consultants are sandburs

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Flaherty and Collins in the news, in a town that appears to be Springfield, IL, from context, and high-density planning is the news context. Residents in Ramsey should care, given the Faherty history, and the town being in the midst of yet another round of Comp Planning.

The Flaherty item is online here; and deals with Flaherty density lust and grandiose will and conviction; something Ramsey's seen per the massive building full of costly small sized apartment units hung off the Town Center's parking garage.

Comp Planning Questions in Ramsey will include:

1- Whether with the new Armstrong interchange, will that make Armstrong the growth corridor northward, or will plans still focus on a growth corridor along Nowthen Blvd, as per the most recently done Comp Plan to meet Met. Council Comp Plan requirements?

2- Will citizens throughout the town be taxed for another parking ramp and for a community center at Town Center, or will that experiment be written off as "let the developers have their way, density be as the developers choose, but minimize the further dumping of public money into Town Center?"

There may be more, such as does the available aquifer capacity and sustainability support levels of growth Met Council would impose with its made-up projections of regional growth distributions; and where, surprisingly, the last and currently governing Ramsey Comp Plan allotted greater numbers of possible growth absorption in town than Met Council had mandated. Or will we run out of water before we run out of Met Council lust for growth?

Overestimation of growth leads to town comp plans that allow developers to cherry pick among the places where higher density within the town has been designated.

Apparently the wise leaders of Ramsey have a citizen's part of an advisory panel already set, and are adding at least one person from each board and commission, and the EDA presumably, in order to have a large enough committee to make it less efficient and more pliant than a lesser sized body.

In any event, being on the Charter Commission, it appears we will have our annual meeting during the course of which a delegate to the advisory committee shall be named. So far I have come to believe Jim Bendtsen, a Charter Commissioner, might be interested in being that body's rep to the Comp Plan Advisory Committee, and he appears to be an ideal person to add in to leaven the outlooks that might be represented in advising city staff and the council. Another sound choice would be Charter Commission Chair Joe Field, if he has the time and is interested in taking part in the committee effort. Either Jim or Joe would be a good choice. I am unaware of any other person(s) on the commission who would seek the committee spot. There will be a Charter Commission meeting soon, yet at present the date is being finalized by city staff.


[Note: this is a quickly written post, likely of narrow interest, and proof reading during morning coffee is never fault free. Any reader finding error in the post is invited to submit a corrective comment. Also, I've meant to look again, but readers might help; is Ben Dover sitll perched on his pedestal across the street from City Hall, or has Ben been shuffled into obscurity? It seems one time driving Sunwood I did not see Ben.]

Some readers may find interest in, here, listing Ramsey in a "top ten," and while it might be a defect in my browser configuration and not their web design, there is the thought that any website that posts multiples of every comment from readers is suspect. In another sense, perhaps the site does comment multiplication because of the value it assigns to each thought which site readers care to add. Value added, as a complement to the theme of the posted commentary?

________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Reader comment is invited: Does the lack of challenge to incumbency evidenced on this city web page mean a general satisfaction with a status quo, or an indifference bred from the horse having already been stolen, so let someone else tend to the tedium of watching that the barn door gets/stays duly locked?

It makes it hard to post much about the city council contests going on this election cycle. Very hard. The upside is having an entire part of the November ballot you can completely ignore. carries an AP story, " Nearly 1 in 3 on Medicare Got Commonly Abused Opioids --- Wed, 06/22/2016 - 11:35am - by Carla K. Johnson, AP Medical Writer "

Middle of the thing-

Among all ages, there were nearly 19,000 fatal overdoses on prescription opioids in 2014, which was the most on record and the last year for which that data set was available.

So, our doctors are killing off people in greater numbers than "terrorists" are killing us off, so why all this surveillance of us along with tons of money wasted on TSA, Homeland Security, NSA, FBI, and the never-ending so-called "War on Terror?"

Why not have a war on doctors, given fatality numbers? They're easier to find than terrorists and spying on our public is not needed since each of them has a license and known location and m.o.

We'd not need a police state for such a program. And the giant cost of the medical part of the economy would be lowered, without doctors. All those clinics could be turned into community centers, with tiny meeting rooms.

Better, a gigantic war on Big Pharma. Where the heart of darkness is, and where a big time reform mop-up is both needed and long overdue.

The "War on Terror" is the dumbest waste of money we have going and it is an excuse being used to spy on the populace in order to enforce domestic social control. All else told you is a pack of official lies.

Pardon Snowden.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Newly recognized, the pumi. Lovable looking, they do not place themselves in politics.

That lack of political ambition only adds to lovability; this AP BigStory link. It sort of reminds me of Rand Paul.

UBI - universal business income.

Guardian, online here.

Related, GAINS in Ontario. HuffPo, Wikipedia, Globe and Mail here and here, CBC. A web search.

From a few days ago; a post on the World Socialist website.

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

Sanders calls for supporters to back Clinton, “transform” Democratic Party
By Tom Hall - 18 June 2016

On Thursday [June 16, 2016], Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders delivered a speech to his supporters live over the Internet in which he laid out the next stage of his “political revolution” in the aftermath of the Democratic Party primaries. The speech exposed the real political content of his campaign: channeling the leftward political radicalization of workers and youth into the Democratic Party, one of the two main parties of American capitalism.

The speech was doubtlessly coordinated closely with the highest levels of the Democratic Party establishment. It followed by barely a week Sanders’ closed-door meeting with President Barack Obama after the California primary, and by only two days Sanders’ meeting with Hillary Clinton, the party’s presumptive nominee.

Sanders began his speech by noting the widespread support for his campaign: 12 million votes including huge majorities among young voters, victories in 22 state primaries and caucuses, rallies and meetings that attracted 1.5 million people and contributions from 2.7 million people, averaging $27 a piece.

He also listed the political and social conditions in the country motivating those who backed his campaign: an electoral system dominated by billionaires, “the grotesque level of wealth and income inequality,” declining life expectancy, child poverty, soaring student debt, poverty wages, collapsing infrastructure, increasing homelessness and record corporate profits.

All the anger over these conditions, Sanders insisted, must now go into support for Hillary Clinton. [...]

Sanders also made no mention of the fact that Clinton is planning to run arguably the most right-wing campaign in her party’s history, directing her appeal to sections of the military and the Republican Party opposed to Trump’s candidacy on the grounds that she is the more reliable choice for “commander-in-chief.”

Sanders went on to say that “defeating Trump cannot be our only goal.” He sought to focus the attention of his supporters on the Democratic Party convention, saying he would be involved in “discussions between the two campaigns to make certain your voices are heard and that the Democratic Party passes the most progressive platform in its history and that Democrats actually fight for that agenda.”

As everyone who is knowledgeable about the functioning of the Democratic Party knows, the platform is a meaningless document that has played no role in the actual formulation of policy for decades.

Sanders continued, “I also look forward to working with Secretary Clinton to transform the Democratic Party so that it becomes a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors: a party that has the courage to take on Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the fossil fuel industry and the other powerful special interests that dominate our political and economic life.”

Sanders’ portrayal of Clinton as a “progressive” ally of working people to “take on Wall Street” is absurd. She is a time-tested defender of the status quo, a stooge of Wall Street and corporate America going back to her days in Arkansas, when she sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart. As first lady, senator from New York and Obama’s secretary of state, Clinton has supported right-wing economic policies at home and war abroad.

Sanders did not try to explain the contradiction between his presentation of Clinton as a partner in “transforming the Democratic Party” and the campaign’s criticism, which the Vermont Senator has been downplaying in recent weeks, of Clinton’s incestuous financial ties to the banks and major corporations.

A major demand of his campaign, which Sanders repeated at debates and in his public appearances, was that Clinton release the transcripts of speeches she gave to private audiences of corporate executives and Wall Street bankers, for which she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. These criticisms have been thrown down the memory hole.

Sanders makes no attempt to explain how he will accomplish the political alchemy of transforming the Democratic Party, which together with the Republican Party is the means through which the ruling elite asserts total political domination over every facet of American society, into “a party of working people and young people.” As he has done throughout his campaign, the Vermont senator also made no criticism of the Obama administration, which has overseen the largest transfer of wealth in US history and has helped create all the social ills that he listed in the beginning of his remarks.

[...] The winding down of Sanders’ campaign has forced some of the essential political content of his “political revolution” to extrude through his campaign’s fog of left-sounding rhetoric. No small number of people will begin to see through Sanders’ increasingly shopworn facade and view his pivot towards an open embrace of the Clinton campaign with contempt.

Viewing all that with contempt or not, as betrayal with a kiss or as something less, it is a phenomenon of our times, our status, and our quo that major media have not expressed any kindred view of the Sanders capitualtion to delegate numbers and to an intent to stay relevant.

If Sanders can have the effect of a permanent end to superdelegate insult to voting citizens, he will have stood for a degree of progress. Don't expect it. Hope for it but expect that we'll get that old status quo that we all love and know.

Keep an eye on Clinton as she does her version of the family's glide and slide toward "what they want to hear," apart from what is intended once in office, which is mystery as to detail but in large form can be anticipated to be consonant with massive Wall Street speech revenue and Big Pharma campaign money friendliness.

BOTTOM LINE: The Clintons know which side their bread is buttered on. They kiss the hand that feeds them, they do not bite.

A secondary bottom line: The money paragraph of that lengthy excerpt - the thing that rings with truth, is:

As everyone who is knowledgeable about the functioning of the Democratic Party knows, the platform is a meaningless document that has played no role in the actual formulation of policy for decades.

In light of that, a question arises as to Bernie's intent, beyond declaring a Trump victory might bring more distress to a troubled nation than a Clinton victory; as if there'd be much advantage to the people whose support he'd solicited for months of campaigning. In his heart he must know matters of degree differ from matters of polar opposites. But in the end Clinton had more delegate votes. He closes his book as he chooses; it being his to close.

The website from which the lengthy excerpt is taken, has a sidebar image noting there will be a socialist ticket on the ballot; should anybody want to register a protest vote. In that sense, each person must reach a personal decision, heart and mind, about how to go to the polls [or not] in November and once there, what in the world to do with the abysmal top ballot item. That Clinton - Trump choice is a cardinal insult to each and every American, and a message to the world that as a nation, we are and will continue to be a rudderless state in any true sense; one with a big army, but in search of a functioning guiding conscience.

As a pragmatist and a realist, if Bernie in sequential sessions with Obama and Ms. Clinton cut a deal where DWS would be out at DNC and Bernie in, to have a practical, sensible chance to put a progressive coalition together as he's said he'd like, and to move Dem establishment types toward it, that might, given delegate nose counts, be the best achievable outcome.

Let us hope to see such a scenario, since the young are the future, and workers have been the backbone of the real Democratic Party, prior to the Bill and Hillary Clinton "third way." Some things take time, more than the time to ramp up to an election, and may even, over time, fail. So hope progressives get some kind of a shot, at least. And not that tired old, "A hand in writing the platform." Make it a key to the DNC's offices, and be real.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Aside from a progressive putsch to take DNC control, is there a Congressional seat despair setting in, five buck solicitation and all? Hopefully -

click to enlarge and read
forwarded email solicitation

"I have fought the good progressive fight my entire career." It says so. Right there in the email. In bolded text proving words are cheap. Not worth five bucks to me, if not others.

Phelps absent in Trump batting order for Jesus.

Has Trump yet moved to name a panel of economic advisors?

Has Trump yet moved to name a panel of foreign policy advisors?

Wouldn't you project a candidate with only business sector experience to be keen to lock up cracker-jack help on such meaningful matters? Isn't that a logical expectation? Wouldn't that be really presidential?

Why, then, do you think he's keener to post his batting order for Jesus?

Right, because he is unquestionably a man of faith, and not because he wants the dumb bunny vote. Why even expect any ulterior motive from Trump University's Dean of Studies?

June 21, on the Trump website, Batting Order for Jesus co-announced with "Lying Crooked Hillary Website." Two announcements proving beyond doubt, June 21 marks the date the circus comes to town.

NEXT: Screen capture from major Trump website page - again one in place before economic or foreign policy advisory panels are in place; namely:

click image to enlarge and BUY

So, the next logical question: in all the barking, where is the place for Pastor Phelps from Kansas? Isn't Trump inclusive of diversity viewpoints? What's up?

At any rate, put your faith in the faith of the man who posts that The Jesus Roster represents-

[...] Donald J. Trump’s endorsement of those diverse issues important to Evangelicals and other Christians, and his desire to have access to the wise counsel of such leaders as needed. Mr. Trump has received widespread support from Evangelical leaders, communities and voters, winning the majority of the Evangelical vote throughout the primaries.

Mr. Trump stated, “I have such tremendous respect and admiration for this group and I look forward to continuing to talk about the issues important to Evangelicals, and all Americans, and the common sense solutions I will implement when I am President.”

Are you impressed? Why wouldn't you and the entire World Order be impressed? Next, ask yourself: Are you an insider enough to look at the below roster, and determine who is the pitching staff; starters being harder to guess than bull pen?

click image to read and BELIEVE

Jesus loves us this we know,
For our wallets tell us so,
Yes Jesus loves us,
Yes Jesus loves us,
Our wallets tell us so.

______________FURTHER UPDATE_______________

The Rapture happened. You two got left behind.

Image originally posted at Crabgrass, here. Compare coverage, here vs here. Which source is credible to you?

FURTHER: A spectrum of coverage, here, here, here and here (giving some bio info for those unfamiliar with the names).

Try you own web searching.

__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
WaPo reported, and USA Today republished a claim

Donald Trump won a standing ovation from hundreds of Christian conservatives who came to New York City on Tuesday with a somewhat skeptical but willing attitude toward a man who has divided their group with comments on women, immigrants and Islam. In his comments, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said he would end the decades-old ban on tax-exempt groups’ — including churches — politicking, called religious liberty “the No. 1 question,” and promised to appoint antiabortion Supreme Court justices.

There are multiple ways of looking at the phenomenon of political pandering, but tell 'em what they want to hear is going to become highly tedious over the remainder of this election cycle. Highly tedious, given that each of the two parties' top-ticket candidates will be trying to outdo the other in odious exercise of the tactic.

Would that the election were tomorrow, and that the money were taken out of politics so that a higher quality of choice would be offered. Not so, and another "lesser egregiousness" contest is foisted upon us. Yet again. Likely forever?

Monday, June 20, 2016

Privacy and Encryption - Politicizing gun violence for the wrong reasons - Not "Dems to take our guns," but Republicans to deny our privacy. [UPDATED]

This EFF item: "June 17, 2016 | By Shahid Buttar -- House Leaders Politicize a Tragedy to Block Bipartisan Surveillance Reforms."

EFF, again, a bit more than a year ago. More background, WaPo, Sept. 2015.

WaPo in 1997, and its posted log of Bubba's regime's Clipper Chip counter-encryption putsch. (The war on encryption is older than W's War on Terror, and indeed older than some readers of this blog. Dating to the early '90's.)

A recent ComputerWorld item reflecting back to Clipper Chip days, and noting that the encryption disabling aims of the FBI against Apple went well beyond the needs of the San Bernadino phone decryption situation. It was government wants far outstripping government needs; an assault on citizen privacy - the right to protection from intrusion upon who you are.

Is there any sense whatsoever that you must surrender your rightful security because of some bureaucratic notions of security of "the homeland." That position of the government is an absurdity. Worse, and insult. Little different than wanting the power to, without a warrent, enter your home and read your mail - in this case entry unneeded with a compliant web service provider's complicit remote enabling, as your email transits the provider's hardware.

Why would citizens want any such thing, and why have our elected officials done as they have, given sensible citizen moods and beliefs.

If your right to privacy is breached, what rights do you really have?

Mischief afoot, dateline June 22, in of all places, the houses of Congress.

Once time has rendered its more certain arrangements, remember you first saw this speculation on Crabgrass, this summer. Donald Trump will select Stuart Mills III as his vice presidential running mate.

Three factors come to mind. Each of the gentlemen is eqully qualified to be chief executive of the nation. Each is the child of inherited wealth. Mills III looks a lot like Dan Quayle and appears as astute; making him equally fit for the role as Quayle.

Remember, Crabgrass had the insight before any mainstream media recognized the possibilities.

An additional fact, one of likely less consequence, Trump and Mills III each has a hair thing going.

Digby has other ideas, this link. An idea mentioned earlier at Crabgrass without detail, but from a perspective similar to that supported well by the facts Digby musters.

It's possible, Jeff Sessions.

But Mills III is just such a better keener fit. Sessions could be given the Justice Department Civil Rights Division. Palin the Interior Department. Mills is the man for the veep spot.

Mills III, for Veep.

CFR chapter and verse "terrorism" stuff. Presume it is a front for some other agenda, and then, what other agenda would you suppose? Technology allows much data collection about regular citizens, and we regular citizens are not terrorists nor would we properly be subject to dragnet tactics under any false rubric.

The CFR writes online, here. Some minds may differ, but militarization of urban police is to me a far bigger threat to the nation than "terror." In fact, it invites a form of terror. One we'd be better without. In a nation where a surveillance act is mistermed a "Patriot Act" the plain truth is that spying on the homeland is unpatriotic. Dig up Jefferson and ask him.

FURTHER: This Snowden related item from over a year ago. The CFR item is about a half year older. These are not current event links. Should that matter?

Moore Unveils Tax Bill Leveling the Playing Field for Impoverished Americans . DRUG TEST THE RICH: 06/16/16 Washington, D.C. – In the wake of several nationwide efforts by Republicans to drug test social welfare recipients, Congresswoman Gwen Moore (WI-04) introduced the Top 1% Accountability Act of 2016, requiring drug testing for all tax filers claiming itemized deductions in any year over $150,000.

When it comes to drug testing as a stigmatization, who deserves to be stigmatized more than the aggressively greedy rich? Make that the rich in general, since it's easier to create thresholds; "aggressively greedy" being both subjective and generally redundant with saying only, "the rich." This link (NPR reporting here also), the Moore press release stating:

“As a strong advocate for social programs aimed at combating poverty, it deeply offends me that there is such a deep stigma surrounding those who depend on government benefits, especially as a former welfare recipient. Sadly, Republicans across the country continue to implement discriminatory policies that criminalize the less fortunate and perpetuate false narratives about the most vulnerable among us. These laws serve only one purpose: stoking the most extreme sentiments and misguided notions of the conservative movement.

“Such baseless attacks against the poor inspired me to draft the Top 1% Accountability Act of 2016. My legislation would require taxpayers with itemized deductions of more than $150,000 to submit to the IRS a clear drug test, or take the much lower standard deduction when filing their taxes. It is my sincere hope that my bill will help eradicate the stigma associated with poverty and engage the American public in a substantive dialogue regarding the struggles of working- and middle-class families.

“As I’ve said time and time again, the notion that those battling poverty are somehow more susceptible to substance abuse is as absurd as it is offensive. If anything, our nation’s opioid crisis continues to underscore how substance addiction knows no social, racial, or economic distinctions. The time has come to stop vilifying vulnerable American families for being poor and start focusing on the policies that will help create an economy that works for everyone.”

The anticipated reaction, from the rich if not otherwise, would be "What a stupid waste of money that would be."

But then, what is drug testing of the poor?

"But many Republicans fear the White House is already lost and that the future of the party is at stake. They are aiming to stop Democrats winning back control of Congress, and to prevent Trump from tarnishing the party’s brand."

The above headline is a paragraph from within this Guardian item.

"Tarnishing the Republican brand?" Give me a break.

This is the party of George H.W. Bush after all, and his running mate Willie Horton.

Trump fits into that bunch, unchanged at heart since GHWB, indeed since Nixon left, as clearly a crook in denial.

Brand loyalty, that bunch, is often hard to comprehend.

Perhaps the "Dump Trump" movement may coalesce upon running Willie Horton again. Recall Willie's race; recall Lee Atwater.

Republicans remain Republicans and Trump fits in like a hand in the Bushco clan's glove. He just speaks more bluntly - singing that song with others clucking, "Too loud. One too many verses. And - my God, some verses in Spanish with 'Make Mexico pay for it' added."

Earlier linked videos are short and sweet. For those willing to take a bit more time viewing informative [a.k.a. judgmental, slanted, leftist, pure propaganda] videos; here and here.

They call it "the Base."

Creeping Trumpism, as a simple truth, resonates with the Base. As Tump would say, "Great people, really understanding what's been going on, I really love the Base."

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Superdelegate opposition from California Dems - specifically a resolution for eliminating the superdelegate blight at the upcoming convention.

This link. This excerpt:

"It's very exciting and healing for our party to be able to make a strong statement that we believe in democracy and that leaders should never trump the will of the voters," said Christine Pelosi, a California superdelegate.

Superdelegates have played a prominent role in the 2016 election, as Sanders has argued they play an unfair role in the nominating process.

Superdelegates, who are elected officials and party leaders, are not bound by the election results of the state they represent and can support any candidate they want. Sanders says they should support the winner their state's primary or caucuses.

The California resolution calls for Democratic governors and members of Congress to lose their status as superdelegates. They would instead attend the convention as nonvoting guests. Members of the Democratic National Committee would still be superdelegates, but would no longer have to say whom they intend to support before the convention.

The resolution also calls for replacing all state caucuses with state primaries. Critics say caucuses have low turnout and favor people who have the time to attend them.


Krugman, a month ago wrote, per the headline, "Trump Didn’t Put the Con in Conservatism." As a hint, "con" is NOT a reference to Gingrich. So, honors go to . . .

Who else: The granny starver. This link.

Liberals have been jumping, rightly, on Ryan’s extraordinary dismissal of any attempt to look at the distribution of tax cuts as “ridiculous.” But conservative writers — even those who are relatively moderate, or at least try to seem that way — clearly still view Ryan as an almost saintly figure: serious, intellectually honest, and compassionate toward the poor.

He isn’t, of course. His various budgets all have the same basic outline: huge tax cuts for the rich combined with savage cuts in benefits for the poor, with the net effect being to increase, not reduce the budget deficit. But he pretends that they’re deficit-reduction proposals by claiming that he will raise trillions in revenue by closing unspecified loopholes and achieve trillions more in unspecified savings. In other words, Ryan has been playing a con game in which he uses magic asterisks to mask a reverse Robin Hood agenda — take from the poor, give to the rich — as deficit hawkery.

Well, hard to argue with that. Krugman ties a can to another tail -

Back in 2011, at the height of media Ryanolatry, the truth even became slightly mainstream, as reporters started to point out the absurdities of his assumptions.

But moderate Republican pundits can’t, won’t see the obvious. For them it’s all about affect — how he comes across — which is also why they saw tax-slashing, war-starting Marco Rubio as somehow a break from the failures of the Bush years.

So when these commentators lament the blindness of primary voters, [...] Is it really the con that bothers them, or just the vulgarity?

Ryan, not vulgar, that is a Trump reference. Snakes often shed their skin and get bigger. Ryan does not, being less a snake than a croc. A supersized croc headed to his lakeside Cleveland convention.

Krugman references this Paul Ryan Q and A tedium; and did I say, supersized? So not the amphibian in Krugman crosshairs, the croc.

Face up to The Police State.

Saving face? This Ars link.

More Ars.

Clinton (Bubba) in 2013 commenting on worse of world, no security, no privacy.

Privacy? His concern? This websearch = clinton clipper chip

Another websearch. Plus this one. Headlining the obvious.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

What troubles me more about the email thing is the 30,000 purged emails (a number even greater than given paid speeches), and not whether some munchkin in a bureau had stamped something "SECRET," since farting over what was left begs the more compelling question of what smoking gun(s) might have been among email winnowing.

Can you envision the woman in slippers and a robe sitting late in the night in the basement at a keyboard, typing in search terms for the emails such as "goldman," "sachs," "morgan," "stanley," "bank america," or "speaking speech fees?" And deleting?

Oh, those would have been "personal" right? Not State Department business. Business, yes, taking the money out of politics - as quickly as offered - but, well, not the thing to leave around during a presidential run.

30,000 "personal" emails now. In your entire lifetime, not a mere few years holding a job, have you generated thirty thousand personal emails? What time would you have left over for all the rest of your life if you had?

This is a big time big purge of one hell of a lot of stuff. What of a search, "clinton foundation cash arabs?"

Or "clinton foundation cash chinese?" The possibilities are endless, and the pattern's been money on the table, grab it, ask questions later; and answer questions much later if ever. That has been the Clinton Way.

Larry, here, rags on a bit over the top, but Larry is Larry. So look to N.Y. Post, an admittedly right-wing operation, but still, read what is there to consider (published online at the time of the release of the State Department's IG report):

As first lady, Hillary was embroiled in another scheme to bury sensitive White House emails, known internally as “Project X.”

In 1999, as investigators looked into Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and other scandals involving the then-first lady, it was discovered that more than 1 million subpoenaed emails were mysteriously “lost” due to a “glitch” in a West Wing computer server.

The massive hole in White House archives covered a critical two-year period — 1996 to 1998 — when Republicans and special prosecutor Ken Starr were subpoenaing White House emails.

Despite separate congressional investigations and a federal lawsuit over Project X, high-level emails dealing with several scandals were never turned over. And the full scope of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s culpability in the parade of scandals was never known.

To those well-versed in Clinton shenanigans, this all sounds distressingly familiar.

Thanks to another server-related problem, Clinton so far has gotten away with withholding more than 30,000 emails from congressional committees investigating the Benghazi terrorism cover-up, Clinton Foundation foreign-influence peddling and other scandals.

“This Clinton email scandal is nothing new,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told me. “There were previous efforts to hide emails in the Clinton White House.”

[...] During the Project X email scandal, career White House staffers and contractors found that someone close to the first lady had basically turned off the White House’s automated email archiving system. They fingered White House “special assistant” Laura Crabtree Callahan, who was overseeing the computer contractors despite obtaining computer science degrees from diploma mills.

The State Department staffer who set up Clinton’s unsecured server in the basement of Clinton’s home in Chappaqua also lacked computer experience and qualifications.

That IT staffer, Bryan Pagliano, appears to be playing a similar role in this email caper as Callahan did in the White House — that of a lackey used to help thwart public requests to see information about the government-related business of the Clintons.

Despite having no computer security experience or even security clearance, Pagliano catapulted from a Clinton campaign worker to the secretary’s own “special adviser” dealing with the department’s classified email system.

On top of his $133,000-a-year State Department salary, Clinton personally paid Pagliano thousands of dollars between 2009 and 2013 to set up and run a private home-brew server for her, separate from the government system she was supposed to use, where she received and stored thousands of classified government emails. His work for the secretary was clearly a rogue operation, because the department’s inspector general found that his boss, the deputy chief information officer, was “unaware of his technical support of the secretary’s email system.”

[,,,] Pagliano took the Fifth when called to testify before Congress. (Judicial Watch will get a crack at him at a deposition set for June 6.)

When career staffers at State raised concerns that Clinton’s email records weren’t being properly captured and preserved, they were told to shut up, according to the IG’s report, instructed “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

Likewise, career staffers and contractors at the White House were ordered to keep those earlier unarchived emails secret. In fact, they testified that Callahan personally threatened them with jail time if they disclosed the gap to prosecutors or lawmakers.

A 1998 contractor audit of the White House email accounts affected by the “snafu” shows that much of the omitted email was addressed to top Clinton officials — including then-deputy counsel Cheryl Mills and other aides close to Hillary. A federal judge “excoriated Mills” for failing to get to the bottom of the missing emails, Fitton pointed out.

Now Mills finds herself in the middle of another investigation into the whereabouts of thousands of emails germane to investigations involving Hillary Clinton that also have conveniently turned up missing. After following Clinton to State, where she served as her chief of staff and counsel, Mills joined Clinton in flouting federal records-management requirements by using personal email accounts to conduct official government business. It was Mills who helped her old boss delete some 32,000 emails from the server Pagliano set up, claiming they were irrelevant to investigations.

It is a long excerpt, but justifiably so. With the White House email situation as personal history, what is to be made of the "learning curve" effect at play with the present situation? Twice now. Email then went missing. Email now went missing. Email then was not affirmatively purged as "personal," or at least the N.Y. Post item gives no evidence that any such purge event happened. Currently, it is widely reported, thirty thousand emails deep-sixed.

If you want a thought experiment to wrap around this lost thirty thousand, HuffPo provides one, titled, "What if Dick Cheney, Not Hillary Clinton, Deleted 30,000 Emails from a Private Home Server?"

Chew on that hypothetical for awhile. Read the HuffPo item. In addition, HuffPo is NOT a right-wing outlet, a challenge that CAN be leveled at N.Y. Post. Likewise, Counterpunch is not right-wing, yet this was published by Counterpunch at the time the IG report was released this year:

May 31, 2016 -- Emailgate: the Clinton Spin Doctors In Action -- by Binoy Kampmark

Hillary Clinton’s email dilemma got somewhat sharper over the weekend, with Sunday programs heavy with the theme. Her use of a private email server during her stint as Secretary of State was given a new lease of life by the Office of the Inspector General’s report which took significant issue with her practices when in office.

[..] As for turning over the emails, there was no mitigating factor: she should surrendered them before leaving office, not 21 months after. “[S]he did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

Clinton has supreme form when it comes to imaginative, and careless “record keeping”. Her lax attitude to such details was evident during the course of her time as First Lady, when she and her husband presided over the fraying of the post-Cold War Republic.

In 1999, when special prosecutor Ken Starr and Republicans were busying themselves with filling files over an assortment of scandals, a million subpoenaed emails vanished in the Project X affair. The reason? A technical problem with a West Wing computer server. The unseen hand of technological error has often proven helpful to the Clinton cause.

Little wonder then that the latest weaving apologia fell flat in Republican circles, where fiction and fact are synonymous.

[italics emphasis added]

Business Insider in early March a year ago (well before release of the State Department IG report) published:

At the Tuesday afternoon news conference in which she attempted to dismiss concerns about her use of a private email system for official business, Clinton revealed she deleted about 30,000 messages.

She characterized the messages that were erased as personal correspondence and said she had "no reason to save them."

Would she have had reason to save Goldman Sachs related email? Or "no reason?" My vote is with the "no reason" possibility. Stated otherwise, a good reason for an urge to purge.

Business Insider, continuing -

"In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work," Clinton said. "I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because federal guidelines are clear ... For any government employee it is that government employees responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work related."

Clinton said she "chose not to keep" the messages and said she expected people would understand her need for "privacy."

"We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department," she said. "At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. Emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes.

How about that "we?" Her and her tapeworm? Worse, her and her lawyer? Who is "we," and how besides "trust me" do we know any such "thorough process" happened or not? And "other things you typically find in inboxes" of those given $225,000 per speech just might differ from Crabgrass webmail. If I ever had anyone pay me $225,000 for a Wall Street humding, well, hey, it would be personal. Right? But Wall Street invests, it does not waste, and I've not been offered the fee any more than Bernie has. Same Business Insider item -

Even if all the emails that were erased were indeed personal, the deletion of those messages could have implications for potential investigations into Clinton's communications.

[...] The former secretary of state and her team have said her use of personal email for official business went above and beyond regulatory requirements. At the news conference Tuesday, Clinton said she and her team engaged in a "thorough process" to identify all work-related emails and turn them over to the State Department.

[...] In addition to closing off these potential investigations, Clinton's decision to delete her emails would also seem to eliminate the chance she could ever make these messages accessible to historians and archivists as many other major figures have.

Clinton hasn't really made her rationale for deleting the personal emails clear beyond saying she "chose" to do so and had "no reason to save them." Her team did not respond to multiple requests from Business Insider asking for clarification on why she deleted the messages. However, a written statement Clinton's office distributed after the news conference seemed to attribute the decision to a desire to "ensure the continued privacy" of the messages.

Good. Reassuring. "We" is spelled out as "she and her team." No problem at all then, right?

L.A. Times - again in early March of last year before the IG weighed in - noting the appearance of things being at best, suspect:

While she sought to quell a controversy that threatens to mar the debut of her expected presidential candidacy, Clinton may have only fueled it with a 20-minute news conference — her first in two years — that raised fresh questions about her actions.

Insisting that her approach was fully consistent with administration rules, she said she would not allow investigators from Congress to examine the private computer server that processed and stored the emails at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

The former senator from New York said the server had been installed to ensure digital security for her husband, former President Clinton. She said it was still guarded by the Secret Service and had never been hacked.

Nonetheless, she said that last fall she approved the destruction of slightly more than half of the emails she wrote or received as America’s top diplomat during President Obama’s first term — because they were “private and personal.” The remainder were forwarded to the State Department.

[...] Many were quick to dismiss the criticism as a stew of partisan smear and media hype, even as critics delighted in reviving her family’s mine-strewn political history and her penchant for secrecy and hunkering down.

Yet her comparatively laggard reaction to the storm, allowing more than a week to pass before she offered a substantive response, contributed to concerns among Democratic Party professionals that her political operation had gone rusty or was maladapted to the 24/7 demands of today’s campaign world.

Facing scores of clamoring reporters, her demeanor was crisply efficient, even if her smile sometimes seemed forced. She answered fewer than a dozen questions — several of them multi-part — before gathering her papers and leaving.

In her comments, Clinton said she now regretted relying on a private email account while in office, rather than a government account, as recommended in Obama administration policy guidance. She said she used the private account “as a convenience” so that she didn’t need to carry separate phones for personal and official communications.

“Looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones,” she said.

“I thought one device would be simpler; obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way,” she added.

She said she had never sent any classified material on the private account, using other staffers’ government accounts for that.

According to a nine-page statement later put out by Clinton’s office, her private email account held 62,320 messages that she had sent or received between March 2009 and February 2013.

The statement said 30,490 of these were provided to the State Department, and 31,830 were private records that were destroyed.

Her use of a private email account “was widely known to the over 100 department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent,” the statement said.

“During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.”

Clinton said that her emails complied with government record-keeping and archiving regulations because she sent most of her work-related messages to government employees on their government accounts. Those emails would have been “captured and preserved” on the recipients’ systems, she said.

[..] Clinton said that when she and her staff reviewed the emails last year, she instructed her lawyer to err on the side of turning over anything that might be considered work-related. But that did not satisfy critics, because it meant that her team was the sole judge of what was released.

[emphasis added] Yeah, only one foreign-addressed email, eh? And in all that she can add her phone calls to Merklel would be in NSA archives along with phone meta data and "collect it all" on calls to foreigners. That's not, however, the point.

ABC News published a Clinton cabal claim that every one of the over sixty thousand emails were read (by whoever, the report is not clear) but sixty thousand emails is a massive amount to review one-by-one and read (and did such "readers" have proper security clearances, etc.), while a search by keyword and keep procedure was also described with it appearing that any item left after such keyword search (by the lawyers no less) was wiped off record from the server hardware. Believe it or not. If you check that item, decide for yourself whether it had an underlying mood of questioning and skepticism. Don't take my word on such "mood" inference. Further generally cumulative coverage, USA Today, "Clinton wipes server after handing over e-mails;" "Clinton was scrubbing emails since she was first lady. Project X. Meet Laura Callahan;"; and Yahoo News, "Clinton has been burying emails since she was first lady -- May 29, 2016."

Might the term "coverup" apply? As an inference from the totality of circumstantial evidence? Guess at it.

BOTTOM LINE: She sits on a pile of six-figure-income-per-hour transcripts while effectively saying "Fuck you" to the clamor for disclosure; and she deleted a ton of email THIS TIME and AFTER a distinctively factually similar "learning curve" email experience years earlier, while the Clinton family occupied the White House.

Is there no limit to arrogance? Is there a blight to be removed? Is Pope Francis a Catholic?

Three interesting Clinton related posts at The Intercept, from earlier this year.

Close together in time, same author. In chronological order; here, here and here.

Money talks; Clinton talks; what lingers?

Friday, June 17, 2016

Four Elizabeth Warren short video segments from hearings which collectively provide questions and a context for reading Ms. Clinton's Goldman Sachs transcripts, once she releases them to the public.

Once pigs fly? Can she get away with such shameful hubris? Likely, but unfortunate.

First segment - while GE has from time to time paid no federal taxes; what has the government been doing that yields it a substantial cash flow? Answer: screwing students on student loans. Ask Hillary about that shameful truth.

Further segments - no Wall Street criminal has been prosecuted; while too big to fail was a theme in bailout largess times; and what about all that stuff, Warren asks.

So somebody knows the questions, and asks. Will it not be reassuring to see the Clinton six-figure speech transcripts to see how she'd equally held feet to the fire as Warren would? Wouldn't that make the sun shine brighter and the birds sing finer?


The online Warren-YouTube items are here, here, here and here. A brief nobody fired as well as nobody jailed bonus item, here. A longer bonus item, Warren and Krugman, here. Don't be a wuss and dodge it because it runs longer than an hour. Last: Bernie, here.

Warren puts Ms. Clinton in perspective; with one credible and impressive, the other Clinton. More here.

Bernie. He questions oligarchs. The Clintons ARE oligarchs. Of that camp.

Representing that camp? Oligarchs can say much that ends up happening differently from what is said, earlier. Lying is lying, errors in prediction - changing circumstances - adaptation - all are, at heart, words that in hindsight can be used to deny lying. Would speech transcripts, if released, fit campaign rhetoric? That is a fine question. Will final post-convention campaign rhetoric be little but a constant din of what's wrong with Trump? We can guess and we shall see. Pop goes the weasel is my guess, but even more, pop, pop, pop, pop and more pop, pop, pop. A tireless weasel, rather than Warren-like good sense.

FURTHER: Clinton views of Obamacare [a.k.a. Romneycare] is step-wise incrementalism toward better ways; Warren, here, on healthcare perspectives you will not hear in Clinton campaigning. We're moving to better and better is something of a glide and slide whereas Warren addresses the elephant in the room. It's broken. It's not working. It's fiction to say be happy.

FURTHER: As to expectations, I expect not to be surprised by another Clinton presidency, should it come about. I expect others who have listened to Ms. Clinton's campaigning may be in for a jolt, (if they at all can feel the rain whereas most others will only get wet). There will be no more New Deal, with a stacked deck as with the Obama services to the rich, they will instead only play cards among themselves.

Try this; ask yourself, how many big payday speeches has Elizabeth Warren been invited to give to Wall Street?

Legitimacy matters. Warren has it. Contrasts exist.

As to legitimate and decent past conduct; Trump University, has less than Warren's record; while getting rich as a career politician has even less - Trump hustled chumps, chumps for Trump, whereas the Clintons took money out of politics - in their way, not as Bernie means when he says, "Take the money out of politics."

How it is, is not how it should be; and that AIPAC demo of Ms. Clinton's tell 'em what they want to hear accords with big money for Goldman Sachs speaking gigs. Of her promises, a belief that she will keep the ones Goldman Sachs bought is a sound outlook. To avoid future buyer's remorse know the product. If Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright would have been viewed as useful Clinton props at AIPAC they'd have been there. But AIPAC, while another speech given in anticipation of a payback; differed from the Goldman Sachs stints because the Wall Street money-making gigs, each of them doubtlessly like some of her university speaking engagements, were fully contracted for down to travel and lodging detail in advance - and for the Wall Streetsters, given behind closed doors.

When you see a woman as completely legitimate and entirely honest in her concern for the bulk of Americans as Elizabeth Warren is, and you see the political process giving us Hillary Clinton instead, something is wrong with that process. The 1% owns the process and the players in it, that might be a place to begin analysis, but Why NOT Warren??? Go figure.

FURTHER: We're being taken for a ride, again. Three short videos touching on the legitimacy vs. bought -&- quality vs. connectedness issues, in a logical sequence, and please look beyond the manner of the first video presenter to the substance of what he is saying; then Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! which we all should respect; last, a bit of a timely chuckle; here, here and then here.

This is the feature movie the Dem inner party wants to push upon us. Instead of Bernie who is as sincere and trustworthy as Elizabeth Warren although she'd likely make the better President. Inner party offensiveness? That's for you to figure out for yourself. Trump University promised the secret of how to make a fortune trading in real estate. While not too much a secret beyond withheld transcripts, the Clintons are a lesson in how to make a fortune trading in politics. Which offends more?

FURTHER: Two more video items. 1- Speeches and Transcripts. 2- Emails.

From a headline we can foresee Paul Ryan as believing his GOP colleagues will be wholly rudderless with regard to questions surrounding Donald Trump.

This link.

Whatever the scorn some have toward Trump, there will be good arising too from his presumptive candidate status when his party convenes in Cleveland to nominate him to run under their banner for President:

While the host committee says it is on track for funding, other big-name donors plan to skip out on the Cleveland event, too. David Koch, one of the biggest backers in Tampa, announced that he and his brother Charles will not fund this year’s convention, and a number of major GOP figureheads, including both former presidents Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have said they won’t be attending.

[link in original - image from linked item] What better backdrop than a warship?

Rudderless, or just mothballed?

(The ship that is.)


Old news, from June 1 this year, but still interesting news. Strib, here, these paragraphss near the end of the report:

Officers with the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension searched the dispensary and the company’s armored vehicle. BCA officials saw that the CMO made several transfers in December — mostly after hours — totaling more than 5,580 grams of cannabis oil out of Otsego with no destination listed. Health officials could not laccount for the missing oil and learned that after-hours transfers are “out of the ordinary.”

The company responded to the search warrant by releasing a two-page statement saying the missing cannabis oil was destroyed and that the New York facility was not short on inventory. The company said the discrepancies stem from software designed for the accounting of marijuana plant material, not oil. Those limitations result in a lack of destinations for dozens of entries into the system, “not just the small number of entries cherry-picked by the disgruntled former employee.”

In the film version Bruch Willis will play the disgruntled former employee; Matt Damon as BCA head; William H. Macey as the company owner. Matt Dillon and Snoop Dogg the firm's dispensary head and armored vehicle driver respectively. These are the favored folks per Dayton's we-need-another-study approach to legalization. Somebody's gonna be favored folks, so we pick with caution . . .

More software "glich" distress; our military; luckily not in pay grade and promotion e-records. Here and here. Lockheed Martin yet again proves itself an exemplary military contractor. One to emulate. The Coen brothers are working on the film version; a musical, similar to Oh Brother Where Art Thou. Less snow a part of the plot, in comparison to Fargo. Snow of a differing nature.

Confusion in a war horse suggests it is past time to pasture.

WaPo, within a laughable context, publishes:

McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential election, is seeking a sixth term in the Senate this year and faces a competitive Republican primary in August.

The likely Democratic nominee in the race, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, issued a statement Thursday saying McCain “cross[ed] a dangerous line in comments that undermine our Commander in Chief on national security issues — at the very moment the president was in Orlando to comfort victims’ families.”

“It’s difficult to imagine the old John McCain being this reckless with something so serious,” the statement said. “John McCain has changed after 33 years in Washington.”

That is a generic enough statement to stand on its own. For those demanding a context, the item is titled, "John McCain: Obama is ‘directly responsible’ for Orlando attack - -By Mike DeBonis June 16 at 3:59 PM."

Anything for the 33 long years in beltway banter, to get away from, "Your guy really is going to be Donald Trump, isn't he?" A younger McCain, years ago, would have said "Hillary Clinton ..." because Obama is yesterday's hero.

Clearly, Clinton's Libya = Mateen's murders. As clear as Obama's Iraq Shutdown = Mateen's murders.

The logic is fit for pasturing, and there is that unnamed primary challenger WaPo mentioned, as well as a named Dem general election contestant.

33 years in beltway give and take. Most of the student loan sufferers have not even been sucking air 33 years, and McCain punts on any of their distress; business as usual being McCain as usual. Pasture him.

In the fine Trumpian tradition of genuineness and quality, a suggestion for a TV weekly show, "Ask the Admiral," (being Trumpian even so far as exagerating the highest military rank McCain attained), where things are asked of the gentleman, with suitable preamble, such as:

The question for the Admiral then being, "Your guy really is going to be Donald Trump, isn't he?"

image of excerpted online reporting is from here

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Evangelist Franklin Graham whines in St. Paul big time about the political process. No dog in the hunt, apparently.

He should track down his good friend George W. Bush and have his portrait painted.

Strib; here.

Minnesota is the twenty-ninth state on Graham's tour. The crowd assembled ranged from elderly people in lawn chairs, to families with children, to a few workers from the State Capitol construction project in fluorescent yellow vests. Many waved small U.S. flags during a chorus of "God Bless America."

In St. Paul ginning up some cash, or what? To criticize the Orlando shootings?

Or simply just there to whine about secularism without any cash flow?

That is difficult to imagine.

DWS and the DNC. News of an expected change.

KOS here. CNN here. Now if only DWS were to lose her Congressional seat primary contest . . .

Fundraising efforts of two active blogs, each with its own unique political perspective.

Bluestem Prairie; this link, with owner-operator-main author Sally Jo Sorensen putting much work into her effort.

The same can be said for Gary Gross, and his Let Freedom Ring Blog; this link.

Please donate. Diversity of perspective exists, but each writing effort involves work and thought and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, CTIB member Matt Look, an Anoka County commissioner, said “it’s inappropriate for us to be beating up on one of our members. There have been rumblings [of leaving] in Anoka County, as well. If people want to start pulling a thread on a sweater, then let’s go.”

The headline is a mid-item paragraph from a Strib authored report, "Dakota County takes heat over proposed exit from transit board -- The county is threatening to withdraw its tax money. By Janet Moore Star Tribune - June 15, 2016 — 9:27pm."

Clear from the headline, the report is not about Matt Look, nor primarily about Anoka County.

It just seems strange, my Highway 10 pork, it's a need; their transit pork, it's a want. The old Matt Look wants vs needs conundrum. Matt always right. Per Matt.

UPDATE: While the above is a possibly wrong simplification; it does seem that Anoka County; having gotten Northstar years ago and ahead of arguably higher priority projects; is hardly in possession of clear grounds to now criticize current transit planning and spending. There is something asymmetric to such a viewpoint. Yet at this point Anoka County is not set to exit any particular regional transit process in which it currently is involved. Not by any formal vote of any governing body. Yet.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Zombie eyed granny starving yoke the young to debt New Deal undertaker. [UPDATED: fellow traveler(s)?]

Start with an image, and ask is that a "Rockefeller Republican" in the Democratic Party riding shotgun on the Ryan express:

While not saying it is, nor saying it is not, but rather urging readers to view a very brief Paul Ryan video segment from a few years ago, with a Young Turks envelope explaining a context; and to extrapolate that to reasonable expectations to hold over an upcoming Clinton presidency [likely not different from the earlier one] and to extrapolate from the perspective of no biting of the generic "hand" that's fed and steered the Clintons since that earlier White House stint.

There is this stated policy page at Wikipedia; but can you trust a word of it? And do note, policy against a fifteen buck minimum wage, against raising the social security tax cap. For a context for expectations, do a web search = "bill clinton" "third way".

In short, where readers might see things differently, the Clinton "third way" in my view was to preempt the Rockefeller Republican economic policy, call it "Democrat policy" and not "GOP lite, without abortion hatred" which is what the two Clinton terms, NAFTA and such, yielded.

If you've seen two terms; where the New Deal did not do well, are you prepared to expect there'd be no further death blows dealt the New Deal by Clinton or Trump? Would there be much difference? Between now and November it is feasible that trust could be built; but not without a release of six-figure speech transcripts to expose truth apart from what we are being told.

Another short Young Truks video, suggesting there might be a trust-building direction that would not require rocket science to comprehend and implement; should actions be wanted to speak louder than hollow words.

Preservation of New Deal policy deserves voter thought and hope. Beyond that, one closing thought, does anyone wonder why that Young Turks first video - the internal segment - did not gain any Rachel Maddow/MSNBC attention comparable to the Romney write-off of the bottom 47% on the totem pole? Might it be mainstream media editing what you "need to know?" If you'd seen the Ryan-Clinton hallway dialog previously, via a mainstream media source, you are a step ahead of me. I discovered it via alternate media, a reference at the tail end of this video, with follow-up web searching. Readers are urged to watch that item to catch the reference to Ryan-Clinton mischief.

NOTE: From web search, and readers can confirm, that short Clinton-Ryan hallway gig is posted via several YouTube uploads apart from the Young Turks featuring it, but the "envelope of context" their coverage provides only adds weight to the thing. So, why has it been kept from you when earlier you saw 47% Mitt coverage 24/7?

Propaganda is what it is. Manipulation of information is propaganda, i.e., choosing the news you need from that which might "mislead" is not a choice being made by lasting New Dealers like Bernie Sanders.

That is a certainty.

Wait for Rachel Maddow to run that Ryan-Clinton interchange, and you will wait a very long time.

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
In fairness to semi-mainstream, back in 2011 when the hallway interchange happened, check out ABC blogging and TalkingPointsMemo from back then.

Note that Clinton and Ryan each was an invited speaker at the Pete Peterson Foundation; this SourceWatch link; this web search.

Kindred souls, the troika; Peterson, Ryan, the Clintons? You decide. From that search return list, see Clinton speech, here, linked to from here (a return list item).

FURTHER: Warren, and a mood somewhat differing from the Clinton-Peterson Foundation approach. Which, Clinton at Peterson's session or Warren on video, is truth to you and which is hemming and hawing about looking forward, looking back, but not looking at Wall Street?

Warren having a substantial and not merely ceremonial role is not as good as having Bernie as the post-convention party candidate would be, but she is kindred with Bernie.

Party loyalty showing in that Warren video clip? Yes. But: Best in class, if you limit the class to Warren and the Clintons. Warren, and the role she might have at the Democratic convention, and the role for which she might be slotted for should a Clinton candidacy succeed, are things that could be bridge-building steps, if handled well, at the convention. Meanwhile, Bernie continues to persevere.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Well, I was wrong. Facts have a way of contradicting speculation, and when facts show up it is time to own up to error. Crooks And Liars, here, referencing Maddow unhappiness with the Ryan-Clinton tete-a-tete.

I was wrong. In ending, too easily forgotten might be the best summary, rather than concluding mainstream media was lax. Call it that; with this post updating aimed at undoing long term memory lapses. I simply at the time missed the extended coverage, that is clear, but I am thankful for the alternate media video clip giving me notice of something covered back in 2011 that went under my radar at that time.

FURTHER: DailyBeast reporting re that 2011 Peterson Foundation event. HuffPo, here.