Trump for President signs can be found around Cranston, says Aubin, displayed next to signs for the three Republican City Wide City Council candidates. Their names also appear on signs with local GOP standard bearer, Mayor Allan Fung, who told WPRI in August that he supported “the Republican nominee” and said of Trump’s hate speech that the presidential nominee “keeps putting his foot in his mouth.” By aligning themselves with the mayor and not publicly disavowing Trump, Michael Farina, Ken Hopkins, and Louis Petrucci are sending a signal that Trump’s message of racism and division is okay by them.

Farina, reached by email, did not reply directly to Aubin’s call for him to disavow Trump. “I am running for city council not President,” said Farina, “and this is a lame attempt for her to garner attention in a race against 2 incumbents and other more popular candidates herself. She should run on the issues and how she plans on making Cranston better. I stand by my record of positive improvements in the city of Cranston.”

This isn’t enough for Aubin. “When nomination papers were filed in June, Trump was already the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. No one forced Michael Farina to switch parties and become a Republican, and his continued unwillingness to disavow Trump’s racism and bigotry — even when given a direct opportunity — demonstrates a severe lack of judgment, courage, and leadership.

“So this absolutely matters to Cranston and the people of our city deserve to know where Mr. Farina stands on Donald Trump. I believe that Trump’s near constant hateful and incendiary comments are dangerous for America and for Cranston. I have spoken clearly about the issues I am passionate about for our city — improving our neighborhoods by making them more walkable and affordable, protecting our environment, improving our local economy, reducing wasteful spending, and making sure Cranston has top performing schools.”

At the time Farina switched party affiliation from Democrat to Republican he said he believed there had been “efforts to inhibit or obstruct him from taking positions on certain issue contrary to fellow Democratic leaders.”

“As a Democrat I have felt pressure,” said Farina, “to conform to party positions … more about political maneuvering and personal ego than the constituents.”

Aubin says that as a longtime advocate for social justice, she believes in a Cranston that is strong, diverse, and equitable. The America that Donald Trump is selling, based on xenophobia and intolerance, has no place in Cranston or anywhere in our country.

More than a dozen people showed up for the event, only to learn from the hastily printed signs that the meeting was cancelled. People told me that they had made great efforts to be at this meeting. One man brought his six year old daughter with him, others arranged to leave work early. A nurse handed off a patient to her co-worker, and lost out a couple of hours of pay.

Several people, expecting a long meeting, paid for two hours of parking, as the on street parking, which used to be free at 6pm, is now free after 9pm. In all I talked to six people who paid for parking, including Sister Mary Pendergast, who said she’s “on a very limited budget.”

Representative Aaron Regunberg showed up. But even he, when asking various City Hall workers, including the Council President Chief of Staff Cyd McKenna, couldn’t get an adequate answer as to why the meeting suffered a last minute cancellation.

Councillor Seth Yurdin arrived ten minutes before the meeting was due to start. He had received a text ten minutes before arriving telling him the meeting was cancelled. He said he didn’t know why the meeting was cancelled. He had no more insight, it seems, than anyone else.

The people who arrived for the meeting were all prepared to give testimony on the resolution concerning the project at Fields Point, a center of toxic industry located in one of the poorest neighborhoods of color in New England. This was Councillor Seth Yurdin’s second resolution in opposition to the facility, and it was a much stronger statement.

Though Yurdin’s resolution was co-sponsored by half the City Council, passage of the resolution was prevented when Councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett flipped their votes.

The resolution was sent to the Ordinance Committee which Hassett chairs. Hassett said at the time that, “I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

When I asked about why he cancelled the Monday evening meeting that would have allowed for “proper vetting and discussion,” Hassett said, in a written statement:

“The LNG ban, as proposed by Councilman Yurdin, has merit. I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council Session.

“However, we have not heard sufficient testimony from the energy developers on the plan itself – the productive results, the environmental impact – what is good versus bad. I’m an environmentally sensitive citizen and public servant, as most of us are. A new and productive proposal, as promised, is certainly worthy of discussion.”

Note that the “energy developers” Hassett is referring to is National Grid, a company that had just as much time and notice to make it to this meeting as the environmental advocates who made the effort to show up for the meeting did. In fact, National Grid has more time, if you take into account the fact that the company employs a full time legal staff.

“My difficulty,” continued Hassett, “is simply approving a resolution banning it until proper testimony is presented. Its akin to a court case. We cannot indict until and unless proper and verified evidence is presented and the jury agrees. Legislative language presents an argument.

“In this case I co-sponsored it on the floor of the City Council. My concern or our general concern is this….we need discussions in an open forum from those proposing the LNG and receive any counter testimony on the plan or proposal.

“Many have advocated transparency in government. I believe in it. It’s how the best decisions are made. So we will carefully review this proposal, a $40 million effort  should it meet our needs, our environmental protections and city economy.

“That’s my assessment based on your inquiry. It will be heard. Just better prepared for our decision makers and the public.”

Many who arrived at the City Hall to find the meeting cancelled are convinced that there were some backroom shenanigans involved. But no proof of these speculations will ever materialize. Instead, the blame for cancelling this meeting rests solely on Hassett and his decision, as he explains above.

I asked Hassett a follow up.

“The meeting was cancelled at 4:30. When meetings are scheduled on Friday afternoon and cancelled moments before they are to start on Monday, many people feel that there are shenanigans going on behind the scenes. At the very least, it shows a lack of concern for those who make the effort to attend. Do you have a comment on this?”

I received no answer.

I’ve experienced something like this before. Back in May 2014 a Providence City Council Ordinance Committee meeting that was to discuss the proposed $15 minimum wage for hotel workers was cancelled at the last minute, leaving dozens of working women in the lurch. At the time I wrote, “Working women secured childcare or brought their kids with them. They skipped meals, skipped overtime and traveled to the City Hall on foot, on buses or in carpools, only to find out that the Ordinance Committee meeting had been abruptly cancelled.”

The cancellation of this meeting allowed the General Assembly the time it needed to include an amendment in the State Budget to prevent municipalities like Providence from setting their own minimum wages, frustrating months of activism on the part of the hotel workers. The chair of the Ordinance Committee then was Seth Yurdin.

“I couldn’t care less about that ass,” Malik said about Nugent.

When friends on Facebook noted the Ted Nugent connection, Malik took the photo down, even though he still stands by the meme, saying that the picture and the words make an important point.

The picture is accompanied by the words, “Would the suppressed millionaire, NFL quarterback, who would not stand for the National Anthem please point out which of these guys are black so we can remove the offensive flag.”

Malik says he did not see this meme as racist. To Malik the point was that, “you can’t tell who’s black or white beneath the flag. The [soldiers] should all be respected.”

The meme Malik re-posted was made in response to NFL player Colin Kaepernick.

When Kaepernick announced back in August that he was “not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” he started an important, spiraling conversation about race, police violence, the National Anthem and free speech.

Kaepernick was striving to make point about police killing people of color. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way,” Kaepernick said. “There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Malik maintains that not standing for the National Anthem disrespects our veterans and is a “disgrace.” Taking a knee, he said, “is a little bit better, but not good enough for me.”

The backlash against Kaepernick seems to have emboldened other NFL players to express solidarity, but so far no other players have chosen to remain seated. Instead, over the weekend four Miami Dolphins took a knee during the anthem, and two New England Patriots raised a fist.

“The way they are protesting the flag is a disgrace,” said Malik. “There are other ways to protest the killings of blacks – and whites – by police. Standing arm in arm is better, white and black together.”

Malik was referring to the Kansas City Chiefs and the Seattle Seahawks who locked arms in solidarity during the anthem.  The Seahawks said they wanted to “bring people together” while the Chiefs vowed to “work with local law enforcement officials and leaders to make an impact on the Kansas City Community.”

Football players like Kaepernick need to set the right example, says Malik. “They’re looked up to” by kids.

Malik says he understands the importance of free speech, but he takes not standing for the anthem personally, because he lost a friend last August in the war. “I really do think it’s wrong to not stand for the National Anthem. I believe that Black Lives Matter.”

Kaepernick “made his point,” said Malik, “We Americans don’t need anything else to divide us. We’re all Americans. We have to work together to make this world a better place.”

Malik, who serves as the chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee is facing a challenge from Jason Knight in tomorrow’s primary. Knight served in the U.S. Navy from 1988 to 1996 as an enlisted nuclear power technician.

Two races of special importance to Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello are being influenced through mailers sent out by a not-so-mysterious group calling themselves “Progress RI” which is funded by the Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers (RIBCO).

As can be seen in the screenshot below, Nicholas Mattiello has made contributions to both Jan Malik and David Coughlin. This is in itself not unusual. Both are loyal members of Mattiello’s base and both received contributions of $1000, the legal limit. Coughlin received contributions in excess of the legal limit, but the extra $500 was refunded, essentially a $500, interest free, three month loan.

Mattiello awarded Coughlin a second over-the-limit and later-refunded $500 campaign contribution/interest-free loan through his PAC, Fund for a Democratic Leadership, as seen below:

As Ted Nesi tweeted last evening, the Progress RI PAC, (a name that invokes the Rhode Island Progressives Democrats of America (RIPDA) though they have no affiliation), has reported spending $9,348 on mailers against five candidates, including Jason Knight who is challenging Jan Malik and David Norton who is challenging David Coughlin. All the money for Progress RI comes from RIBCO, to the tune of $9,500.

Richard Ferruccio is the president of RIBCO, and lobbies extensively at the State House on that union’s behalf, often arguing for tougher sentences and longer periods of incarceration for offenders and against legislation that might reduce sentences.

RIBCO is a strong supporter of Speaker Mattiello, as seen from this list of campaign contributions:

There seems an alignment of interests between Ferruccio and Mattiello. Both are working against Knight and Norton and for Malik and Coughlin. The ACI, where most of Ferruccio’s prison guard membership works, is in Mattiello’s district in Cranston.

Ferruccio generally opposes changes in the law that lead to early release of prisoners. Mattiello was singularly uninterested in passing Governor Gina Raimondo’s criminal justice reform package of bills, saying “The justice reform package was never a priority for the House. I was never convinced Rhode Island should be a test case for a national model on criminal justice.” Sam Bell suggested that the alignment of interests might be a “thank you” for “killing prison reform” though

Ferruccio did not respond to a phone message left at his office. Following Matt Jerzyk‘s advice on Twitter, I also reached out to Nick Horton at Open Doors, but was unable to connect.

The RI NOW Political Action Committee (RI NOW PAC) announced their endorsements in anticipation of the state primary elections on September, 13 2016.

The RI NOW PAC is excited to have so many candidates committed to improving the lives of women within the state of Rhode Island. Endorsed candidates have pledged their support on the issues of reproductive freedom, economic equality, ending violence against women, constitutional equality, civil rights for all, affirmative action and moving women out of poverty through empowering, non-punitive welfare policies.

“Currently women hold only 31 out of 113 seats in the RI General Assembly. The RI NOW PAC has endorsed 18 women so far in this election and we are thrilled to throw our support behind these candidates to increase gender parity in the General Assembly,” said Amanda Clarke, Chair of the RI NOW PAC. “We are also pleased so many men are willing to stand with women and fight for policy change to improve social and economic conditions for women in Rhode Island.”

The complete list of RI NOW PAC endorsements is as follows:

Rhode Island State Senate

• Gayle Goldin, Senate District 3
• Jonathan Hernandez, Senate District 6
• Doris De Los Santos, Senate District 7
• Matthew Fecteau, Senate District 8
• James Seveny, Senate District 11
• Dennis Lavallee, Senate District 17
• Margaux Morisseau, Senate District 21
• Stephen Archambault, Senate District 22
• Jeanine Calkin, Senate District 30

Rhode Island House of Representatives

• Edith Ajello, House District 1
• Christopher Blazejewski, House District 2
• Moira Walsh, House District 3
• Aaron Regunberg, House District 4
• Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, House District 5
• Anastasia Williams, House District 9
• Joseph Almeida, House District 12
• Lisa Scorpio, House District 13
• Art Handy, House District 18
• Joseph McNamara, House District 19
• David Bennett, House District 20
• Eileen Naughton, House District 21
• Jennifer Siciliano, House District 22
• Julie Casimiro, House District 31
• Carol Hagan McEntee, House District 33
• Teresa Tanzi, House District 34
• Kathleen Fogarty, House District 35
• Larry Valencia, House District 39
• William Deware, House District 54
• David Norton, House District 60
• Katherine Kazarian, House District 63
• Jason Knight, House District 67
• Susan Donovan, House District 69
• Linda Finn, House District 72
• Deborah Ruggiero, House District 74
• Lauren Carson, House District 75

Local Races

• Sandra Cano, Pawtucket City Council, At-Large
• Meghan Kallman, Pawtucket City Council, Ward 5
• Suzy Alba, Smithfield Town Council
• Jeremy Rix, Warwick City Council, Ward 2
• Elena Vasquez, Pawtucket School Committee

*Amanda Clarke is the RI NOW PAC Chair, Melanie Carrazzo is a member of the RI NOW PAC Board

Providence City Councillor Seth Yurdin introduced a resolution Thursday evening that would strengthen the City Council’s opposition to National Grid’s proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility. Immediately after introducing his resolution Councillor Sam Zurier rose to co-sponsor, as did councilors David Salvatore, Carmen Castillo, Wilbur Jennings, Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett.

Noting that it seemed as if a majority of the council was co-sponsoring the resolution, Yurdin moved that the resolution be voted on immediately. This caused councilors Jo-Ann Ryan and Terrence Hassett to suddenly flip their support. Yurdin’s move for passage failed, and the resolution was passed onto the Ordinances committee.

Reached for comment, Hassett wrote, “I voted no to have an immediate passage on the floor without a Council committee review. I co-sponsored it but a committee review is necessary for a proper vetting and discussion before it is transmitted to the full Council.”

Ryan wrote, “I requested to be a sponsor of the resolution last night. It was sent to ordinance committee by a majority vote. I voted to send it to committee to provide an opportunity for community input at an open public meeting of the council. You can and should attend and voice your concerns. And encourage others to attend and participate in the process.”

There are no ordinance committee hearings on the current schedule. Hassett is the chair of ordinance and Ryan is a member of the committee.

National Grid wants to expand its LNG footprint in the Port of Providence with the new liquefaction plant. Environmental groups such as the RI Sierra Club and the Environmental Justice League of RI oppose the plan. Curiously, Save the Bay, whose offices are not too far from the proposed site, have not come out against it.

Mayor Jorge Elorza and a large group of state level Providence legislators have recently publicly come out in opposition to the project.

The City Council unanimously approved Yurdin’s previous resolution opposing the site in March. That resolution called for public meetings to be scheduled to address environmental and health concerns of the project. “Unfortunately,” said Yurdin, here we are in the Summer and no such meetings have been held… This resolution is stronger than the previous resolution.”

The previous resolution called for studies and review. The new resolution is a call to strong action.

The new resolution says, in part, “That the City shall take all necessary actions to oppose the proposed Fields Point liquefaction facility, including ceasing to act as a cooperating agency with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and shall not grant any tax stabilizations, subsidies, or any other forms of support to the project.”

United States Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has a national, and even international, reputation as a climate champion, noted Rhode Island Senate President M Teresa Paiva-Weed as she introduced him to to the nearly 150 people gathered in Newport for a community dinner and Q&A. Paiva-Weed talked up Whitehouse’s concern for his constituents, saying, “Someone like Sheldon makes it a point to be home and to have a focus on the issues at home.”

But to the residents of Burrillville who drove for over an hour through rush hour traffic to attend the dinner, Whitehouse hardly seems focused on “the issues at home” and in fact, his own words belie that. His international reputation as an environmental champion is of small comfort to the townspeople fighting Invenergy’s $700 million fracked gas and diesel oil burning power plant.

Whitehouse touted his environmental concerns in his opening remarks, saying, “The good news is that… the [climate] denial operation really is collapsing. You can feel it visibly. We’re at the stage where the CEO of Exxon has had to admit, ‘Okay, climate change is real, and we’re doing it and we want to get something done.’”

Climate change, says Whitehouse, “is going to hit home for Rhode Island in a really big way and I want to make sure that I’ve done everything that I possibly can to make sure that we are as prepared for it as we can be in the Ocean State.”

Richard Dionne, vice president of the Burrillville Conservation Commission was called on by Whitehouse to ask the first question.

“When discussing the most influential senators from Rhode Island on environmental quality issues, your name is often brought up in the same sentence as our former Senator John H Chafee,” said Dione, “Not bad company to be in if I do say so myself.”

“Really good company,” agreed Whitehouse.

Dione continued, “However, our Senator Chafee would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that a 900 megawatt fracked gas power plant being proposed by Governor Raimondo was to be sited smack dab in the middle of the John H Chafee Heritage Corridor in the northwest corner of Rhode Island, on the shared border with neighboring states Connecticut and Massachusetts.

“This area has been recently designated as part of the National Park Service. The approximately 13,000 acres of protected forests, recreational areas, wetlands and conservation areas is absolutely the most inappropriate area for this type of project.

“Every environmental organization in the state of Rhode Island has come out against the project,” continued Dione, “including the Environmental Council of Rhode Island, the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, Blackstone Heritage Corridor, the list goes on and on, I have a list right here…”

“I know the list,” said Whitehouse.

“At many of the public hearings I attend, invariably the question gets posed to me, ‘Where is our environmental Senator on this issue and what is he doing for his constituents in Burrillville?’ A town which, by the way, has supported your election in 2006 and 2012.

“So my question is Senator Whitehouse,” said Dione, winding up, “What answer can I bring back to the people of Burrillville, and can you commit this evening to opposing this power plant?”

“The short answer is,” said Whitehouse after a short pause, “There is a process…”

“Here we go,” said a woman at my table with open disdain.

If there was a wrong answer to give, this was it. Everyone who attended Governor Gina Raimondo’s appearance at the Burrillville High School has heard this answer before. No one takes “trust the process” seriously. It’s political dodge ball.

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) attorney Jerry Elmer has spoken eloquently about the process. “Remember that the reason – the raison d’etre – that the General Assembly created the EFSB (Energy Facility Siting Board) was precisely to take these energy siting decisions away from the Town Councils and town planning boards,” wrote Elmer.

RI Senator Victoria Lederberg, who got the EFSB legislation through the General Assembly 30 years ago, called the siting board concept “one-stop shopping” for power plant developers. Climate change, environmental concerns and the health and safety of residents didn’t seem to be high on the General Assembly’s priorities when the EFSB was formed.

The process renders the opinion of ordinary townsfolk essentially meaningless, said Burrillville Planning Board attorney Michael McElroy. “The EFSB can take [our opinion], they can take it in part, or they can reject it.”

“There is a process,” said Whitehouse, “taking place for [the power plant] through the state Energy Facility Siting Board. They take sworn testimony, as I think you know. There are a whole bunch of local environmental groups that are intervened into that proceeding. The Conservation Law Foundation has come down from Boston to intervene in that proceeding. They have witnesses.”

Senator Whitehouse is incorrect here. The only environmental group certified as an intervenor in the EFSB proceedings is the CLF. The Burrillville Land Trust, Fighting Against Natural Gas (FANG), Burrillville Against Spectra Expansion (BASE) and Fossil Free Rhode Island were denied intervenor status, as it was felt that their interests would be seen to by the CLF.

“It’s essentially an administrative trial that is taking place,” continued Whitehouse, “I have confidence in that process. I have confidence in Janet Coit at DEM (Department of Environmental Management) who by virtue of being the DEM director is on the Energy Facility Siting Board. I have confidence in Meg Curran, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) who by virtue of being chairman chairs that Siting Board, and there’s going to be somebody from the Department of Administration…”

Associate Director of the Division of Planning, Parag Agrawal, is the third member of the EFSB.

“It’s a process I’ve worked with from my earliest days,” said Whitehouse, “when I first came as a young lawyer to Rhode Island I worked in the Attorney General’s office and I practiced representing the people before the Public Utilities Commission.

“So I have confidence in the process.

“Congratulations,” added Whithouse, “The opposition to Invenergy, I think, has won every round. Burrillville said ’No’ on planning, Burrillville said ‘No’ on zoning, the water board said ‘No’ on water, so I think you’re, yeah, it’s a process and I know it would be easier to just yell about it but it’s a process that I think is honorable and will come to the right result.

“So I want to focus my efforts on where it will make the biggest difference. I know we’ve had some conversation, repeatedly, but I still am of the view that, with the force and strength that I have available to me, I want to apply every bit of that force and strength to the battle in Washington, which if we win it, will be immensely significant, not just to Burrillville but to all of Rhode Island and to the country and the world.

“So, sorry that I don’t have more to give than that, but I do think that I give pretty well at the office with what I do on this issue. Thank you for bringing it up though, I appreciate it.”

Burrillville resident Lynn Clark was called on to ask the next question. This seemed like a coincidence, but in fact, half the questions asked concerned the power plant in Burrillville, in one way or another.

Clark rose and with only the slightest hint of nervousness in her voice, said, “My name is Lynn and I come from the northwest corner of the state of Rhode Island. It has been my home all my life. I applaud you and I love the work you’re doing on the environmental front.

“In Burrillville, our little town has come together and we have come out strong against this giant plan. We have a lot of environmental groups [on our side], 23 currently, and we are working hard.

“I wish I could say that I am as confident in this process as you are, sir. It has been a scary process. We have been consumed by this process. I have been at every meeting, for hours, two or three meetings per week. Sir, this is a scary, scary process.

“We need a champion in Burrillville and we are asking you to please come see us. Please, come talk to us. If this Invenergy [power plant] gets built, the detriments to our little state will be just horrifying.”

Clark’s appeal to Whitehouse was raw and emotional. It’s the kind of speech people give in movies to roust tired champions into battle one final time.

But this wasn’t a movie and Whitehouse wasn’t willing to be the hero.

“I hear you,” said Whitehouse, once again echoing words Governor Raimondo used in Burrillville when she visited, “I can’t add much to what I’ve said to Richard. Thank you for taking the trouble to come down and share your passion.

“It is the National Heritage Corridor,” said Clark, not giving up, “We also have a boy scout camp up there, camp grounds… Have you been up to Burrillville?”

“Oh yeah,” said Whitehouse.

“Okay,” said Clark, “I hope you come visit us soon, sir. Thank you.”

Other questions came and went. Whitehouse was asked about the Supreme Court vacancy, grid security and the opioid epidemic. When Newport resident Claudia Gorman asked Whitehouse  about the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), he admitted that on the federal level, at least, he isn’t as certain about the integrity of the process.

“There have been several problems, at the federal level, with the approvals,” said Whitehouse, “They haven’t baked into their decision making what is called the social cost of carbon.” Whitehouse added that we don’t take seriously the problem of methane gas leaks, and that he held the first hearings on the issue of gas leaks and that we still don’t know the full extent of that particular problem…

The last question of the evening came from Cranston resident Rhoda Northrup. She rose as Whitehouse tried to bring the discussion to an end, and would not allow the dinner to end without asking her question.

“I do not live in Burrillville I live in Cranston,” said Northrup, “and what’s going on in Burrillville should not be completely on their backs. This is a global issue for all of us and if that power plant comes to our state of Rhode Island, it will set us back forty years. We will be committed for another forty years to a fossil fuel.

“That’s wrong.

“We need to move forward with wind and solar. And with all of that said, I would like to ask the senator if he has an opinion. With everything that’s been said tonight, ‘Do you have an opinion?’

“I know it’s a process,” said Northrup, “but that’s not an answer. Everybody’s telling us it’s a process. We know that. We’re walking the process. But we’re asking our leaders if they have an opinion. You must have an opinion.”

There was a short pause before Whitehouse answered.

“My opinion is that we must get off fossil fuels,” said Whitehouse.

“Thank you for that,” said Northrup.

But Whitehouse was’t finished. Lest anyone believe that by that statement Whitehouse was taking a stance against the power plant in Burrillville and matching action to his words, Whitehouse switched to his familiar political talking points.

“My opinion is that the best way to do that,” continued Whitehouse, “is to balance the pricing of fossil fuels, so that they are treated fairly in the marketplace. Right now they have a huge, unfair advantage because they don’t have to pay for the cost of the harm that they cause…”

State Police Lt. Michael Glynn contacted RI Future, the Warwick doctor who initially told me about the calls, and also contacted Jeanine Calkin, whose husband, Daniel, also received a call. The scope and particulars of the investigation are unknown, but Calkin said that “someone is coming to talk to Dan today and take a look at our phone.”

RI Future broke this story last week. So far no other media organizations have covered it. When called for a comment, Senator Walaska said, “I know you don’t support me. I have no idea. I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

This story will be updated.

Here’s the call:

Ultimately, the fault is with me, for not being more clear in my writing.

John DeSimone is a lawyer in private practice and he’s House Majority Leader in the RI General Assembly. When he crafts, shapes and votes on legislation, we trust that he will separate his two jobs in his mind. For instance, we trust that he will not allow the fact that he represents restaurant owners who engage in wage theft to shape the way he approaches restaurant and employment law. But in order for voters to be able to judge for themselves whether or not this is happening, they need to understand the kind of cases DeSimone is working on and what side he takes in these cases.

This is partly what I was trying to get at when I wrote about Leader DeSimone’s legal work for Chung Cho, owner of Gourmet Heaven, but there are other distictions to be drawn.

When GoLocalProv reporter and editor Kate Nagle read my piece, she was inspired. She attempted on Jason Knight, who is running in the Democratic primary against conservative Democrat Jan Malik in House District 57. (DeSimone, a conservative Democrat, is facing a challenge to his House seat from progressive Marcia Ranglin-Vassell, so the shape of the politics here becomes obvious.) Nagle wrote that Knight, “has represented DUIs, child pornographers, and sex offender clients since starting his own practice.”

Then she wrote, “The relevance of Knight’s practice and other attorneys running for office derives from a new focus on who candidates are representing in their practices. Last week, incumbent House Majority Leader John DeSimone came under fire for his representation of an accused wage-theft client. The criticism  came in part from RI Future‘s Steve Ahlquist, who wrote that voters ‘should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us.’” [spelling corrected]

It’s nice to learn that GoLocal is learning about journalism from closely reading RI Future, but I think they might need a few more lessons. Nagle quotes me in the piece twice, without linking to my writing as I did for her above. (Here’s a handy guide to linking.)

“Voters should know when the people we elect to represent us also defend the monsters who oppress us,” I wrote, “Anybody being sued deserves legal representation, but using slick legal moves to avoid paying workers their earned wages is simply gross.”

Nagle also quoted my tweet about my story, in which I said, ”What attorneys do for their clients should be relevant to how voters perceive their ethical orientation.”

The tweet above was in answer to a criticism from Brandon Bell, director of the RI GOP. Bell tweeted, “As an attorney I am an advocate for client which does not equate with accepting or endorsing client’s alleged wrongdoing.”

In my retort to Bell I was making a subtle distinction. It’s not WHO you represent, it’s WHAT you do for them.

Jason Knight defined the role of a defense attorney very well when he was quoted by Nagle: “…in a criminal case, there’s a judge, a prosecutor and defender, and all three roles need to be done well for a just result. I need a fair judge, and a zealous prosecutor — and a defense attorney who basically keeps the prosecutor honest.”

In my piece about DeSimone, I wrote that DeSimone was not only defending Chung Cho on allegations of wage theft, he was actively helping Cho to sell his business in what the RI Center for Justice called “an attempt to evade liability.” I wrote:

“DeSimone filed Cho’s legal response to the Rhode Island lawsuit on May 11, 2015. About a week later, on May 20, 2015, Cho sold Gourmet Heaven to GSP Corp for half a million dollars. At least some of the transactional paperwork for this sale was prepared by DeSimone.”

This kind of slick legal maneuvering isn’t about keeping the prosecutors honest or achieving a fair trial, it’s about helping a boss to plead poverty and avoid paying workers who, absent wages, were essentially reduced to slavery conditions.

Rather than creating a list of people who committed terrible crimes and attaching them to DeSimone’s name, as Nagle did in her piece about Knight, I wrote a piece outlining the kind of legal maneuvers DeSimone engaged in to protect a wage thief from having to pay his employees.

Perhaps such legal maneuvering is perfectly legal. Perhaps it’s all in line with the professional ethics of being a lawyer. But is it right? And does it call into question DeSimone’s suitability for the elected position he holds?

I’ll let the voters decide.

More pertinent to the discussion at hand, is this what Nagle was attempting in her piece about Knight?

I’ll let the readers decide.

Coincidentally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump came to Minneapolis MN on the same day I made my first visit to the city. This turned a day that I had planned to spend sightseeing into a day of traveling to three different anti-Trump events.

“Trump’s rhetoric is creating an unsafe environment for the Muslim community, for the Somali-American community, and we have seen an increase in Islamaphobia and anti-Muslim efforts across the state of Minnesota,” said Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations- Minnesota (CAIR-MN), “We have seen, just a few weeks ago, an incident involving five young Muslim men who were shot… we believe that incident is a hate crime.”

Hussein believes that Trump’s extremist rhetoric is creating a hostile, unsafe environment for Muslim Americans and immigrants, and the effects are being felt by the most vulnerable.

Hussein introduced 13-year old Yusuf Dayur who has been experiencing bullying in his school because he is a Muslim. Hussein suggested that Dayur might one day be president. Though Dayur’s school is very proactive in providing Dayur time and space in which to pray, some of his fellow students do not trust him because he is a Muslim. Dayur bravely fought back tears as he described the difficulties he faces.

Jaylani Hussein’s full comments:

After the press conference I headed across town to the Minnesota State Republican Offices where Cosecha Minnesota was holding a “Wall Off Trump” event. Cosecha is “a nonviolent decentralized movement that is focused on activating our immigrant community and the public to guarantee permanent and humane protection for immigrants in this country.”

Estaphania and another woman explained that their protest, in which they painted a wall, like the one Trump is promising on the Texas-Mexico border, is meant to draw attention to Trump’s extremist rhetoric that threatens the health and safety of immigrant Americans.

My last stop was at the Minneapolis Convention Center, where people representing virtually everyone Trump has ever publicly maligned, including immigrants, black Americans, members of the LGBTQ community, women, Muslims, indigenous Americans and more, gathered together to denounce Trump ahead of his visit to a large donor rally.

This protest was organized by MIRAc, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, a group that, “fights for legalization for all, an end to immigration raids & deportations, an end to all anti-immigrant laws, and full equality in all areas of life.”

Trump did not make a public appearance in Minnesota, or even speak to the press. He spoke to donors only at the Convention Center. But his very presence in the city was enough to galvanize this group to come out to speak, sing, dance and chant their opposition to Trump being president.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune, after this event, as Trump donors left the convention center, they were confronted by angry demonstrators. “The demonstrators who harassed donors were not present earlier on, when the protest was peaceful. Many in the later group hid their faces behind scarves,” writes reporter Patrick Condon, “Minneapolis police spokeswoman Sgt. Catherine Michal said there were no arrests and no reported injuries. There was, however, minor damage, including graffiti on the walls of the Convention Center, and officers had to escort Trump supporters in and out of the lobby because they were being harshly confronted, Michal said.”

Below are the rest of the pictures and video from the three events.