Anonymous ID: 84b242 Oct. 19, 2021, 8:02 a.m. No.14814047   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4063 >>4066 >>4103

https://www.axios.com/rachel-levine-four-star-admiral-public-health-7936cd2a-6e86-49d6-bda9-99791c901687.html

 

Rachel Levine was sworn in on Tuesday as the admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, making her the nation's first openly transgender four-star officer, the Department of Health and Human Services said.

 

The big picture: Levine, the assistant secretary for health, made history in March when she became the first openly transgender federal official to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

 

The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps responds to health emergencies on behalf of the federal government, including administering COVID-19 vaccines and responding to natural disasters, such as hurricanes.

Levine is also the organization's first female four-star admiral and the sixth four-star admiral in the history of the service, per the Washington Post

Anonymous ID: 84b242 Oct. 19, 2021, 8:22 a.m. No.14814128   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4139 >>4140 >>4242

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/10-19-2021/carbon-tax-woes/

 

Donald Trump’s bid to impede the work of the Jan. 6 committee hit an early roadblock: An unfriendly federal judge.

Judge Tanya Chutkan has been among the harshest critics of Jan. 6 defendants.

 

Her background: Chutkan, an Obama appointee to the federal district court of Washington D.C. in 2014, has even imposed sentences that went beyond prosecutors' requests in recent Capitol riot cases. Chutkan also presided over the case of Maria Butina, the Russian spy who sought to infiltrate influential Republican circles.

 

Notable quote: During the sentencing of Jan. 6 rioter Carl Mazzocco, Chutkan specifically called out his allegiance to Trump.

 

"He went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country."

 

— Judge Tanya Chutkan

Anonymous ID: 84b242 Oct. 19, 2021, 8:31 a.m. No.14814172   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4181 >>4194 >>4316

https://ijr.com/obama-appointed-judge-increases-doj-recommended-punishment-jan-6-detainees/

 

Some judges make the punishment fit the crime.

Some make the crime fit the punishment.

 

That seems to be the approach by one federal judge in Washington, when it comes to defendants in the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6 — especially when the punishment she’s imposing is more than even prosecutors ask for.

 

According to the report, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday sentenced two cousins who took selfies in the Capitol that day to 45 days in jail — two weeks more than prosecutors had asked.

 

On Tuesday, Chutkan sentenced a woman to two weeks behind bars when prosecutors had recommended probation — and had cited her “cooperation with law enforcement” in making the recommendation

 

Last week, she sentenced another defendant to 45 days in jail. Prosecutors had recommended three months’ home confinement

 

“There have to be consequences for participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the government, beyond sitting at home,” Chutkan said, according to the Post.

Whatever the merits of that opinion might be — the fact is that “attempted violent overthrow of the government” is not what the defendants were charged with, and it’s not what they pleaded guilty to

Anonymous ID: 84b242 Oct. 19, 2021, 8:55 a.m. No.14814267   🗄️.is 🔗kun

https://www.startribune.com/republicans-are-winning-the-debate-on-voter-id/600107965/

 

One of the key questions in the debate has been whether voters should have to show photo identification. Democratic politicians and activists hate the idea, but most voters favor it.

 

In June, Monmouth found that 82% of the public back photo ID for voters. That supermajority included 62% of Democratic voters. Hard as it is for many Democratic activists to believe, nonwhites backed it a bit more than whites did.

 

The Democrats' marquee voting rights bill imposes a national ban on photo ID requirements for federal elections. It's an overreach that Republicans can cheerfully oppose — all the more so because they can now point to evidence that such requirements do not reduce voter turnout at all.