Lock Her Up?

Gregg Smith on January 17, 2017

President Trump should direct the FBI to immediately refer all of its currently held evidence to the Department of Justice for consideration of the prosecution of criminal charges related to her private email server and any, related obstruction of justice allegations. Further, he should direct his law enforcement agencies to renew their investigation of this entire situation, including Madam Secretary and any of her associates who may have been involved.

I fully admit that I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I am not a huge (“Yuuuuuge?”) fan of President Trump, either. But this is not about some sort of weird revenge against Hillary Clinton; this is an important necessity to demonstrate to all US citizens that justice is applied fairly in this country to all citizens.

My personal belief is that there is a very, very small group of people who would have been able to do what Secretary Clinton did without facing federal charges, or at least the serious possibility of them. If you listen to Director Comey’s list of ‘sins’ from his July 5, 2016, press conference where he indicated he would not be pressing charges, it is clear that there was at least a reasonable possibility of federal, criminal culpability. I have read a great deal about Director Comey’s suggestion that she could be exonerated (or not prosecuted) due to a lack of “intent” that the statute does not require, but I am not in a position today to state whether he was right or not. What I will say, though, is that difficult legal decisions in a high profile, federal case should be made by the lawyers at the Department of Justice, not by law enforcement officers at the FBI.  The FBI investigates potential crimes; the DOJ decides whether to prosecute them.

Donald Trump proclaimed often and loudly that he would “lock her up.” He made this promise because he either believed she was guilty of a federal crime, or it was a shameless pander to the rest of us to try to win the election. Only one choice leaves our President with any honor: he believed it to be true, and he will investigate and prosecute because he sincerely is on the side of the ‘little guy.’

He would demonstrate that he recognizes that if one of us did what Secretary Clinton did with classified information on her private email server (which we now know was apparently “hacked” by the Russians in their alleged attempts to “hack the election”), we would not walk free without so much as a charge. I can think of a high school kid who received more punishment for posting allegedly inappropriate thoughts about girls on the internet. Could any of us get away with this, all while publicly lying and denying? I do not believe so. A failure to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute, would demonstrate that there is a very, very small group of people in this country who are, essentially, above the law. This includes high level, politically influential people on both sides of the aisle and, probably the very wealthy.

But it sure doesn’t include us.

And that’s not right.

Rep. Trebas: Cell Phone Bans Don’t Work

ECB Staff on January 15, 2017

Rep. Jeremy Trebas

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls

Rep. Jeremy Trebas, R-Great Falls (HD-25), submitted to us testimony he will add to to the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, January 17, at 8:00 a.m. Here is the full text:

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

Today I am presenting a unique bill to you, House Bill number 194. It is unique because it goes in the opposite direction of most if not all other governments, State and Local, in the U.S., on the topic of cell phone use while driving. While most are getting harsher in their penalties for driving while using a cell phone, this bill proposes that we stop the enforcement of cell phone bans, at least until they are shown to be effective in protecting public safety.

Why should we put a stay on the bans? The short answer is that they don’t really seem to be working, meanwhile cities are charging citizens large fines and in at least one city in Montana, instituting mandatory community service for 2nd and 3rd offenses, at 20 hours and 40 hours respectively.

I have some statistics from a recurring study to present to you, which serves largely as the basis for my argument to take a wait-and-see approach as far as bans are concerned. The study is conducted by The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They are the organization that you hear quoted in commercials about vehicle crash data. They give out the “Top Safety Pick” awards to vehicle manufacturers. I think you will find them to be an unbiased and reputable source of information. Their studies have indicated no discernible difference in collision rates prior to and post bans in States that have made cell phone use illegal while driving. In fact, one of their studies indicated a slight increase in collision rates post ban. There is speculation as to why that happened, and two main reasons stick out. One reason is that people try to hide the activity by lowering their phone down into their vehicle to avoid detection, causing their eyes to be further from the road than they otherwise would be. The second reason is that while the bans decrease use of cell phones among law abiding citizens, the bad drivers out there are just going to continue being bad drivers. So again, collision rates do not decrease because of these bans. I’ve heard the argument that we just have to give them time to work. I would tell you that the study I referenced was first published in 2009, and then they ran tests again and published another study in 2011, and yet again in 2013, with increased special enforcement in their most recent study. If these bans were working, there should have been an indication by now, proven out by the statistics.

I would also like to say that I know unbanning an activity that is dangerous makes some of you uncomfortable. I get that, and I understand that being distracted while driving is dangerous and there are also studies and statistics that point that out, which I acknowledge. But we are picking one small area of distracted driving and saying that it is the worst form, while numerous other distracted driving activities go unenforced. There is already a law on the books to enforce distracted driving, we don’t need a special category just for cell phones, which as I hope I have made clear, just doesn’t work to increase the safety of the public, however counter-intuitive that may seem.

So, some questions I have received in the 4 years I’ve been making this argument include, things like, “How about just a texting ban?”

The studies from IIHS included the study of texting while driving, and banning it only seemed to cause people to try and hide the activity, by further lowering their phone and their eyes down into the vehicle and away from the road. It didn’t help reduce collision rates.

Or “Why can’t people just use a Bluetooth/Handsfree device?”

It is not the device, necessarily, that distracts a person, it is the conversation. While engaging in conversation, whether it is with a person inside the vehicle or on the phone, the brain switches to a part of the brain called the parietal lobe, which takes away some of the focus necessary for driving. So it is not the device that distracts you but the conversation. It is still legal to have someone sit next to you in the vehicle and distract you by talking. It’s also legal to have kids fighting in the back seat. Sometimes talking on the phone helps mitigate greater distractions while driving.

Some people ask whether I have ever received a ticket for driving on my cell phone?

No. The City of Great Falls instituted their ban in August of 2012 and I have not received a ticket. I’m a fine, upstanding, law abiding citizen, most of the time…

And lastly, “Don’t we have more important things to work on?”

Yes and no. There are more important issues to work on, but this issue is important to those that are receiving fines and community service sentences in the name of public safety, when no increase in public safety has actually occurred.

Thanks for your attention Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I’ll field any questions you may have, and I reserve the right to close.

Replacing Mary Moe

ECB Staff on January 14, 2017

With Mary Moe’s resignation from SD-12 imminent, Cascade County Democrats must submit three names to the Cascade County Commission, which will then appoint Moe’s replacement to the Legislature.

From the Central Committee’s website, here is the latest list of interested names:

Mike Henning
Garrett Lankford
Bob Moretti
Carlie Boland
Zach Angstead
Ron Szabo
Don Ryan
Kathleen Galvin Halcro
Albert Ferderer
Angie Rolando
Hannah Pate

The word is, from People Who Know Things, that Boland and Lankford are the clear front runners, at least within the CCDCC.

Will Patrella’s Successor Embrace The Park And Rec Master Plan?

ECB Staff on January 12, 2017

In November, 2016, the City Commission voted unanimously to adopt the Park and Rec Master Plan. Less than two months later (and not because of this), Director Joe Patrella resigned his position for a job in Arizona.

With the search to succeed Patrella still ongoing, important questions persist for the City, and for its taxpayers.

The Master Plan, conceived by Indiana-based PROS Consulting, recommends much in its 176 pages. Primarily, it identifies $12,614,160 in “critical” capital improvement programs — “Maintaining What We Have.” Among the expenditures are $102,575 for the Americans Little League Complex, $114,010 for Boston Heights Park, $1,020,000 for “Charles Russel [sic] Park,” and $2,935,000 for Gibson Park, among many others (p. 140).

PROS Consulting also details $1.15 million in “sustainable” capital improvements — “Improving What We Have.” The consultants suggested the City spend $100,000 to convert six tennis courts to pickle ball courts (pickle ball?), $500,000 to add five large picnic shelters at Gibson, Grande Vista, Jaycee, and Meadowlark Parks, $150,000 for two more dog parks, and $400,000 for additional master plans (p. 141).

The plan also solves the long-standing community riddle of the City’s failing indoor aquatics program: build a 50,000 square foot “Multi-Generational Center that replaces the existing Recreation Center and Moronoy [sic] Natatorium” (for over $20 million). As for golf, the second and final line-item under the plan’s “Visionary Recommendations” (p. 142) reads: “Re-Master Plan Anaconda Hill [sic] Golf Course and convert Campground/Adventure Area through private public partnership.” In other words, shut down Anaconda and convert it into a zip-line/ropes course/BMX course/campground. The cost of this “re-mastering?” “Only” a quarter of a million dollars.

And how might the City pay for all of this, you might ask? By implementing a City-wide Parks Maintenance District. In other words, by raising taxes.

Mike Svetz of the aforementioned consulting firm pointed to Billings, which implemented a parks district a few years ago. Under its model, Billings households chip in about $6/month. With Great Falls’ comparatively smaller population but higher expenses, residents could see $15-20/month assessments per household… just for the parks district. In addition to this extra assessment, and to construct a multi-purpose structure to replace the Nat and the Community Rec Center, Svetz & Co. recommended a tax levy bond that could last for up to 15 years. The numbers start to add up quickly.

master plan

Master Plan: $34 Million To Upgrade Great Falls’ Parks

Now, to be fair, the Master Plan is “not a work order,” as the Tribune pointed out. It’s a guide to direct City priorities moving forward. But it does raise some important questions: Will Patrella’s replacement embrace the Master Plan, and will the Commission enact its central recommendations? And if not, then why? The City spent $89,970 on this document.

What do you think? Did the consultants get it right?

(The featured image is attributable to Xnatedawgx under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Image was slightly cropped.)

NYT: “Absence Of Concrete Evidence” Of Russian Meddling In U.S. Election

ECB Staff on January 9, 2017

Andrew Higgins, Moscow bureau chief for the venerable New York Times, the “newspaper of record,” snuck in two glaring admissions about the recently-released intelligence report concerning Russian “hacking”:

But the absence of any concrete evidence in the report of meddling by the Kremlin [emphasis added] was met with a storm of mockery on Saturday by Russian politicians and commentators, who took to social media to ridicule the report as a potpourri of baseless conjecture.

Now, surely Higgins didn’t intentionally (and so casually) cite the report’s lack of evidence as if it were fact. Or did he? He continues:

The report provides no new evidence [emphasis added] to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow’s long record of trying to influence America’s political system.

Amazingly, Higgins doubled down on the lack of evidence in the intelligence findings. (Should he be dusting off his resume?) The National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy further explains the report — one that doesn’t even mention John Podesta’s name.

The three intelligence agencies’ report pointedly declines to tell us what specific information gives them such “high confidence” that they know the operation of Vladimir Putin’s mind. They plead that the nature of their work does not allow for that: To tell us how they know what they purport to know would compromise intelligence methods and sources. Fair enough. The problem, though, is that if you’re essentially going to say, ‘Trust us,’ you have to have proven yourself trustworthy over time.

Doesn’t the left remember WMDs? Maryland website designer

Poll: Anyone Up For Another School Levy?

ECB Staff on January 8, 2017

It’s a little early, but since the Tribune reported that GFPS is exploring the possibility of another school levy this year, we thought we’d ask:

[poll id=”3″]

Proponents will point to belt-tightening at the Legislature…

This is our opportunity to share where we stand and let them see what we see through our crystal ball, so to speak,” said Brian Patrick, GFPS director of business operations. “It’s a little harder with this legislative year coming up. There probably won’t be any new money for schools.

…while opponents will surely object to another school tax just months after voters approved nearly $100 million in school bond levies.

What say you?

Reverse Racism

Gregg Smith on January 7, 2017

As I surf the interwebs and read discussions about race, I often hear right-leaning commenters alleging that this or that African-American is guilty of “reverse racism.”

As is illustrated by the accompanying photo, many people respond that it’s simply not possible.  According to modern race theory (or critical race theory, if you will), blacks cannot be racist.

How is that, you ask?  The academics have redefined racism. Webster’s definition is outdated: “belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

According to modern ‘theorists,’ racism is defined as the combination of institutional power and prejudice.

Taking the theory a step further, they offer this. All people are inherently prejudiced against those who are different from them. In other words, all whites are prejudiced against blacks, and vice versa. All latinos are prejudiced against Native Americans, and vice versa. Etc.

According to the theory, only one group of people has any institutional power in the United States: white people.

Therefore since all white people are prejudiced, and white people have institutional power, all white people are racist.

Since African Americans, though, do not have institutional power, even though they might be prejudiced, they cannot be racist. (The same goes for all other races lacking institutional power, i.e., all races but white people.)

And voila. All whites are racist. Blacks and other races cannot be racist. Voila. “Reverse racism” does not exist.

Schweitzer Out Of U.S. House Race, Endorses…Quist!

ECB Staff on January 6, 2017

Earlier, we wrote about legislative candidates vying to fill Ryan Zinke’s soon-to-be vacated U.S. House seat.

While the eventual winner may indeed come from the Legislature, maneuvering from outside the Capitol chambers has brought far more intrigue, especially recently. Former Gov. Brian Schweitzer all but took himself out of the running, endorsing political newcomer Rob Quist yesterday. From Troy Carter in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

Nothing against the other candidates running, but I think we need a different kind of person in Congress,” Schweitzer said of Quist. “He hasn’t been contemplating running for Congress for 30 years; he’s been contemplating what it is that’s special about Montana and the people who live in it, and he’s been writing it down, writing it in verse, and singing that song.

Will Democrats rally behind Quist, or will establishment insiders from the Helena-Butte-Missoula corridor steer the party to defeated, retread candidates like Denise Juneau, Jesse Laslovich, Melissa Romano, John Lewis, Amanda Curtis, et. al.? Casey Schreiner and Kelly McCarthy deserve a look, but barring a major GOP scandal, the nomination by Democrats of any conventional candidate will virtually ensure they will lose this election. Now, however, they just might have been gifted the Hail Mary they needed to contend: the chance to embrace a popular entertainer and a political outsider who was not only endorsed by Schweitzer, but who was called and encouraged to run by Schweitzer.

Calling All Writers

ECB Staff on January 6, 2017

Well, maybe not all writers.

But if you write well and have something interesting to say, chances are we will publish your work. We aren’t interested in running a “rant sheet,” but we do welcome submissions from across the political spectrum.

If you have a query, or even a full piece that’s ready to go, send it to info@ecitybeat.com and we will be in touch with you.

Thanks for reading!