 |
| Abstract art on the potato farm. |
Buy a drone with a GoPro camera, and you can do photos too. It looks neat, but what's it costing rural communities?
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
One potato, two potato, mechanized many, with consequences concerninfg water resources.
Buy a drone with a GoPro camera, and you can do photos too. It looks neat, but what's it costing rural communities?
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
A holiday thought. We as a nation deserve better than a huge pile of it. Anyone misled to believe senior people in the Democratic Party's inner party want Citizens United overturned is a lost soul.
 |
| Pompous platitudes presented at Davos, per paired teleprompters, link below. |
Links here, here, and here, and then a giant Davos pile, here.
Woo-woo, look at this. Inner Party; as inner as it gets. Unopposed it is worse, opposed it remains. An example of how English as a Second Language education effort can reach beyond grammar and vocabulary. You can watch that Davos stuff, the not absent but only occasional misreading of the teleprompter, with English as your first or second language; and you can enjoy what you hear - if it brings you joy more than loathing. Steve Bullock and Tulsi Gabbard admittedly are imperfect, but are quantum leaps above what the final 2020 two-party money-driven pairing will be for you to hold your nose and vote, exactly as was 2016.
 |
| quantum leaps are feasible, given the ground state |
At least we don't have Doug Wardlow to kick around anymore. Or not? Happy holidays.
_________UPDATE__________
George Orwell wrote a 1946 essay not greatly distant from his fiction. Think, Twitter and those who Tweet, in terms of the direction our language takes us.
It is interesting Orwell, cutting cleanly:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.
Then later at length:
In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you
think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one’s meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose – not simply accept – the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one’s words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Sometimes a barbarous common usage can best convey feeling lost if a move toward better manners overrules an instinct. Barbarous things need to be discussed in fit terms to where delicate words can misstate or tone down a belief. Yet understatement sometimes is best to expose an insincerity. Often it is so, but effective understatement is difficult to master and easy to be lost with scan readers. The essay is short and worth more than scan reading. It carries a laugh or two for those liking irony.
Monday, December 24, 2018
Trump's quick eviction of Mattis to install an acting DoD civilian technocrat head was a good move, as is curbintg troop deployments.
A nation's military by necessity for having stable government should be civilian controlled, as with a police force clearly subordinate to a mayor and council; or a sheriff being subordinate to a county board.
The status of the F 35 SNAFU and cost overruns begs better leadership. Strib carrying an AP feed:
The man has run public company divisions on a tighter budget than the Pentagon enjoys, and had technology over manpower aims while in the private sector. Traditional conservatives should love Shanahan's chops.
Rotary aircraft would include the Osprey, a technological innovation that works, even having had birthing pains, and having gotten 787 bottlenecks straight after the decision to build in South Carolina as a "right to work" state vs. Washington where experience was greatest but where unions were strong made things work despite the nastiness of Boeing top management in making that anti-worker decision.
The Pentagon needs a flush, and a civilian top dog offers that possibility. The military after going voluntary has been brass-heavy for decades and needs a flush. That the Kurds suffer is not new; they've been sold out and screwed over for most of a century or more, and this is just one more step in that direction. The Afghan situation, without direct confrontation of Palkistan was a loser and downsizing the loss makes sense.
When a sensible change is made it should be acknowledged, despite it coming from Mr. HushMoney.
Can you imagine the situation had it been Pence making the choice? A crusadeer like Boykin would not be a good idea, but it would most likely be the idea Pence would cherish. Trump deserves credit for not marching that dangerous and stupid road. So far . . .
_____________UPDATE______________
It is not an unmindful praise at issue. Naming one of the death vendors to head the war and death part of the federal government who has been reported as wanting to streamline purchasing from the vendors is a naming recognized as greasing the skids for the vendors.
But the alternative is running the show by the death deliverers, whose bias is as was said by one during Vietnam days, "It's not much of a war but it's the only one we've got."
Don't seek attribution, it was published, but pinning it to one specific member of the officer corps is not worth the research time.
Getting the "war ticket" punched, combat command experience is a part of the "up" dimension of "up or out." It leads to mindsets which are counterproductive to pacifist ideals.
Selling technocratic "deterrence" is a better background, and money spent buying high-tech death tools gets recycled into the general consumer economy with that old multiplier effect of money in circulation that Econ 101 praises.
Cutting out the slack of bureau inertia has appeal as an argument, since the waste is great already, and minimization of it is hence easily envisioned.
What is most dangerous is the belief set of generals such as Boykin that a holy crusade is good for national character. It is not.
Civilian leadership at the Pentagon can be better in planning and research of weapon possibilities, with spin-off capable to consumer products, GPS being an example, with the alternative being how to most effectively deliver death and demoralization to "the enemy" using the equipment now in the arsenal and the training techniques that have long insensitized persons in killing "the enemy" while under one of several civil commandments to not kill our own, that being crime.
Downsizing the entire circus is likely easier among vendor technocrats who have more transferable skill sets than generals possess. Generals know how to climb a ladder and how to boss things once atop. They get into Pentagon consultancies, the schmoozing side of things, less than the technocrat side of let's make its radar cross section lower by doing this or that with carbon fiber composites.
The fact that an obscene majority of an obscene federal spending budget goes to the killing machinery, euphemistically called "defense," is at the heart of what a long term end should be the aim, and a start would be downsizing the military academies; as well as closing off a big part of the pentagon making it a war history museum or such. The fewer having a stake in the money flows to the death industries, the better; but long term attrition is needed because of the moods of those with vested interests, and how they might react to citizen effort to downsize their toys and games and meal tables.
Again, happy holidays.
May the next year be more sane than the last, and may that trend continue.
The status of the F 35 SNAFU and cost overruns begs better leadership. Strib carrying an AP feed:
A fracture developed last week over Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and worsened after Mattis' public disagreement with Trump, aired in his resignation letter.
Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan will take over as acting secretary on Jan. 1, Trump announced in a tweet Sunday. He had worked for more than three decades at Boeing Co. and was a senior vice president when he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
In the new year Trump wants to focus on streamlining purchases at the Pentagon, an issue on which Shanahan has already been working, a White House official said. The official asked not to be identified publicly discussing personnel matters.
U.S. officials said they didn't know if Shanahan would be Trump's nominee to replace Mattis. During a lunch with conservative lawmakers Saturday at the White House, Trump discussed his options. They were "not all military," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was among those attending.
Shanahan's biography on the Pentagon's website does not list military experience for the longtime Boeing executive. He earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Washington, then a master's degree in mechanical engineering as well as an MBA from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In addition to work in Boeing's commercial airplanes programs, Shanahan was vice president and general manager of Boeing Missile Defense Systems and of Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. In a March 2016 report, the Puget Sound Business Journal called Shanahan a Boeing "fix-it" man who was central to getting the 787 Dreamliner on track after production problems in the program's early years.
An acting defense secretary is highly unusual. Historically when a secretary has resigned, he has stayed on until a successor is confirmed. For example, when Chuck Hagel was told to resign in November 2014, he stayed in office until Ash Carter was confirmed the following February.
Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general, had been expected to retain his position as Pentagon chief through February. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, not the president, notified Mattis of Trump's decision to put in place Shanahan, said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to discuss personnel issues.
The sudden change stripped Mattis of any chance to further frame national security policy or smooth rattled relations with allies over the next two months. But U.S. officials said the reaction to Mattis' decision to leave — it sparked shock and dismay on Capitol Hill — annoyed Trump and likely led to pushing Mattis out.
The man has run public company divisions on a tighter budget than the Pentagon enjoys, and had technology over manpower aims while in the private sector. Traditional conservatives should love Shanahan's chops.
Rotary aircraft would include the Osprey, a technological innovation that works, even having had birthing pains, and having gotten 787 bottlenecks straight after the decision to build in South Carolina as a "right to work" state vs. Washington where experience was greatest but where unions were strong made things work despite the nastiness of Boeing top management in making that anti-worker decision.
The Pentagon needs a flush, and a civilian top dog offers that possibility. The military after going voluntary has been brass-heavy for decades and needs a flush. That the Kurds suffer is not new; they've been sold out and screwed over for most of a century or more, and this is just one more step in that direction. The Afghan situation, without direct confrontation of Palkistan was a loser and downsizing the loss makes sense.
When a sensible change is made it should be acknowledged, despite it coming from Mr. HushMoney.
Can you imagine the situation had it been Pence making the choice? A crusadeer like Boykin would not be a good idea, but it would most likely be the idea Pence would cherish. Trump deserves credit for not marching that dangerous and stupid road. So far . . .
_____________UPDATE______________
It is not an unmindful praise at issue. Naming one of the death vendors to head the war and death part of the federal government who has been reported as wanting to streamline purchasing from the vendors is a naming recognized as greasing the skids for the vendors.
But the alternative is running the show by the death deliverers, whose bias is as was said by one during Vietnam days, "It's not much of a war but it's the only one we've got."
Don't seek attribution, it was published, but pinning it to one specific member of the officer corps is not worth the research time.
Getting the "war ticket" punched, combat command experience is a part of the "up" dimension of "up or out." It leads to mindsets which are counterproductive to pacifist ideals.
Selling technocratic "deterrence" is a better background, and money spent buying high-tech death tools gets recycled into the general consumer economy with that old multiplier effect of money in circulation that Econ 101 praises.
Cutting out the slack of bureau inertia has appeal as an argument, since the waste is great already, and minimization of it is hence easily envisioned.
What is most dangerous is the belief set of generals such as Boykin that a holy crusade is good for national character. It is not.
Civilian leadership at the Pentagon can be better in planning and research of weapon possibilities, with spin-off capable to consumer products, GPS being an example, with the alternative being how to most effectively deliver death and demoralization to "the enemy" using the equipment now in the arsenal and the training techniques that have long insensitized persons in killing "the enemy" while under one of several civil commandments to not kill our own, that being crime.
Downsizing the entire circus is likely easier among vendor technocrats who have more transferable skill sets than generals possess. Generals know how to climb a ladder and how to boss things once atop. They get into Pentagon consultancies, the schmoozing side of things, less than the technocrat side of let's make its radar cross section lower by doing this or that with carbon fiber composites.
The fact that an obscene majority of an obscene federal spending budget goes to the killing machinery, euphemistically called "defense," is at the heart of what a long term end should be the aim, and a start would be downsizing the military academies; as well as closing off a big part of the pentagon making it a war history museum or such. The fewer having a stake in the money flows to the death industries, the better; but long term attrition is needed because of the moods of those with vested interests, and how they might react to citizen effort to downsize their toys and games and meal tables.
Again, happy holidays.
May the next year be more sane than the last, and may that trend continue.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Consumer fraud public interest litigation - Minnesota's AG and the DC AG file and we wait to see.
Lori Swanson, current Minnesota AG, sues Comcast.
District of Columbia sues Facebook, bless their hearts.
Cost them money, get their attention, curb abuse somewhat or at least try, and hope for some increment of better behavior.
In general -- Private enterprise has no respect for you, but there can be a learning curve. If they can sell you down the river without consequences, bon voyage. Good citizenship may come but only after consequences. If sleaze pays, expect it in double doses.
District of Columbia sues Facebook, bless their hearts.
Cost them money, get their attention, curb abuse somewhat or at least try, and hope for some increment of better behavior.
In general -- Private enterprise has no respect for you, but there can be a learning curve. If they can sell you down the river without consequences, bon voyage. Good citizenship may come but only after consequences. If sleaze pays, expect it in double doses.
What about Mexico? Can their citizens contribute to gofundme?
Link. Coverage. Screen Capture:
Laura Ingraham would not tout a fraud, would she? Under the FOX imprimatur?
Pete Hegseth donated twenty bucks, so you should too.
(really just guessing about Pete, another guess, meet his speaking fee price and he'll show up and tout it)
____________UPDATE_____________
If you're one of the 63 million people who voted for Trump and you will not pony up your eighty bucks like the item says, you're a freeloading cheap bastard and deserve the scorn of a nation. The scorn of a Whitehoused Trump. Of Jarad and Ivanka. Don Jr.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Always remember, the true and honest Republicans are the ones favoring private initiative. Others may favor collectives, so go for the best of both worlds, collective private initiative; fund that dream of an American heritage, kick in extra even for flags on top. China makes flags, less expensive and of a hardy enough fabric to stand up to wind lashing against the razor wire.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Will not fade in the most intense of border sunlight. Colors will not run even in pouring rain. Buy now; get a free flag lapel pin with each order, supplies limited so don't delay. Duty free at present - there is no better deal.
 |
| ----- snip ----- |
Laura Ingraham would not tout a fraud, would she? Under the FOX imprimatur?
Pete Hegseth donated twenty bucks, so you should too.
(really just guessing about Pete, another guess, meet his speaking fee price and he'll show up and tout it)
____________UPDATE_____________
If you're one of the 63 million people who voted for Trump and you will not pony up your eighty bucks like the item says, you're a freeloading cheap bastard and deserve the scorn of a nation. The scorn of a Whitehoused Trump. Of Jarad and Ivanka. Don Jr.
_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Always remember, the true and honest Republicans are the ones favoring private initiative. Others may favor collectives, so go for the best of both worlds, collective private initiative; fund that dream of an American heritage, kick in extra even for flags on top. China makes flags, less expensive and of a hardy enough fabric to stand up to wind lashing against the razor wire.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Will not fade in the most intense of border sunlight. Colors will not run even in pouring rain. Buy now; get a free flag lapel pin with each order, supplies limited so don't delay. Duty free at present - there is no better deal.
Make America MEANER STILL: The man is just a mean bastard. And it is probably Pence behind it.
Wanting to starve people just to be the son of a bitch he is. He and his pack of equal savants.
And add in Paul Ryan as an equivalent awful person, the bunch are an embarrassment to a nation.
Make America MEAN again. It's been mean enough already, don't pile on. OCCUPY was handled meanly, but that was the other guy. Meanness is bipartisan, so we need more or better parties. We sure as hell need more OCCUPY.
___________UPDAATE___________
We don't need any greater militarized cop forces, but we are quietly getting them. Figure that out.
_________FURTHER UPDATE________
Trump is just a sqint-eyed mean bastard. Pence does not squint. Beyond squinting, cloned individuals. Vote the bastards out. Those in both parties. Big-time broom time, 2020 cannot come soon enough. Stamp out evil. Stamp out Hegseth. We do not want apartheid walls. We are better people than those having them.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The problem is and has been the rich fucking the rest of us, and dumping on Spanish speakers is a nastily-intended diversion. Bless Jarad and Ivanka and their hardships, if any. Fred Trump schooled his one child to be no different than Fred but with pretenses. Pretended genteel is far off the mark. Real genteel does not pay hush money, having no cause to. Stir in a little Roy Cohn, and you have what exactly?
Gov.-elect Tim Walz said he is "hugely disappointed" by the proposal.
"There's a reason that the farm bill took a year to pass — because they insisted on these ridiculous rules that are more reporting requirements. They don't do anything. And it's to set up a narrative that people who need food assistance are somehow not worthy of getting it."
As a member of Congress, Walz said, he worked on the language in the farm bill, and "we thought we put this to rest. But, again, I just want to stress: Five days before Christmas and all they have to do is come after people who need food assistance? The state of Minnesota has more compassion than that."
The Minnesota Department of Human Services, which administers the SNAP program along with the counties, said it was still analyzing the impact of the proposal and did not have an estimate of how many SNAP recipients would be affected.
"Right now we anticipate that this rule is likely to increase hunger and destitution in Minnesota for some of the poorest people in our state," said Roberta Downing, assistant commissioner for external relations.
And add in Paul Ryan as an equivalent awful person, the bunch are an embarrassment to a nation.
Make America MEAN again. It's been mean enough already, don't pile on. OCCUPY was handled meanly, but that was the other guy. Meanness is bipartisan, so we need more or better parties. We sure as hell need more OCCUPY.
___________UPDAATE___________
We don't need any greater militarized cop forces, but we are quietly getting them. Figure that out.
_________FURTHER UPDATE________
Trump is just a sqint-eyed mean bastard. Pence does not squint. Beyond squinting, cloned individuals. Vote the bastards out. Those in both parties. Big-time broom time, 2020 cannot come soon enough. Stamp out evil. Stamp out Hegseth. We do not want apartheid walls. We are better people than those having them.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The problem is and has been the rich fucking the rest of us, and dumping on Spanish speakers is a nastily-intended diversion. Bless Jarad and Ivanka and their hardships, if any. Fred Trump schooled his one child to be no different than Fred but with pretenses. Pretended genteel is far off the mark. Real genteel does not pay hush money, having no cause to. Stir in a little Roy Cohn, and you have what exactly?
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
At it again. Matt Look rides his hobby-horse. His County Board seat must be up for a 2020 vote. Dust off and polish the cliche.
As predictable as Michele Bachmann was, and not that different aside from gender.
Strib, here:
Carping about a county tax increase when all the other commissioners voted affirmativey. And why do that, besides he can? With him it's a want to be that way, not a need.
Tiring to a fault. Decimal point challenged; 4.9% tax hike. "Double digit?"
Sure Matt. If you say so; gotta be so.
To a fault.
Strib, here:
On Friday, Anoka County commissioners approved a 4.9 percent tax levy increase, [...] “It’s about cutting the fat out and not cutting the muscle out,” Commissioner Scott Schulte said at Friday’s meeting.
But Look said the county needs to look at the services it provides and to remember its core mission.
“Arguably when every agency has an increase — whether it’s city, county, school, state, federal — cumulatively … you’re seeing double-digit increases. That’s harmful, I think,” he said.
Carping about a county tax increase when all the other commissioners voted affirmativey. And why do that, besides he can? With him it's a want to be that way, not a need.
Tiring to a fault. Decimal point challenged; 4.9% tax hike. "Double digit?"
Sure Matt. If you say so; gotta be so.
To a fault.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
As of time of screen capture, 4 views. You could make it five.
 |
| Go ahead! Link. Make it five. |
See it, figure if it is anything but what you'd expect; boring and flaccid. Joe sees himself as Presidential. "Past pull date" comes to mind. Ditto Pelosi. In celebration of Lantos, no more, no less.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Not turning out crowds like George Burns and Gracie Allen did on the vaudeville circuit; but instead, a turn to Groupon as a marketing stragem. A/k/a just deserts. May it be as rewarding for them as a patrol ticket for putting an inflatable party doll in the passenger seat and using the high-occupancy lane. "Them" being the Clintons.
For those not remembering the hoopla intro from months ago to the notion of touring for cash by penultimate cash-mongers, this:
It was tenuous logic at best that a pair of poseurs past their pull date would generate high priced ticket buying to watch tortured posing and whining by the pair; but somebody must have thought it a good idea. With Groupon as a fall-back.
Hat tip to Jimmy Dore on YouTube as the first seen link leading to a websearch. Going to links to the Clintons' staunchest fan base, here and here, FOX and Breitbart respectively, the story unfolds. In a separate Dec. 3, 2018 FOX report:
So, FOX is more gentle toward the pair's plight than Jimmy Dore, but web content on occasion drifts beyond mainstream coverage, being gracious in calling FOX mainstream. It surely is nobody's insurgency. It is possible that Dore's critique was using National Review reporting in its slide quoting. That NatRev item is subheadlined, "He grins and charms, she blames and mocks. But not as many fans are cheering."
DailyWire, Dec. 10, 2018:
RT and DailyHeadlines also post unfavorable commentary.
That pair of arrogant sociopathic anti-progressive neoliberal bastards deserve all the hardship they get. Someone once explained to me the key to partisanship in two-party politics is "Our assholes are better than their assholes;" but that never rang sound to me as a principle of civil governance. Another version, "He votes with us on organizing."
It can be understood, but must it be liked?
One should not leave a post on the Clintons without a told-you-so mention of 2016. Gender based politics sucks, whether it be Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" style or Madeline Albright's " special place in hell" variety. As to gender politics, I love and support Elizabeth Warren as much as Bernie, so figure that out in a told-you-so context. Tulsi Gabbard being as supportable a politician as Steve Bullock. Per contra, Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden in the same gender-neutral neoliberal boat.
 |
| please click the image to enlarge and read |
It was tenuous logic at best that a pair of poseurs past their pull date would generate high priced ticket buying to watch tortured posing and whining by the pair; but somebody must have thought it a good idea. With Groupon as a fall-back.
Hat tip to Jimmy Dore on YouTube as the first seen link leading to a websearch. Going to links to the Clintons' staunchest fan base, here and here, FOX and Breitbart respectively, the story unfolds. In a separate Dec. 3, 2018 FOX report:
A representative from Smart Financial Centre in Sugar Land, Texas, told Fox News on Monday that “An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” -- which had been slated for Tuesday at the venue -- has been postponed.
Hillary Clinton tweeted Monday afternoon that "Bill and I will be traveling to Washington to pay our respects to President George H.W. Bush and his family at the funeral this week. We were greatly looking forward to being in Houston for our event this week, and are excited to come back next year as soon as we find a date."
The next scheduled event on the Clintons' speaking tour is not until April 11 in New York City.
The Texas stop's postponement comes after the Clintons' premiere performance in Toronto last week, which drew critical coverage over its sparse attendance as well as comparisons with the sold-out events on former first lady Michelle Obama's book tour.
“I can’t fathom why the Clintons would make like aging rock stars and go on a tour of Canada and the U.S. at a moment when Democrats are hoping to break the stranglehold of their cloistered, superannuated leadership and exult in a mosaic of exciting new faces,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in a weekend op-ed, after attending the kick-off. “What’s the point? It’s not inspirational. It’s not for charity. They’re not raising awareness about a cause, like Al Gore with global warming. They’re only raising awareness about the Clintons.”
Dowd wrote that she paid $177 for her ticket in Toronto, where she said she felt “sorry” for the Clintons, who would have to look out at “large swaths of empty seats.”
The scheduled April 2019 appearance would come almost four years to the day since Hillary Clinton announced her second presidential bid, which she ultimately lost to President Trump. The upset continues to feature prominently in her public remarks, amid speculation over whether she might try one more time for the White House.
Ticket prices, though, have seemed to reflect slumping interest in the Clinton tour.
So, FOX is more gentle toward the pair's plight than Jimmy Dore, but web content on occasion drifts beyond mainstream coverage, being gracious in calling FOX mainstream. It surely is nobody's insurgency. It is possible that Dore's critique was using National Review reporting in its slide quoting. That NatRev item is subheadlined, "He grins and charms, she blames and mocks. But not as many fans are cheering."
DailyWire, Dec. 10, 2018:
OVER? Hillary Clinton Bails On Speaking Tour, Heads Overseas For Wedding
Getty Images -- ByEmily Zanotti
[...] Before Bill and Hillary canceled their event in Sugar Land, tickets there were going for less than $10. Parking passes for the arena cost more than middle-of-the-road tickets to see the post-Presidential pair "open up" about their lives in public service.
"Despite the site telling customers that ‘tickets are selling fast!’ with ‘limited time remaining,’ it appears that less than 450 discounted tickets have actually been sold," the Daily Mail reported over the weekend. "A Groupon deal for the Clinton’s talk is for the liberal stronghold of Los Angeles where one would imagine the political power couple should be able to pull in the numbers."
The Clintons probably won't go quietly into that dark night — after all, the pair have made the majority of their wealth in the interim since Bill Clinton was president — by charging outrageous sums of money to speak and appear at corporate events, but this may be the end of the line for this tour, at least.
RT and DailyHeadlines also post unfavorable commentary.
That pair of arrogant sociopathic anti-progressive neoliberal bastards deserve all the hardship they get. Someone once explained to me the key to partisanship in two-party politics is "Our assholes are better than their assholes;" but that never rang sound to me as a principle of civil governance. Another version, "He votes with us on organizing."
It can be understood, but must it be liked?
One should not leave a post on the Clintons without a told-you-so mention of 2016. Gender based politics sucks, whether it be Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" style or Madeline Albright's " special place in hell" variety. As to gender politics, I love and support Elizabeth Warren as much as Bernie, so figure that out in a told-you-so context. Tulsi Gabbard being as supportable a politician as Steve Bullock. Per contra, Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden in the same gender-neutral neoliberal boat.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
In tune with his inner humility and the mood of the electorate in his district, Emmer suggests . . .
Where I live, where Emmer could be thought an upgrade - the seat previously securely held by Michele Bachmann - proves "upgrade" to be a relative term. Having noted that, as head Honcho of NRCC Emmer may, relatively, be a throwback, as would be the case almost anywhere besides Minnesota's CD6, where Emmer skates.
Republicans normally are lemmings despite their counterclaims, but the story is caucusing "innovation" be it local or national.
Dan Burns highlighted the Emmer - NRCC situation per KOS, and captures the nutshell version. Rotor over there for detail.
In watching the inside-Minnesota hiving and the outside-Minnesota hiving, it appears that overcrowding of the initial hive is not the cause of movement, but rather disturbances in each hive arising from election trauma or the perception of a snub happening, deservedly or otherwise.
Emmer was fit for the NRCC leadership position because of know-how in winning an election where Michele Bachmann was perpetually reelected, with the perspective there being "If only more districts were of the type that would reelect the likes of Bachmann we'd do okay," as a way Trump republicans can be observed to "reason."
Picking Tom Emmer as your Moses and expecting a promised land makes as much sense as "helping" one of the blind by buying them an automobile while noting the new navigation screen systems make it easier to get around. Foreseeable results should be anticipated, but the NRCC leadership is not my people in bondage in Egypt, where I might want to choose a better Moses for them than they'd pick on their own.
May Emmer do as expected, begetting loss of seats, chaos and discord, other than meeting an expectation of his being reelected in 2020, CD6 Minnesota-wise. A change that way WOULD be the promised land. Pass the milk and honey, we who are alien to the political majority there are hungry for change.
____________UPDATE____________
Politico has a fair statement of the Emmer-RNCC situation where gender politics is at issue. Emmer stated that NRCC interference at the primary level might not be a good idea. Laura Moser encountered something of the sort from the DCCC last cycle and it stank. Emmer might have some sense behind his position. Moser was not attacked in her primary effort because of her gender, but because she was a progressive and the establishment wanted a middle-roader. It had separate facts, but the notion of the national party congressional committee playing favorites remains troublesome. In Minnesota CD2 Angie Craig had more money to invest in her candidacy than her primary opponent and the apparent effect was the DCCC going with the fat wallet. Primary interference by the DC poobahs IS problematic, and Emmer expressed a concern, one for which I hesitate to fault him. With that said, I'd never vote for him in a million years, that being a hypothetical hyperbole introduced to add emphasis. Also, as to gender, Emmer in past years did defer to Bachmann's incumbency, not primarying her despite being marginally better [who could be worse?]. He'd encouraged her to consider a run for Governor, while eyeing the ultra-secure Republican CD6 seat covetously. Talking instead of acting was the Emmer MO, and Republican women in a snit against him should weigh how Emmer deferred to one as disastrously bad as Bachmann, thereby showing gender fairness, to a fault. He could have but did not rock her boat.
______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
In search on the web for the report of the Emmer/Bachmann phone conversation being reported, perhaps it was at Dump Bachmann which went private over litigation threats, the nugget was lost. However, never forget, women of the Republican party, your preeminent standard bearer and skilled spokesperson, mother image, point guard, and the former Ms. Wasilla, endorsed Emmer for his job so how can you push against that? And to boost Emmer in the eyes of the world, Alpha News reports.
FURTHER: You want an Emmer quorte? I'll give you an Emmer quote:
________________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Emmer must feel smug in his district. Immune to overthrow, or seeing it that way. Achilles Heel goes beyond concept, and for Tom Emmer it takes two syllables, soybeans. Stan Hubbard likely schooled Emmer about kissing up to Cargill, and even likely provided a letter of introduction, but the trade war affects a balance between Cargill in Brazil and profits there, and Cargill in Emmer's district, profits being fungible to senior management. As fungible as the beans themselves to Chinese palates. In turn, Emmer has no Brazilian off-set dimension to his electorate, and with hope it may be his undoing. Suffering consequences of voting for Trump being due justice to the farmers who did that while relying on Mexican field labor.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Cargill, besides its global will and ability to hedge commodities to its bottom line benefit, can even hedge against Trump-induced shortages in the Mexican rural labor market. Case on point. A hedge that will not sue over prayer breaks, as with the other hedge against Trump-induced rural Mexican labor market swings. As a Merchant of Grain, Cargill knows hedge. Much akin to Bo knows football, baseball, and trophy hunting. For all I know Cargill may have a headquarters trophy room; filled with stuffed contract counterparties they've bagged. Cargill knows straw parties too, but sometimes justice prevails. However, too much Cargill in an Emmer post perhaps is too much a diversion, yet two dots, Emmer and Cargill are easy and fun to connect. Farmers do vote, and even sometimes in their own best interests; probability, however, being against it as a regular thing. E.g., Trump.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
As a passing thought with Emmer the subject, what is the gravitas to this? CryptoEmmer, the genius of finance? Or doing as he was told, where if that's the case, who was telling him what? If I had an answer to that I'd publish it. Think about it. Emmer putting bills in the hopper about finance is scary.
Republicans normally are lemmings despite their counterclaims, but the story is caucusing "innovation" be it local or national.
Dan Burns highlighted the Emmer - NRCC situation per KOS, and captures the nutshell version. Rotor over there for detail.
In watching the inside-Minnesota hiving and the outside-Minnesota hiving, it appears that overcrowding of the initial hive is not the cause of movement, but rather disturbances in each hive arising from election trauma or the perception of a snub happening, deservedly or otherwise.
Emmer was fit for the NRCC leadership position because of know-how in winning an election where Michele Bachmann was perpetually reelected, with the perspective there being "If only more districts were of the type that would reelect the likes of Bachmann we'd do okay," as a way Trump republicans can be observed to "reason."
Picking Tom Emmer as your Moses and expecting a promised land makes as much sense as "helping" one of the blind by buying them an automobile while noting the new navigation screen systems make it easier to get around. Foreseeable results should be anticipated, but the NRCC leadership is not my people in bondage in Egypt, where I might want to choose a better Moses for them than they'd pick on their own.
May Emmer do as expected, begetting loss of seats, chaos and discord, other than meeting an expectation of his being reelected in 2020, CD6 Minnesota-wise. A change that way WOULD be the promised land. Pass the milk and honey, we who are alien to the political majority there are hungry for change.
____________UPDATE____________
Politico has a fair statement of the Emmer-RNCC situation where gender politics is at issue. Emmer stated that NRCC interference at the primary level might not be a good idea. Laura Moser encountered something of the sort from the DCCC last cycle and it stank. Emmer might have some sense behind his position. Moser was not attacked in her primary effort because of her gender, but because she was a progressive and the establishment wanted a middle-roader. It had separate facts, but the notion of the national party congressional committee playing favorites remains troublesome. In Minnesota CD2 Angie Craig had more money to invest in her candidacy than her primary opponent and the apparent effect was the DCCC going with the fat wallet. Primary interference by the DC poobahs IS problematic, and Emmer expressed a concern, one for which I hesitate to fault him. With that said, I'd never vote for him in a million years, that being a hypothetical hyperbole introduced to add emphasis. Also, as to gender, Emmer in past years did defer to Bachmann's incumbency, not primarying her despite being marginally better [who could be worse?]. He'd encouraged her to consider a run for Governor, while eyeing the ultra-secure Republican CD6 seat covetously. Talking instead of acting was the Emmer MO, and Republican women in a snit against him should weigh how Emmer deferred to one as disastrously bad as Bachmann, thereby showing gender fairness, to a fault. He could have but did not rock her boat.
______________FURTHER UPDATE______________
In search on the web for the report of the Emmer/Bachmann phone conversation being reported, perhaps it was at Dump Bachmann which went private over litigation threats, the nugget was lost. However, never forget, women of the Republican party, your preeminent standard bearer and skilled spokesperson, mother image, point guard, and the former Ms. Wasilla, endorsed Emmer for his job so how can you push against that? And to boost Emmer in the eyes of the world, Alpha News reports.
FURTHER: You want an Emmer quorte? I'll give you an Emmer quote:
“When all your focus is on playing to win the game you don’t think about the pain,” said Emmer.
________________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Emmer must feel smug in his district. Immune to overthrow, or seeing it that way. Achilles Heel goes beyond concept, and for Tom Emmer it takes two syllables, soybeans. Stan Hubbard likely schooled Emmer about kissing up to Cargill, and even likely provided a letter of introduction, but the trade war affects a balance between Cargill in Brazil and profits there, and Cargill in Emmer's district, profits being fungible to senior management. As fungible as the beans themselves to Chinese palates. In turn, Emmer has no Brazilian off-set dimension to his electorate, and with hope it may be his undoing. Suffering consequences of voting for Trump being due justice to the farmers who did that while relying on Mexican field labor.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Cargill, besides its global will and ability to hedge commodities to its bottom line benefit, can even hedge against Trump-induced shortages in the Mexican rural labor market. Case on point. A hedge that will not sue over prayer breaks, as with the other hedge against Trump-induced rural Mexican labor market swings. As a Merchant of Grain, Cargill knows hedge. Much akin to Bo knows football, baseball, and trophy hunting. For all I know Cargill may have a headquarters trophy room; filled with stuffed contract counterparties they've bagged. Cargill knows straw parties too, but sometimes justice prevails. However, too much Cargill in an Emmer post perhaps is too much a diversion, yet two dots, Emmer and Cargill are easy and fun to connect. Farmers do vote, and even sometimes in their own best interests; probability, however, being against it as a regular thing. E.g., Trump.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
As a passing thought with Emmer the subject, what is the gravitas to this? CryptoEmmer, the genius of finance? Or doing as he was told, where if that's the case, who was telling him what? If I had an answer to that I'd publish it. Think about it. Emmer putting bills in the hopper about finance is scary.
Shabby is as shabby does: "In a pair of early-morning tweets, Mr. Trump also maintained that even if the hush-money payments did count as campaign transactions, any failure to obey federal election regulations should be considered only a civil offense, not a criminal one. And he blamed his former lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who has admitted to helping arrange the payments. 'Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me,' Mr. Trump wrote."
Headline (omitting links) is text of the second paragraph of this NYT item. The item further states:
Adding the Giuliani judgment into the mix with the bare tweeting of course arguably lifts any pall of shabiness; Rudy being who he is. However, even with Rudy's theme being they do not have criminal grounds on Trump irrespective of any dimension of "shabby" this or "shabby" that, the amounts paid went into six figures and that arguably at least is not shabby pricing. A well trimmed Lexis would be cheaper.
Though it is rare to charge a politician with campaign-finance crimes over hush-money payments to mistresses, one clear precedent stands out: the Justice Department’s prosecution in 2012 of John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, over similar payments to hide a pregnant mistress while he was running for president in 2008.
A potential indictment of Mr. Trump for conspiring in the illegal campaign transactions to which Mr. Cohen has pleaded guilty would look a lot like the charges prosecutors brought against Mr. Edwards. [...]
But the meaning of the Edwards precedent for Mr. Trump’s fate is complicated, legal experts said. Because that case ended with a mistrial on five charges and an acquittal on one, it shows the risk of charging a politician with campaign-finance crimes over hush-money payments to mistresses, in which it is unclear whether the transactions were about trying to win an election or trying to protect the candidate’s personal life.
Indeed, after prosecutors made their filing in the Cohen case, one of Mr. Trump’s private lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani, pointed to the jury’s failure to convict Mr. Edwards in support of the notion that Mr. Trump does not face realistic legal jeopardy over the payments.
[...] For one thing, one of the payments to Mr. Edwards’s mistress took place as he was ending his candidacy, which further muddied how to interpret his motivation. By contrast, the payments to Ms. McDougal and Ms. Daniels came just ahead of the election.
For another, prosecutors in the Edwards case had little corroboration from other key figures in the transactions to explain their motivation.
Adding the Giuliani judgment into the mix with the bare tweeting of course arguably lifts any pall of shabiness; Rudy being who he is. However, even with Rudy's theme being they do not have criminal grounds on Trump irrespective of any dimension of "shabby" this or "shabby" that, the amounts paid went into six figures and that arguably at least is not shabby pricing. A well trimmed Lexis would be cheaper.
Following up on trending news, Google needs to explain how the nation's president's name added in a websearch appears to yield little difference.
First, a caveat, Google search algorithms can be tailored to a user's profile, as stored by Google, so that your search on the identical terms I search might differ. That said, credible outlets post online this morning: WaPo, BBC, and HuffPo.
Passing on the opportunity to editorialize in order to describe the experiment, a first Google:
"idiot" at the time of posting this item yields:
Next, modifying the search by adding our nation's president's name
"idiot" trump yields:
Differences exist in later listings in the return list for the two searches, but atop things, adding the name of our nation's chief executive yields about the same thing, i.e., Google algorithms appear to fail in distinguishing things (and the search is not limited to "news" but is a generic google). This leads to trying the president's name alone, along with a randomly chosen additional search term:
trump hush yielding returns you can test for yourself, but this video opening image was included when searched at the time of this posting
Days, weeks, months from now search returns may differ - time marches on. However, what is today is what was presented. Perhaps using a different random word along with "trump" might yield differing output, but a bit of editorializing sometimes is not all bad. Leader of a nation, a nation that arguably was great in the days of Washington and Jefferson and Madison, so, now, again?
_____________UPDATE____________
Nothing great shows up in a google = trump again
Postulating there could be some unique aspect to Google and "idiot," check out, google =: "dunce" trump
Clearly "idiot" has some unique aspect under Google algorithms, aspects "dunce" lacks.
Passing on the opportunity to editorialize in order to describe the experiment, a first Google:
"idiot" at the time of posting this item yields:
Next, modifying the search by adding our nation's president's name
"idiot" trump yields:
Differences exist in later listings in the return list for the two searches, but atop things, adding the name of our nation's chief executive yields about the same thing, i.e., Google algorithms appear to fail in distinguishing things (and the search is not limited to "news" but is a generic google). This leads to trying the president's name alone, along with a randomly chosen additional search term:
trump hush yielding returns you can test for yourself, but this video opening image was included when searched at the time of this posting
Days, weeks, months from now search returns may differ - time marches on. However, what is today is what was presented. Perhaps using a different random word along with "trump" might yield differing output, but a bit of editorializing sometimes is not all bad. Leader of a nation, a nation that arguably was great in the days of Washington and Jefferson and Madison, so, now, again?
_____________UPDATE____________
Nothing great shows up in a google = trump again
Postulating there could be some unique aspect to Google and "idiot," check out, google =: "dunce" trump
Clearly "idiot" has some unique aspect under Google algorithms, aspects "dunce" lacks.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Saturday, December 01, 2018
While not being a Breitbart fan, personally, there is a First Amendment to our Constitution after all.
First the Breitbart item which speaks for itself. For limited purposes, a short excerpt of part of an email within a Google internal email chain:
Eh? You say? This video preserves an item I saw in real time that made my jaw drop, even while holding a view that there was a form of "he who shall not be named." Given that, how does one define "legitimate" reporting outlets? All you can say is somebody doing the camera cuts to memorialize that interchange likely lost his/her job. If you trust MSNBC after that, bless you.
UPDATE: It is disappointing that this YouTube item has gotten only a handful of viewings. I expect Pelosi missed it. There was an attempt to channel things, but it came out okay.
“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote.
Dekel further stated that despite being a Hillary supporter, the media went easy on the Democratic candidate which hurt her election chances in the end: “I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off.
Eh? You say? This video preserves an item I saw in real time that made my jaw drop, even while holding a view that there was a form of "he who shall not be named." Given that, how does one define "legitimate" reporting outlets? All you can say is somebody doing the camera cuts to memorialize that interchange likely lost his/her job. If you trust MSNBC after that, bless you.
UPDATE: It is disappointing that this YouTube item has gotten only a handful of viewings. I expect Pelosi missed it. There was an attempt to channel things, but it came out okay.
Ray Rice redux?
Does it take unequivocal video to get an NFL woman-beating suspension/expulsion? Story. Video.
There is the Washington Redskins - Reuben Foster decision (e.g. coverage here); and Colin Kaepernick still is being blackballed. May his lawsuit lead to his vindication and yield him a ton of money damages. When abusing a woman is less offensive to NFL club owners than a player thinking and exercising First Amendment rights there is a sickness afoot amid scrambled priorities and rampant owner greed trumping principles.
There is the Washington Redskins - Reuben Foster decision (e.g. coverage here); and Colin Kaepernick still is being blackballed. May his lawsuit lead to his vindication and yield him a ton of money damages. When abusing a woman is less offensive to NFL club owners than a player thinking and exercising First Amendment rights there is a sickness afoot amid scrambled priorities and rampant owner greed trumping principles.
Friday, November 30, 2018
Uranium One - extent of Mueller led investigation at the time, if any, mentioned - in yesterday's Daily Caller news.
Link. Another report of the FBI raid on allegedly protected whistleblower's home found online, ZeroHedge, the first report encountered, linking to DailyCaller as original source. That prompted a websearch, with mainstream media reporting not appearing in the return list. It is confusing.
UPDATE: Sputniknews link. Further confusion.
FURTHER: It appears Sessions, before resigning, had appointed a Justice Department official to respond to Congressional inquiry. How this raid fits whatever Congressional concerns were is not clear from reporting. This item is a year old, and nothing was done back then. Another websearch, specific to within last week.
FURTHER: FOX. From over a week ago.
FURTHER: Powerline blog picked it up.
FURTHER: 12/1/2018: Repeating the search mentioned in Powerline, "Dennis Nathan Cain whistleblower," with Bing and DuckDuckGo, same dearth of mainstream media attention. Powerline posting indicated that search as a Google, without any mainstream coverage as of the date/time stamp of the item.
The reporting indicates Cain, via his lawyer, stated a belief that earlier he held two documents provided to one believed to be from the FBI inspector general, and that he was led to believe the items were provided to somebody associated with House and Senate Intelligence Committees, likely the chairmen and ranking members; if actually handled in the way Cain's lawyer stated - as Cain's belief. Hopefully, Cain stashed copies with some third person in case this raid was to stifle rather than inform. Just guessing, based upon only the reporting online and suspicion about what could have been actuality.
Other coverage, newsLI.com, inquisitr.com and WND.com
Looking forward to The Intercept deciding whether to run with the story. Most stories posted lead with a photo of Ms. Clinton; not Mr. Clinton, which would not be as good as one of both; and in differentiation, this post ends with a photo showing both, and having had much online exposure previously:
FURTHER: The newsLI report states, mid-item:
[bolded links in original] With some of the FBI raid reporting mentioning Bob Goodlatte wants new congressional inquiry into Uranium One, this websearch yields some mainstream media coverage from a year ago, but nothing from any Goodlatte current activity. goodlatte.house.gov does not post any Uranium One focus news item. This Google search, time restricted to last month, does yield one returned item citing a Fox and Friends session from this month. The indication is Goodlatte is retiring and investigative material may be concentrated in the hands of the Senate, which remains majority Republican. If that last search is changed to a "last year" time frame other hits show up, but there is only the indirect FOX indication, i.e., no reliable mainstream media outlets show up. The dearth of FBI/DOJ (second special prosecutor) interest in Uranium One is confusing. It seems facially strange how U.S. mineral rights end up foreign held, i.e., globalized natural resource policy seems to have some kinks. All for now.
FURTHER: From earlier this year,the question of FISA court secret practices is separate from lifting the Uranium One rock to see all that crawls beneath. The entire circumstantial Uranium One picture, as it stands in press reporting, seems to drip with sleaze. On the FISA situation, see, e.g., here, here and here; where no special prosecutorial outcome ensued. Whitaker, faults and all, now stands in Sessions' shoes, and if he rekindles interest in Uranium One some might agree with the opinion here, that it would be a public service. This latest raid seems to show an intent in the opposite direction by removal of information from hands within the public along with a show of intimidation as a lesson for others.
FURTHER: This item. FOX. Links from earlier this month that were found but not put into earlier text. Posting the links corrects that omission. The FOX item begins:
[links in original] This is an encouraging development, even though time is short before leadership changes. Pop the popcorn and pay attention. Something material may be uncovered, perhaps in a way that Whitaker can use to begin a formal DOJ look at apparent gross Clintonian mischief. Such a development could be prophylactic for the Democratic Party, ridding it of an ongoing liability and allowing it to grow more in progressive directions, however that possibility may be shepherded by House and DNC officials.
FURTHER: Dismissive attitude might be fine, as to not losing sight of the Mueller investigation being top news nor regarding Uranium One questioning as cause to discredit Mueller's current activity, it being separate, yet getting to the bottom of Uranium One misconduct, if such is found, has the benefit of not allowing any party to be above the law. When Cenk's voicing gets to its most Trump-like is when it seems most suspect. Saying it's a smokescreen may have some truth, yet good can come from it, again, because nobody should be allowed toflaunt flout the law in money charged ways. Rule of law being applied to the Clintons really has no argument against it. (Got the verbs mixed up; what appears the case is flaunting of flouting of conduct norms, whether criminal by statute or not).
FURTHER: Having to be fair to Cenk, Uranium Won.
FURTHER: FOX carrying the ball to where something may be shown the public which the public may judge. Republicans and questionable deplorables included. Earlier hearing event on YouTube. Similarly, a Congressman's webpage entry linking to the same video content. Two posts by The Hill, a year apart, here and here.
Whatever may stick to Trump and/or family sticks to them. Whatever may stick to the Clintons sticks to them. Pop the popcorn.
But keep an eye on what the government is doing or dodging while the circus is in town. Go easy on the popcorn.
FURTHER: Related, or independent, here and here; you tell me. Fifteen minutes of fame seems inadequate for such reporting, disappeared as it was, but such a plan would involve sale of fissile material to purchasers, sold by some source, somewhere, and again, related to or independent of Uranium One and growth of the Clinton Foundation fisc?
What exactly is "the swamp" seems a question to address before claiming an intent and acting to "drain" it.
UPDATE: Suggest a cellmate.
UPDATE: Related or independent; you tell me:
UPDATE: Sputniknews link. Further confusion.
FURTHER: FOX. From over a week ago.
FURTHER: Powerline blog picked it up.
FURTHER: 12/1/2018: Repeating the search mentioned in Powerline, "Dennis Nathan Cain whistleblower," with Bing and DuckDuckGo, same dearth of mainstream media attention. Powerline posting indicated that search as a Google, without any mainstream coverage as of the date/time stamp of the item.
The reporting indicates Cain, via his lawyer, stated a belief that earlier he held two documents provided to one believed to be from the FBI inspector general, and that he was led to believe the items were provided to somebody associated with House and Senate Intelligence Committees, likely the chairmen and ranking members; if actually handled in the way Cain's lawyer stated - as Cain's belief. Hopefully, Cain stashed copies with some third person in case this raid was to stifle rather than inform. Just guessing, based upon only the reporting online and suspicion about what could have been actuality.
Other coverage, newsLI.com, inquisitr.com and WND.com
Looking forward to The Intercept deciding whether to run with the story. Most stories posted lead with a photo of Ms. Clinton; not Mr. Clinton, which would not be as good as one of both; and in differentiation, this post ends with a photo showing both, and having had much online exposure previously:
FURTHER: The newsLI report states, mid-item:
The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.
[bolded links in original] With some of the FBI raid reporting mentioning Bob Goodlatte wants new congressional inquiry into Uranium One, this websearch yields some mainstream media coverage from a year ago, but nothing from any Goodlatte current activity. goodlatte.house.gov does not post any Uranium One focus news item. This Google search, time restricted to last month, does yield one returned item citing a Fox and Friends session from this month. The indication is Goodlatte is retiring and investigative material may be concentrated in the hands of the Senate, which remains majority Republican. If that last search is changed to a "last year" time frame other hits show up, but there is only the indirect FOX indication, i.e., no reliable mainstream media outlets show up. The dearth of FBI/DOJ (second special prosecutor) interest in Uranium One is confusing. It seems facially strange how U.S. mineral rights end up foreign held, i.e., globalized natural resource policy seems to have some kinks. All for now.
FURTHER: From earlier this year,the question of FISA court secret practices is separate from lifting the Uranium One rock to see all that crawls beneath. The entire circumstantial Uranium One picture, as it stands in press reporting, seems to drip with sleaze. On the FISA situation, see, e.g., here, here and here; where no special prosecutorial outcome ensued. Whitaker, faults and all, now stands in Sessions' shoes, and if he rekindles interest in Uranium One some might agree with the opinion here, that it would be a public service. This latest raid seems to show an intent in the opposite direction by removal of information from hands within the public along with a show of intimidation as a lesson for others.
FURTHER: This item. FOX. Links from earlier this month that were found but not put into earlier text. Posting the links corrects that omission. The FOX item begins:
House Republicans plan to hold a hearing into the Department of Justice’s probe into the Clinton Foundation in December -- a month before Democrats will take control of the chamber.
Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The Hill he wants to hear testimony on Dec. 5 from the prosecutor appointed to investigate the controversial foundation, which has been dogged by allegations of "pay to play" when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. The foundation has repeatedly denied the allegations.
Meadows said it was time to “circle back” with U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was appointed to investigate the foundation.
“Mr. Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an investigation — at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation, so we’ve set a hearing date for December the 5th,” he said.
[links in original] This is an encouraging development, even though time is short before leadership changes. Pop the popcorn and pay attention. Something material may be uncovered, perhaps in a way that Whitaker can use to begin a formal DOJ look at apparent gross Clintonian mischief. Such a development could be prophylactic for the Democratic Party, ridding it of an ongoing liability and allowing it to grow more in progressive directions, however that possibility may be shepherded by House and DNC officials.
FURTHER: Dismissive attitude might be fine, as to not losing sight of the Mueller investigation being top news nor regarding Uranium One questioning as cause to discredit Mueller's current activity, it being separate, yet getting to the bottom of Uranium One misconduct, if such is found, has the benefit of not allowing any party to be above the law. When Cenk's voicing gets to its most Trump-like is when it seems most suspect. Saying it's a smokescreen may have some truth, yet good can come from it, again, because nobody should be allowed to
FURTHER: Having to be fair to Cenk, Uranium Won.
FURTHER: FOX carrying the ball to where something may be shown the public which the public may judge. Republicans and questionable deplorables included. Earlier hearing event on YouTube. Similarly, a Congressman's webpage entry linking to the same video content. Two posts by The Hill, a year apart, here and here.
Whatever may stick to Trump and/or family sticks to them. Whatever may stick to the Clintons sticks to them. Pop the popcorn.
But keep an eye on what the government is doing or dodging while the circus is in town. Go easy on the popcorn.
FURTHER: Related, or independent, here and here; you tell me. Fifteen minutes of fame seems inadequate for such reporting, disappeared as it was, but such a plan would involve sale of fissile material to purchasers, sold by some source, somewhere, and again, related to or independent of Uranium One and growth of the Clinton Foundation fisc?
What exactly is "the swamp" seems a question to address before claiming an intent and acting to "drain" it.
UPDATE: Suggest a cellmate.
UPDATE: Related or independent; you tell me:
Common Dreams: Just Being Anti-Trump 'Not Good Enough': Sanders Urges Democrats in New Congress to Embrace This Detailed Progressive Agenda Moving "with a sense of urgency" in their first 100 days next year, says senator, "Democrats must have the courage to take on powerful special interests and fight for a progressive agenda that addresses the needs of working families." by Jon Queally, staff writer
Look at the opening image of the Common Dreams post and see if you spot any cause to expect the opposite of embracing a sound progressive agenda. A cause to expect foot-dragging and drama instead of improvement.
Ditto, opening image, Wapo, here.
(Hint: see red.)
Ditto, opening image, Wapo, here.
(Hint: see red.)
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Ed Walker writing at Empty Wheel - a taxation agenda for Speaker Pelose if she's to earn the gavel.
Link. Not expected, but it sets out fairness. Can Pelosi be fair, and still rake in all that campaign money? And will she?
No. And no.
The main merit of the item is to show how easily a fair agenda can be set, in detail, point-by-point.
The problem is getting the bastards in office to fairly tax the bastards whose money put them there and keeps them there. When phrased that way a dilemma shows itself.
No. And no.
The main merit of the item is to show how easily a fair agenda can be set, in detail, point-by-point.
The problem is getting the bastards in office to fairly tax the bastards whose money put them there and keeps them there. When phrased that way a dilemma shows itself.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
A Matthew Whitaker roundup. From Digby to: Is Pence loyal? Along the way, birds of a feather. A sampling by video, cites, and report quotes. Hint: one flocking bird besides Whitiker is a Minnesota bird that recently was active, kind of, politically, and got his tail feathers clipped in a GOP primary loss. Any guess?
Digby makes a phone appearance on a Steve Seder video clip. Laughter involved.
Besides content which clearly is on point, the video got posted as "Is Trump's Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, a Mike Pence Pick?"
Going after Pence at this stage of things can't be all bad, right? Because going after Pence anytime will always ring a bell.
Early in the Seder video the Nov. 9, image and headline from this Salon item by Digby was screened: Breaking bad: Low-grade right-wing hack is now our nation’s leading law enforcement officer -- Diabolical scheme or screw-up? Matt Whitaker is a surprise pick as acting attorney general, and not in a good way; stating in part [links omitted]:
Going next to Hullabaloo, Nov. 9: Whitaker the Drug Warrior, Nov. 22.
NBC News, Culture warrior? LGBTQ advocates say Matthew Whitaker 'raises alarm bells' - The acting attorney general has a public record spanning more than a decade that concerns a number of LGBTQ advocates., Nov. 15.
Guardian, Nov. 26, Revealed: Matthew Whitaker favors hardline anti-abortion policies.
The Economist, Nov. 20.
CNN, Nov. 25, Schiff: 'We are going to bring Whitaker before the Congress'
Adam Silverman, BalloonJuice, Nov. 9.
San Diego Union-Trib, Nov. 21, Right-leaning nonprofit with hidden donors paid acting Atty. Gen. Matthew Whitaker nearly $1 million before role.
Wikipedia: Matthew Whitaker (attorney) [Redirected from Matthew Whitaker (politician)]
Another, above and beyond others - EmptyWheel [not excerpted, read the item, please] - and with 101 comments and a provocative title not entirely fleshed out, the Empty Wheel post and comment thread, as usual for the site, intrigue:
NYT, "Matthew Whitaker: An Attack Dog With Ambition Beyond Protecting Trump," dated Nov. 9, beginning [links omitted in excerpting]:
So, the Whitaker entry was during the McGann tenure; meaning McGann's history is of interest; Wikipedia giving more detail, including McGann's role in judicial nominations. Guardian coverage was unfavorable. Nothing in the Wikipedia entry suggests McGann was responsible for finding and picking Whitaker; but the NYT item suggests he handled vetting.
Later in the NYT item:
Note that Ayers, not Pence himself, is alleged to have had an advisory role. Whether Ayers was a deliberate surrogate is an open question.
More NYT:
That is about all the NYT item stated, with "Mr. Trump's closest advisers inside the West Wing," not spelled out. Whatever role daughter and son-in-law may have had was not stated in the item. Ditto for Mike Pence.
Birds of a feather. The Hill, before the second Obama term, "Pawlenty beefs up Iowa team, makes first SC hire - By Jordan Fabian - 05/17/11 11:07 AM EDT," FLOCKING FLAGGED:A
Derserving one another, for sure. Mediocrity and sleaze, hand in glove:
Enough to make one puke.
Yes, Whitaker and Pawlenty each are naked opportunists, and yes, aside from that tie years ago there is no other, yet we cannot leave that link without video amusement (all the cliche content is there, except for the slogan: "Make America Great Again.") Whitaker was not one to let the immediately shown Pawlenty unpresidential unpopularity quash his own payday opportunity, and accordinglyshifted slithered to the Rick Perry candidacy, raising the question of whether it was Whitaker who preped Perry on the three federal agencies he'd shut down if elected. NEXT -
Is Mike Pence Loyal? The question is not loyal to his ambitions, that is beyond reasonable doubt, but loyal to the Trumpster? And, who would ask? Well, NYT on Nov. 16 led others in reporting it was Trump asking staffers the question; this link; with excerpted dramatic reading interlaced with commentary on YouTube, here.
Beyond the YouTube op-ed item focus, NYT wrote:
[links in original omitted] They got their judges etc., so they trust Trump; making Pence as vestigial as the human appendix. Yet, would Nikki Haley do it? She does have self respect. Elsewhere, as to the Ayers/proxy idea, NYT published:
Further kicking the dump-Pence can down the road; The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Post and Courier, Raw Story, and Newsweek; but compare, Washington Times, and Breitbart.
As to Ayers and Pence and access; here and here. Godly men with earthly ties?
The one Whitaker-related question left begging was whether Pence and/or McGann and Pence had been tasked with responsibility for vetting Whitaker prior to Trump acting on an instinct to advance the career of a clown who went on TV to show he was Trump's owned clown? There seems to have been inadequate vetting, a point made between Sam Seder and Digby in the video cited at the opening of this post.
Besides content which clearly is on point, the video got posted as "Is Trump's Acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, a Mike Pence Pick?"
Going after Pence at this stage of things can't be all bad, right? Because going after Pence anytime will always ring a bell.
Early in the Seder video the Nov. 9, image and headline from this Salon item by Digby was screened: Breaking bad: Low-grade right-wing hack is now our nation’s leading law enforcement officer -- Diabolical scheme or screw-up? Matt Whitaker is a surprise pick as acting attorney general, and not in a good way; stating in part [links omitted]:
Trump didn't do the normal thing and put the deputy attorney general in charge until a new person could be confirmed by the Senate. Of course he didn't. He named a completely unqualified toady by the name of Matthew Whitaker, who had been serving as Sessions' chief of staff for the past year. Nobody seems to know exactly how he came to have that particular job, but what we know is that Whitaker was a small-time political player from Iowa who once served as a U.S. attorney and ran unsuccessfully for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination in the 2014 midterms. More recently he was a crony of Sam Clovis, the Iowa politico who worked on the Trump campaign, got himself all caught up in the Russia investigation and had to resign his sinecure at the Department of Agriculture.
Whitaker has also worked as a sole practitioner for a right-wing, dark-money-funded organization called the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), where he disseminated "legal opinions" in the media in support of Republican politics. Clovis reportedly advised him to go to New York and become a Trump defender on TV in order to get noticed by the president so he could get a judicial appointment. CNN hired him, naturally.
In other words, Whitaker is a political hack, and not a particularly high-level one. But he apparently impressed Trump with his extreme sycophancy, so he went directly from guest hits on CNN to being the attorney general's chief of staff. And now he is the acting attorney general of the United States.
This shouldn't be too surprising, really. Recall that Trump wanted to make his personal pilot the head of the FAA. He brought in his totally inexperienced son-in-law to run his Middle East policy and much else. His daughter is a senior staffer. He liked the White House physician and tried to appoint him as secretary of Veterans Affairs. That's how things work in Trumpworld.
Going next to Hullabaloo, Nov. 9: Whitaker the Drug Warrior, Nov. 22.
NBC News, Culture warrior? LGBTQ advocates say Matthew Whitaker 'raises alarm bells' - The acting attorney general has a public record spanning more than a decade that concerns a number of LGBTQ advocates., Nov. 15.
Guardian, Nov. 26, Revealed: Matthew Whitaker favors hardline anti-abortion policies.
The Economist, Nov. 20.
CNN, Nov. 25, Schiff: 'We are going to bring Whitaker before the Congress'
Adam Silverman, BalloonJuice, Nov. 9.
San Diego Union-Trib, Nov. 21, Right-leaning nonprofit with hidden donors paid acting Atty. Gen. Matthew Whitaker nearly $1 million before role.
Wikipedia: Matthew Whitaker (attorney) [Redirected from Matthew Whitaker (politician)]
Another, above and beyond others - EmptyWheel [not excerpted, read the item, please] - and with 101 comments and a provocative title not entirely fleshed out, the Empty Wheel post and comment thread, as usual for the site, intrigue:
 |
| link |
NYT, "Matthew Whitaker: An Attack Dog With Ambition Beyond Protecting Trump," dated Nov. 9, beginning [links omitted in excerpting]:
WASHINGTON — President Trump first noticed Matthew G. Whitaker on CNN in the summer of 2017 and liked what he saw — a partisan defender who insisted there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. So that July, the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, interviewed Mr. Whitaker about joining the president’s team as a legal attack dog against the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
At that point, the White House passed, leaving Mr. Whitaker, 49, to continue his media tour, writing on CNN’s website that Mr. Mueller’s investigation — which he had once called “crazy” — had gone too far.
Fifteen months later, the attack dog is in charge.
So, the Whitaker entry was during the McGann tenure; meaning McGann's history is of interest; Wikipedia giving more detail, including McGann's role in judicial nominations. Guardian coverage was unfavorable. Nothing in the Wikipedia entry suggests McGann was responsible for finding and picking Whitaker; but the NYT item suggests he handled vetting.
Later in the NYT item:
The decision to fire Mr. Sessions and replace him with Mr. Whitaker had been in the works since September, when the president began asking friends and associates if they thought it would be a good idea, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The goal was not unlike the first time the White House considered hiring Mr. Whitaker. As attorney general, he could wind down Mr. Mueller’s inquiry like the president wanted.
Mr. McGahn, for one, was a big proponent of the idea. So was Leonard A. Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who regularly advises Mr. Trump on judges and other legal matters. Mr. Whitaker had also developed a strong rapport with John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff. Nick Ayers, Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, was a fan, too.
Note that Ayers, not Pence himself, is alleged to have had an advisory role. Whether Ayers was a deliberate surrogate is an open question.
More NYT:
In an October interview on “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump said: “I can tell you Matt Whitaker’s a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker.”
(On Friday, after reports surfaced that Mr. Whitaker had called courts “the inferior branch” of government and had been on the advisory board of a company that a federal judge shut down and fined nearly $26 million for cheating customers, Mr. Trump made a bizarre comment to reporters that he was not familiar with Mr. Whitaker. [...])
[...] White House officials wanted to wait until after the midterm elections, when any criticism would not affect voting.
The concern was well founded. At 2:44 p.m. Wednesday, hours after the election was over, Mr. Trump posted his decision on Twitter that Mr. Whitaker would “become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States.”
“He will serve our Country well,” the president wrote.
Within minutes, Democrats criticized Mr. Whitaker’s previous comments about the Russia inquiry and demanded that he recuse himself from overseeing it. He also came under fire for serving on the advisory board of World Patent Marketing in Miami, the company that has been accused by the government of bilking millions of dollars from customers.
Mr. Whitaker’s time as executive director of the conservative Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, which accused many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, of legal and ethical violations also came under scrutiny. So did his legal views, including his stated belief that Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, was a bad ruling.
For now, Mr. Trump is standing by Mr. Whitaker — at least as a temporary solution.
[... Whitaker, as a U.S. Attorney in Iowa] came under criticism for a case his office brought in 2007 against the first openly gay member of the Iowa Legislature, Matt McCoy, a Democrat.
Mr. Whitaker’s office indicted Mr. McCoy on an attempted extortion charge, accusing him of using his authority as a state senator to force a former partner in a home security business to pay him $2,000. The former partner was paid by the F.B.I. to act as an informant and for several months recorded his conversations with Mr. McCoy.
But the evidence was not convincing. After a five-day trial in United States District Court in Des Moines, a jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict of not guilty.
“It was a horrible case — it was made up — and it was designed to take a high-profile Democrat who was popular, openly gay and listed as one of the top 100 rising stars in the Democratic Party and smear me,” Mr. McCoy said in an interview.
Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, rebutted Mr. McCoy. “The allegations of improper prosecution are ridiculous,” she said. “The Justice Department signed off on the case. The F.B.I. investigated it, and career prosecutors handled the case every step of the way.”
As a federal prosecutor, Mr. Whitaker continued to show political ambition. Matt Strawn, a former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, said Mr. Whitaker was someone “known inside Republican circles as someone you want on your side in a fight.”
[...] By October of last year, Mr. Whitaker was telling people that he was working as a political commentator on CNN in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump, said John Q. Barrett, a professor at St. John’s University School of Law who met Mr. Whitaker during a television appearance last June.
His plan worked. Mr. Whitaker returned to the Justice Department in October 2017, having once again earned the support of Mr. Trump’s closest advisers inside the West Wing.
That is about all the NYT item stated, with "Mr. Trump's closest advisers inside the West Wing," not spelled out. Whatever role daughter and son-in-law may have had was not stated in the item. Ditto for Mike Pence.
Birds of a feather. The Hill, before the second Obama term, "Pawlenty beefs up Iowa team, makes first SC hire - By Jordan Fabian - 05/17/11 11:07 AM EDT," FLOCKING FLAGGED:A
Likely GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty added two top members to his growing campaign team over the past two days in preparation for making his run official.
[...] And on Tuesday, former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker was named to lead Pawlenty's Iowa steering committee.
Pawlenty, a former Minnesota governor, has traveled around the country looking to raise money and build support for his presidential campaign-to-be.
Late last week, Pawlenty traveled to Iowa, where he is working to make a big splash in the first-in-the-nation caucuses, to meet with potential voters. He returns to his home state of Minnesota on Wednesday to hold a large fundraising event after meeting big GOP donors in various cities over the past few months.
Pawlenty has already hired a full staff in Iowa in addition to naming Whitaker to run his volunteer steering committee. The former governor also has a steering committee formed in New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation primary state.
Derserving one another, for sure. Mediocrity and sleaze, hand in glove:
Enough to make one puke.
Yes, Whitaker and Pawlenty each are naked opportunists, and yes, aside from that tie years ago there is no other, yet we cannot leave that link without video amusement (all the cliche content is there, except for the slogan: "Make America Great Again.") Whitaker was not one to let the immediately shown Pawlenty unpresidential unpopularity quash his own payday opportunity, and accordingly
Is Mike Pence Loyal? The question is not loyal to his ambitions, that is beyond reasonable doubt, but loyal to the Trumpster? And, who would ask? Well, NYT on Nov. 16 led others in reporting it was Trump asking staffers the question; this link; with excerpted dramatic reading interlaced with commentary on YouTube, here.
Beyond the YouTube op-ed item focus, NYT wrote:
But some Trump advisers, primarily outside the White House, have suggested to him that while Mr. Pence remains loyal, he may have used up his utility. These advisers argue that Mr. Trump has forged his own relationship with evangelical voters, and that what he might benefit from more is a running mate who could help him with female voters, who disapprove of him in large numbers.
Others close to the president believe that asking about Mr. Pence’s loyalty is a proxy for asking about whether the vice president’s chief of staff, Nick Ayers, is trustworthy. Mr. Trump has been considering making Mr. Ayers the White House chief of staff to replace John F. Kelly, the retired Marine general — a decision several White House officials say has been with the encouragement of his adult children. But the president has put off making a decision for now.
The conversations were described in interviews with nearly a dozen White House aides and others close to Mr. Trump. [...]
Veterans of previous White Houses described this type of questioning as a frequent occurrence before a re-election campaign begins in earnest.
“The idea of changing a ticket has been discussed by at least some aides in every White House and it almost never happens,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former communications director for President Barack Obama.
[...] In 2012, Mr. Obama’s aides briefly talked about replacing Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with Hillary Clinton for the president’s re-election effort.
[...] The two men [Trump and Pence] speak daily, sometimes multiple times. But some of Mr. Trump’s advisers believe that the dynamic between the president and Mr. Pence has changed in the first two years of Mr. Trump’s term, part of a pattern in many of Mr. Trump’s relationships.
Some of Mr. Trump’s outside advisers have mentioned Nikki R. Haley, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, a post she plans to leave at the end of the year, and former governor of South Carolina, as a potential running mate. Ms. Haley is close with Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Mr. Trump gave her an unusually warm send-off in the Oval Office when she announced she was leaving the United Nations job in September.
And Ms. Haley on the ticket might help Mr. Trump win back the support of women, who voted for Democratic candidates in large numbers in the midterm elections.
[...] Some of Mr. Trump’s evangelical supporters feel particularly strongly that making a change would be a mistake.
[...] But some who have studied evangelical voters and their political activity say losing Mr. Pence wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster.
Robert P. Jones, the chief executive of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, said that the president faced an “at best moderate risk” if he were to drop Mr. Pence from the ticket.
Mr. Jones said that while Mr. Pence may have served as a validating figure for white evangelicals, recent research showed that 7 out of 10 white evangelicals who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party would prefer Mr. Trump over any alternative Republican candidate in 2020.
A third of white evangelicals who support Trump, Mr. Jones said, indicated there was virtually nothing the president could do to shake their trust — which theoretically includes selecting a new running mate.
[links in original omitted] They got their judges etc., so they trust Trump; making Pence as vestigial as the human appendix. Yet, would Nikki Haley do it? She does have self respect. Elsewhere, as to the Ayers/proxy idea, NYT published:
As for the chief of staff role, Mr. Ayers is favored by Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump, both of whom serve as West Wing advisers. Mr. Trump’s oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., has told friends he sees Mr. Ayers as “competent,” a stamp the Trump family has not always affixed to people working for their father.
Mr. Ayers did not travel as originally planned with Mr. Pence on his official trip to Asia this week, two White House officials said. And another prospective chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who already leads two agencies and who had been seen as campaigning for the West Wing job, has told aides he is no longer interested.
Several people working in the White House who are not among the Trump family members or their allies have expressed concern to the president about putting Mr. Ayers in that role, and have warned that some staff members might quit because of it.
Mr. Trump hates interpersonal confrontation, and he often lets aides he does not like remain in their positions for uncomfortably long times, meaning changes could still be weeks away, the people close to the president cautioned. And Mr. Ayers’s name has been mentioned as a Kelly successor before, only to disappear as Mr. Kelly has remained in his post.
Further kicking the dump-Pence can down the road; The Atlantic, Business Insider, The Post and Courier, Raw Story, and Newsweek; but compare, Washington Times, and Breitbart.
As to Ayers and Pence and access; here and here. Godly men with earthly ties?
The one Whitaker-related question left begging was whether Pence and/or McGann and Pence had been tasked with responsibility for vetting Whitaker prior to Trump acting on an instinct to advance the career of a clown who went on TV to show he was Trump's owned clown? There seems to have been inadequate vetting, a point made between Sam Seder and Digby in the video cited at the opening of this post.
Monday, November 26, 2018
The bull drops a big load; per an email forwarded to me. Advance "efforts to protect the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and more," instead of buying that purse which when you get it home does not go with anything. REALLY! And you thought nobody would ever formulate any such linked together madness, right?
A hat tip to a reader for forwarding the item, text:
[bolding and actual linking in original omitted] Creative anarchy brought to you by a zipperhead in Congress. IN CONGRESS!
Ever go shopping on Black Friday or Cyber Monday, looking for gifts for other people, and wind up with a gift for yourself?
For me, it's usually purses. I see one I love. It's a great deal. And then I get it home and realize it just doesn't go with anything. A rare occurrence, since I'm a bit obsessed with purses that are a great buy!
Today, instead of buying a gift for someone (or yourself) that winds up going back, I'm asking you to spend $5 or $10 you know will go to good use -- our efforts to protect the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, and more.
Can you use this link to give $5, $10, or more? https://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/CyberMonday
I know it probably seems like Election Day was just yesterday. But Trump and Republicans haven't slowed down.
Trump forced out his attorney general. His administration gave bosses more say over whether their female employees can access birth control. And he's attacking the independent judiciary (again).
They're not backing down -- we can't either. Instead of buying another purse you don't need, spend that money on continuing our activism.
Here's that link again: https://www.debbiewassermanschultz.com/CyberMonday
[bolding and actual linking in original omitted] Creative anarchy brought to you by a zipperhead in Congress. IN CONGRESS!
Sunday, November 25, 2018
A hundred percent >> probably not. What kind of shyster would do that?
Video. That kind. The man lied about Matt Whitiker. Lying is a pathology with pathological liars.
We got one.
______________UPDATE______________
More. Besides being a great guy according to Trump but one Trump does not know, Whitaker got a shady $1.2 million recently, donors undisclosed; Ms. Amy clucks about it, NYT publishes. That NYT item leads with a photo of Whitaker having his hand over his wallet in a jacket pocket; I think that's what it's showing.
NYT in a separate item also opines about Whitiker, with multiple links to bolster the argument; this excerpt:
[links omitted] While calling the investigation Muller is conducting "a witch hunt" WaPo days ago published, "In 2016, Whitaker floated the possibility of Trump reopening the Clinton email investigation - By JM Rieger - November 21, 2018 at 1:15 PM."
And that OLC opinion is one tiny fig leaf, no doubt about that.
Perhaps more about Whitaker in subsequent posting. In closing this post, I am with TRUMP in not knowing Matthew Whitiker either, but my guess is while at U.Iowa he played football without a helmet.
We got one.
______________UPDATE______________
More. Besides being a great guy according to Trump but one Trump does not know, Whitaker got a shady $1.2 million recently, donors undisclosed; Ms. Amy clucks about it, NYT publishes. That NYT item leads with a photo of Whitaker having his hand over his wallet in a jacket pocket; I think that's what it's showing.
NYT in a separate item also opines about Whitiker, with multiple links to bolster the argument; this excerpt:
Is it O.K. for a president to shut down an investigation of himself? To answer that question yes is to take the position that not only this president, but any president in the future, is free to take the law into his own hands.
The reason Mr. Trump replaced Mr. Sessions with Mr. Whitaker seems clear. When The Daily Caller, a conservative news website, asked Mr. Trump last week for his thoughts about the man now running the Justice Department, the president volunteered, “As far as I’m concerned, this is an investigation that should have never been brought. It should have never been had. It’s something that should have never been brought. It’s an illegal investigation.”
Mr. Whitaker is an avowed antagonist of Mr. Mueller — he has called the investigation a witch hunt, said Mr. Mueller’s team should not investigate Mr. Trump’s finances and suggested that an attorney general could slash the special counsel’s budget.
As if concerns about the Constitution, the law and Mr. Whitaker’s judgment weren’t enough, the broader picture that has emerged about Mr. Whitaker is even more disturbing. He has expressed skepticism toward Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that established the concept of judicial review; he would support the confirmation of federal judges who hold “a biblical view of justice”; he may have prosecuted a political opponent for improper reasons when he was a federal prosecutor in Iowa; and then there’s the fiasco of his business involvement with a company accused of scamming customers that is being investigated by the F.B.I.
Justice Department regulations governing the day-to-day operations of the special counsel’s office allow for Mr. Whitaker to be read in on many of its inner workings, including that the acting attorney general be given “an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step” that Mr. Mueller decides to take. So there is nothing to keep Mr. Whitaker from being the president’s eyes and ears inside the most closely guarded investigation in the history of American politics.
[links omitted] While calling the investigation Muller is conducting "a witch hunt" WaPo days ago published, "In 2016, Whitaker floated the possibility of Trump reopening the Clinton email investigation - By JM Rieger - November 21, 2018 at 1:15 PM."
And that OLC opinion is one tiny fig leaf, no doubt about that.
Perhaps more about Whitaker in subsequent posting. In closing this post, I am with TRUMP in not knowing Matthew Whitiker either, but my guess is while at U.Iowa he played football without a helmet.
Purple Amy, part 2. Is better than Biden enough?
Not expecting a part two until soundings as if Klobuchar were presidential surfaced, more may be said beyond an earlier post - from a week ago. Linking here.
[UPDATE: Omitted by error from the following listing, hometown locally written bandwagon joinder; Strib, a post today.] New, similar links, here from a year ago, here from weeks ago, MoJo from weeks ago with Amy in a parade of names, trivia (a/k/a a Facebook page), Alpha News a year and a half ago mentioning Amy along with some Republican women as is their habit to favor that party, and here, a recent Hill item linked to by Timmer, with his analysis online here.
That catalog being given, readers should note a focus of this post on the latter two, because Timmer's thinking is always worthy, and he opens by citing the item in The Hill. First, Osler at The Hill, excerpted - links omitted:
Readers wanting the full story and/or links, again here. As a first observation, other tired middle-road names get mentioned; Bernie omitted, Warren omitted; even a nice powerfully strong net neutrality person, Montana's Steve Bullock, gets no mention. He gets a Crabgrass sidebar, with earlier Crabgrass posting available, per a websearch. He seems less a middle-road creature than Amy or Booker, (less a darling of big money too), but let that websearch do it for him for this post, Amy being the subject. Bullock is not a Berniecrat by any measure, but closer to it than being a big money attractor, Booker being more owned by Wall Street than Amy certainly, but each as each is. One opinion in passing, not fleshed out for now, if a middle-road female candidate needs notice Maria Cantwell as one of the two women Senators from Washington has more to offer than Amy or Cantwell's cohort, Patty Murray, being the opinion held here. Again, the post is not about Cantwell, nor Bullock, but AMY. [THE better than Biden part of the headline is mentioned in passing, with little disagreement expected, Biden being who he's been all the sorry unprepossessing time; with the post not being about his ambition either.] Hence, Osler continues:
To say Klobuchar is reminiscent of a big-time disappointment surely is faint praise. Likely true, at least I'd not disagree. CHANGE and HOPE being paradoxical slogans of OBAMA, who gave us neither and hung Romneycare into the way toward reaching a true Single Payer reform allowing joinder with the remainder of the affluent nations of the world in civilized provision of health care; Canada and Norway being but examples, yet good ones. Osler continues saying she did okay against the Kavanaugh nomination which from day one had the votes needed. So points made in a charade, and then a weak Osler ending never stating any actual strong case for Klobuchar as presidential or as one in the Senate long enough to have shown leadership without ever showing actual leadership, a point Timmer makes.
Moving to Timmer's analysis:
[italics in original] Yes, Tina did that, and Stauber won anyway, hence a failure of purpose. Timmer continues:
[link in the original]. Here's one: Name one big thing Klobuchar did as County Attorney which rings your bell as showing exceptional leadership. Right. She built up political capital and locals liked her because dad was a loved sports writer for a local newspaper. She's been correct on the abortion issue, but, what else?
We need progressive leadership. Not a dumpling. If it has to be a middle-road female from the Senate, there is Cantwell.
We need a Wellstone as president, but the chance for him there has passed. Closest to a Wellstone, and a female member of the Senate, clearly is Elizabeth Warren, who'd resonate as one who actually got something done, despite Trump's installing an agency assassin to head the agency Warren pushed into law to protect consumers from lending abuse. That showed leadership. Warren made it to Harvard professor at the same time Klobuchar made it to County Attorney. Just saying . . . bigger fish in a bigger pond.
[UPDATE: Omitted by error from the following listing, hometown locally written bandwagon joinder; Strib, a post today.] New, similar links, here from a year ago, here from weeks ago, MoJo from weeks ago with Amy in a parade of names, trivia (a/k/a a Facebook page), Alpha News a year and a half ago mentioning Amy along with some Republican women as is their habit to favor that party, and here, a recent Hill item linked to by Timmer, with his analysis online here.
That catalog being given, readers should note a focus of this post on the latter two, because Timmer's thinking is always worthy, and he opens by citing the item in The Hill. First, Osler at The Hill, excerpted - links omitted:
Amy Klobuchar should run for president.
It may not be what she wants to do — who wants to spend months being subjected to vile insults? — but it is what our nation needs. Within a party that fell to Donald Trump because it lost its sense of what works in the swath of territory between Pennsylvania and the Dakotas, she is the best hope. In the midterms she not only won in urban areas but in many rural parts of Minnesota.
Klobuchar is strong, she’s smart, and she’s experienced, but the same can be said of many other potential candidates. What distinguishes her from Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and most of her other potential primary opponents is almost ineffable, but it comes down to this: she is not enveloped in a shining cloak of ambition.
And that may be the greatest qualification of all in the face of an incumbent who is little more than that cloak.
Many of her potential opponents certainly boast a harder edge and more direct rebukes to the Trump agenda. Among the women, Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand are running well to Klobuchar’s left. But like Hillary Clinton before them, they are prone to drop too easily into the “coastal elite” category in the minds of too many voters.
Readers wanting the full story and/or links, again here. As a first observation, other tired middle-road names get mentioned; Bernie omitted, Warren omitted; even a nice powerfully strong net neutrality person, Montana's Steve Bullock, gets no mention. He gets a Crabgrass sidebar, with earlier Crabgrass posting available, per a websearch. He seems less a middle-road creature than Amy or Booker, (less a darling of big money too), but let that websearch do it for him for this post, Amy being the subject. Bullock is not a Berniecrat by any measure, but closer to it than being a big money attractor, Booker being more owned by Wall Street than Amy certainly, but each as each is. One opinion in passing, not fleshed out for now, if a middle-road female candidate needs notice Maria Cantwell as one of the two women Senators from Washington has more to offer than Amy or Cantwell's cohort, Patty Murray, being the opinion held here. Again, the post is not about Cantwell, nor Bullock, but AMY. [THE better than Biden part of the headline is mentioned in passing, with little disagreement expected, Biden being who he's been all the sorry unprepossessing time; with the post not being about his ambition either.] Hence, Osler continues:
Klobuchar’s personality and positions line up more directly with the last president who won as a Democrat, Barack Obama. Like Klobuchar, he came across as a reasonable Midwesterner, calm in the face of crossfire and quick to talk about solving problems rather than the demons on the other side of the political line. While Republicans and Fox News were quick to describe him as an extremist, the description never really fit. Even his hallmark achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was a moderate reform whose structure was defined within the Heritage Foundation and test-run by Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts.
That kind of low-drama reasonableness is back in style, a backlash to the backlash.
To say Klobuchar is reminiscent of a big-time disappointment surely is faint praise. Likely true, at least I'd not disagree. CHANGE and HOPE being paradoxical slogans of OBAMA, who gave us neither and hung Romneycare into the way toward reaching a true Single Payer reform allowing joinder with the remainder of the affluent nations of the world in civilized provision of health care; Canada and Norway being but examples, yet good ones. Osler continues saying she did okay against the Kavanaugh nomination which from day one had the votes needed. So points made in a charade, and then a weak Osler ending never stating any actual strong case for Klobuchar as presidential or as one in the Senate long enough to have shown leadership without ever showing actual leadership, a point Timmer makes.
Moving to Timmer's analysis:
Does anyone remember, in her twelve years in the Senate, a truly remarkable speech delivered by Sen. Klobuchar on the floor of the Senate? A genuine stemwinder on an important issue of the day? I don’t. Maybe readers will remind me. Sens. Humphrey, Mondale, Gene McCarthy, Wellstone, and Franken spoke memorably on many occasions.
I think this is because they were passionate about things. To me, there is a curious lack of passion in Amy Klobuchar. Some see this as an asset; I don’t. Sen. Klobuchar has a lot of political capital, but she hasn’t seemed willing to spend any of it for something she believes in. The conservation of political capital is the Prime Directive. [...]
Some activists I know call Sen. Klobuchar the “Queen of Small Ball.” [...]
When it came to a bunch of Democratic senators trying to score political points off of Al Franken and force him to resign, though, the best that Sen. Klobuchar could do is say that she thought that Al would do the right thing. Not, Let’s give Al his day in front of an ethics committee where his accusers also have to come before it and testify under oath.
I will be direct. I thought this was political cowardice. Sen. Klobuchar claims now that she didn’t call for Al’s resignation. She didn’t lift a finger to help him either.
It is hard to recall Sen. Klobuchar’s policy positions on most things. There are a couple I do remember, though.
Sen. Klobuchar is in favor of the repeal of the medical device tax because it is such a hardship for Minnesota companies. It is a tax intended to raise revenue to help offset the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act. It is also an excise tax; all device manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, pay it. It puts no Minnesota company or manufacturer at a disadvantage; [...]
Sen. Klobuchar also supported the (Tina) Smith amendment to bypass all that fussy administrative stuff and do a swap of federal public land with PolyMet to facilitate opening a copper sulfide mine in water-resource-rich northern Minnesota. There is a current federal law that prohibits swaps like this, by the way, but never mind. Thankfully, the amendment with stripped out of a conference committee bill this fall: a Republican-controlled conference committee.
[italics in original] Yes, Tina did that, and Stauber won anyway, hence a failure of purpose. Timmer continues:
Sen. Mitch McConnell says he won’t bring any legislation to protect Mueller to the floor. A lawsuit was started by three senators to stop the Whitaker appointment on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Neither Minnesota senator joined the suit.
You all remember the bromide about how you can tell a lot about a person by how they treat the wait staff when they go out to a restaurant? Sen. Klobuchar has one of, if not the, highest rates of staff turnover in the Senate. “Former employees of Amy Klobuchar” is its own demographic. I admit this bothers me because I think there is a folksy truth in the bromide.
[link in the original]. Here's one: Name one big thing Klobuchar did as County Attorney which rings your bell as showing exceptional leadership. Right. She built up political capital and locals liked her because dad was a loved sports writer for a local newspaper. She's been correct on the abortion issue, but, what else?
We need progressive leadership. Not a dumpling. If it has to be a middle-road female from the Senate, there is Cantwell.
We need a Wellstone as president, but the chance for him there has passed. Closest to a Wellstone, and a female member of the Senate, clearly is Elizabeth Warren, who'd resonate as one who actually got something done, despite Trump's installing an agency assassin to head the agency Warren pushed into law to protect consumers from lending abuse. That showed leadership. Warren made it to Harvard professor at the same time Klobuchar made it to County Attorney. Just saying . . . bigger fish in a bigger pond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)