consultants are sandburs

Monday, January 16, 2017

Tom Perez

Who cares?

Saturday, January 14, 2017

A standing army of spies?

This is a chain of hypotheticals. What-ifs. It need not be an unbroken chain to be relevant. It only requires general trending. Details can differ.

First, let's guess, Jeb hired the opposition research. From the get-go, or from when he was called "low energy" by Trump.

He has family. They have intelligence community grounding going far back in time - some speculate into the early '60's.

The intel community liked the early bet; JEB! v. The Clintons. Both choices fit in just fine with what the "CIA annex" was doing in Benghazi, and the intentions of regime change in Syria; Qatari gas pipeline as motive, or otherwise. The JEB! camp wants intel community help against Trump, "What have you got," being the question.

JEB! tanks.

It becomes Trump v. The Clintons. There is IS being armed out of Benghazi (hypotheticals still, this one plausible, but still a guess), and Clinton's satisfied. Trump takes the opposite route; asking why more costly ill-thought-out warfare screw-ups, leave Syria to those already at play there, the Russians who we can work with will do fine, it is not our fight.

The Clintons take over the intel community support at some such point, and again, what have you got? Pence is the Trump VP pick. Somewhere in the timing.

The intel community, in the spirit of J.Edgar Hoover has its Trump portfolio, fat and including the trip to Moscow, fall of 2013, the beauty pageant, and there actually is video, held by our intel community not the Russians, that is compromising in a direction written up in the "dossier." Again, this is all hypotheticals of the possible; not offered as probable, but conceivable to some degree however small.

The consensus, this Trump guy is all ego and we have him nailed dead to right. And there is Pence, and the Russians actually are hacking the Dems, or somebody is and we can say it's the Russians.

Comey has an agent contact a low-level DNC web administrator, instead of DWS, and it's not trusted by the IT guy as a legit FBI contact, etc. Spin that out however you choose. DWS does not get notice, it's lost somewhere in her loose chain of command which is focused on deep-sixing Bernie.

Let the Russians, or whoever, hack the Dems, let WikiLeaks do as expected with fed info; perhaps from our own intel folks even, but Trump wins, with Chris Christie set to lead the transition team. Then the quick swap, Pence leads the team, Christie is shown the door and told again how much he loves New Jersey.

Trump gets told where the real bear is, what tearing up of business reputation the real bear can do to the Trump University king, and that generates a kind of a liking with Trump for Christie being shown the door and Pence taking reins of the transition with generals and DeVos and the Exxon man all getting a share. Trump complies, so the threat of what the intel folks hold is then false-flagged as Russian "kompromat" and the nominations hearings are held and the appointees testify exactly as Big Oil and Big Intelligence want, separate and apart from what Trump said while campaigning, and foreign affairs confirmations are assured as the intelligence community wants whereas the domestic agenda is allowed to Pence and Ryan to decimate against the people. The foreclosure guy gets a spot. The Wall Street guy who bailed Trump out on the casinos gets a spot. Guliani gets a spot commensurate with his consultancy cash cow; with it all fitting like a puzzle once all pieces are properly arranged.

This ponied up phony intel "dossier" gets circulated; published by Buzzfeed (who owns it is again a question) and the Russians say we have no such kompromat because they, in fact, do not. The false-flagged dossier is a veiled threat word to Trump, do not step out of line, conflicts of interest will be allowed to be finessed so you can go for enrichment, but play ball by our rules or else. And everyone lives happily ever after.

Sure it is a tenuous chain. But isn't it a great run of what-ifs?

Now, the headline? This ACLU link, find it within that item. It's there. The entire thrust of the ACLU item is the intelligence community is not now solely a government service thing, but an activist political player with agenda; much as in Russia where Putin's background is known FSB.

The "dossier" is out there, attributed to the Russians, while at anytime Trump does not walk the straight line given him, our intel guys can say, "Whoa, look what an Eastern European came in out of the cold to hand us, the video nobody thought really existed . . . This Gucifer2 guy really exists, an actual person and not a Russian fiction, but some guy with a laptop and internet connection and don't we wish we could penetrate Tor because we'd have found him much sooner."

Such a story, given soooo very much improbable drama so far as MSM has been reporting this election cycle, is not a story outside of the sphere of the possible. And it would be one hell of a dandy story if things had actually gone step-by-step as speculated. Wouldn't it?

Again, the caveat, this is a what-if, not a "there's evidence." Do not regard it in any way as something more than it actually is.

A second caveat, the ACLU item IS real. A web document apart from any hypotheticals premised here. It stands, hard to knock it down. It is what makes the remainder of speculation here at least plausible.

Think that over.

Ah, the French. How can we work the French up into the hypothetical chain? They get their gas from Russia via Germany, their oil from where, Libya? They have fewer wind turbines than Germany, Denmark or the UK, and rely on nuclear power with fuel reprocessing done in France big time; while they have a large Islamic population from former colonial north Africa; so where do they fit in aside from a Qatari gas pipeline through Turkey into Europe being a second source opportunity? This screen capture of blog traffic:

click the image to enlarge and read

It remains a mystery where weekly traffic is greater in France, if we are to believe Blogger stats, than in the US where things are authored, in English solely; and while having never been to France, it would be a great visit if somebody would step up and finance a trip. Great cathedrals. A big arch. Museums. Fine and cordial people.

_____________FURTHER UPDATE______________
Pretorian Guard - Wikipedia entry.
Put another way, what has the CIA done for me? Lately? Ever? Why should I trust them? They do not trust me. They with NSA spy on me. That is what Snowden made clear and that is why he should be pardoned. He was a patriot. Are they? How can I know. They are the shadow government. If Trump does take them on, what's my stake in that, either way. Let 'em fight it out. If they are behind Trump, why worry because I cannot stop or reform them.

We know Snowden is living a feee man in Moscow; facing severe criminal charges if he returns. The image used above was suggested by this ACLU cautionary tale.

But why in the world trust the CIA more or less than the Russians? Give me a sound answer to that. If they move in secret I don't know what they are up to so why give any credibility to Fancy Bear? How can I believe it is not Langley Bear, Disinfo Bear? Tell me why the Buzzfeed published stuff is not Langley disinformation, with a pinch of Brit thrown in for flavor. The Dulles brothers were not nice folks.

Again, this ACLU link. It has been said the founding fathers distrusted standing armies. What about standing cadres of spies? Tyranny was the worry the founders held in mind. We revere them as wise. For some that might be lip service.

One last question, since the French public (presumably that, not bureaus) seems to read Crabgrass: Why should I not believe IS is modeled on the French Foreign Legion with Allah mixed in for cohesion? What we know, the French created their Foreign Legion. What we may have differing guesses about is who created IS. Who owns a share, who's the major shareholder? What is clear, the Russians surely have no reason to like IS. Reason, in their nation, cuts the opposite way.

Feature this: I do not even know nor trust MSM sources to tell me whether Gitmo is a detention center or a training camp. Do you know? What are your information sources?

Watch this Young Turks YouTube (again). Aside from the follow the money argument, they do not know who is behind that dossier, and they largely admit it. Follow the money makes sense. But putting in an oil patch person into high government power position is what Bush did - he WAS/is an oil patch person - so was Bush destabilizing Iraq and the oil market then with the Russians behind him? Kite up energy prices so Putin's people got better money out of Europeans to their west not having domesic fossil fuel sources?

And The Young Turks is "alternate media." As distinct from Mainsteam. We see alternate media honestly admitting things are unclear. Not saying the Russians hacked this or that, as if given in stone to Moses before he descended the hill to see the golden calf being worshiped.

At least that. But if the CIA as a coherent cadre wants to intimidate, they've experience in interference in other nations' affairs, so if they are unsettled about things here, they will be hands off?

That cannot be reasonably expected. Nor is it what Snowden's disclosures suggests.

We should trust our manipulative secret honchos, not theirs? Or might we be better served trusting neither, and downsizing intelligence and the military? On that question, the evidence is Trump's generals. Is it a military agenda vs. an intelligence agenda, or are their agendas the same?

The hateful inexorable war on social decency that Paul Ryan epitomizes is so galling because it has no distaste for giant secret budgets and flowing wealth from the people's tax money to Lockheed Martin.

Generals remain off the welfare rolls. Generals leave the Pentagon and move to Lockheed Martin. Keeping freindships and ties. Google McChrystal. He consults. Michael Hastings' writings got him riffed out of service. Now he consults while Hastings is dead.

How are the CIA, the NSA, Oliver North and Stanley McChrystal better for me than the Russians? And that is not an argument in favor of the Russians.

It argues against the generals and the spooks who spy on us as well as on the rest of the world. Why trust either?

Does this inspire your trust? The man blinks a lot. And, let his entire argument be directed against our intelligence services overreaching instead of against the Russians. The thing hangs together either way. And MSNBC taking in ex-FOX folks? What's happening?

Does this bother you, an ex-spook saying "The intelligence community on which he has to rely," as if that's gospel. In the Kennedy sense bucking that community can be a danger, Kennedy distrusted and removed Allen Dulles prior to Dallas; hence, basing an argument on a flimsy premise - that the intelligence community is trustworthy - makes a flimsy argument. If Trump has an honest and constructive broom for that rats' nest, bless the possibilities.

Now, this. If this is not proof that sanity is wait and see, what is it?


Closing, who are those people:

They got to see what FBI allegedly did not, and they say what they purportedly believe.

Comey, has yet to speak. So, if there was hacking, a private firm is saying Fancy and Cozy Bears did such deeds; and we are to trust, "Trust me." Because they've a slick website? Why else?

Who are they, who's their chief technical honcho, with what ultra-trustworthy background? Search it. Find the source of this quote, and find what you can about the two named individuals:

Co-founders George Kurtz and Dmitri Alperovitch realized that a brand new approach was needed — one that combines the most advanced endpoint protection with expert intelligence to pinpoint the adversaries perpetrating the attacks, not just the malware.

Woo woo. "Endpoint protection." It sure sounds sound, doesn't it? How about starting point? Mid-point? They've got their Bears in line. They say so, so it is so. They had access to the DNC network and say they found a Bears' nest. Gee.

Is this the best analysis out there of "the dossier." What it deserves?

____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
The surveillance state put together that thing about Trump and the Russians. If it has substance beyond gossip, none has been made public.

Oh, right, sources and methods. Have to keep sources and methods secret, or else how can they be effective?

They are being kept secret, and effectiveness is shown in the document itself. If that's effectiveness of the spy community, why tolerate them? On simple cost/benefit grounds, spend the money on helping the homeless and helping battered women shelters.

Does Colbert have any remaining credibility with anyone after this was broadcast and then memorialized on YouTube? He had it scripted, he delivered it, is he a better man for having done so?

Buzzfeed was correct in publishing what had become a gossip low point among the DC movers/shakers, circulated hand-to-hand with sniggering.

All that begs the question - who created the thing, with what dark motives, and what was the thinking about putting it into circulation?

McCain says somebody at a security conference gave it to him. Somebody is not near the equivalent of giving a name. The alleged author of the stuff has been spirited away, by whom?

What is next? What will be "news" into the future, if this is news today? Again, read the ACLU item already cited, and follow ACLU item links. The entire notion of privacy being compromised, NSA, secret courts and secret orders, CIA activism vs service, generals just retired being offered to head the DoD, it is not a future I'd want if young now, nor is it one to be handing to the nation's youth. They are being subjected to coarse treatment that goes well beyond the student debt crisis. Whose agenda is this? Neo-feudalism is not something to be pursued as a "good way to operate the world." It is far less than that. Orwellian? Dastardly? Sick? Many words can be used, but unholy, immoral, and other traditional words serve well, and should be used. An affront to the nation's people? It is so tawdry a character assassination of a chief of state that it is total fair game to ask, who is behind it? Who started that ball rolling, and who has any words of justification for it? Trump, he was one of two two-party offerings. The other was flawed also. Is a continuation of the two-party setup a good future? It is what has brought us to this point in time and history. If the Bernie Sanders candidacy, its popularity, did anything lastingly good, it is that the word "socialism" has been rescued from the trampling of evil feet to again be a word to be respected as caring for the well being of a populace instead of disdaining them while huckstering periodically for their vote as offering the proposed propped-up "lesser evil." Of two. Time to muck the stable? Past due?

GOPHER FOOTBALL: Fleck does not retain Sherels on his coaching staff. But that cannot be faulted.

If it is win or be fired the man has a need to select assistant coaches as he sees best. And it is win or be fired.

Sherels has had medical problems, and Coyle should consider, if NCAA allows it, an athletic department position as program-wide recruiting overseer. Without any coaching contact, but attentive to each program's recruiting needs and balancing budget that way, between programs. Dealing with the head coaches, perhaps, if NCAA permits, talking with recruits before they commit to a school.

Clearly the medical condition is unfortunate, but it appears Sherels can remain helpful to the Department. However, NCAA rules have to be honored to avoid sanctions, so the situation is pending.

Strib reporting, here. There is no cause to blame or criticize Fleck's decision making about Sherels. Having to produce a winning program he must have discretion to pick his assistants freely as he believes best; whatever his reasoning. It is how the job works. It was how Claeys moved in changing offensive coordinators, in his best judgment.

Friday, January 13, 2017

This just in. One candidate for an open Regents seat had a sexual harassment situation 40 years in his past.

Strib here.

Does this leaven the Board, if he advances? There is some sense to the thought. He would not be a tounge clucker, as others might.

Strib reports 35 applicants for four open Board seats.

It must pay well. What's a Regent earn these days? We know a boat row sloganeering mantra and success at WMU gets $3.5 million a year - five years on the contract with buyout clauses cutting both ways; so $3.5 million is known (unless the team does not win leading to an early "nice having known you" or some other school buys Fleck mid-contract with more cash/aura/"culture"). We also know Hewitt's getting around $125,000 or more for being a behavior cop; so it's fair to ask, what's a Board seat pay?

Does any reader have that answer?

UPDATE: The Regents should be more than a place to park ex-legislators with a paycheck; so this man's differing background fits "diversity" political correctness; a point Strib does not make because it's on their news agenda page and not an op-ed.

FURTHER: People should read the Strib item and weigh the fact the Board candidate is candid about having conquered a drinking problem via will and having years of sobriety. Anybody reading either the short and candid police report or the 80 pages of EOAA output that led to punishment, or starting to, can see the woman involved sexually with multiple football playing partners did binge drinking at the start of her evening. Not at parties, allegedly, but before stepping out of her dwelling. Drinking is a problem and a regent understanding that might be a sound addition to the ex-legislators and others. The Regents seem to have scant answers about the problem; academic stress and stress release among young adults, via alcohol. It can be the start of the slippery slope of adult life impacts of an undesirable and counterproductive kind. Drinking is not a good thing, for body or mind or for coping in the real world. Also, one hopes that with diversity of backgrounds on the Board prejudgment of some things might be viewed with suitable skepticism. Policy by scapegoating and public shaming smacks of Puritanism, stocks and cucking stools, and as a society we ought to have outgrown that. Many have, and a university's policy ought to be enlightened and not Draconian. Row that boat.

A closing thought on the "Trump dossier." Without any links. What did Buzzfeed moot?

Buzzfeed published it, bringing it to light. Trump says it is fake news. Peskov as Putin's surrogate says it is "pulp fiction," that he does not know the author, (purportedly Christoper Steele a purported Russian expert in the past at MI6), and that Russians have no "kompromat" and do not deal in such stuff. He says. On behalf of Putin.

That insulates Trump from any "kompromat" pressure in the future. Had Buzzfeed not published, making it a front page thing now (during confirmation hearings), the question and threat would have lingered. Presuming for the sake of argument there is kompromat, this exercise in sunlight disarmed its value against Trump while serving as President. The Russians have disarmed anything they hold by publicly claiming they hold nothing. They cannot later say, "Oh, wait . . .".

Book/chapter closed. Things move on from there, and the validity of that "kompromat" part of the "dossier" is now moot.

Last thought: Who owns Buzzfeed?

UPDATE: Another simple question nobody in MSM cares to track down; McCain has come forward and said the 35page "dossier" crossed his desk and he threw it over the trnasom at FBI. Just "shine it on" without any committment to it either way of many possible ways.

Fine. Press the Arizonan - who gave it to him? Slid under the office door at night without security cameras in the hallway? Come on. Who?

There is a problem with working backwards, and it would be starting a new McCarthyism. What did you know and when did you know it was Watergate, not Joe and aide Roy Cohn, but still, is it best to have allegation in public and denial about "kompromat" so that's sanitized as a question whether "kompromat" exists or not?

The other question being ducked, who started the tar ball rolling - allegedly a Trump primary opponent, and then the claim is the opposition research effort somehow segued to "the Democrats" as opposiiton research. Which Trump opponent, which "Democrat?" Names work better than vagaries.

Strib has carried an AP feed, "Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush unlikely to run for office again," and it would be easy but wholly unfair to say there is the "dossier" as one dot "primary opponent" allegation and all, and now Jeb says . . . as a second dot; so connect them.

That would be an unfair. The Bush family has its history, etc., but still Jeb's innocent unless proven to have been the instigator.

Rubio? Cruz? Not likely Ben Carson? Worse, there is a cloud over Rand Paul until it is identified which opponent. Rand Paul's been a trend setter in advising restraint regarding arming crazy militants in Syria; e.g., here, here and here. A voice of reason that was ignored by Obama/Clinton/CIA et al., yet that Rand Paul position stands closest to the claim Trump tilts too far towards Russian aims in Syria, and should be clouded for it. That clouds Rand Paul too, and he deserves better for being a sane voice of restraint.

Who instigated things? Who started the ball rolling, and then, which particular Democrat picked up on it. Podesta? Mook? The Clinton Foundation? Kaine? DWS at DNC? Pick a culprit. Bubba?

Elsewise, as to who shined it on to McCain; Lindsey Graham was briefly putting his name in play, and McCain and Graham seem as close as any two other neocons - but again, pure harmful speculation.

McCain should be pressed, and the press should be doing the job. You shined it on to FBI, who shined it to you? If he declines to answer, that would tar a host of "pre-primary opponents" unnecessarily. (All but one of the multitude likely would want McCain to answer and would want the press to identify the instigator.) So, go figure why it took Buzzfeed to defuse the infernal thing and what interests the MSM had in leaving vagaries to persist.

Fiorina? Besides embracing the little embryos, gunning for Trump too?

These are not pretty thoughts. But "Great Again" somewhere along the way should require lifting rocks to see what's under them, or else it's as dumb a slogan as "Row the Boat."

And in that context, how about: "MAKE THE GOPHERS GREAT AGAIN." Caps could be embroidered, buttons prepared, billboards set up, etc.

An entire cottage industry could be generated to advance a "culture." But mixing rants may be unwise, so, back to "John, half the story's never been told. So tell it."

FURTHER: Three YouTube segments; CBC with McCain talking; Young Turks, here and here, and then Trump has curious repeated hand gestures in the segment of his press conference included in that third item; compare this Strib image, used more than once online. Is he adopting an NBA gesture for a made three point shot, or what? It's the incumbent who's the basketball fan, not Trump, or is he? Just talking with one's hands, right?

The CBC item is helpful on McCain's actions; but still, who bought the "opposition research" in the first instance among Republicans, and then after Dems are alleged to have funded the alleged ex-MI6 Brit, who cut the checks? The first CBC item is reporting, while clearly the Young Turk items are opinion, clearly so, and the three are offered without any endorsement beyond for the CBC's background on McCain and the argument that prior restraint of press action is Unconstitutional, per set First Amendment law - alluded to in the third item.

FURTHER: This link, Ben Smith of Buzzfeed on its publishing decision. Besides unverified, it is an inherent possibility that the item was intentional disinformation, to get intelligence community people into a wild-goose chase with nothing but dead ends and off any real and possibly obvious scent trails. That's a point emphatically raised in this already cited item.

Son of a father killed by an Arab gunman writes about the Dulles brothers and Pipelanistan.

This Politico link.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

9/11 it says, and granite pillars do not lie???

From the Independent:

Moving on, Buzzfeed published a document batch; so has anyone correlated the numbering to see gaps, if any, in the 35 pages buzzfed?

Also, who did the yellow highlighting; why are the pages askew as if copies of copies were held by BF; what about different type fonts; what about the scant redactions; what about post-election items in the BF set; and who did the lower right handwritten page numbering? Add to this stories of the document having circulated DC for some time without anyone before Buzzfeed publishing, and does that reach back to Michael Hastings' curious demise? (If months of circulation were to be true, how do you fit in the later dates put onto some of the items?)

That Buzzfeed sequence is full, 1-35 - handwritten numbering, but somebody shuffled the deck and possibly withdrew some items. Yes/no? As to the bed-wetting part of the story, hotel records would indicate moving in a new mattress and sheets, Trump not expected to have been sleeping overnight otherwise, on a wet bed. So, truth or fiction? It sure looks like a stack of BS from BF's willingness to publish; and try this hummer - who, which Republican candidate, was allegedly using the firm to do anti-Trump work before things segued, allegedly, to pro-Trump anti-Clinton Russian effort, all the while this British firm not working for nothing so who paid what when? So many loose ends it really seems to be something cooked after compromised email was discovered, by which cooks, for what reason?

There are more questions than answers; just don't say the entire thing was cooked up in some pizza parlor. Mixing fake news stories would be bad form.

UPDATE: Do you suppose somebody put together a similar "kompromat" package on Paul Ryan and/or Mike Pence? That would be of interest because each of them seems in his own way to be more a danger than Trump. One on Paul Ryan would be a godsend. Beyond whether he has been faking his marathon time, and such light weight stuff?

FURTHER: Read the Buzzfeed pdf item. One thing stood out. The assertion that Russia opposes TPP and TIPT (whatever abbreviation is in use for the US-Euro bonanza being proposed for the benefit of international, transnational corporations). That part of the Buzzfeed papers looks ginned up to boost both of those labor-unfriendly trade things cut/pasted behind closed doors by plutocrats/oligarchs/corporatists, or use other names. It makes the "dossier" look like a package of junk with the one passing comment there to justify passing stuff "The Russians don't like." A Buzzfeed item page link would be given, but the entire thing is a pdf made up of image pages; where the convenience of word-searching fails. Big surprise. It's in there someplace. Trust me. But verify.

Later Added Note: This link, has both the pdf and a *.txt version - i.e., word search is possible and the operative text is:

- However, equally important is Kremlin objective to shift policy consensus favourably [British spelling] to Russia in US whoever wins. Both presidential candidates' opposition to TPP and TTIP viewed as a result in this respect

FURTHER: An AP feed carried by Strib:

The purported Russian efforts were described in a newly released and uncorroborated dossier produced in August. But they had circulated more widely in Washington in October — following early reports and opaque warnings from elected officials that something was afoot involving the Kremlin and Trump.

In October, Mother Jones magazine described how a former Western spy — assigned to look into Trump's Russian ties for a private American firm — had presented his findings to the FBI in August. Those findings, the magazine said, were produced for political opposition research and said that Russian intelligence had compromised Trump during his visits to Moscow — information that, if true, could be used to blackmail him or undermine his presidency.

Here is a screen capture of the final page Buzzfeed posted:

Aside from that item the latest date found on a quick scan within the Buzzfeed pdf doc drop was Oct. 18, Oct. 19. There is a gap. What's up?

The latest item from Buzzfeed is "COMPANY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 2916/130.

35 Buzzfeed online pages to cover 130 reports seems a puzzle. What's being held back, presumably from Buzzfeed as well as others?

This suggests unintelligent intelligence, or somebody's holding back a smoking gun or two, or what?

Again, what's happening? Who is playing what games with Trump and with the public, and WHY? Ask Clapper? Recall he's the one that testified that NSA was not spying on US citizens; and Snowden said that such testimony is what triggered and pinned his bullshit meter, to where he blew the whistle. That's something of a credibility gap.

FURTHER: Michael Hastings' death was June, 2013. After looking it up, one has to say, unrelated. It seems like only yesterday, but years ago. The mystery still lingers. This link, search the item for "2013," Podesta emailing about Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches, 2013; with no month mentioned. What else was going on, summer of 2013? This link? And this?

Whatever, Hastings seems to have little overlap with Putin-Trump; bottom line? Much sizzle, where's the steak?

FURTHER: Well, 2013 was an eventful year. And overlap is conjectural in any event. Coincidence and causality differ.

That said:

Trump was testing the waters, for 2012, with a Michael D. Cohen reportedly point man, in Iowa, etc., and note the "Tom Hagan" reference in this April 2011 ABC News "pit bull" featuring item. Background? The same Michael Cohen showing up in the Buzzfeed web posting? With plausible deniability.

And remember, at the time of his strange automobile death, Hastings was writing for Buzzfeed; coincidence or not.

Now, 2013, months after Hastings departure from the living on June 18, RT reported; "US 'Miss Universe' billionaire plans Russian Trump Tower - Published time: 9 Nov, 2013 16:36."

Around the time of Hastings' death, Syria was big news on RT; e.g., per here, here, here and here.

Hacking was RT news in March, 2013. Archived June 17, 2013, RT news bites lead item, "Majority of Americans opposed to arming Syrian rebels."

Back to Oct. 31, 2016, what should we make of this NYT item, in light of Buzzfeed's publishing of the tepid proof-challenged "dossier?" The veiled allusions seem more ominous than the Buzzfeed data drop itself. Go figure.

It is all a mystery. Wrapped in an enigma. But such rhetoric is not new. Churchill's Iron Curtain speech in Missouri had it all. And, folks, that was before the World Wide Web existed to be hacked; and it was only focused on Russia, not US presidential elections. The old days.

Part of the Buzzfeed focus was the allegation Putin cared greatly about Russian emigres and that Trump assisted info gathering re same. It is in the Buzzfeed 35 pages, again, not subject to word search. So check it out.

Later Added Note: This link, do a plaintext search, emigres not being the keyword, but: oligarchs

Oct. 2013, RT, field of dreams no less. That item's image does suggest real estate opportunity in Moscow that we normally don't see, with the Kremlin and the church usually pictured, as quaint. And check the sidebar, that item, and here. Emigre/oligarch stuff? This, also 2013 news. Litvinenko had his fifteen minutes of fame. Enigmatic fame.

Panama papers putin, as a websearch?

Another emigre, as coincidence again? Initially thought a heart attach, which was the Andrew Breitbart autopsy synopsis. That NYT item:

In July, a long-running inquiry offered a searing indictment of former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This week, a parliamentary panel castigated former Prime Minister David Cameron for his intervention in Libya alongside France in 2011. In the current negotiations over Syria, the name of Britain’s new foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has barely been mentioned.

Mr. Perepilichnyy, 44, died in 2012, three years after he fled Russia, while jogging near his luxurious home on a private estate southwest of London. The death was initially attributed to a heart attack, but traces of gelsemium, a rare toxin used as a poison and derived from a plant grown in the Himalayas, were later found in his stomach.

At the time of his death, he was associated with investigations into a $230 million tax fraud in Russia against an American financier, William F. Browder, a high-profile critic of Mr. Putin.

Mr. Perepilichnyy, who had cooperated with the Swiss authorities and Mr. Browder’s investment company, which were both investigating the fraud, was one of five people linked to the case who have died mysteriously.

Perhaps the most prominent was Sergei L. Magnitsky, a lawyer and auditor working for Mr. Browder, who was arrested and died in prison in 2009 after the Russian authorities denied him medical care.

In the United States, Mr. Browder lobbied for legislation known as the Magnitsky Act that provided for sanctions against Russians accused of wrongdoing at home.

The tone among Britain’s post-referendum leaders, by contrast, seems to suggest they are shying from further confrontation with Moscow.

In a newspaper column before he took office, Mr. Johnson — then mayor of London — called Mr. Putin “a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.”

As foreign minister, his office used the tested clich├ęs of diplomacy to say that despite “some significant differences with Russia,” the two countries should “continue to build a constructive dialogue.”

[links in original omitted, excerpt from article end]

Browder is mentioned in that item, with a NYT link to this other NYT follow-the-money item, stating in part:

Mr. Browder has hired the law firm of John D. Ashcroft, the former United States attorney general, to represent him in New York in a request for a subpoena for bank wire transfer and other records that Mr. Ashcroft contends will prove Mr. Browder’s allegations.

The filing is a new twist on Mr. Browder’s case, which began almost four years ago. His lawyers say the wire transfers will show a fraud larger than previously disclosed — remarkable even by the standards of Russia.

In its sweep and scale, the case has echoes of the Bank of New York money-laundering scandal in the late 1990s, though this time there are no allegations that American banks other than the subsidiary of a Russian investment company were involved.
Continue reading the main story

Mr. Browder was expelled from Russia in a politically tinged visa refusal in 2005, and relocated his business, Hermitage Capital Management, to London. Later, he said subsidiary companies he had formed in Russia to invest in Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, were used by others to acquire a fraudulent tax refund of $230 million.

Now, the filing by Mr. Ashcroft, whose law firm is based in Kansas City, Mo., suggests that companies other than his own were also used in a similar fraud. The court papers contend that at least another $100 million that foreign investors in Gazprom had paid to Russian authorities in taxes up to 2006 were later stolen in schemes involving fraudulent refunds.

Mr. Ashcroft’s filing says that Hermitage was subjected to “a series of events that might seem unlikely to befall an influential global investment firm.”

“Certain Russian officials and private citizens entered into a conspiracy to reregister to themselves three investment companies owned by the Hermitage Fund,” the filing says, with the goal to “apply for and receive fraudulent tax refunds of over $230 million from the Russian Treasury, and finally, to funnel these proceeds through bank accounts in Russia and the United States.”

The filing outlines a familiar story of brazen corruption in Russia. Even Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, speaks often on the topic. Last Sunday, for instance, Mr. Medvedev told a television interviewer that foreigners perceive corruption in Russia to be “without limits.”

The evidence sought in Mr. Ashcroft’s filing, though, is intended to resolve another dimension to Russian corruption. If the subpoena is granted, the wire transfer evidence would be used, Mr. Ashcroft said, to vindicate Mr. Browder’s lawyers in Russia, who they contend have been unjustly jailed and threatened with fabricated criminal cases.

Mr. Browder is not seeking compensation or financial benefit, because he says his investors lost no money in the scheme.

Mr. Browder has made big gambits before as an activist investor in Russia, and has often sought to attract media attention to his causes. The request for a subpoena, provided to journalists by Mr. Browder’s lawyers, is not required to prove the allegations, but rather to raise the possibility as a basis for the court to subpoena evidence.

Evidence is being sought from Citibank and JPMorgan Chase, but only in their role as processors of overseas wire transfers, as well as from the New York office of the Russian investment company Renaissance.

Browder again, here. People have opinions.

Recent news; Tulsi Gabbard, video here and here (linked from here). NPR, here.

Also recent, here, here and here.

Gabbard and Trump, e.g., WaPo, NBC News, McClatchyDC.

Columbia Journalism Review op-ed, defending Buzzfeed's publishing "the 35 page dossier."

Glenn Greenwald, video, op-ed at Intercept.

Another video. All for now.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Credit Trump when credit is due. He picked an experienced insider to head the VA.

This Strib link. It could have been a shallow blowhard without the skill set.

It could have been one without experience within the VA or at a legitimate private sector veterans organization. One with no resume talent shown in hospital administration or health issues.

Trump avoided picking someone who'd axe the best of VA single payer precedent, with a vengeance to privatize where "It ain't that broke" . . .

Strib's report stated:

The choice is likely to soothe some of the largest veterans organizations. They have praised steps taken by VA Secretary Bob McDonald and feared that other possible picks to head the agency might push for greater privatization.

Shulkin spent more than two decades in hospital management. He also served as president and CEO of the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York and chief medical officer at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

Given the golden jockstrap showing up these days in the Gopher football program, my "Rep" (for whom I never voted), may have been onto something.

Looking at the vague possibility of administrative cost savings in the UMn system, Whelan was cheif author of HF 2241, 89th Legislature; see here and here. Profligate spending on things distant from the core purpose of a research university suggests the time has come for her bill authorship to not, this time, die an inauspicious death.

Separate and apart from Whelan, but not meriting a separate post; a Strib item on Thibodeau analogizing Kris Dunn's defensive instincts to Latrell Sprewell's when Thibs coached in New York, brought to mind Sprewell's defining moment with another coach P.J. (see here and here) to where the thought experiment came to mind, Sprewell in an encounter with P.J. Rah-Rah, make that Fleck, and would it be deja vu, all over again?

Stow the boat. Monitor the fisc. Hope the program improves to justify the investment; but keep tabs on things because too much free money can be counterproductive. One hopes the Fleck contract has incentive clauses because winning IS everything, but with a $3.5 million base rate, it's rich already.

Also, what was the liquor bill and who paid it?

Game day.
Strib, publishing more about perk-snatching by the well-placed semi-famous:

U.S. Bank Stadium suite guests feasted on $32,000 worth of food on state dime
By Rochelle Olson Star Tribune --- January 11, 2017 — 6:59am

[...] Anderson commented on a 27-page document sent by the MSFA in response to questions last month from her, Senate Finance Chairwoman Julie Rosen, R-Vernon Center, and Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake.

Anderson and Rosen, who was a sponsor of the 2012 legislation that got the stadium built with nearly $500 million in public money, say they will lead Republican efforts to examine the MSFA’s operations this session.

In response to lawmakers’ questions, the MSFA revealed a few new details, including the cost of the food, who got free parking passes and an acknowledgment that there was a quorum of commissioners at one Vikings game, but that it wasn’t illegal. The document also outlined the written suite policy and the division of duties between Chairwoman Michele Kelm-Helgen and Executive Director Ted ­Mondale.

Kelm-Helgen is expected to make her first appearance this session Wednesday at a hearing of the Government Operations & Elections Committee.

Since the stadium opened Aug. 3 with a soccer match, the MSFA has controlled access to two Norseman Suites on the main concourse of the $1.1 billion stadium. The suites accommodate 36 guests total. For the Vikings season alone, a suite sells for between $200,000 and $300,000. The MSFA controls the suites for all stadium events.

Anderson said she thinks the suites, on the 20-yard line, are more likely on the higher end of that range. She expects to calculate the true cost of using them, including the $32,120 for food, and seek additional reimbursement from guests who used them


image credit - Penguin is republishing the 1954 illustrated edition of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, complete with drawings by Joy Batchelor and John Halas whose work on the animated film version of the story helped bring the writer’s novel to a new audience

Monday, January 09, 2017

Rowing elsewhere.

UMn football recruiting decommits, one transfer. Latest reporting, Strib, here.

TITLE IX AND ENCOUNTERS OF A SEXUAL NATURE: What to expect from a DoE under Trump?

The headline poses a question where only a guess fits as an answer. Less focus and cost, at a guess, and lots of whining about any retrenchment whatsoever.

NY Times, from the item date offers baseline analysis of what the Trump administration will find and ponder:

Colleges Spending Millions to Deal With Sexual Misconduct Complaints

[...] Harvard’s first Title IX officer, leading a new bureaucracy that oversees how the institution responds to complaints of sexual violence under Title IX, the federal law that governs gender equity in education. She is one of a rapidly growing number of Title IX employees on campuses nationwide, as colleges spend millions to hire lawyers, investigators, case workers, survivor advocates, peer counselors, workshop leaders and other officials to deal with increasing numbers of these complaints.

[...] The expansion of Title IX bureaucracies — often at great expense — is driven in part by pressure from the federal government, which recently put out a series of policy directives on sexual misconduct on campus. More than 200 colleges and universities are under federal investigation for the way they have handled complaints of sexual misconduct, up from 55 two years ago.

But the growth of these bureaucracies also reflects the difficulties that students, parents, administrators and faculty members face as they negotiate changing ideas and standards of sexual behavior.

And in a report last week, a national association of professors said that the Title IX bureaucracy had started to infringe on academic freedom, by beginning investigations into faculty members’ lectures and essays.

Because of these complexities, dealing with these kinds of cases has been wrenching for students, faculty members and administrators. Many women’s groups have set a much lower bar for what constitutes sexual misconduct than previous generations, leading to more internal review of campus behavior.

[...] Title IX, enacted in 1972, bars discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs that receive federal funds. It is more familiar as the law used to promote gender equity in sports and faculty hiring. But a 2011 federal policy statement clarified that it also applies to how universities deal with complaints of sexual assault. At a minimum, federal rules require colleges to designate one Title IX coordinator, at least part time.

Many colleges have gone far beyond that, at a cost ranging from thousands to millions of dollars. College officials said it was difficult to put a price tag on the efforts because they often spanned more than one department and involved volunteers and doubling up on jobs.

[...] “There’s so much more litigation on all sides of the issue,” said Brett Sokolow, the executive director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, an industry group of 5,000 members that did not exist in 2011, and has doubled in size for each of the past two years. “This has very much created a cottage industry.”

Title IX coordinators, who carry out policy and oversee how institutions respond to complaints, can earn $50,000 to $150,000 a year. Mr. Sokolow estimated that the cost of lawyers, counselors, information campaigns and training to fight sexual misconduct ranges from $25,000 a year at a small college to $500,000 and up at larger or wealthier institutions.

At the University of California, Berkeley, officials said, Title IX spending has risen by at least $2 million since 2013, though they declined to give the total.

“Certainly, colleges are spending more related to Title IX than ever in history, both preventatively and responsively,” Mr. Sokolow said. He estimated that dealing with an inquiry could cost “six figures,” and that responding to a lawsuit “can run into the high six or even seven figures, not counting a settlement or verdict.”

A check of employment ads online found recent calls for Title IX officials at the University of Chicago, Elon University, Barnard College, George Mason University, University of the Pacific, Lynn University and Columbia University.

Columbia guarantees outside counsel to advise students on either side of the sexual misconduct hearing process, with the university picking up the bill. It has doubled the number of advocates, educators and counselors to 11 from five just three years ago. Instead of two investigators and case workers, it now has seven.

[...] Occidental College in Los Angeles hired a law firm, Pepper Hamilton, to conduct what was essentially a Title IX compliance audit.

Harvard has 50 full-time and part-time Title IX coordinators across 13 schools. Ms. Karvonides, a civil rights and education lawyer, was hired in March 2013. Under her leadership, the university adopted the new sexual misconduct policy and created a bureau of trained investigators.

[...] Many students have concluded that the best solution is not so much compliance as avoidance.

“You either don’t date at all,” said Daniel Levine, another student leader, “or you’re like a married couple.”

"Like a married couple" without a prenup can be a problem, and don't forget spousal rape is a real thing in abusive marriages. "Like a happy, non-violent, adapted married couple, with property division on dissolution of the relationship, hopefully without child custody dispute," might be the way to phrase things.

From UMn Twin Cities, a new measure of spending applies, so what might the number be, not by thousands or a million but by how many Fleck annual salaries are spent nationwide on a year's Title IX enforcement evolution? Tracking the NY Times item's number, Cal Berkeley alone would be spending an incremental amount that rings in at somewhat less than 2/3 of a Fleck annual salary but more than 1/2 of one, for example.

(One Fleck annual salary = $3.5 million, etc., etc.)

A number of universities have created and placed online directives or policy codes for Title IX sexual encounter evaluation; e.g., Stanford. If Hewitt at UMn has articulated and published any such guidance, a link is needed. Nothing was found from cursory to moderate web search. The salary range mentioned in the NYT item puts Hewitt's salary at the top end of the enforcement-official pay scale, so perhaps she has insufficient staff, or some other explanation for not being clear and explicit in setting rules and instead favoring enforcement policy formation ad hoc by adjudication, where the 80 page EOAA thing is problematic in being conclusory without any record, so far as reporting indicates, to support the key conclusion that the claimant was credible and the defendants were less so - that finding having been made without review, apparently, of the video evidence police investigators found to be evidence of consensual sex.

Onesidedness in the start of investigation and that having a possible taint on the 80 page reporting may be a problem. Hewitt's arrangements merit attention, questioning, and discovery proceedings to allow reaching better understandings of closed-door processes.

_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Another link, here, titled, "Lax enforcement of Title IX in campus sexual assault cases -- Feeble watchdog leaves students at risk, critics say;" part of the extensive postings, this link. An "about" page, here.

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Basic Income. The time is now. There is no cause to wait.

This link. Here and here. Any reader can do rudimentary web searching and find multiple additional links. The three given are but a start.

US HIGHWAY 47 -- Is local resident McKinley St. unreasonableness about to kill fixing the Ferry Street - BNSF crossing?

ABC Newspapers reporting, this link. This Google Maps image:

click image to enlarge and read

The ABC item notes:

MnDOT recommended that an intersection traffic control evaluation occur at McKinley Street and Highway 47 to see if a traffic signal would improve or make conditions worse. But if a signal goes in, MnDOT said a raised median may be added between McKinley Street and Bunker Lake Boulevard to limit all accesses to right-in, right-out.

Anoka residents told MnDOT that they want a traffic signal at the McKinley Street and Highway 47 intersection because it is difficult to turn from McKinley Street during rush hour.

The map, when enlarged, shows a history of bad planning; so is yet another Hwy 47 light at McKinley Street an answer or an impediment to progress, viewed via Matt Look's terminology of a want vs a need?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or an easier question . . .

. . . how many tuition payments are needed to reach $3.5 mil a year?

ROCK the boat. Kaler's boat.
It begs bigtime for a rocking.

What's it mean: Row the boat??? (poster auction now closed) And, guess who owns it? And, will Kaler buy it? And, if so on that, how many regular student tuition payments will U.Western Mich. charge?

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Last night's Gophers basketball victory over Ohio State was on BTN. The announcers, gratefully, only had a quite brief touch and talk with Fleck. He sounded exactly as if one of them. The salesman repeated, "I told the players when we met, 'You didn't choose me, but I chose you,'" thus starting with the dishonesty of a half truth, there was big money on the table, "I chose it, you attached," with a chance to go from top of the MAC to middle of the Big Ten and up, and Claeys, bless his heart, left me a 9-4 program with a bowl win, something lacking this year at W.Mich.U. That's the whole truth, and this team Kill and Claeys built had the character to ROCK Kaler's boat so that Kaler and what's his name, the AD, brought in somebody with main loyalty upward on the U's feeding chain, not downward to the players; a man not to bite the hand that signs his paycheck. At a guess he may lose the team, and recruiting word will travel if he's bad news; two links, first, high school coaches respected Claeys' honesty and dedication to his players' boycott judgement, second, Fleck is busy siphoning off W.Mich. recruits, the count up to nine as of article dateline. He steps into a successful upper-middle of the conference bowl winner situation; and had better do as good AND somehow attract better home game attendance, or he's toast. The flip-side, if he does that then where next does he go and for how much more cash? He's been written up in comparison to Lou Holtz, and that was a two year hiatus the man had in his trip to Notre Dame, and its aura of fame and fortune.

We wait, we see. Players, ROCK the boat. Remember: You did, and Claeys had your backs. Ultimately you need that union. On that score the NCAA's a bigger, meaner boat to be rocked; but deserving it, with boat rocking there long overdue.

"Student athletes" of the world unite, . . .

Charlie Weaver wants to kill local initiative. Why, some might ask.

Story and photo credit; this link. Go figure whether Charlie's got your best interest at heart. Go radical, if being forced to. Cornered animals usually will fight; although some role over, show their belly, and pee on themselves as submissive gestures; so what's the exception, what's the rule? Trust that evisceration will not ensue appears to play a part. So, Charlie, wha's happening?

With the Dems in the minority in both houses of Congress they can posit a Sanders-like agenda, because talk is cheap. Will they? And will it be talk without action, with the excuse of minority status?

Sanders "socialism" really is new New Deal and nothing radically beyond that. Progressives have been mobilized before; and then Clintonian Rockefeller republicanism handed out with barely a "Thank you."

It gets tiring.

That Clinton perfect portrait of oh-yeah-you-do-exist-preelection bit, an approach without substance and indeed with few believable words behind it explains minority party status. People want to be represented. Wall Street wants to be represented too, and has bought it; both parties; and this time Trump gave the better lip service to people angry over being ignored while Clinton-Kaine worked with Wasserman-Schultz to sabotage all hint of popular sentiment.

Gee. Trump won. How come?

Without progressive votes, ongoing minority-party status is the likelihood, with the spoils going GOP more than once unless/until progressives see a reason to vote for the Democratic party. The pitifully small fifteen buck minimum wage issue exists, and Clinton-Kaine disdained it. Go figure why young people under less than fifteen bucks an hour were not impressed. Student debt burden is real, and Clinton-Kaine largely inattentive. No six figure speech goodies from the unfortunately debt-ridden student segment of the population. Occupy occupied, and the establishment sent in establishment cops and who highly placed in the Dem party said boo? Right. Nobody.

Ellison would be a step, if not there at DNC as window dressing. He appears well-intentioned, and smart enough to see if he ends up being used. But there is good history in support of WAIT AND SEE. Democratic Party history.

Chris Matthews, election night commentary on YouTube.

Moribund, and cynically so, will NOT regain the spoils. Conscience aside as an issue, the spoils, the spoils, the spoils. And did I forget to say, THE SPOILS?

What's needed is a popular foundation, more than a Clinton Foundation; and a "sooner recognition" AND ACTION is better than later.

Minority party obstructionism was the GOP standard during the Obama years; and it gained little disdain despite Paul Ryan being Paul Ryan and hence a quite easy target. Now Democratic Party obstructionism appears on the horizon; and will the GOP be as tolerant? Unlikely.

Gotta start swimming or sink like a stone, even if times are not a-changing well under the lets be irrelevant Clintonian-Wasserman Schultz legacy. Schumer-Pelosi? That one is a BIG TIME WAIT AND SEE BUT DON'T EXPECT JACK proposition.

Saturday, January 07, 2017

Kaler-speak, well, gee . . . kids gotta get their minds right.

Remember the boss in Cool Hand Luke? Strib quotes the Kaler of UMn:

“Players are suspended across the country and across all sports for a variety of reasons, for violating team rules,” Kaler said. “There’s no due process associated with athletic suspensions. You don’t have a constitutional right to play in a football game. It’s a privilege.”

He noted that the players dropped their boycott threat after a copy of the confidential investigative report was leaked to KSTP-TV and posted online Dec. 16. The report, which was partly censored, included graphic details of the alleged sexual assault.

“Ironically, [that] was helpful,” said Kaler. “Because frankly, when people read the report, they understood why we suspended players.”

Could the argument for unionization of ill-used college football at risk of brain trauma every play institutional mega cash making machines (a/k/a scholarship student athletes) have been better stated? One hope is an old dog can learn new tricks from attorney Hutton; but honestly, settling on terms neither side is completely happy with usually is for the best.

UPDATE: In the NFL where there is collective bargaining: Look up "Rooney rule." Compare the Duke lacrosse team situation to that of the ten Gophers. Feel the rain.

FURTHER: Does anyone know of an online copy of the scholarship contract between unpaid "student athletes" and the UMn? Does it incorporate by reference any massive NCAA rule book, or such? Does it require good standing under the Regents student conduct code, or make the athletic department independent of the Regents code promise of due process and fair procedure?

Kaler-speak declares it wholly discretionary, a "privilege" to endure on-field risk of bodily and mental concussion immediate and long-term harm, but is it so?

According to reporting it is unclear whether Kaler made the text of the scholarship contract available at the time he was quoted pontificating about it. Underlying facts are important, beyond what someone says. Ditto, for the UMn contract with the NCAA. It should be an available public document, along with the scholarship contract, for any press outlet making a Public Data request.

If it had been me, I'd have honestly said a word or two about the money.

Strib here:

The 36-year-old Fleck, fresh off a 13-1 season at Western Michigan, signed a five-year, $18 million contract, with Minnesota also agreeing to pay up to $600,000 toward his buyout at WMU.

"People ask me all the time, why Minnesota?" Fleck said. "Because we share a vision of winning a national championship. We share a vision of winning the Big Ten West. We share a vision of winning the Big Ten and having Rose Bowls. And I'm not afraid to say that because that's the way I live my life."

Then I'd have added about how wonderful it is to build character among student athletes.

UPDATE: Reusse. One thing the man's tightly worded coverage omitted; Fleck, like Claeys and Kill, lost at sceason's end to Wisconsin. If you're a Minnesota sought after recruit, what's you gamble going to be? Rah-rah and Fleck, or Wisconsin if Wisconsin offers? May the MAC be with you.

FURTHER: Money detail. The sincere hope is the program prospers with Fleck. Seeing will be believing.

GOPHER FOOTBALL: The difference between P.J. Fleck and Claeys is as different as night and day.

Fleck will win or get fired.

Claeys won, and got fired.


Strib video story here. Subheadline tells it.
Smiling white Millionaire will not be sleeping
on a mattress on a floor with one blanket on it.
Bet on a BIG buyout clause.
The Claeys broom somehow missed the two key
recruiting machines on the Kill-Claeys staff.
Need you know more?

Friday, January 06, 2017


Jesse and Alex Jones. This link.

COUNTERPOINT UPDATE: Young Turks. This link. (Cenk absent.)

Olbermann. Trump analysis, as a one-on-one conversation with a Trump voter.

This YouTube link.

Jill Stein likes third parties. Phrased that way it is not news. Listening to a Stein interview with Abby Martin, truth comes through.

This YouTube link. You can skip the awful lead-in and the awful ending credits, and just listen, think, play it again. It's easy. It's truth.

Other than Cenk's snickering commentary being perhaps too much, this is an informative Young Turks "where are they now" view of high-profile Trump early GOP bandwagon supporters.

This link.

More Title IX stuff re the UMn athletes punished for a sexual encounter. Out of state recent litigation opinions construing Title IX and sexual conduct sanctions, which may guide against pleading error or other traps for the unwary. There are two Ohio cases captioned Doe v. University of Ohio; with one case's facts relevant to off-campus jurisdiction of a university on a Title IX hunt, and another involving relief sought and a seldom known Constitutional immunity.

A QUICK POST: The headline generally suggests issues, and the cases online are linked for readers to have a look and see what they think. Legal jargon is involved.

Doe I: Online by two separate opinions, in chronological order oldest first, here and here.

Doe II: Online here.

Analysis would be tedious, this is not as the Tatro case from Minnesota where the question of off-campus jurisdiction was ducked so precedent does not exist, and Crabgrass readers can read from Google Scholar as the original source.

In Doe I, interestingly there WAS a transcript of a hearing, and discovery was requested and allowed, to see due process questions in an informed manner. It is the more interesting of the two cases; and a plea for immediate reinstatement might be a wise thing for the ten Gopher football athletes to request; reinstatement without blemish, so that even if holding an ultimate intent to transfer to another program the desire would be to boost transfer opportunity by removing a taint and transferring in good standing. That is suggested as needed to avoid an Eleventh Amendment State soverign immunity to suit in federal court for damages and other kinds of relief - really, even in the age of "notice pleading" there can be trap avoidance needs.

Hat tip again to this blog post, even with having to ferret out the cases because of authoring without linking.