Manafort sentenced to 4 years for tax cheating, bank fraud

Before he joined the Trump campaign, Paul Manafort made a name for himself in the D.C. lobbying world, but his past caught up with him. (Dalton Bennett, Jon Gerberg, Jesse Mesner-Hage/The Washington Post)

By Rachel Weiner ,
Lynh Bui ,
Justin Jouvenal and
Devlin Barrett

Paul Manafort, who once served as President Trump’s campaign chairman, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison Thursday for cheating on his taxes and bank fraud — a spectacular fall for a once high-flying political consultant who told the judge he is now “humiliated and ashamed.”
Manafort had faced up to 24 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, but U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis called that calculation “excessive” and sentenced him instead to 47 months.
Ellis said the sentence he imposed was more in line with others who had been convicted on similar crimes.
“The government cannot sweep away the history of all these previous sentences” for similar crimes, the judge said.
Ellis noted that he must consider the entirety of Manafort’s life when issuing a sentence, noting Manafort has been “a good friend” and a “generous person” but that “can’t erase the criminal activity.” Manafort’s tax crimes, the judge said, were “a theft of money from everyone who pays taxes.”

Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, leaves federal court in Washington on April 4. (Andrew Harnik/AP)
“He’s lived an otherwise blameless life,” Ellis said. The judged noted Manafort has no past criminal history and “earned the admiration of a number of people” who wrote letters to the court support Manafort.
Wearing a green jail uniform with the words “ALEXANDRIA INMATE” in block letters on the back, Manafort entered the courtroom in a wheelchair.
“The last two years have been the most difficult years for my family and I,” Manafort told the judge. “To say that I feel humiliated and ashamed would be a gross understatement.”
He asked the judge “for compassion,” adding, “I know it is my conduct that has brought me here.”

Manafort sentenced to 4 years for tax cheating, bank fraud Read More »

Deal between N.J. state workers union and Murphy includes raises but also reduced health care costs

Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America, addresses a crowd of hundreds at a rally to protest Gov. Chris Christie's pension funding cuts. (Adya Beasley | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey director of the Communications Workers of America, addresses a crowd of hundreds at a rally to protest Gov. Chris Christie’s pension funding cuts. (Adya Beasley | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com)By Samantha Marcus | NJ Advance Media for NJ.comA tentative contract between the largest union of state workers and Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration includes annual raises and takes aim at out-of-network health care costs.The Communications Workers of America announced earlier this week it had reached a tentative agreement on a four-year contract, and the administration provided details Friday morning. The contract, which must be ratified by members, will apply to 2019 through 2023. The union’s current contract is set to expire in June.As part of the deal, CWA members will get 2 percent raises annually, and the two sides agreed to devise a new health care plan that the administration estimates should save the state at least $70 million a year.“Our tentative contract agreement provides fair wages, allows for CWA members to enter a new health care plan that generates significant savings for the state of New Jersey and taxpayers, and provides a fair premium share for members,” Murphy said in a statement.”Together, we’re turning the page from the failed approaches of the past toward a new chapter of mutual respect and dialogue with our workforce.”CWA New Jersey Director Hetty Rosenstein said the negotiations were long and and difficult and they “butted heads” as they went about creating the new health care plan, but she praised the administration for being open to new ideas.“They don’t ever say things to you like ‘no, you shouldn’t try that’,” Rosenstein said. “We brought innovations to the table and they consider them really seriously.”The new health insurance plan will reduce reimbursements to out-of-network providers. In addition, the state will conceive a health care ombudsman position to help state workers choose in-network providers and offer counseling in selecting a health care plan.Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates

Deal between N.J. state workers union and Murphy includes raises but also reduced health care costs Read More »

Editorial: The Pinelands escapes Christie’s vandalism



By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
Another gong sounded on Chris Christie’s ghoulish environmental legacy last week, making this a moment worthy of reflection and celebration.
Admittedly, the former governor’s record was never difficult to appraise: Early in his first term, Christie decided that rational stewardship of the planet would cost him votes if he ever ran for national office, so his environmental vandalism covered the spectrum.
He pulled the plug on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the cap-and-trade program designed to reduce emissions. He pinched more than $1.5 billion from the Clean Energy Fund. He called climate change “esoteric” and demonized regulations as “job-killers.” He reduced the Department of Environmental Protection enforcement staff by 60 percent. He settled an $8.9 billion lawsuit against Exxon for 3 cents on the dollar. He gave scant notice to our rising sea levels. He promised to make New Jersey the site of the first U.S. offshore wind project in 2010, then broke that promise when fossil fuel companies swooned at his presidential panache in 2011.
And then there was his manipulation of the venerable Pinelands Commission, which he politicized in order to jam a 22-mile pipeline through the most pristine piece of real estate in New Jersey and help with the conversion of a Cape May County power plant from coal to natural gas.
It didn’t matter that four governors – two from each party – condemned the project as a desecration of the country’s first reserve, the largest open space in the coastal region. It didn’t matter that such development violated the Pinelands Protection Act. It didn’t matter that the stakeholders have been buried in lawsuits for nearly three years.
Read the full editorial
Like this? Click to receive free updates

Editorial: The Pinelands escapes Christie’s vandalism Read More »

Crowd speaks out against Elcon’s waste-burning plan

The crowd at Tuesday’s PADEP meeting on Elcon’s proposed treatment facility. (Kyle Bagenstose photo)


**Additional story added below in related news  4:50 p.m.**
The majority of a three-hour meeting on the controversial hazardous waste treatment plant was spent with audience members asking questions of the Department of Environmental Protection officials.
Kyle Bagenstose reports for the Bucks County Courier Times
As anyone who’s found themselves disappointed on the night
of a presidential election can attest, four years is a long time.
But it proved no obstacle for opponents of the Elcon hazardous waste treatment plant proposal in Falls, as evidenced by the hundreds who turned out to the latest official meeting on the project, held Tuesday night at the Sheraton Bucks County Hotel in Falls.
The meeting, hosted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, closely mirrored one held at the same location in 2015 when the proposal was still in its infancy. Dozens of speakers professed their concern over potential toxic emissions from the facility, the potential for an accidental spill at the facility or area roadways, and frustration with the efficacy of state environmental regulations.
Proposed by Elcon Recycling Services, the plant would process between 150,000 to 210,000 tons of chemicals and pharmaceutical waste each year, according to the company’s past filings. The company aims to build the facility on a 23-acre site in the Keystone Industrial Port Complex, an approximately 3,000-acre industrial park encompassing the former footprint of U.S. Steel’s Fairless Works operation.
Elcon representatives say its facility would be state of the art and create up to 120 short-term construction jobs and about 50 full-time operations jobs. The company has said the plant would produce little pollution and adhere to all environmental regulations. Opponents, primarily made up of local residents and backed by local environmental groups, are skeptical.
Over the past several years, the proposal has ping-ponged, as Elcon submitted proposal materials and the DEP temporarily rejected them for deficiencies. But the latest version, submitted last July, cleared an initial bar, putting DEP on track to issue an intent to approve or deny in May.
PADEP regional manager for waste management James Wentzel addresses the crowd. (Kyle Bagenstose photo)
Tuesday’s meeting was billed by the DEP as not required but beneficial. The majority of its three hours was spent with audience members asking questions to be answered by 10 DEP officials spread across its waste, air and water programs.
“An application submitted to the department … is entitled to fair and thorough review, and that’s what we’re doing,” said DEP regional spokeswoman Virginia Cain.
At several points throughout the meeting, DEP officials said they were bound to follow regulations by the books, with little room for discretion. That meant they couldn’t consider the potential for spills on roadways outside the footprint of the facility, or cumulative air pollution generated by all facilities in the area.
“The department has to make a decision that we’re able to defend,” if challenged by an applicant in court, said regional air quality program manager James Rebarchak.

Crowd speaks out against Elcon’s waste-burning plan Read More »

Maryland Senate approves statewide ban on foam food containers and cups to protect environment

Pamela WoodThe Baltimore Sun
Maryland’s senators approved a bill on Tuesday that would ban polystyrene foam food containers and cups starting next year.If the bill eventually becomes law, Maryland would be the first state to enact a ban on the products. Some local governments in Maryland — most recently Anne Arundel County — have banned them.

The Senate vote of 34-13 came after days of off-and-on debate, with many Republicans raising concerns that the ban would cause difficulty or increased expenses for farmers, small businesses and nonprofit organizations.They also questioned how much the ban would do to reduce litter and improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Sen. Adelaide Eckardt said she lives at the headwaters of a creek in Cambridge and regularly picks up litter, but rarely finds foam cups or containers.“We attempt to clean it up to the best of our ability, but I do not believe that banning the polystyrene that we’ve been talking about is going to impact all that trash,” said Eckardt, who was among half a dozen Republicans who spoke against the bill.Sen. Bryan Simonaire, an Anne Arundel County Republican, voted for the ban, saying he contacted the school system in Montgomery County — where is already a foam ban — and learned the district is saving money after switching to nonfoam containers.“It was actually cheaper. You have to look at the facts,” Simonaire said.Proponents of the ban, including sponsor Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a Montgomery County Democrat, say the products are not recyclable and don’t break down in the environment, making them a particularly difficult form of litter to deal with.The ban would be effective July 1, 2020.A version of the foam ban is pending in the House of Delegates. It’s sponsored by Del. Brooke Lierman, a Baltimore Democrat.The measure is among the priorities of Democratic leaders of the General Assembly.Like this? Click to receive free updates

Maryland Senate approves statewide ban on foam food containers and cups to protect environment Read More »

Ex-military leaders trying to stop Trump’s climate panel

Donald Trump at a 2018 rally in Charleston, W.Va. (Reuters/Leah Millis)

Donald Trump at a 2018 rally in Charleston, W.Va. (Reuters/Leah Millis)

Fifty-eight former high-ranking military and intelligence officials issued a stern warning to the White House: Think twice about creating a panel to counter the government’s own findings that climate change poses a threat to national security.

item.bylineText  
BY DINO GRANDONI
with Paulina Firozi

“Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security,” wrote a group of former generals, admirals and other national security officials in a letter Tuesday to President Trump, which I reported on here. “It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics.”

They are objecting to plans by top administration officials to convene an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to scrutinize and potentially dispute the conclusions of recent federal climate reports, which The Post’s Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis revealed last week.

Officials are still determining what sort of group they will assemble to assess the government’s scientific findings and whether they will eventually establish an independent federal advisory committee to scrutinize climate science.

Yet the letter writers, who include heavyweights from President Barack Obama’s administration such as former secretary of state John F. Kerry and former secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, already worry the panel will end up unduly “second-guessing the scientific sources” that underpin the grave conclusions from most military leaders that climate change is a menace to the nation’s security. They do not want the White House to, as they say, “dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”

The question is whether there is any chance that Trump — a commander in chief who likes to boast about “my generals” and “my military” — will listen to these former military leaders.

“This letter is not an attack on the president, it is an offer of dialogue,” said Andrew Holland, chief operating officer of the American Security Project. His group, along with the Center for Climate and Security, another policy and research nonprofit organization focused on security issues, organized the letter.

In various military and intelligence reports, military leaders predict that the impact of climate change will directly endanger U.S. facilities — for example, a rise in sea level is expected to increase the risk of flooding at some naval bases. They also project that climate change will exacerbate conditions, such as drought, that lead to conflict.

But for years, Trump himself has had his mind made up: Climate change is “madness,” a “con,” a “hoax.” His administration has worked hard to unravel efforts under the previous president to curb climate-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants, natural gas wells and automobiles.

Still, Holland said “we do hold out hope” of convincing Trump.
“We actively hope that he will listen to people like his daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner,” he said.

The couple, who both serve as senior White House advisers, each urged the president to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord, an international deal meant to keep the world below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. But the president said early in his term the country would pull out of the widely hailed agreement.Read the full storyLike this? Click to receive free updates

Ex-military leaders trying to stop Trump’s climate panel Read More »