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:

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 flaunt 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:

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.)

The Clintons.

A video.

___________UPDATE____________
Another interesting video segment usage.

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.

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]:

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 shifted 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:

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.

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:

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!

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:

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:

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.

Waste.

Link. Explain to me the difference, crony capitalism vs. crony government.

Strib image. Crony NCAA?

Nice seeming ladies. Big money.

Yet another live-and-let-live story about respect for the humanity of another human being transcending slavish knee-jerk bigotry.

Parental bad decision making can be vexingly stupid, but can by proper effort of others be corrected; PiPress link.

Let the woman get her degree, let her be happy. Why in the world not?

Sorensen has a current post on how "Responsible Science Policy Coalition (RSPC) " is as responsible as polluters wanting off the hook for their mischief; i.e., not very responsible at all.

It is an extended post, bolstered with excerpting of source material, well worth the time to read - online here.

Stagnation stinks.

The Atlantic, mid-item:

Equally frustrating for the Democrats I spoke to is that this is not at all the case for House Republicans. Unlike Democrats, for example, Republicans term-limit their committee chairmen, making it possible for young and talented members to take over powerful committees early in their tenure. As Murphy, the former representative, pointed out, Paul Ryan is a good case study in the benefits of this policy: Ryan was only 41 when he took over the Budget Committee, a position that allowed him to build a national profile and attract attention from party leaders. Less than five years later, he gaveled in as speaker of the House.

“The Republican rules when it comes to term limits for chairmen is just how we view leadership,” National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Spokesman Matt Gorman told me. “It encourages younger members to step up so we don’t see the stagnation we’ve seen on the other side.”

For those liking equations: Pelosi + Hoyer = Stagnation

Any questions?

Here's one: Why might Keith Ellison have concluded there is more fun and actual chance to affect policy as Minnesota Attorney General than under Pelosi + Hoyer?

Likely Ellison might publicly speak with delicacy, but the fact that he moved is what speaks candidly.

Right of center to middle of the road slaves to big money are not the answer to a better nation.

Look at Bernie's agenda. Look at Pelosi. The DC situation is a bad joke. Bluest of blue dogs grumble and sign a letter saying, "She's not our favorite," while she's probably just fine, but the play is for the district, and little else. Others fawn. Ocasio-Cortez with the biggest paycheck of her life and better benefits than from bartending, in line, so go figure. Indeed, in line, ticket punched with a vengeance by going public on MSNBC to kiss Pelosi's ring. It is sickening. Committee seniority is something the Republicans, of all people, have reformed.

The party of It's Hillary's Turn, is a sick party. Stating truth again: Right of center to middle of the road slaves to big money are not the answer to a better nation. There are no two ways about it. You can put Pelosi between joyous Al and joyous Mark in that picture and it is the exact same image. Al must be happy to be out of that bullshit.

Last thing, a video worth watching, about an indirect way to torpedo progressive aims, without saying that's the motive, while serving the interests of those wanting to fire such a torpedo, Pelosi, apparently, included. End of story.

_________UPDATE___________
On reflection, perhaps a "for example" line or two about that "torpedo" thing might be helpful. SINGLE PAYER. How's that, example-wise?

Single payer will cost more to implement in terms of government revenue-spending, where to attain efficiencies the medical-industrial complex gets reined in and the profiteering insurance leeches get put out of the main part of their cash-cow loop. For those liking equations:

SINGLE PAYER = [Govt. spending increase] = [substantial TOTAL spending decrease below private insurance payments (including obscene profiteering) per the Romneycare=Obamacare status quo]
and:
[SINGLE PAYER federal pharma pricing power] = [decrease in pharma gouging of you and me, compare negotiated pricing as is now the case with the "socialized medicine" practice of the VA]

However, to implement SINGLE PAYER the two Pelosi policies discussed in that video would have to not be in place; so putting them in place serves to indirectly - sneakily - hamstrings SINGLE PAYER, end of that example. A result done with weasel ways, not directly addressing the desires and needs of the public vs. the power and control of DC by evil big money interests; a/k/a control of Pelosi and folks, by etc.

Last, that image above: Joyous Al, or "Standing here on terms I accepted but which merit no false smile-along, what am I doing here;" i.e., Al having an early learning experience not out of line with his quick acceptance of leaving the Senate on #METOO thrown stuff, as an exit in a potentially helpful way, overall; with exiting being not wholly uncordial to Al's integrity and mental health. He and DC were a strange match from day one. He's honest, that being one fit-in difficulty.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
2020, "Biden's Turn?" Say it ain't so, Joe.

_________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Back to Pelosi, Digby is positive.

Pelosi. Hoyer too? So much for CHANGE. [However, don't miss this post's UPDATE, for hopeful info]

Here, reporting one toe-the-line; here, reporting another, mentioning Hoyer.

It looks like a done deal.

"Deal." Is that the proper terminology? You decide. First linked item:

The Buffalo News first reported Higgins’ reversal on Pelosi. Just days before, Higgins had signed onto a letter opposing her, and he told POLITICO repeatedly in an interview that he wouldn’t back Pelosi “under any circumstances.”

But Pelosi is winning now, so circumstances apparently have changed enough for Higgins to reconsider his recent fervent opposition to her.

“For years, Congressman Higgins has been an extraordinary leader on the issue of achieving quality, affordable health care for all Americans. His Medicare buy-in proposal is central to this debate, as we work to build on the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said in a statement released shortly after news of Higgins' volte-face.

“We are looking forward to working together to lower the cost of health care for hard-working families and raise their paychecks by building infrastructure of America, which is also an important issue to Congressman Higgins.”

Higgins is the latest Pelosi critic to make a dramatic change in direction.

Second linked item:

[... D]evelopments buoyed Pelosi as she fights to repel a small group of dissidents inside the Democratic caucus who want to force a leadership shake-up after 16 years with the Californian at the helm.

One was Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio), who left Washington last week planning to take the Thanksgiving holiday to ponder a run against Pelosi for speaker. But her dalliance ended Tuesday. Fudge said she would support Pelosi after the minority leader agreed to make Fudge chairman of a resurrected subcommittee on elections and pledged that “the most loyal voting bloc in the Democratic Party, black women, will have a seat at the decision-making table.”

“I am now confident that we will move forward together,” Fudge said in a statement. “I now join my colleagues in support of the leadership team of Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn.”

If awaiting progress, keep waiting. If wanting to see pork for support, keep watching Pelosi. Single payer is DOA with this status quo. Beyond being a talking point for some, it will be more pork for the insurers, a/k/a "improving the ACA." If any part of "Affordable Care Act" will ring false, bet on the "affordable" part. Bloodsucker insurance will continue to rejoice and prosper. "Keep America Great Still" might be their slogan.

"Better than Paul Ryan" is cold comfort. Sub-zero. Polar. Frozen ice cold.

No climate change indications, in our esteemed U.S. of A. House of Representatives internal climate. And that does not suggest much good for 2020. Gillibrand and Cory Booker; Biden; oh my. Plunging again over a precipice. Flat "Clinton Learning Curve." Many ways to say it, but stow forever, CHANGE. CHANGE ain't gonna be, for now. Sad.

Then notice too; the links: The message being brought to you by WaPo and Politico.

Pay your taxes while the rich skate. Receive no CHANGE for your dollar bill.

___________UPDATE___________
Is there hope? Perhaps there is. Bernie gets an op-ed published, WaPo; (cumulative but a good outlet, CommonDreams). Each listing an agenda for moving forward:

Increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour and indexing it to median wage growth thereafter. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage that must be increased to a living wage — at least $15 an hour. This would give more than 40 million Americans a raise and would generate more than $100 billion in higher wages throughout the country.

A path toward Medicare-for-all. The Medicare-for-all bill widely supported in the Senate has a four-year phase-in period on the way to guaranteeing health care for every man, woman and child. Over the first year, it would lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 55, cover dental, hearing and vision care for seniors, provide health care to every young person in the United States and lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Bold action to combat climate change. The report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear we have just 12 years to substantially cut the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, or our planet will suffer irreversible damage. Congress must pass legislation that shifts our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and renewable energy. We can lead the planet in combating climate change and, in the process, create millions of good paying jobs.

Fixing our broken criminal-justice system. We must end the absurdity of the United States having more people in jail than any other country on Earth. We must invest in jobs and education for our young people, not more jails and incarceration.

Comprehensive immigration reform. The American people want to protect the young people in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and to move toward comprehensive immigration reform for the more than 11 million people in our country who are undocumented. And that’s exactly what we should do.

Progressive tax reform. At a time of massive and growing inequality in both income and wealth, Congress must pass legislation which requires wealthy people and large corporations to begin paying their fair share of taxes. It is unacceptable that there are large, extremely profitable corporations in this country that do not pay a nickel in federal income taxes.

A $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Every day, Americans drive to work on potholed roads and crumbling bridges, and ride in overcrowded buses and subways. Children struggle to concentrate in overcrowded classrooms. Workers are unable to find affordable housing. The structures that most Americans don’t see are also in disrepair — from spotty broadband and an outdated electric grid, to toxic drinking water and dilapidated levees and dams. Congress should pass a $1 trillion infrastructure plan to address these needs while creating up to 15 million good-paying jobs in the process.

Lowering the price of prescription drugs. Americans pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because, unlike other countries, the United States doesn’t directly regulate the price of medicine. The House should pass legislation to require Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices and allow patients, pharmacists and wholesalers to purchase low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other countries. It should also pass legislation to make sure that Americans don’t pay more for prescription drugs than citizens do in other major countries.

Making public colleges and universities tuition-free and substantially reducing student debt. In a highly competitive global economy, we must have the best-educated workers in the world. Every young person in America, regardless of income, must have the opportunity to receive the education they need to get a decent job and make it into the middle class. The House should pass the College for All Act to make public colleges and universities tuition-free and substantially reduce student debt.

Expanding Social Security. When 1 out of 5 seniors is trying to get by on less than $13,500 a year, we must expand Social Security so that every American can retire with dignity and security. The House should pass legislation to expand Social Security benefits and extend its solvency for the next 60 years by requiring that the wealthiest Americans — those making more than $250,000 a year — pay their fair share of Social Security taxes.

[bolding in original] The Thursday, November 22, 2018 [Thanksgiving Day] CommonDreams item adds:

The Thanksgiving op-ed from Sanders comes a week before the independent senator will deliver the keynote address at a "gathering" of national and international progressive leaders in his home state of Vermont.

The event, coordinated by The Sanders Institute, founded by Jane Sanders, "will convene 250 leading progressive minds to envision – and to actualize – a better future for our country and the world. Reaching across generations and embracing the inherent synergies across the progressive platform, participants will discuss and debate our nation’s most pressing issues and offer innovative solutions."

Following up on that hat tip info:

https://sandersinstitutegathering.org/

https://sandersinstitutegathering.org/speakers/

https://sandersinstitutegathering.org/contact/

Let us hope the event draws well and that progress arises from the effort. Some encouraging YouTube posting may arise; given a three-day event. Expect it.

Readers are urged to check those three links.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
The event page

https://sandersinstitutegathering.org/event/

states:

Set in Burlington Vermont, the core intent of the Sanders Institute Gathering is to share replicable policies, develop actionable steps, establish ongoing networks and articulate a progressive vision.

About the event
THE GATHERING
BURLINGTON, VT + November 29 - December 1, 2018

Economic, environmental, racial and social justice issues will be threaded throughout the conference as we discuss the climate crisis, healthcare, housing, democracy, foreign policy, criminal justice, labor issues and more.

The Gathering is an informative, issue-oriented, idea-focused, movement-building conference focused on developing bold, progressive solutions. Following the event, we will be sharing the speeches, interviews, conversations and sessions in a variety of formats.

"Sharing [...] in a variety of formats," suggests YouTube posting amid other coverage. Sponsorship is noted, and the three day agenda times and topics are presented. Event accommodations info is also given. The Institute itself:

https://www.sandersinstitute.com/about/mission-statement

____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Back to the main belief; same old stuff; Young Turks. Thom Hartman. Truth, as ugly as it is. Same old Pelosi. Opposition from the right wing of the Democratic Party; Pelosi's wing; but trying to make bluest corporate boot-licking Blue Dogs the top dogs. And when Nancy wins, one house ruled by the same people who made a big thing about passing Romneycare. The Republicans are a bit more honest about being owned by money, yet the ownership credentials are there . . .

Another video. This entire pattern is effectively saying the midterms were survived, now tell the progressives they can go home, adults are in control. Single finger salute. They hated the uppity attitude while it flourished and want it dead. That is Pelosi. And the fiction that she is too liberal for some Democrats is a sick joke. Ocasio-Cortez signing onto the Pelosi agenda is worrisome. Backing Nancy against the insurgency. Get real. Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, Onward Together, is not a train I missed but one I'd shudder about being on. 2020 will be four more Trump years unless some folks wise up; but, perhaps they do not care; scratch beneath the surface and perhaps Trump's okay. But when the "us or Trump" posturing has an "us" that is really no different, why care? Pelosi, Paul Ryan, opposite sides, same coin? The Bernie gathering is soon, but what tangible successes can be expected from it?

AND - Pelosi and Hoyer STILL. Not even a new second fiddle. Absolute disrespect is a hard pill to swallow.

Face of the future? Or would more/different be best? And that 18-34 age bloc, the heavily Democratic voting folks, where are they?

Image from independent story, here.

The face of progress is absent. The face of youth is absent. The face of same old is apparent. The midterm result may prove an anomaly, given appearances.

The face of Stauber? Absent, but in a way, quite present.

Leah Phifer would have won. Identity politics aside, that is.

Am I the only one seeing the image as if some low level commissar reaches a podium, assured of his level. Intending to hold it, damn the consequences.

Uranium One. A question about ownership changes and payment arrangements. You and I surely do not know whether wrongful quid pro quo existed. Questioning it all is valid.

[UPDATE: In retrospect, this post needs an initial context, that being Strib carrying an NYT item: "Trump wanted to order Justice Department to prosecute James Comey, Hillary Clinton -- Donald McGahn, then the White House counsel, rejected the president's request, according to two people familiar with the conversation in the spring." Story: By Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman New York Times - November 21, 2018 — 5:23am; which item seems to minimize substance and suggest a Nixonian motive to Trump; with the balance of the post suggesting there is more substance to things than the Strib/NYT item acknowledges, and that an investigation might be merited and could prove fruitful.]


Websearch. News, CNN reporting carried, The Hill, and Reuters.

Background: Earlier NYT report. Wikipedia, here, here, and here.

Most intriguing, The Hill item, "FBI’s 37 secret pages of memos about Russia, Clintons and Uranium One," bearing the disclaimer:

By John Solomon, opinion contributor — 10/01/18 05:45 PM EDT The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

We publish, not our responsibility, seems overly lawyerly, but also a declaration of the perception of a mine field being involved.

Smoke?

Fire?

We can only guess. "37 secret pages" as a headline lead suggests itself as the opinion of whoever publishes such a headline.

One Wikipedia sentence:

On June 29, 2010 Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the Rosatom acquisition of Uranium One was announced.[14][15]

[footnoted text, linking omitted]
14. Becker, Jo; McIntire, Mike (April 23, 2015). "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal". The New York Times.

15. Campbell, Colin; Engel, Pamela (April 23, 2015). "The Clinton Foundation received millions from investors as Putin took over 20% of US uranium deposits". Yahoo! Finance. Retrieved August 31, 2016.

Amid any speculation, half a mil is half a mil; and that seems a fact hard to dispute. But that's only one sentence, a public one, so what's in the secret 37? Why secret? What happened? The question seems bigger than the Saudi Consulate killing in Turkey; in going more toward U.S. politician trustworthiness rather than government policy; although those two dimensions do overlap, each instance.

The obvious websearch - obama russian russia speaking fees -- returns different lead items than an equally obvious websearch = obama russian speaking fees -- give it a try with any other search engine.

What is interesting is since leaving the White House, Obama gets mention (without any Russian speaking fees showing in the search return list) here, here and here; four hundred grand being four hundred grand; and I'd not pay it for Obama but Wall Street allegedly did. Wall Street where nobody went into the slammer for what happened, Sept. 2008 - Lehman Brothers, onward.

____________UPDATE____________
Free Republic republishing has a comment thread, including one reader's list:

Here is a list of 11 questionable items forming a chain of events:

1. September of 2005: Canadian Frank Giustra visits Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton. Days later, his company UrAsia wins a major uranium deal with the country.

2. 2006: Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.

3. February 2007: UrAsia merges with Uranium One and expands into the U.S..

4. June 2008: Russian atomic agency Rosatom begins talks to acquire Uranium One.

5. 2008 to 2010: Uranium One and UrAsia investors donate $8.65 million to Clinton Foundation.

6. June 2009: Rosatom acquires 17% of Uranium One.

7. 2010 to 2011: Millions more donated by Uranium One investors to Clinton Foundation.

8. June 2010: Rosatom requests Committee on Foreign Investment (of which the State Department is a member and its approval is needed) to approve a majority ownership in Uranium One, PROMISING NOT TO PURCHASE 100% of it, NOR TAKE IT PRIVATE.

9. June 2010: Bill Clinton receives $500,000 to speak at a conference held by the Russian investment bank involved in the Rosatom transactions.

10. October 2010: Committee APPROVES Rosatom's request to ACQUIRE A MAJORITY SHARE in Uranium One.

11. January 2013: Rosatom PURCHASES REMAINDER of Uranium One and takes it PRIVATE!.

[bolding in original] NOTE: Nothing in that list was fact checked, nor second sourced. Interested readers may try that exercise.


FURTHER: FBI, "The Vault."
https://vault.fbi.gov/

This "Valult" search. This item. Readers can go from there.

FURTHER: Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, dated Oct. 2 (the day after The Hill published per opening paragraph of this post).

RT, posted/edited days after The Hill item.

All I know is what I read on the web. That's knowing what's said. Not necessarily what's true.

End of post.

ACTUALLY, ONE MORE: NBC, Dec. 21, 2017.

End of post.

Irresponsible insurgency, or responsible reform? A/k/a whose money do you take, owing what?

Intercept:

By winning a Detroit-area seat long held by former Rep. John Conyers, Tlaib fended off a divided local political establishment. She addressed protesters on Tuesday before they marched on Pelosi’s office, where Ocasio-Cortez later met them. Ocasio-Cortez upset Rep. Joe Crowley, the boss of the political machine in Queens, New York.

The pledge from Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez to continue to primary incumbents injects a new element of politics into intra-caucus maneuvering. The pair are rallying support for a Green New Deal and are likely to find an increasing number of converts eager to sign aboard in the next few weeks. Meanwhile, only a handful of incumbents refuse to take corporate PAC money, a number that is also likely to rise given the pressure of a potential primary.

“All Americans know money in politics is a huge problem, but unfortunately the way that we fix it is by demanding that our incumbents give it up or by running fierce campaigns ourselves,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

That Intercept item links here, (source of the opening screen capture, with readers urged to follow the link). New faces, no Amy Klobuchar, no Tina Smith; and petition Pelosi, per a second Intercept item:

Protesters with the environmental group Sunrise marched on Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s office on Tuesday. The group, made up of young people pushing for urgent action on climate change, planned to send a clear message to party leadership just one week after Democrats regained control of the House.

[...] This time, they were joined by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is just weeks away from being sworn into office.

Rep.-elect Rashida Tlaib of Michigan joined the protesters in a rally at the Spirit of Justice Park near the Capitol on Tuesday morning, but she did not continue on to Pelosi’s office. “This is the most American thing you can do,” Tlaib said of the protest. Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib also attended an event with the Sunrise activists on Monday night.

Members of the progressive political group Justice Democrats also joined the protest, which was attended by more than 150 people. “Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership must get serious about the climate and our economy,” said the group’s communications director, Waleed Shahid, in a statement. [...]

The protesters, including Ocasio-Cortez, are calling on Pelosi to create and give teeth to a new select committee on climate change.

The proposed committee, called the Select Committee for a Green New Deal, would be similar to something Pelosi established as House speaker in 2007, but with more authority. Back then, Pelosi created the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and assigned her ally, then-Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who has a strong environmental record, to chair it.

One might imagine Pelosi does not find such prodding to be wholly unwelcomed.

A demonstration backing a sound policy investment to boost a better part of the economy besides Big Coal and Big Oil; including Big Koch Brothers, and bad policy [an incipient pairing]; breaths fresh air into renewable energy possibilities.

Bless the young and restless. Self satisfaction takes PAC money, young and restless wants reform. Who do you love?

Minnesotans; show some love for Illhan Omar, one of the Justice Democrats Seven, as pictured in the opening screen capture. Say what? None as aged as Tom Perez; none as compromised; let us all hope things will only get better. A nudge, a push, a shove - whatever level of input is needed to move some complacent ones off their comfort zone has to be good for us all; especially good for Republicans by opposition causing improvement, at best, and at least a hope for improvement. But fixing the one party before fixing the GOP seems the course to success; so help the effort or simply stand aside.

THIS MEANS YOU:

__________UPDATE__________
There is food for thought in an Intercept late-paragraphs continuation:

The proposed committee would, among other things, establish a 10-year plan to transition the U.S. economy to become carbon neutral, according to draft legislation that the activists presented to Pelosi’s office. The activists are also pushing Democratic leaders to reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel industry groups. “We need every person who is going to claim the mantle of Democratic leadership to take the no fossil fuel money pledge,” [Sunrise activist Varshini] Prakash said at the sit-in outside Pelosi’s office.

Ocasio-Cortez’s decision to join the protesters and march on her own House leader sets a tone of urgency and combativeness that is rare on Capitol Hill. Walking into the Cannon House Office Building, she told The Intercept something new had to be tried. “The way things are done has not been getting results. We have to try new methods,” she said.

Pelosi may need Ocasio-Cortez’s support to win a second shot at the speakership. The California Democrat can only lose roughly 20 votes on the House floor, and already at least 10 Democrats, largely moderates and conservatives, have said they will not back her. Pelosi has expressed “100 percent” confidence that she’ll be elected speaker.

[...] Ocasio-Cortez’s break with decorum could, paradoxically, open up space for her to ultimately support Pelosi on the House floor. After her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez called for “new leadership” in the House and floated the possibility of Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., running for the job. If Ocasio-Cortez can extract concessions by publicly demonstrating against Pelosi, the incoming representative’s supporters may be more forgiving of a final vote in Pelosi’s favor.

Lee, a close ally of Pelosi, is running for Democratic caucus chair, the leadership post being vacated by Rep. Joe Crowley, the New York Democrat whom Ocasio-Cortez defeated in a primary election.

Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez have had an uneasy public relationship.

[italics added] Is this "protest" in fact fence-mending/tie-building, as if a throwing into the briar patch event was staged? People just do not get admitted into House office spaces to roam willy-nilly, free of authorization. There are door keepers. Public/private relationships can be confusing. Phrased another way, are progressives being played? If so, will good or ill result? For the present, Justice Democrats need trust, unless/until proven insidious instead of trustworthy. There is an "eternal vigilance" saying, but January swearing-in events are yet to happen, so this thing is early in fashion. Accordingly, the sidebar says what it says, and can always be edited. There likely is more than one Ocasio-Cortez skeptic, each from his/her own direction. Besides January swearing-in being near term, there is 2020 and events leading to November of that year will need watching.

link

Boxed and wrapped gifts sometimes can be nightmares. "Who 'dat" links: websearch, website, report. A websearch without overlap does not prove a negative, whereas an overlap showing up would be strong evidence. Again, that vigilance saying rattles in one's head. Cassandra's fate and Troy's also come to mind.

If progressives are being played, it would not be the first time. There was FDR. Giving enough but not an inch more. Earned bona fides are the best bona fides; earning being a future tense thing for now.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Tune time?

Purple Amy = not quite a Blue Dog but damned close: "Republicans failed to win a statewide race again this year, a drought that reaches back to 2006, when former Gov. Tim Pawlenty was re-elected. Stenberg cited a leadership void in the party and said Trump’s brand of politics hindered the party’s prospects in Minnesota. Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic, agreed, pointing to Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s overwhelming re-election to a third term — and her success in courting donors who represent some of the country’s biggest corporations. 'Look, we’re not a red state, we’re not gonna be, we’re a moderate state,' George said. 'Look at Senator Klobuchar, very moderate across the aisle. Every CEO I know supports her because she is willing to work with them to create a good business environment.'"

Every CEO knows she's never going to lead anybody's SINGLE PAYER fight. Yes, voting for her was a lesser evil choice; but what about a progressive and NO evil? Ditto, Smith. Erin Murphy was a great citizens' choice in caucus/convention days; Walz won a primary, end of story.

At least Ellison holds an important statewide office and is a good person, active and not passive, well intentioned, but not one to carry grudges. He will move into office and excel. We are lucky in how voters handled that statewide contest.

The headline quote is from Strib. Why can't we have a slate of decently progressives DFL'ers for a change? Aside from Ellison, name another Bernicrat.

The one on the left is NOT a LOSER. Unlike . . .

At least Walz is an upgrade over Dayton, who disappointed, especially how easily "Tax the Rich" faded into obscurity. May his health hold, he deserves no ill-will, but the man is as middle of the road as a highway center line from a wealth background; "Tax the Rich" having been a fine slogan, but more than a slogan, a necessity.  

Tax 'em.

UPDATE: Then we get this, from mainstream media. Please, no.

Reflecting back upon the time Doug Wardlow was in the legislature [one term] and some brain impaired legislators in the GOP [I repeat myself] thought it was to be a hotshot super-good idea to have a Constitutional Amendment Show to fire up "the base."

Days of yesteryear. City Pages, link, opening screen capture [and there is an embedded video you likely do not care to have to watch]:

And this person, not Doug Wardlow, was the original song target. The BD initials in he lyrics fit, so this person should wear it. See a link or two in the post below, to Karl Bremer's Ripple in Stillwater posting; same individual under observation there.

Something that has to be said again with feeling- this dates to when Doug Wardlow was doing his best mischief in his brief legislative appearance, before voters in his MN House District really got to know him. So yes, we've progressed little on the GOP side since then, Wardlow looking to pick bigger fruit last election; stymied, for the good of the state, the nation and the world.