Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, DC - A new congressional investigation into the meatpacking industrys COVID-19 response is targeting activity at Tyson's Waterloo plant.

A U.S. House subcommittee is calling on Tyson to release results of its investigation into management wagering on COVID-19 infections in workers.

Several Waterloo plant managers were fired after Tyson launched its investigation led by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Tyson has agreed to comply with the House committee, which says the company has not stated what it's doing to prevent worker abuses.

The House subcommittee says it wants the full report and documentation of Tyson's investigation. It says it wants the information by February 15th.

A letter from the subcommittee to Tyson President and CEO Dean Banks says the company has not been transparent with its investigation.

"According to the health department in Black Hawk County, Iowa, more than 1,000 workers at the plant contracted the virus and at least five employees died," the letter says. "After the allegation came to light that Tyson managers were betting on coronavirus infections, you stated that the company was very upset to learn of the behaviors found in the allegations, and Tyson terminated seven managers following an independent investigation the company commissioned. Tyson has not released the findings from this investigation and has not stated what controls it has implemented, if any, to prevent more abuses of worker health and safety or to identify potential similar conduct at other facilities."

The subcommittee says its investigation follows reports that nearly 54,000 workers at 569 meatpacking plants in the United States have tested positive for the coronavirus, and at least 270 have died.

The committee, known as the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, is chaired by Democratic Representative James Clyburn. The committee sent letters Monday to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods and JBS USA announcing the launch of its investigation into coronavirus outbreaks at meatpacking plants nationwide.

"Public reports indicate that under the Trump Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) failed to adequately carry out its responsibility for enforcing worker safety laws at meatpacking plants across the country, resulting in preventable infections and deaths, Chairman Clyburn wrote to OSHA. It is imperative that the previous Administrations shortcomings are swiftly identified and rectified to save lives in the months before coronavirus vaccinations are available for all Americans.

The letter to Tyson noted the company reported $2.15 billion in profits and strong returns for shareholders in 2020, but said it did not take basic precautions to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks.

See the original post here:
Congressional Probe Wants Information on Wagering at Tyson Waterloo Plant | NEWSRADIO 1040 WHO - iHeartRadio

By Jeffrey Lord

Congressman Scott Perry has had the courage to stand up for the Constitution and the integrity of the American election system.

But The New York Times is disturbed https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/scott-perry-trump-justice-department-election.html that the congressman had the nerve to introduce then-President Trump to a Justice Department official who believed, as did the president, that there were serious problems with the integrity of the 2020 election.

First, the Justice Department official, acting chief of the civil division Jeffrey Clark, worked for the president - as all executive branch federal employees in Washington do, no matter who the president is. Federal employees - and I have been both a White House aide to President Reagan and a senior staff member to a cabinet secretary - Bush 41 HUD Secretary Jack Kemp - have two choices as they go about their job.

One, follow the directions of their boss. Or two, if they disagree, resign. Mr. Clarks offense was to merely speak a few times with the president. No action was taken.

There was nothing wrong with Clark having conversations about election integrity with the president or with Congressman Perry. It was completely constitutional. To say that this was somehow a seditious scheme is simply untrue. Both the president and Congressman Perry were well within their rights.

Standing up on the floor of the House to oppose certifying electoral votes that the Congressman and many of his Republican colleagues believe were questionable is exactly the job of a congressman or senator. In fact, various Democrats in Congress had done exactly that in 2000, 2004, and 2016.

Never once mentioned by The Times is the hard fact that, sadly, Pennsylvania has a very long, and very bad, reputation for election integrity. Thus a discussion with a Pennsylvania Congressman, Mr. Clark and the president on this topic was clearly merited.

How bad is the Pennsylvania record on this score? A simple stroll through the PennLive archives and various books on Pennsylvania political history and there is story after story on election fraud in Pennsylvania.

From Penn Live is this headline from 2016: Tight election, voter fraud worries, power grab - no, not now, but 175+ years ago

The story recounts a bitterly fought Pennsylvania governors race replete with serious allegations of voter fraud in 1838.

The longtime (and late) Harrisburg Evening News political columnist Paul Beers wrote in his 1980 book on the history of Pennsylvania politics of Philadelphias debased political morals. In 1904, he wrote, a Philadelphia citizens committee estimated the number of fraudulent names on assessors lists of voters between 50,000 and 80,000.

Sixty-one years later in 1965, nothing had changed in Philadelphia elections when Republican Arlen Specter ran for Philadelphia District Attorney. In his memoirs the man who would become a five-term Pennsylvania US Senator discussed his first race for office, making a point of discussing tampering with voting machines, a standard Philadelphia ploy.

Twenty-nine years later in 1994 The New York Times itself was reporting this: Saying Philadelphias election system had collapsed under a massive scheme by Democrats to steal a State Senate election in November, a federal judge today took the rare step of invalidating the vote and ordered the seat filled by the Republican candidate.

Just last year, a Democratic election judge in Philadelphia and a former Democratic congressman from Philadelphia were indicted for voter fraud in three different elections - 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Complaints about the politicization of the Justice Department by President Trump are particularly rich. The DOJ headquarters, itself, is named for the late Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, famously appointed by his brother, President John F. Kennedy. One Kennedy biography after another has long established that the Kennedys ran a seriously politicized Justice Department. More recently, President Obamas attorney general, Eric Holder, described his role running the Justice Department as being the presidents political wingman.

Congressman Perry, decidedly a mainstream Reagan conservative, has also been attacked for believing a conspiracy theory from fringe groups about attempts by ISIS to infiltrate the US southern border. In fact, it was the Obama-era under secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Obama-run Department of Homeland Security who did indeed tell then-Arizona Senator John McCain in a 2014 Senate hearing that there were members of ISIS plotting to do just that. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-confirms-isis-planning-infiltration-of-us-southern-border

Does the literal three centuries-long repeated problem in Pennsylvania mean there was voter fraud in 2020? No. But the pattern is decidedly there - and it should be thoroughly investigated and the Pennsylvania election system be seriously reformed before the next elections in 2022 and 2024.

To sum up? Congressman Perrys constituents have a right to expect the Pennsylvania and larger American election system be run with the utmost integrity and openness. The Congressman - and many of his Republican colleagues in and out of Pennsylvania - has stood up to support just that.

For which he deserves thanks.

Jeffrey Lord is a Republican political analyst and a member of PennLives Editorial Board.

Originally posted here:
There are reasons to stand with Scott Perry | Opinion - pennlive.com

Bill Murray is notoriously an actor who is hard to get in touch with. Perhaps thats why the famously reclusive star has such an extensive list of roles he almost played. However, for 1993s Groundhog Day, it wasnt Murray who missed out but actor Tom Hanks. If the Forrest Gump star feels like an odd choice for Groundhog Day, even Hanks is happy he passed on the comedy.

Directed by Harold Ramis, Groundhog Day stars Murray as arrogant weatherman Phil Connors who finds himself trapped in a time loop. Every morning, he awakes in snowy Punxsutawney, Penn. on the eponymous holiday. And no matter what he does, he cannot simply make it to tomorrow. Andie MacDowell and Chris Elliott co-star as Phils love interest and cameraman, respectively.

Thanks to Murrays star power and its sharp premise, Groundhog Day was a box office hit. However, in the time since its release, the movie has become something of a modern classic. Ramis, of course, co-starred with Murray in the Ghostbusters films years earlier. And the two had a falling out after its release, a rift only repaired just months before Ramis died in 2014.

RELATED: Bill Murray: 9 of His Greatest Roles

Reportedly, Ramis and Murray disagreed on which themes the movie should explore. Still, in hindsight, its difficult to picture anyone but Murray in the role. Phil Connors feels so tailored to his comedic skill set, after all. But as Ramis revealed during a Q&A in Chicago in 2009 (via The Hollywood Reporter), he actually wanted Hanks to headline Groundhog Day.

Audiences would have been sitting there waiting for me to become nice because I always play nice, Hanks said regarding the role, according to Ramis. But Bills such a miserable S.O.B. on- and offscreen, you didnt know what was going to happen.

To be fair, Hanks has a point. Hanks admits he doesnt always live up to his nice guy persona. Plus, when hes played a villain (The Ladykillers, The Circle), it hasnt exactly worked out. Seeing as he would win back-to-back Academy Awards soon after Groundhog Day, it all worked out for Hanks.

RELATED: Tom Hanks Has a Very Selfish Reason Why He Doesnt Like to Get Mad

Hanks and Murray arent ordinarily two actors who fans mix up. Hanks started off in comedy before focusing on drama, whereas Murrays career went the opposite direction. But wildly, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich still confused the two stars at a congressional hearing in 2012.

According to The Atlantic, Kucinich told Attorney General Eric Holder he must feel like Tom Hanks in Groundhog Day. The congressman was quick to correct himself after the fact though. Just add this instance to the mythic trivia regarding Ramis and Murrays now-beloved comedy.

Go here to read the rest:
'Groundhog Day': Tom Hanks Once Admitted He's Glad He Turned Down the Movie - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

Five years after he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is President Joe Bidens choice to lead the Justice Department as the next attorney general.

Biden has vowed that the Justice Department under his administration will be totally independent of him. He has stated that the person or persons I pick to run that department are going to be people who are going to have the independent capacity to decide who gets prosecuted and who doesnt.

Given former President Barack Obamas failed push to appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, and given Bidens warm relationship with Obama, it is probably no coincidence that Garland was chosen to serve as Bidens attorney general. Despite claims that Garland will act independently, history suggests that this is unlikely to be the case.

A brief history of the attorney generalThe U.S. Constitution makes no mention of attorneys general, who today administer justice by overseeing more than 100,000 federal employees in approximately 40 separate component organizations, including the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Congress created the position with the Judiciary Act of 1789, which is the same act that organized the U.S. Supreme Court. This connection may indicate that the founders intended for the position to be a part of the judicial branch. Indeed, original drafts of the Judiciary Act empowered the Supreme Court to select the attorney general, as opposed to the president. This suggests that the founders did not intend for attorneys general to serve at the pleasure of the president, as is typical of Cabinet-level positions in the executive branch.

The specifics of the attorney general selection process ended up being entirely omitted from the final version of the Judiciary Act. This provided an opening for the first president to fill that void by assuming the power to nominate the attorney general, then asking for Senate approval. This process has since become the norm.

Early attorneys general shared both offices and budgets with the judicial branch as opposed to the executive branch. Eventually, the Justice Department was established in 1870 and the attorney general was designated as its head, thereby codifying the positions place within the executive branch.

A downside to presidential influenceEmpowering the president to hire and fire the attorney general encourages presidents to pick attorneys general based on their perceived loyalty. It also motivates attorneys general to act in pursuit of the presidents political agenda at least if they wish to stay employed.

Trump, for instance, admitted to firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2018, whom he had loyally appointed the year before, for failing to have the courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt.

My own research has found that instances of abuse of power are more common in situations where the president and the attorney general are political allies. Just in the last year of Attorney General William Barrs tenure, there have been many such examples.

In February 2020, four veteran Justice Department prosecutors recommended that Roger Stone a Trump confidant who was found guilty of lying to Congress and witness-tampering be sentenced to between seven and nine years in federal prison. After Trump tweeted that he [c}annot allow this miscarriage of justice, Barr overruled the prosecutors and recommended a shorter prison sentence.

Barrs willingness to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President prompted a bipartisan group of more than 2,500 former Justice Department officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations to sign an open letter urging him to resign.

In May, Barr a longtime critic of Robert Muellers investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government had the Justice Department drop all charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. Once again, large numbers of former Justice Department officials called for Barrs resignation.

In September, Barr moved to replace Trumps private legal team with Justice Department lawyers to defend the president in a defamation lawsuit related to an alleged sexual assault from the 1990s. This move would have effectively meant that taxpayers were paying Trumps legal defense and would have been liable for any monetary damages in the event of the presidents defeat. A federal judge later rejected the Justice Departments request to pursue this strategy, arguing that the allegations have no relationship to the official business of the United States.

A bipartisan tradition

Barr is not the first loyalist to serve as attorney general and such appointments are not unique to Republican presidents.

Eric Holder, the first attorney general Obama appointed, publicly proclaimed he would be the presidents wingman.

Other examples of Democratic cronyism include President John F. Kennedy, who appointed his 35-year-old younger brother, Robert, as attorney general, despite questionable qualifications. A few decades prior, President Harry S. Truman appointed his former campaign manager to the role.

Critics of Barrs deference to Trump regarding the Stone and Flynn investigations might be surprised to know that George Washington himself routinely and publicly directed his two attorneys general to start and stop prosecutions.

The Senate gets the final say

At his confirmation hearings, Barr pledged that he would act independently of Trump. Yet, as attorney general, Barr consistently proved willing to serve as Trumps sword and shield. Logically though, this makes sense: The position will never truly be independent as long the attorney general is picked by and serves at the pleasure of the president.

Garland has a track record as a moderate jurist and has earned praise from those across the political spectrum.

Reports of his nomination have been well received by some Republicans. This is important because Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats control only 50 of the 100 Senate seats, which makes Garlands path to confirmation very narrow.

Joshua Holzer is an assistant professor of political science at Westminster College and is a Columbia resident. This was first published on The Conversation and reprinted with permission.

Continue reading here:
GUEST COMMENTARY: Merrick Garland, Biden's pick for AG, unlikely to be independent in that role - Columbia Missourian

Dems also fueled election integrity suspicion

Any decent American who listened to President Donald Trumps speech to his followers before they pushed their way into the Capitol could not find any suggestion never mind a call for an attack on the Capitol.

The cry of rigged election has long been a Democrat ruse: John Kerry barked that he lost his 2004 presidential bid to machines rigged by George W. Bushs proxies. President Barack Obama and his attorney general, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, honked that voter ID laws were rigging elections against Black people. Hillary Clinton told the New York Times podcast Sway the 2016 election was basically stolen from her a few months after Bernie Sanders kvetched that Democrats rigged their primary in favor of Clinton.

Democrats are responsible for distrust in election integrity. They have made it easier for unlawful voting: open borders, no need to present identification at the voting booth, etc.

If casting suspicion on the probity of election results is a call for violence, Democrats are responsible. They made Trump an illegitimate president, manufacturing a climate of hatred against him. Some examples:

Barack Obama said if Democrats wanted to talk to independents or Republicans they should argue with them and get in their face.

Obamas Attorney General Eric Holder said, When they go low, we kick them.

We have to level (Trump supporters), said Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post.

If you see anybody from (Trumps) Cabinet you push back on them, U.S. Rep Maxine Waters said.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine said liberals should fight in the streets in dealing with Trump policies.

Marginalized people have no choice but to riot, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said.

I just dont even know why there arent uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Go here to read the rest:
January 23 letters | Letters to the Editor | journalinquirer.com - Journal Inquirer