Thursday, September 28, 2017

POLITICO: Price took military jets to Europe, Asia for over $500K

Price took military jets to Europe, Asia for over $500K

Accompanied by his wife, the HHS secretary journeyed to Geneva, Berlin, Beijing, Tokyo and other cities for events. Read the full story

Shared from Apple News

Sent from my iPhone by Nick Iqbal Quidwai Newbury Park CA

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

City manager, attorney receive raises


City Manager Andrew Powers

Council members heaped praises—and raises—on the city's top two executives Tuesday.

Following performance reviews held in closed session Sept. 12, City Manager Andrew Powers and City Attorney Tracy Noonan were approved for salary increases of 6 percent and 3.5 percent respectively, retroactive to July 1.

Powers, in his first year as city CEO, declined to accept a pay hike in January when his interim title was removed, saying he wanted to prove himself first. He'll accept this one, which will see his annual pay rise to $244,618, a difference of around $18,000 a year.

Before the Sept. 26 vote in favor of the raise, one public speaker criticized the council, calling Powers' and Noonan's level of pay and benefits "absurd."

Council members quickly went on the defensive.


City Attorney Tracy Noonan

Joel Price and Claudia Bill-de La Peña lauded their young city manager for restoring confidence in city leadership after his predecessor, Scott Mitnick, was fired in July 2016 for lying to the council.

"We are in a much better place now than we were a year ago . . . on many fronts," Price said. "I think rewarding him for the hard work that he has done is what anyone in that capacity would deserve."

Bill-de la Peña went further.

"Mr. Powers has proven his worth and beyond," she said. "He has taken the city from a very difficult situation and transformed it from within, and for that he is to be rewarded."

Councilmember Rob McCoy pointed out that Powers was responsible for overseeing a $200-million annual budget and $1 billion in public infrastructure.

"From my vantage point, I have no problem with the quality of personnel we've received, and I stand behind it," he said.

On the subject of Noonan, whose previous raise came 10 months ago, Price pointed to two major court cases in the past year that ended in the city's favor: one involving Ranch Mobile Home Park's challenge to the city's rent control ordinance, and another concerning a woman and children struck by a van on Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

"It's because of Tracy and the staff she has hired underneath her that we were able to prevail in those two pivotal cases," Price said.

With the raise approved Sept. 26, Noonan is now earning $251,606, more than any employee at City Hall. She is in her fifth year as city attorney.

Councilmember Andy Fox acknowledged the frustration some residents' feel over the large salaries but said "the market is what the market is."

"It's consistent with virtually everyone other city in the state of California. It's reality," he said, adding, "These are high salaries but they're for high-level executives."

Councilmember Al Adam reminded the audience that city manager and city attorney are "24/7" positions, meaning they're available around the clock to the council. He also said the wages are in line with municipalities near and far, which the council factors in to its decisions.

"We don't hand out these raises blithely," Adam said.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Photos Show Destruction After Powerful Earthquake Rattles Mexico

My council so bad that they won't agendize earthquake preparedness 🏡😁🦋🦋🌺🌺🇺🇸🌺

was reading this article on Huffington Post, and I thought you might be interested in reading it, too.

Photos Show Destruction After Powerful Earthquake Rattles Mexico


Sent from my iPhone by Nick Iqbal Quidwai Newbury Park CA

tocc mTG 1/2 HR MIXED USE Pasadena pics



Prado Community Association

Category: Residences

840 E. Green Street, #100
Pasadena, CA 91101


The Prado Community Association manag


The project is partially opened now. The hotel part was completed by July 2014 and had soft opening on September 2014. The retail space and parking garage are still under construction and will be completed by mid-2016.


All 50 EB-5 investment units have been fully subscribed and all the investors have already received their I-526 approval. Many of these approvals were received within 3 months after submission. The fastest I-526 approval was granted in 28 days. On August 27, 2014, we have received the first I-829 approval.



·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:'bar-daytime.jpg

·        Description:'bar-night.jpg

·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:

·        Description:

1.       1

2.       2

3.       3

4.       4

5.       5

6.       6

7.       7

8.       8

9.       9


4 Council people met Daly applicant Claudia did NOT? Is that fair to not learn about a project to vote on; or oppose such projects with a zeal. Meeting starts in ONE hr 6pm today​  2219 TO Blvd mixed use David Gulbranson project.

4 Council people met Daly applicant  Claudia did NOT? Is that fair to not learn about a project to vote on; or oppose such projects with a zeal.
Meeting starts in ONE hr 6pm today​


Monday, September 18, 2017

Senate Passes $700 Billion Pentagon Bill, More Money Than Trump Sought

Senator John McCain of Arizona at the Capitol on Monday. He successfully appealed for Senate passage of a $700 billion defense bill. CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In a rare act of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, the Senate passed a $700 billion defense policy bill on Monday that sets forth a muscular vision of America as a global power, with a Pentagon budget that far exceeds what President Trump has asked for.

Senators voted 89-9 to approve the measure, known as the National Defense Authorization Act; the House has already adopted a similar version.

The vote marked the 56th consecutive year that Congress has passed the defense policy bill — a point of personal pride for Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and who has spent the past week shepherding the bill on the Senate floor as he battles brain cancer.

In arguing for the increased funding, Mr. McCain cited a string of recent deadly accidents involving the military, including a collision last month between an oil tanker and the destroyer John S. McCain, named for the senator's father and grandfather. Ten sailors were killed and five others injured.

"We are gambling with the lives of the best among us and we're now seeing the cost — the tragic but foreseeable costs of an overworked, strained force with aging equipment and not enough of it," Mr. McCain said.

Continue reading the main story

The 1,215-page bill sets policy on a range of military matters as diverse as whether the Air Force can buy new fighter jets and pay raises for service members. It provides $640 billion for basic Pentagon operations — $37 billion more than President Trump sought — and another $60 billion for war operations overseas in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The measure also includes a string of provisions to streamline the management of the Defense Department; along with boosting military spending, overhauling the Pentagon has been a high priority for Mr. McCain.

"He's someone who has lived with underfunding of the military, seen the impact on readiness, seen the strains that impact the force," said Anthony N. Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

The bill also reflects Mr. McCain's expansive vision of the role of the United States in world affairs. It authorizes $500 million to provide security assistance, including weapons, to Ukraine; $100 million to help Balkan nations "deter Russian aggression" and another $705 million for Israeli cooperative missile defense programs — $558.5 million more than the administration's request.

But while the proposal outlines a hefty defense budget, whether the Pentagon gets the money will be determined by congressional appropriators, and Democrats have pledged to block major increases in military spending without a similar boost for domestic programs.

"It's a grandiose spending plan," Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said in a recent interview.

Before the bill can be sent to the president for his signature, it must be reconciled with the House version. They are different in a critical respect; the House-passed bill authorizes the creation of a new Space Corps, to manage satellite and other space-related programs, while the Senate bill does not.

The proposed corps has drawn opposition from the Air Force, which manages most of the military's space-related programs, as well as the White House.

The defense bill, approved by the Armed Services Committee by a unanimous vote of 27-0 in June, is one of the few must-pass measures to go through Congress, which makes it a prime target for lawmakers trying to attach amendments to it. Senators had proposed more than 500 amendments, but the vast majority were not attached to the bill.

Among the amendments kept out of the measure was a controversial proposal by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Democrat, to block Mr. Trump's directive barring transgender troops from serving in the military. On Friday, Mr. McCain and Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services panel, joined Ms. Gillibrand in introducing a separate bill that would allow transgender troops to serve.

Continue reading the main story

With a Picked Lock and a Threatened Indictment, Mueller’s Inquiry Sets a Tone

Paul D. Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, in June 2016. Prosecutors in the Russia investigation told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, two people close to the investigation said.CreditBrendan McDermid/Reuters

WASHINGTON — Paul J. Manafort was in bed early one morning in July when federal agents bearing a search warrant picked the lock on his front door and raided his Virginia home. They took binders stuffed with documents and copied his computer files, looking for evidence that Mr. Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, set up secret offshore bank accounts. They even photographed the expensive suits in his closet.

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, then followed the house search with a warning: His prosecutors told Mr. Manafort they planned to indict him, said two people close to the investigation.

The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors in the four months since taking over the Justice Department's investigation into Russia's attempts to disrupt last year's election, according to lawyers, witnesses and American officials who have described the approach. Dispensing with the plodding pace typical of many white-collar investigations, Mr. Mueller's team has used what some describe as shock-and-awe tactics to intimidate witnesses and potential targets of the inquiry.

Mr. Mueller has obtained a flurry of subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify before a grand jury, lawyers and witnesses say, sometimes before his prosecutors have taken the customary first step of interviewing them. One witness was called before the grand jury less than a month after his name surfaced in news accounts. The special counsel even took the unusual step of obtaining a subpoena for one of Mr. Manafort's former lawyers, claiming an exception to the rule that shields attorney-client discussions from scrutiny.

"They are setting a tone. It's important early on to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington, or else you will be rolled," said Solomon L. Wisenberg, who was deputy independent counsel in the investigation that led to the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton in 1999. "You want people saying to themselves, 'Man, I had better tell these guys the truth.'"

Continue reading the main story

A spokesman for Mr. Mueller declined to comment. Lawyers and a spokesman for Mr. Manafort also declined to comment.

Few people can upend Washington like a federal prosecutor rooting around a presidential administration, and Mr. Mueller, a former F.B.I. director, is known to dislike meandering investigations that languish for years. At the same time, he appears to be taking a broad view of his mandate: examining not just the Russian disruption campaign and whether any of Mr. Trump's associates assisted in the effort, but also any financial entanglements with Russians going back several years. He is also investigating whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice when he fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director.

Mr. Manafort is under investigation for possible violations of tax laws, money-laundering prohibitions and requirements to disclose foreign lobbying. Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, is being scrutinized for foreign lobbying work as well as for conversations he had last year with Russia's ambassador to the United States. On Monday, Mr. Flynn's siblings announced the creation of a legal-defense fund to help cover their brother's "enormous" legal fees.

The wide-ranging nature of Mr. Mueller's investigation could put him on a collision course with Mr. Trump, who has said publicly that Mr. Mueller should keep his investigation narrowly focused on last year's presidential campaign. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Trump said Mr. Mueller would be overstepping his boundaries if he investigated his family's finances unrelated to Russia.

Mr. Manafort's apartment in Alexandria, Va., was searched in July. CreditWin McNamee/Getty Images

For the moment, Mr. Mueller's team has shown a measure of deference to White House officials, sparing them grand jury subpoenas and allowing them to appear for voluntary interviews. Those sessions are expected to begin soon. Ty Cobb, a lawyer brought in to manage the White House response to the inquiry, has told administration officials that he wants to avoid any subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

Staff members have been working long hours answering Mr. Mueller's request for 13 categories of documents, including records related to Mr. Comey's firing and Mr. Trump's role in drafting a misleading statement about a June 2016 meeting between campaign officials and Russian-born visitors. Nonetheless, the demand for documents has provoked at least one angry confrontation between Mr. Cobb and Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, over whether certain documents should be withheld to protect the president's right to confidentiality.

But associates of both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn have received more peremptory treatment. Instead of invitations to the prosecutor's office, they have been presented with grand jury subpoenas, forcing them to either testify or take the Fifth Amendment and raise suspicions that they had something to hide. At least three witnesses have recently been subpoenaed to testify about Mr. Manafort: Jason Maloni, a spokesman who appeared before the grand jury for more than two hours on Friday, and the heads of two consulting firms — Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group — who worked with Mr. Manafort on behalf of Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russia former president of Ukraine.

Mr. Mueller's team also took the unusual step of issuing a subpoena to Melissa Laurenza, a specialist in lobbying law who formerly represented Mr. Manafort, according to people familiar with the subpoena. Conversations between lawyers and their clients are normally considered bound by attorney-client privilege, but there are exceptions when lawyers prepare public documents that are filed on behalf of their client.

Mr. Mueller took over the Russia investigation in May, after the F.B.I. had already spent nearly a year looking into connections between Mr. Trump's associates and Russians. His team has occasionally been caught by surprise, hearing of possibly important information only when it is revealed in the news media.

This was the case in July, when Mr. Mueller's prosecutors learned about email exchanges between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary for a Kremlin-connected Russian oligarchonly after they were disclosed in The New York Times, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. Donald Trump Jr., the president's son, set up the Trump Tower meeting to receive what he was told would be damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.

Soon after his name surfaced, one of the Russian-born participants at the meeting, Rinat Akhmetshin, was ordered to testify before the grand jury, according to one of Mr. Akhmetshin's associates.

"They seem to be pursuing this more aggressively, taking a much harder line, than you'd expect to see in a typical white-collar case," said Jimmy Gurulé, a Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor. "This is more consistent with how you'd go after an organized crime syndicate."

The tactics reflect some of the hard-charging — and polarizing — personalities of Mr. Mueller's team, seasoned prosecutors with experience investigating financial fraud, money laundering and organized crime.

Robert S. Mueller III, a former F.B.I director, is known to dislike meandering investigations that languish for years. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

Admirers of Andrew Weissmann, one of the team's senior prosecutors, describe him as relentless and uncompromising, while his detractors say his scorched earth tactics have backfired in some previous cases. Greg B. Andres, another one of Mr. Mueller's prosecutors, once ran an investigation into a Mafia kingpin. Zainab N. Ahmad made her name as a prosecutor pursing high-profile terrorism cases.

Some lawyers defending people who have been caught up in Mr. Mueller's investigation privately complain that the special counsel's team is unwilling to engage in the usual back-and-forth that precedes — or substitutes for — grand jury testimony. They argue that the team's more aggressive tactics might end up being counterproductive, especially if some grand jury witnesses turn out to be more guarded than they would have been in a more informal setting or invoke the Fifth Amendment.

The longer Mr. Mueller's investigation goes on, the more vulnerable he will be to allegations that he is on a fishing expedition, said Katy Harriger, a professor of politics at Wake Forest University and the author of a book on special prosecutors. Such accusations dogged the investigation of Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation of Mr. Clinton stretched on for years.

To a degree, Mr. Mueller is in a race against three congressional committees that are interviewing some of the same people who are of interest to the special prosecutor's team. Even if the committees refuse to grant them immunity, congressional testimony that becomes public can give other witnesses a chance to line up their stories.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said committee staff members were going to great lengths not to get in Mr. Mueller's way. But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated last week that his committee might subpoena witnesses to testify about the circumstances of Mr. Comey's firing even over Mr. Mueller's objections.

Mr. Mueller's need to navigate this complex landscape could explain the timing of the raid on Mr. Manafort's house, which took place in the early hours of July 26. The raid came one day after Mr. Manafort was interviewed by staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

On the day of the raid, Mr. Manafort was scheduled to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee, an interview that was eventually canceled.

It is unusual for a prosecutor to seek a search warrant against someone who, like Mr. Manafort, had already put his lawyer in contact with the Justice Department. No search warrants were executed during the investigations by Mr. Starr or Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a special counsel appointed during the George W. Bush administration to investigate the leak of the name of a C.I.A. officer.

To get the warrant, Mr. Mueller's team had to show probable cause that Mr. Manafort's home contained evidence of a crime. To be allowed to pick the lock and enter the home unannounced, prosecutors had to persuade a federal judge that Mr. Manafort was likely to destroy evidence.

Said Mr. Gurulé, the former federal prosecutor, "Clearly they didn't trust him."

Continue reading the main story