Boston Globe carries an op-ed, "The tax bill shouts, ‘Greed!’ - Associated Press - Jeffrey D. Sachs, November 28, 2017."

Here, beginning:

The nation faces a fiscal crisis (rising debt, large deficits, and major budget needs such as infrastructure), a social crisis (falling incomes for the bottom half), and a political crisis (a collapse of trust in public institutions). The public is against Donald Trump’s tax proposals. Yet the unstoppable mode of the Republican Party is to cut taxes for the rich. This is greed fueled by the arrogance of power.

The Senate version of the tax cut hasn’t yet been agreed on by key Republican senators, but Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will try this week to move it almost instantaneously from its unveiling to a floor vote. The Congressional Budget Office has just shown that, under this bill, the poorest Americans actually pay for the richest. Yet if McConnell has his way, there will be no hearings and no expert debate on a piece of legislation that will affect trillions of dollars and all Americans. Authoritarian regimes are more transparent than Washington.

The United States has become a plutocracy, a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. Every branch of government is dangerously affected.

President Donald Trump has an estimated net worth of $3.1 billion and a trail of corporate bankruptcies, swindles, money laundering, and defaults associated with his business dealings. He owes his net worth to his daddy. He now aims to secure the Trump family billions by eliminating the estate tax.

Meanwhile, Trump’s cabinet is a haven of multimillionaires and billionaires, and at least seven of the nine Supreme Court justices are millionaires. Roughly 300 members of Congress (out of 535) are millionaires. They don’t need the goading of lobbyists to vote for corporate tax cuts. They have their personal financial balances firmly in mind.

Then of course come the campaign donors of the Republican majority in Congress, led by billionaires David and Charles Koch, Robert Mercer, and Sheldon Adelson. The Koch Brothers have long peddled the noxious ideology of Ayn Rand, which holds that the rich owe nothing to society.

A few congressmen have made clear that the tax bill is about meeting the expectation of the Republican Party donors, not about the will or need of the public. If they don’t pass the tax cut, the donors won’t come back. Still worse, the big donors threaten to run ads and primary-election opponents against those who dare to speak the truth. Those Republican congressmen who aren’t operating for their personal wealth live in fear of the party’s mega-donors.

Ending -

[...] Wall Street, the health care industry, and other major sectors disproportionately influence the policies of both parties. Supported by advisors from Wall Street, Bill Clinton deregulated the banks, George W. Bush led us into the 2008 financial crisis, and Barack Obama bailed out and coddled the bankers. And now Trump seeks to reward them with a new round of tax cuts.

Plutocracies are self-feeding. Wealth feeds power and power feeds wealth. Yet eventually the runaway greed, unless checked early enough, will lead to a mega-crisis. [...] The timing is especially inopportune, since America is challenged as never before by the global shifts of economic, diplomatic, and military power.

The long-term hope for America is a new political movement by the poor and working class, as occurred in the populist-progressive era at the end of the 1800s, the union organizing of the 1930s, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. If history is a guide, the plutocrats are overplaying their hand and will reap the consequences, albeit with the risk of a very serious national crisis. If we are fortunate, America may yet escape a grievous self-inflicted wound in the coming weeks, if just a few Republican Senators put country over greed and vote down the egregious tax-cut proposals.

Are there any legitimate grounds to disagree? Why then are the tweets and mainstream media aimed at diverting attention from the tax bonanza for the rich? Who cares about kneeling football players, and why bother me over supposed embryo plight? The obvious answer, they act brazenly because they believe the public is either too dumb to catch on or too fragmented by propaganda aimed at divide-and-conquer to have an outlook that matters.

Hello, Eric Lucero and Abigale Whelan. And to their cohorts, hawking divisiveness from lower political levels up.

They may be right, about "too dumb to be cohesive" over the many fiscal indecencies inflicted upon all segments of our less financially fortunate people, irrespective of race, creed, or national origin.

Riling people up over differences of the race, creed, or national origin of others seems to divert popular anger from its very best target - those taking gross advantage over their fellow citizens, and smugly enjoying doing it.

If a border wall is really needed, ... why ignore the Corps?

Why not delegate the border infrastructure to the Corps? Is there any really sound reason not to? Obviously need vs. want is a debatable policy factor in terms of any wall planning. Aside from that and presuming a wall will be designed and built, why use privateers instead of the Army Corps of Engineers?

The Corps does big-time water irrigation and flood control projects, maintains and enhances navigable waterway infrastructure, and has the size and expertise, given adequate funding, to do the wall job without marking up costs to inflate profiteering.

Give the Corps the jurisdiction, then stand aside as they'd do the job. Trump should have the legislative votes needed; the Republicans want the wall and many western Republicans are keen on their water projects. If the Corps is best for river commerce and massive crop and livestock irrigation spending, why not for border infrastructure?

Again, whether a wall is needed is a separate political question from how one would be most efficiently financed and built.

Use of the Corps would moot all trashy politics of who'd get to make big money off the adventure. Bechtel and Carlyle Group intentions and shenanigans are part of history in recent regimes (dating to pre-Watergate times), but big infrastructure profiteering need not be a perpetual handmaiden to government policies and services. Halliburton's excessive profiteering off Iraq discredits forever the notion of various well-placed politicized defense contractors having a hands-off entitlement to fleece the government. No such entitlement exists, and if a border wall is to be built, Halliburton-in-Iraq levels of ineffectiveness-for-profit are not needed, and would be undesirable on ethics grounds.

Just as government could better provide a close management of the nation's health services, the Corps like the VA gets the job done, thereby proving the private sector is but an option, and not necessarily the best one, while certainly not a necessity.

Instead of the Corps, who? That two-man venture out of Montana that got the Puerto Rico electric grid contract? Left to Zinke and the Republcan will, the two Whitefish Montana contractors would have a better shot at things than the Corps? Presently? Yes/no?

One last observation and readers can look it up. Effectiveness. Gen. Leslie Groves managed the military's building of the Pentagon and after that he was picked to run the Manhattan Project. With that in the military's resume, grounds to discredit government project management efficiency fail to exist.

There's a track record in those two mega-projects that the private sector cannot match. Moreover, when the TVA and Bonneville power projects happened, it was federal involvement at all levels of the rural electrification program that made it work as quickly as it did, pre-WW II.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't ignore the Corps.

Conventional beltway lobbyist, media, donor, consultancy, and career-politician wisdom: Moneycrats' consultancies "know how to win" and can Pontificate endlessly about it, often making a good living. At its worse terrible as well as stupid advice can be given. E.g. Mook/Podesta/handler overscripting Clinton moves and mannerisms, making the woman look even less genuine and more like a walking, talking ventriloquist's machine via overrehersing enough to kill any possible chance of pleasant spontaniety arising. Conventional beltway wisdom, conventionally practiced, can appear stupid to regular people, but do these inbred beltway types know or care if the paycheck pays the bills with something left over until next election's need for punditry arrives? Bad punditry, of all places, at Politico? You read. You decide: Is there heft to any beltway punditry summed up as, "Lie to the evangelicals or at least tone it down?"

Just because something has been done does not make it right. Lying to evangelical folks in order to entice their vote is a conventional corporatist GOP approach (standing analogous to the corporate Democrat candidates' lying every election to progressives).

Lying to the fundies is in fact the chute George W. Bush (with Billy Graham's blessing) exploited in his reaching the White House, but that by itself does not make it a good thing, or a sharp tactical step for every candidate, every contest, either party. Yet, the fundies have been used, every time there's been an election ever since the Gipper succeeded via that shallow route of ends and means.

Dominionists on both sides of the lie are the worse, giving prompt false witness and accepting it all too readily even when common sense cautions otherwise. Dominionists serve corporate voting aims (and corporatist/Doninionist candidates such as Greg Gianforte in Montana) via their herd instinct which arguably sacrifices good sense to working as a major "in the GOP bag" constituency for GOTV purposes despite neither party's top management, both parties, thinking the evangelicals are much besides brain-wearied kooks who if reasonable should expect nothing but near-election lying of the worse false-promising kind to move the grunting beast to do its seemingly perpetual task of showing up on election day in droves and voting Republican. Then to be ignored until needed again, next election, when they get promised to, same way, yet again.

opening of a Politico op-ed item which gives free advice

Given that things are as they are, some beltway punditry goes afoul of good, plain, common sense, if suggesting it believes itself. Is the message to be false and lie, or to tone down a message where you may not win any fundie votes, but you try not to incite greater droves of them being driven to vote? Is it necessary to say don't deliberately molest a hornets' nest if it can be quietly sidestepped? Is that actual punditry? From late in the item to its ending:

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim employee of an Abercrombie & Fitch store who was told her hijab did not align with the companies “aesthetic,” and she would have to remove it or be fired.

And therein lies a possible path forward for Jones. Moore promises to be a champion for evangelicals, but there are few things that would be deadlier to evangelicals’ politics than to be represented in the United States Senate by a bomb-thrower like Moore. The religious freedom of Christian employees to follow their faith, or of Christian institutions to organize around their beliefs, is inextricably tied to the right of Muslims, Sikhs, Jewish Americans and other faiths to do the same. At what point has Moore proven successful in defending religious freedom? He has cynically used the issue to advance his own career, and constantly undermines it with his attacks on non-Christians. Jones should tell Alabamians that he, unlike Moore, understands that religious freedom is either going to be protected for everyone or it will fail to exist for anyone, and he should commit to applying the same skill and passion to the issue he employed in prosecuting the KKK.

Moore looks like a prophet to some, because he’s warned all along that Washington would force its values on places like Alabama. In 2006, 81 percent of Alabama voters supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and fewer than 10 years later their vote was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Jones should be able to affirm that decision, while also making clear that he does not think it mandates the government to exert pressure to change the teachings of Alabama’s churches or faithful. This may sound obvious, and it is, but that is exactly why Jones should say it: Demogogues like Moore prey on the fears of evangelical voters, relying on Democrats’ unwillingness to even make basic attempts to speak their language or appeal for their votes.

None of this would require Jones to compromise his integrity, though national Democrats and some activists might get queasy if, say, he does promise to vote “present” on abortion. If that happens, they should remember: Jones would represent another key vote on protecting Obamacare, the social safety net, voting rights and criminal justice reform. It would also mean that Alabama would no longer be sending two pro-life votes to the Senate, which would be extraordinary in itself, and could play a deciding factor in key votes. And even more importantly, a morally repugnant candidate would be kept out of the world’s greatest deliberative body and denied a national platform to spread his noxious, divisive views.

In scripture, the phrase “stumbling block” refers to actions that might give reason for a Christian to not do what they ought to do anyways. Doug Jones appears to be a good man, with a sterling reputation and a history of fighting for justice. But to win, he’s going to have to remove obstacles that are preventing evangelical voters from embracing him. Being a better person than Roy Moore is not enough: He’s going to have to do everything he can, within the bounds of his own conscience, to reasssure Alabamians that he won’t be pushing an agenda on social issues that’s out of step with their values. We’re counting on him. As Jesus said in Luke 17:1, “Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to anyone by whom they come!”

Is this berating the obvious; is it anything beyond "Try to leave sleeping dogs lie;" or is it suggesting an upwind action more likely than not to get Doug Jones very wet, should he take it as good advice? Or should Jones honestly and boldly set out an agenda aimed at causing a progressive GOTV rather than trying to sneak away from what the Roy Moore supporters will be hammering on in their GOTV effort?

Ossoff in the Georgia special election played "avoid the questions," and lost. Rob Quist in the Montana special election differentiated himself, even inviting Bernie to help campaign, and lost. Each of those two special elections cost a ton of money on both sides, and this one likely will be similar.

Does that mean those consultancy answers of wheedle the rich bozo donor bloc for money are the only or best feasible ways and means of progressives' needs being recognized and met?

"Sidelined by scandal, Sen. Al Franken faces questions about ability to do his job -- A once-bright political career now hangs in the balance. By Jennifer Brooks, Star Tribune, November 19, 2017 — 8:00am"

The headline above is from Strib, a local content item and not a news service feed, the item being online here.

Roy Moore losing in Alabama would be fine. Not because he chased teenagers while in his thirties and a prosecutor; but because he's a Dominionist and an ass. He should stay home with his Judaeo-Christian rock. It is his Rock-of-Gibraltar comfort toy in life so let his good times roll. Just not in DC.

As to Franken, his problem is not Leeann Tweeden and he should not stand aside over that.

Franken's problem is he's been in DC in the Wellstone seat for a few years and has not done jack for single payer healthcare as a right, nor for student debt relief, nor for income inequality reform, nor for campaign finance reform.

He's been there. He's not committed to a progressive agenda, and should stand aside over that, so somebody who cares can then occupy the Wellstone seat; somebody who would do right by it.

Were Al to have a "road to Damascus" sudden progressive epiphany, and then to get productive on things that matter; then Al, feel welcome to stay. You'd be earning it.

But if little substance emerges, Al still stands the better of Paulsen or Jason Lewis, indeed for that matter, the better of Timmy P. by any unbiased measure. The clear better of Norm Coleman even while needing a recount to oust Norm from DC. Better in the seat than any the GOP may advance, but in the way of a more progressive activist having a shot at doing good from holding the Wellstone seat.

And while Amy's not claimed to have harassed or pestered anybody, she surely could use a fine shot of progressivism to leaven her demeanor and worldview. Were Amy on policy the way Elizabeth Warren is, now that surely would upgrade the product. If you wait for that, fine, but don't expect it.

That said, is Al getting "the treatment" as payback over his opposition to this schmuck as Supreme Court material, fit to sit along with the able jurist for whom he clerked out of law school?

That Strass and Thomas belong in the same league is clear. Equally clear, it is not major league, neither being major leaguers in capability or worldview.
The days of Justice Douglas and Justice Brennen are being dishonored by the likes of John Roberts. Usually the dregs precipitate out while the cream rises, but current DC personalities and trends have turned that topsy-turvy.

Last, if you do not see that Strib headlining which was reposted verbatim to headline this blog post as being over the top sensationalism, then we disagree.

UPDATE: The question for Al Franken both before and after the Tweeden business hit the fan was and remains willingness to do the job, not ability, the job being commensurate with it being the Wellstone seat.

Willingness to be decent when in DC it seems indecency pays better, has Bernie and Warren as its poster children, and others as less willing; less able.

God, NO!

Neither in the image are Presidential. Yet one seems to think otherwise.

An early-item quote:

For the first time in what would be the sixth presidential campaign that he’s either seriously flirted with or launched, Biden sees an argument for a candidacy for which he is the only answer: An elder statesman who can help repair the damage and divisions in the country and around the world, unite the competing wings of the Democratic Party, and appeal to traditional Democratic voters who fled last year for Trump.

The man has drunk Clinton Balloon Drop koolaid and it's addled his head. He'd loose. Bernie would win, just as he would have . . .

Easy appeasers, line up. Biden wants you. No real and honest progressive, after Obama's two terms and the Perez/Ellison back stab at DNC would want Biden. Fatally flawed is as it is.

A party hijacked by a pair of grifter spouses cannot do well without reform, pronto.

STRONGER TOGETHER relates to
togetherness within a family Foundation,
with little relation to winning anything.

And Donna says Debbie mismanaged; this link.

This sorrow.

1- BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON.

2- BERNIE GOT SCREWED.

3- TRUMP WON.

NO AMOUNT OF DUMB SINGING OR EXCESSIVE EGO TRIPPING BALLOON DROPPING WILL ALTER THOSE THREE CLEAR FACTS. SO ASK YOURSELVES, HOW CAN AN ENTIRE PARTY ELITE BE SO TOTALLY CLUELESS AND STUPID? IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO BE THAT INEPT. AT LEAST THE SONG SAID "BETTER DAYS TO COME" BUT THE FOUNDATION SPOUSES HAD A DIFFERENT SCENARIO IN MIND; AS IF BETTER DAYS - FOR THEM - WERE IMMINENT.

UPDATE: Rather than leave some people confused, this stuff is rehashed because of Donna disclosures, per the first cite above, source of the image used already and saying in part:

Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

[link in original] That linked Politico item noted:

According to the agreements signed by the participating committees, which were obtained by POLITICO, the money is required to be distributed, at least initially, based on a formula set forth in joint fundraising agreements signed by the participants. The first $2,700 goes to the Clinton campaign, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC, and any remaining funds are to be distributed among the state parties.

But what happens to the cash after that initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign. Its chief operating officer, Beth Jones, is the treasurer of the victory fund. And FEC filings show that within a day of most transfers from the victory fund to the state parties, identical sums were transferred from the state party accounts to the DNC, which Sanders’ supporters have accused of functioning as an adjunct of the Clinton campaign.

For example, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party received $43,500 from the victory fund on Nov. 2, only to transfer the same amount to the DNC that same day. The pattern repeated itself after the Minnesota party received transfers from the victory fund of $20,600 on Dec. 1 (the party sent the same amount to the DNC the next day) and $150,000 on Jan. 4 (it transferred the same amount to the DNC that day).

That means that Minnesota’s net gain from its participation in the victory fund was precisely $0 through the end of March. Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota — much of which the DNC wouldn’t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee.

Down ballot, that centralized greed hurt Minnesota Democrats; shamefully so. Donna and Debbie fail to impress. Misuse of money is vexing, and also unimpressive.

Transgender election milestones; and 44 Minnesota troglodytes.

Election wins by transgender candidates is reported by WaPo, here and here.

That each of the two candidates was transgender, and won, is proof that issues and sound policies can trump hate in current US politics.

Thansgender haters idenfied here, are:

Minnesota Republican Reps. Glenn Gruenhagen of Glencoe, Tim Miller of Prinsburg, Abigail Whelan of Anoka, Cindy Pugh of Chanhassen, Peggy Scott of Andover, Kathy Lohmer of Stillwater, Bruce Vogel of Elko-New Market, Dennis Smith of Maple Grove, Jim Knoblach of St. Cloud, Bud Nornes of Fergus Falls, Mary Franson of Alexandria, Jeff Backer of Browns Valley, Mark Uglem of Champlin, Joe McDonald of Delano, Brian Daniels of Faribault, Matt Dean of Dellwood, Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Josh Heintzman of Nisswa, Linda Runbeck of Circle Pines, Jim Newberger of Becker, Ron Kresha of Little Falls, Jim Nash of Waconia, Dave Baker of Willmar, Bob Barrett of Taylor’s Falls, Chris Swedzinski of Ghent, Eric Lucero of Dayton, Dave Hancock of Bemidji, Bob Dettmer of Forest Lake, Debra Keil of Crookston, Bob Gunther of Fairmont, Tony Albright of Prior Lake, Mark Anderson of Lake Shore, Tony Cornish of Vernon Center, Dan Fabian of Roseau, Jerry Hertaus of Greenfield, Jason Rarick of Pine City, Paul Anderson of Starbuck, Greg Davids of Preston, Joyce Peppin of Rogers, Kelly Fenton of Woodbury, Tim Sanders of Blaine, Jon Koznick of Lakeville, Sarah Anderson of Plymouth, and Jeff Howe of Rickville.

Why such hatreds exist is a dark psychological question; but clearly there are people judging others by bogus and biased standards. People wanting to stigmatize others on illogical bases; the mentality being close to what might be needed to burn a witch. And to do so in an ever most pious and self-satisfied manner.

There should be no tolerance of falsely grounded hateful attitudes toward others, and seeing two transgender persons overcome the odds this election cycle is reassuring.

The sooner, the better. Cleaning the Minnesota legislature of its divisive and intolerant blowhards,44 of them, is next at hand. This link. It is time the 21st century reached Anoka County where I live, and reached its HD 35A, the House district in which my home lies. Get those people out of there so that government might work better, on actual and not falsely trumpeted matters of importance.

UPDATE: There is coordination; this link.

Useful medical science has its haters too. And there is overlap; rigid personalities biting into their pattern of divisive positions with pitbull jaw locks. So far, it's worked for the troglodytes at the ballot box. Failure that way will be the most prompt way of sidetracking the misdirected individuals so that progress may happen. They start losing, they start finding reason and good sense are not beyond their skill sets. Demagoguery of any kind only grows when it works.

And are there Haim Saban fingerprints upon the DNC's and Clinton canmpaign's secret arrangement?

Coverage appears to be Strib carrying DC-based feeds; but here the reporting is about Trump suggesting the Clinton campaign should be target of an investigation. Then there is damning news, when viewed from the standpoint of disillusioned and disappointed progressives, re the question of DNC biases vs. trustworthiness; this, source of the below screencapture:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz flat-out lied to the world about the pre-installed Clintonian ownership of DNC. Interesting "for example" links, here and here. That DNC stable still needs to be mucked; yet Tom Perez apparently sees no such tasking on the job description he's defined for himself.

Remember the lesson of 2016.

UPDATE: Daily Caller suggests two years passed and owning up to the disgraced DNC - Clinton deal only happened in exchange for a cofmortable book deal where something new had to be expected to move copies off shelves and out of Amazon inventory. The suggestion is troubling; money ran the deal into existence; money caused disclosure of the deal to surface; but in each instance money motivated; patriotism and public trust having lesser roles.

The worse part of the shenanigans - it was a ton of money behind an individual who failed to defeat the most unpopular Presidential candidate in the nation's history, because of being equally unpopular, and a lazy and ineffective campaigner to boot. What were people doing and thinking. Bernie WOULD have won. Blowing a shot at the spoils that way was not only corrupt, but ineffectively corrupt in a context where corruption is a usual norm that usually works. Inept corruption, the nutshell description of DWS leeadership at DNC.

AND BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON. That is the sadness to all of the story. President Sanders, sidetracked for Trump/Pence, a victim of venal bad judgments by ones who would do the same damned thing over again, if holding onto that chance.

Remember the lesson of 2016. But go beyond remembering it. Show an upward sloping learning curve, and beyond that, move to relevance for encompassing mature long-term good judgment and willingness to sincerely and fundamentally restructure. Specifically, restructure Away from Clintonian-Gingrich outlooks of disregard toward fair needs of the disadvantaged majority of the people in the nation. Bernie clearly gained and held on to the mood and will of people. His crowds were not intolerant, except toward government tendencies to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to actual majority thought among the people.

Vin Weber, Tony Podesta. The ugly underside of lobbying and why lobbyist should be scorned, shunned, and horse-whipped.

Vin Weber getting a possible comeuppance is not bad news. Real news. Real nice?

Excerpt, mid-item:

Representatives for Weber's firm and Podesta said they are cooperating with the special counsel's investigation. Podesta, whose brother was the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, has resigned from his firm.

FBI agents working for Mueller are asking witnesses about meetings among Gates, Podesta and Weber to discuss the lobbying work in detail and any communication with representatives of a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party, according to two people familiar with the interviews who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

"There were questions about how much Podesta and Vin Weber were involved. There was a lot of interest there," one of them said.

FBI agents also expressed interest in the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which produced a 2012 report used to justify the jailing of an opposition politician in Ukraine.

Both people said that investigators on Mueller's team have asked about what the lobbyists knew about the source of the funding and who was directing the work in 2012 - long before Manafort became Trump's campaign chairman in 2016.

Local Minnesota Strib coverage; a year and some months ago::

Vin Weber linked to ex-Trump strategist's Ukrainian lobbying effort -- The former Minnesota Republican faces uncertainty as to whether he will be part of any federal inquiry into the lobbying. By Allison Sherry Star Tribune - August 25, 2016 — 9:39pm

Between 2012 and 2014, Weber received almost $700,000 to lobby for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, an organization that advocated for the country to join the European Union. Weber, along with the Podesta Group, received the contract from Paul Manafort and another Trump strategist, Rick Gates.

Manafort could face a federal inquiry for his lobbying ties to the Russian government. At the same time, Ukrainian investigators are examining a corruption network allegedly used to influence elections during the administration of former President Viktor Yanukovych, one of Manafort’s main clients.

After the new Ukrainian revelations, Manafort abruptly resigned from the Trump campaign, and now Weber faces uncertainty as to whether he will be part of a federal inquiry.

“Our purpose was to keep [the Ukrainians] away from Moscow,” said Weber, a former Republican congressman who left office in 1993. “Our goal as Americans and Westerners was to bring Ukraine into the E.U. Our explicit work was anti-Russian.”

Controversy surrounding potentially illegal lobbying contracts with Ukraine emerged after the New York Times reported earlier in August about a secret ledger that detailed more than $12 million in alleged cash payments to Manafort from Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party. Manafort has denied receiving any money.

In an interview, Weber said Manafort might have misled him about who was funding the Centre for a Modern Ukraine.

With the high eight-figure amounts mentiolned in press accounts as adventure proceeds which Manafort and Gates appear to have stashed multiple places for their tax-free luxurious benefit, it appears that at $700,000 Weber was bought cheap.

Vin Weber in a slammer might make some Minnesotans smile, but bet at best, a few days in a country-club federal facility with inmate treatment a few cuts better than Gitmo. Beyond hypotheticals, Strib carried the AP feed from days ago. What a possibility; Vin Weber and Tony Podesta as cell mates.

Yes, we can. But - will we?

UPDATE: The one thing missing so far; Ollie North with serious face on, testifying in his marine uniform. Do you suppose Flynn, when the time comes, goes into uniform to explain his money trail?

The shame. The horror. The reverberating reprecussions throughout the press and leading electronic media: A Presidential candidate and his candidacy effort to have a visit and bonding with a foreign head of state with efforts afoot by that foreign power to have influence on a Presidential election outcome; during the year of those efforts. Surely a federal crime is at hand.

E.g., This link. Source of this image.

With AIPAC, is there doubt it is a foreign-influenced
operation aimed at impacting election outcomes?

The Logan Act, where should its reach be adjudged?

Gen. Flynn met an ambassador as a private citizen discussing matters of state in a Presidential election year and while attached to a candidacy campaign. Romney, the candidate himself flew to, visited with, and held private discussions with Bibi which were possibly related to international policy. In a Presidential year. On Bibi's turf.

And the press shows consistency in reporting emphasis, slant and judgments?

UPDATE: https://www.franken.senate.gov/files/letter/171102_SessionsLetter.pdf

Sniping. Uranium. Podesta. Cease and desist?

Two items, sequentially, here, then here. That last item, in its closing something curious which, presumably, only a lawyer would think to include in a cease and desist letter:

That has to be a joke, right? Copyright assertion over a cease and desist letter seems downright dumb.