems DIAL had reported in the inspections it has conducted in recent years. The list contained such health and safety violations as broken smoke detectors and bed bug infestations.

Rep. Craig Johnson, a Republican from Independence and the bill’s manager in the House, conceded that all the examples Cooling listed were real problems, but suggested market forces were more effective at making hotels comply with health and safety laws.


“I’m not sure where these hotels are at and those do sound horrible, yep,” Johnson said. “But I think in the big picture of things, those hotels that are operating like that, their clients probably aren’t returning. I’ve had bad experiences in hotels, out of state — I don’t go back. That is my consumer choice.”

The bill’s floor manager in the Senate, Republican Sen. Carrie Koelker of Dyerville, took a similar if slightly more upbeat approach to assuring her colleagues the businesses can handle their own problems.

“We need to have our hotels step up and take responsibility for their reputation, their bedbug problems, their own communities,” Koelker said on Tuesday.

Sen. Bill Dozler, a Waterloo Democrat, suggested a different solution to the inspections shortfall, one that would require DIAL to follow existing state law.


“I know that our inspectors are overworked,” he said. “Let’s add some inspectors.”

HF 2426 passed the Senate with just Republican support. One Republican, Sen. Sen. Rocky DeWitt of Lawton, joined all the chamber’s Democrats in opposing the bill. It passed the House last month on a party-line vote. It now goes to Gov. Reynolds for her signature.

---

Truth

“The more time students spent in remote instruction, the further they fell behind. And, experts say, extended closures did little to stop the spread of Covid.”

Note that we were NOT acting on our best evidence. By fall of 2020 we knew it would be better to open schools than to keep them closed. The most vulnerable continue to pay the price.

https://theathletic.com/5355227/202...sweat-timberwolves?source=user-shared-article

Nice kudos to Garza on his play in a recent game against the Nuggets and his importance to the Timberwolves with their current injury issues at the center position.

Path report from a skin biopsy. Haven’t heard from the doc yet. WTF does this mean?

How do you win? Is there a rebuttal? Is this a timed event or do you play to points? Can I play?

Damn




https://www.kcrg.com/2024/03/20/wom...F69C0r4oevlo5FEdrz-2MfUV2Zh3xCeZ_AiDDohYXm8iU

Over Houston (and one dude). I think it's a positive reflection of the office culture.

I see a Pulitzer Prize in her future!