Most of the early polls have the combined progressive pair's numbers topping Biden's name recognition, this early, with Iowa still to happen some time from now. Guardian's item mentions a Cenk Uygur editorial in WaPo, without linking. It is online here. Berine did criticize - WaPo owned by Bezos who runs Amazon which Bernie criticizes, etc. This looks like an effort to disarm criticism of WaPo.
At any rate, Guardian sees others fading and a contest between the two progressives. Also online from 2016 is a classic Uygur rant running over twelve minutes against WaPo's then disrespect for Bernie's challenge to the Clinton cramdown machine. RawStory coverage back then. With that history, offering op-ed space to Uygur now makes sense from the WaPo perspective. It is early, and likely will pass into collective unconscousness by Iowa time; so why not.
One thing from Guardian, knowing that Warren drew a 12,000 person crowd in Minnesota, they add that days after she drew 15,000 in Seattle.
More than attend Biden big-money fundraisers, where Biden will continue to hold that lead against Sanders and Warren because neither takes tainted money. If Biden ends up an early casualty and drops out, Harris might pass his fat cat money raising, becasue she takes tainted money and is so ambitious that she'd not likely throw in the towel. But of the also-rans, a Democratic victory in November 2020 could yield Tulsi as Pentagon head, and Bullock as head of the Interior Department, given his challenge to Trumpian evils against public lands and his having disdain for Montana days of the "copper barons."
In Minnesota, a little measure of focused federal disdain for "copper barons" then and now, would be a breath of fresh air.
No item excerpting, so read the linked content. AND-
A bonus RawStory link to, "Wall Street traders are tuning out Trump after lies about China trade phone calls: report," and for the really good readers who will follow interesting links, one more from RawStory, "Mike Pence scorched as a prime example of why people hate religion." Not being a religion hater, but having a low regard for the fundies such as Abigail Whelan, it is Pence, himself in all aspects including his backing of Doug Wardlow's run for Minnesota AG against his better, that gets my mind when considering Mike Pence to remembering how now you can buy big packaged sacks of composted steer manure.
Bonus video.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Friday, August 30, 2019
Vultures we know of and abhor.
The medical industrial complex is doing big-time funding against Medicare for All. In Iowa.
Links, here and here.
Those links were provided in an emailed Bern Notice. We each would like to win such vast amounts in a lottery.
UPDATE: the Bern Notice identified perps.
FURTHER: The Intercept reports of what some may see as slight of hand, "Before Kamala Harris Soured on Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Bill, She Grew Her Email List From It -- by Akela Lacy, August 26 2019, 5:23 p.m.";
Shabby? You decide.
FURTHER: A by-association websearch. And a video. If short of time cut into the video at the four minute mark. It is informative. Warren, Booker and Blumenthal come across as sincere. "Single payer" as the crux of things is unequivocal and inescapable. Could any adult on that podium listening be in any sense confused, never mind one trained in the law?
FURTHER: Politico, June 30, of this year. The Hill, an image. She was that little girl.
Links, here and here.
Those links were provided in an emailed Bern Notice. We each would like to win such vast amounts in a lottery.
UPDATE: the Bern Notice identified perps.
FURTHER: The Intercept reports of what some may see as slight of hand, "Before Kamala Harris Soured on Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All Bill, She Grew Her Email List From It -- by Akela Lacy, August 26 2019, 5:23 p.m.";
Harris told attendees at the fundraiser that her plan would preserve private insurance, distancing herself from Sanders’s plan, which she was the first senator to co-sponsor in 2017.
In April 2019, her campaign ran a flurry of ads saying she was “proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Medicare for All bill in the Senate.”
In January, she ran a sponsored campaign via Daily Kos asking the site’s readers to sign a petition — one that would have them join her own email list — calling for Medicare for All. “Every single person living in our country should have access to high-quality, meaningful, affordable health care, from birth on up. That’s why I’m proud to co-sponsor the Medicare for All Act in the Senate,” she wrote in an email to the site’s users, linking to a petition that has since been removed and putting her support of Sanders’s bill in bold.
Shabby? You decide.
FURTHER: A by-association websearch. And a video. If short of time cut into the video at the four minute mark. It is informative. Warren, Booker and Blumenthal come across as sincere. "Single payer" as the crux of things is unequivocal and inescapable. Could any adult on that podium listening be in any sense confused, never mind one trained in the law?
FURTHER: Politico, June 30, of this year. The Hill, an image. She was that little girl.
READER WARNING - THIS IS A RANT: Minnesota Vikings broadcasts - an opinion on sideline interviews, camera shots of a sideline or a player on the sideline, camera shots of the stands - all while there is action on the field which many would rather watch
That distracting garbage detracts rather than adding to the viewing experience. Some player's mon in the stands, so what?
Worse of all, such stuff is done on national broadcasts of NFL games apart from local Vikings broadcasts.
Worse of that stuff - player interviews, coach interviews, broadcasting booth shots, when breaking the huddle and aligning is going on so that parts of plays are missed [or tight shots of a quarterback's hands under the center's ass, stuff contrary to seeing the game plays, start to finish].
As to any sideline or booth interviews beyond play calling from the booth -- if I want to listen to idiots talking to one another, I would be watching FOX news, CNN news, or MSNBC news; propaganda outlets each, but Ben Lieber on the sideline talking to a couple of linebackers, do that in pregame coverage for anyone who watches pregame BS.
With the motive of wanting to see a football game, why would I want other content besides the game? The clowns in the truck with the multiple monitors switching from actual, real field action to that other stuff could be fired and the broadcast channels would save some money. It is as if those clowns are football haters, thinking it would be too boring to see only football played when tuning into football broadcasts. Sideline analytical commentary along with booth play-by-play calling is okay, as long as the camera stays on the field instead of some person holding a microphone - and limit it to persons who actually have played or coached, and who understrand the game, not women well dressed with nice hair saying this or that.
End of RANT. It has been posted and will not be revisited again.
Worse of all, such stuff is done on national broadcasts of NFL games apart from local Vikings broadcasts.
Worse of that stuff - player interviews, coach interviews, broadcasting booth shots, when breaking the huddle and aligning is going on so that parts of plays are missed [or tight shots of a quarterback's hands under the center's ass, stuff contrary to seeing the game plays, start to finish].
As to any sideline or booth interviews beyond play calling from the booth -- if I want to listen to idiots talking to one another, I would be watching FOX news, CNN news, or MSNBC news; propaganda outlets each, but Ben Lieber on the sideline talking to a couple of linebackers, do that in pregame coverage for anyone who watches pregame BS.
With the motive of wanting to see a football game, why would I want other content besides the game? The clowns in the truck with the multiple monitors switching from actual, real field action to that other stuff could be fired and the broadcast channels would save some money. It is as if those clowns are football haters, thinking it would be too boring to see only football played when tuning into football broadcasts. Sideline analytical commentary along with booth play-by-play calling is okay, as long as the camera stays on the field instead of some person holding a microphone - and limit it to persons who actually have played or coached, and who understrand the game, not women well dressed with nice hair saying this or that.
End of RANT. It has been posted and will not be revisited again.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Biden.
Strib carrying an AP feed:
CSIS:
Middle class Joe, he calls himself. How many of the 140 attendees do you figure were "middle class?" What was the entry fee? There is a lot more that could have been reported. The item could have said "former Clinton White House Chief of Staff and former investment banker." Presumably such detail was viewed by the AP as irrelevant. To me? To you? To Bernie? To the attendees?
Go figure.
UPDATE: Charlotte Observer in advance of the fundraiser noted, "Costs for attending the Charlotte fundraiser range from $1,000 to $2,800." Hoi polloi not welcome? Think of it. If all the people in the nation willing to pay a grand or three to be in the same room with Joe Biden were to show up at the polls, it would be a landslide.
FURTHER UPDATE: Today's email, an item that speaks for itself - but is it a spoof - it can't be real, can it:
He fell short around fifteen years ago and should throw in the towel. Patronizing his better.
At the North Carolina home of former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Biden told about 140 donors that Trump has coddled dictators including "that thug Putin," a reference to the Russian president, and North Korea's Kim Jong Un, "a pure unadulterated butcher."
CSIS:
Erskine Bowles [...] began his financial service career at Morgan Stanley in New York as an associate in the corporate finance group. He left Morgan Stanley to form a middle-market investment bank, Bowles, Hollowell, Conner, which became the preeminent mergers and acquisition firm in the middle market. He would later form a venture capital firm, Kitty Hawk Capital; cofound a middle-market private equity firm, Carousel Capital; and serve as a partner in the New York private equity firm of Forstmann Little. During his business career, he has also served on the boards of various companies, including Morgan Stanley, First Union Corporation, Merck, VF, Cousins Properties, Norfolk Southern Corporation, General Motors, Belk, Urban Institute, Tri Alpha Energy and Facebook. In 1991, Mr. Bowles joined the administration of President Bill Clinton as administrator of the Small Business Administration. In 1993, he was brought to the White House to serve as President Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and later as chief of staff. [...]
Middle class Joe, he calls himself. How many of the 140 attendees do you figure were "middle class?" What was the entry fee? There is a lot more that could have been reported. The item could have said "former Clinton White House Chief of Staff and former investment banker." Presumably such detail was viewed by the AP as irrelevant. To me? To you? To Bernie? To the attendees?
Go figure.
UPDATE: Charlotte Observer in advance of the fundraiser noted, "Costs for attending the Charlotte fundraiser range from $1,000 to $2,800." Hoi polloi not welcome? Think of it. If all the people in the nation willing to pay a grand or three to be in the same room with Joe Biden were to show up at the polls, it would be a landslide.
FURTHER UPDATE: Today's email, an item that speaks for itself - but is it a spoof - it can't be real, can it:
He fell short around fifteen years ago and should throw in the towel. Patronizing his better.
Dan Burns writes at Left.mn. It is nice when someone does the work, and one only needs to post a link.
Here. Read it. It is not a post that will become a reported focus at Strib. At least Alpha News has no false pretense of fairness. Otherwise, Alpha news is garbage and online, i.e., not fit for the birdcage.
______________UPDATE______________
It is nice when RollingStone says the equivalent, albeit more gently.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Salon. Readers, please note that the update links differ from Dan's item, with each touching upon a media critique originating from Sen. Sanders. Dan apparently remains publicly uncommitted as to any Dem party candidacies, scrupulously so, with that pre-primary neutrality deserving express notice. Such caution takes discipline.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Few Anglo items have focused on the Hispanic Mainstream outlets. Check here and here. With Saban on the board and a former NBC corporate official running the operation, will Ilhan Omar get fair coverage among Hispanic voters? Henry Cisneros on the Univision governing policy-setting board, was a former Clinton cabinet member, which tells you something too. As much a progressive as Pelosi in all likelihood. Not knowing of Spanlish language alternate media, and lacking any proficiency in the language, I and others may be grateful that most Hispanic-Americans are bilingual. That proficiency in English enables Hispanic-Americans to read and judge English language alternate websites. That is a blessing, given the inescapable corporate thumb on the main outlets'scales. And bless having AOC raising Hispanic awareness of progressive options to what, in effect, is the same old corporate same old. AOC, that way, is very important.
FURTHER: The third Dem debate will again be a corporate media event:
______________UPDATE______________
It is nice when RollingStone says the equivalent, albeit more gently.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Salon. Readers, please note that the update links differ from Dan's item, with each touching upon a media critique originating from Sen. Sanders. Dan apparently remains publicly uncommitted as to any Dem party candidacies, scrupulously so, with that pre-primary neutrality deserving express notice. Such caution takes discipline.
___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Few Anglo items have focused on the Hispanic Mainstream outlets. Check here and here. With Saban on the board and a former NBC corporate official running the operation, will Ilhan Omar get fair coverage among Hispanic voters? Henry Cisneros on the Univision governing policy-setting board, was a former Clinton cabinet member, which tells you something too. As much a progressive as Pelosi in all likelihood. Not knowing of Spanlish language alternate media, and lacking any proficiency in the language, I and others may be grateful that most Hispanic-Americans are bilingual. That proficiency in English enables Hispanic-Americans to read and judge English language alternate websites. That is a blessing, given the inescapable corporate thumb on the main outlets'scales. And bless having AOC raising Hispanic awareness of progressive options to what, in effect, is the same old corporate same old. AOC, that way, is very important.
FURTHER: The third Dem debate will again be a corporate media event:
At midnight on August 28, 10 candidates qualified for the third 2020 Democratic primary debate. [...]
[...] Hosted by ABC, with Univision as a partner, the third debate will take place in Houston, Texas, on September 12.
[...] The qualifying Democratic presidential candidates are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Klobuchar, Julián Castro, and Andrew Yang.
[...] The debate will be moderated by George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, Linsey Davis, and Jorge Ramos. According to ABC News, “the presidential hopefuls will have one minute and 15 seconds for direct response to questions from the moderators and 45 seconds to respond to follow-up questions and rebuttals.” YahooNews
Is Drazkowski Emmer's RNCC NRCC man to contest the Craig seat?
Moral outrage cannot be a sometimes thing. Who, over the years has heard a peep out of Draz about six figure hush money, bimbo money, paid by his own party's top dog while he now touts a petition fueling hate against an Islamic female member of Congress? A "grab 'em by the pussy" taped comment was public, with Draz publicly uninterested, not outraged enough to say a single thing in judgment to the press? Not worth a petition on the web? Come on. Get real.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
A question of jurisdiction, express or implied.
Does the Auditor have express or implied authority to audit charter schools? The Department of Education is a standards setting body, not primarily doing auditing (if doing any at all). Yet somebody has to police the charters' handling of money. The school boards face an electorate while managing district affairs, but who now polices charter schools? With an apparent answer of nobody, charters falling through the cracks, a proactive Auditor surely could do the State a major service by picking up the slack.
Drazkowski deserves a dunk in a cucking stool. [UPDATED]
There was a blog a time ago, "the Cucking Stool," [source of the image].
This Cucking Stool link notes use of same, for "Common scolds."
Given what Drazkowski has been up to recently, wtf is Drazkowski, if not a common scold? Indeed, to get more common than Drazkowski you'd need to look to the current Oval Office Occupant.
Draz could use the advice of a "decent lawyer," in the sense:
I once worked at the firm where Elihu Root spent his last days of practice, and there his legend was passed down from one generation to the next. And part of it consisted of Root’s admonition to a young lawyer. Your first job is to uphold the law, he said. “About half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Elihu Root was a proud Republican, of course, an iconic figure of the last glory days of the party.
[italics added] Opinions can differ, which makes America
______________UPDARTE_______________
As to "damned fool and should stop," is Drazkowski wrongly commingling funds? Somebody with knowledge of Campaign Finance Board standards and practice might ask, or initiate an inquiry there via filing a formal complaint, whereas I currently lack such skills.
However, here is the evidence, primarily by screen capture images, click each to enlarge to read - for any who care:
First a few links, Draz using Alpha News to promote his "petition" alleging criminal perjury against the member of Congress.
Drazkowski also called upon Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman or Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to bring perjury charges against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for each of the false statements she made in her sworn statement.
“If judges do not punish blatant perjury in a case where another person is left helpless before the law, then public confidence in the Hennepin County Judges and the courts is neither justified nor enduring,” Drazkowski asserted.
The penalty for each perjury county is up to five years in Minnesota.
Rep. Steve Drazkowski has been waging a battle in Minnesota against Ilhan Omar’s corruption in attempts to hold her accountable with efforts such as growing the citizen petition www.OmarTruth.com
Strib noting the backbencher gaining national TV attention.
In Drazkowski’s telling, he’s just a guy from the sticks, raised on a farm. “If we did well,” he said, “we got supper.”
But the end of his story — an appearance on the nation’s most watched cable news network to criticize U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar — reflects his growing national profile as a leading opponent of the liberal Minnesota congresswoman, a member of the “squad,” all women of color, who have been in a summerlong public feud with President Donald Trump.
The website which Alpha News promoted in its item alleges attaining "58,004 SIGNATURES" of a target 75,000 at the time last accessed by Crabgrass, and ends with a lengthy set of tweets about others propagating recognition of the site.
THINGS GET DICEY where that website includes a DONATE page where, barely legible as if intended that way, the page has a footer, "Prepared and paid for by the Drazkowski Volunteer Committee, 1646 Cherry St. E, Mazeppa, MN 55956" -- this image:
NEXT - Promoting his reelection to the Minnesota Legislature, Candidate Drazkowski has published a promotional website with identical footer language - this image, partially highlighted:
Big as life and twice as telling, that page, near the footer, boldly solicits,
Contribute to Steve’s Campaign
The spending limit for Minnesota House races is $60,000. Winning this race will require that we raise the funds necessary to get our message out. Success in raising those funds depends on the help of good people like you!
(There is only one way to read that, Candidate Drazkowski is cognizant of contribution limits, in ways he does not mention on the anti-Omar site, where each reference his campaign committee as registered with the CFB as the presumable money sink for money contributed one way, or the other.)
NEXT: Two Campaign Finance Board pages show Drazkowski appears to have only one registered committee identified as Number: 16623 (registered 7/2/2007, and still an active registration):
[If there is a second, separately numbered registration, it was not found under reasonable search duration. Likewise, linking from one of those pages gives committee details, where readers can note the address for the reelection campaign tracks the two earlier referenced footers, perhaps Draz's home, with him noted as the candidate, and hence responsible for the candidacy, even if claiming error by subordinates.]
Again, I do not know the answer to the question of wrongful commingling of funds. But I have posed the question. Moreover, if not an actionable breach of campaign law, what about the ethics of raising money into a legislative campaign coffer, via a possible public slander (if any statements are untrue and defamatory) of a member of Congress and possible slander of a consultancy serving that member?
That being by a backbencher in the State Legislature using his ways and means to gain nationwide TV notoriety?
Weighing that conduct raises a moral judgment, a questioning of individual ethics, which each reader can make for his/her self. '
BOTTOM LINE: Going national with such a ways and means of generating cashflow into a campaign treasure chest seems to be at or near the edge.
Way to go, Draz.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
If launching a nationwide, indeed international effort to generate cash flow and notoriety on a widespread basis, would an FEC issue-based filing be required; and in that direction is an IRS filing of some kind required to not be taxed on funds that petition trash generates? Cashing in on Islamophobia or Omarophobia in any event seems tacky, taxed or not. Opinions can differ, but the facts are what need attention.
____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Is it that Draz wants Angie Craig's Congressional paycheck and benefits package? If running in CD3 he'd have to explain tariff issues to the farmers there. There were a few For Sale signs showing up on cropland on both sides of the main road separating City of Ramsey from City of Nowthen, so from that it seems the Draz had best have a crackerjack tariffs explanation written out for him by consultants. Sorensen has a post suggesting the man himself runs on a low wattage lightbulb.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Litigator Larry Klayman [google him] at it again. Or is "at it still" a better characterization?
He has been called a gadfly. Called a moron? Formally, in a judicial opinion?
Well, not so apparently, but first today's news.
Strib.
Moron? He sued City Pages and a talented artist/blogger. Claiming he was defamed, seeking millions in damages, and of all things, he lost.
He appealed.
Lost there also, the appellate opinion stating in part:
Larry or anyone else believing the quote is unfair should consider the balance of that appellate opinion. As to "gadfly," the term may be overly gentle. That lawsuit, claiming defamatory reporting by Rachel Maddow, he lost. A summary judgment dismissal. As with Klayman v. City Pages. Readers may guess at how the lawsuit against Tlaib reported by Strib may end. Any reader feeling Klayman may win - are you taking bets, and what odds are you giving?
_______________UPDATE______________
The plaintiff in Larry's latest: https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/news/
Well, not so apparently, but first today's news.
Strib.
Moron? He sued City Pages and a talented artist/blogger. Claiming he was defamed, seeking millions in damages, and of all things, he lost.
He appealed.
Lost there also, the appellate opinion stating in part:
For bias to be sufficient to disqualify a judge, it generally must arise from extrajudicial sources. See In re Walker, 532 F.3d 1304, 1310–11 (11th Cir. 2008). If instead, the alleged bias arises from the judge's remarks or opinions during the course of judicial proceedings (and not from extrajudicial sources), the party moving for disqualification must clear a much higher hurdle. The opinions formed by a judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring during judicial proceedings are not a basis for a bias or partiality challenge unless they “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). “Mere friction between the court and counsel ․ is not enough to demonstrate pervasive bias.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Mr. Klayman argues that the district court's quoting of Alice in Wonderland, admonitions for his behavior, and the threat of sanctions revealed the court's bias. Because Mr. Klayman has produced no evidence that the district court formed any opinions from extrajudicial sources, he must demonstrate that the district court's remarks display such bias that a fair judgment is impossible.
Many sections of the district court's order begin with quotes from or allusions to Alice in Wonderland. For example, the court used the following quotation as a subheading in the section discussing actual malice: “I've been considering words that start with the letter M. Moron. Mutiny. Murder. Mmm—malice.” D.E. 124 at 22. Mr. Klayman alleges that the quote implied that he was the moron and thus demonstrated bias. But the use of a literary device to enliven a summary judgment order does not evidence the kind of “deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
With respect to the district court's admonitions, Mr. Klayman primarily takes exception to the district court's following comments:
[T]he Court learned early on in this case that this approach to litigation is the norm and not the exception for Plaintiff.
While the Court would not ordinarily conclude with an admonition ․ when Plaintiff receives unfavorable rulings, he often plunges into a tirade against whomever he feels has wronged him ․ This is all to say that the Court will review any motion for reconsideration of this Order with a very sharp lens. Should Plaintiff file a motion to reconsider, the Court forewarns Plaintiff that any such motion must at least arguably meet the stringent standard for reconsideration of an Order, at the risk of facing sanctions from the Court.
Larry or anyone else believing the quote is unfair should consider the balance of that appellate opinion. As to "gadfly," the term may be overly gentle. That lawsuit, claiming defamatory reporting by Rachel Maddow, he lost. A summary judgment dismissal. As with Klayman v. City Pages. Readers may guess at how the lawsuit against Tlaib reported by Strib may end. Any reader feeling Klayman may win - are you taking bets, and what odds are you giving?
_______________UPDATE______________
The plaintiff in Larry's latest: https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/news/
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Regarding Minnesota - Elizabeth Warren shows judgment and a conscience. Where's Joe?
MinnPost: "Elizabeth Warren comes out against Line 3 and Twin Metals, and Minnesota construction unions are not happy"
However, much more is at stake this election cycle than Iron Ranger whining. There are some up there who deserve Stauber, and vice versa. Bigger things are at stake than regional labor shortsightedness.
Similarly, if Lockheed-Martin wants a war with Iran that does not mean they should get it.
The Chilean firm behind Twin Metals is no more deserving a right to havoc with Minnesota's environment than the Swiss firm behind PolyMet. Greed is Good for the fictional Gordon Gecko, but this is the real world.
However, much more is at stake this election cycle than Iron Ranger whining. There are some up there who deserve Stauber, and vice versa. Bigger things are at stake than regional labor shortsightedness.
Similarly, if Lockheed-Martin wants a war with Iran that does not mean they should get it.
The Chilean firm behind Twin Metals is no more deserving a right to havoc with Minnesota's environment than the Swiss firm behind PolyMet. Greed is Good for the fictional Gordon Gecko, but this is the real world.
Saturday, August 24, 2019
Friday, August 23, 2019
Seeing it first on Breitbart, extremely bad news for the fate of the nation.
Justice Ginsberg receives radiation treatment for pancreatic cancer.
Two teleprompters and he still makes gaffes. Gaffes which mainstream media outlets curiously ignore, to where you need to see it on Brietbart.
 |
| image source |
Breitbart; and this websearch. Notice the deaf ear of the mainstream corporate outlets. Nowhere on the return list, for such a stumble, mumble, fumble misrecollection of the past during his years in the Senate. (He probably does not remember Anita Hill's name either.)
Low-energy Joe gets that free pass on gaffes while all the other Dem candidates remain lucid and well-spoken. Even passionate while being clearly articulate; e.g., Warren, Bernie, Booker, Beto, Mayor Pete.
Two teleprompters and a candidate having trouble reading. We've seen how a deficient White House occupant can be a royal mess-up; indeed, we see it almost daily. The levers of war and peace need precise hands, hearts and minds. Teleprompters have yet to make difficult decisions affecting the well-being of our nation. If he cannot read them, why does his staff not simplify by honing the message and using bigger print?
___________FURTHER____________
The perception here is that the Dems saying this race is not about issues but about Trump, first stink on the issues people care about, and second, are the closest to Trump when saying it. The Sanders and Warren and Booker and Gabbard candidates offer more than a stale mistake prone has-been. The Biden candidacy will sink like a stone. It is the one above all the others that would most alienate progressives and keep them from turning out, when turnout is the name of the winning game. Turnout must be high against the Republicans are always good at their GOTV firing up of their rabid base. Trump voters from last time will vote Trump again, and anybody saying Biden can turn that around at the fringes is blowing smoke for the moneyed interests, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
Biden is the one candidate who cannot defeat Trump. May we never have to see that proven. The low-energy Biden stumble, fumble folksy BS would crash and burn in a general election. The DNC seems to have learned little from the Clinton fiasco, DWS thumb on the scales, etc., fully discredited circa November 2016. DWS is the past, not the present. Clean house and win. Go mediocre, see a second Trump term.
And may all who care either way take the time to be informed voters. Name recognition alone is not going to get over the hump. Running as "not Trump" is a start, not a winning end game, absent substance. All the Comcast money and MSNBC air time in the world cannot defy reality. Remember, Comcast and the entire lobbyist crowd gets along fine with Trump. And Ajit Pai. So they push Biden to win either way. The 99% need something better than Biden. Indeed, "Better Than Biden," could be a litmus test of the present overcrowded wannabe field. For example, Steve Bullock has a slim chance, but under the "Better Than Biden" criterion, he qualifies by a good measure.
_____________FURTHER______________
This MSNBC segment, and the sidebar stuff from that channel in the YouTube window show the marketing of sclock. Clearly defeating Trump is a Dem objective. But get real. Trump-lite is not anyone's true upgrade. Be discerning, the Biden propaganda mill is in full swing. Don't be fooled. Want more, to get more.
Billionaire, conservative donor David Koch dies at age 79
PBS reports. Not anything you'd wish against anyone, while the Republicans still have Charles and a host of other climate change deniers - fossil fuel profiteers.
"State Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Carnahan called Lewis 'the best chance we’ve had in decades' to win statewide."
Ouch!
A talk show clown, how can I not envision Mike Pence?
Lewis will have to get himself a Pence haircut. That or grow out some Trump hair.
That headline quote from Minnesota's Republican party chief is a damning statement against her party's statewide candidates during her tenure. Indeed, she said "decades!"
None better than Jason Lewis? Not a one? No wonder they're losers. The one and done talk show host was outworked on campaigning by Angie Craig, and Tina has incumbency. Lewis will be taking Trump's trade war message to the farmers, and will expect a victory.
Well, he'll likely hate monger against Hispanics, that part of Trump Gestalt. How much will hate sell, with the silo full of unsold grain or soybeans? Or what, hate on Omar and hope? That is a sicko approach. Yet, Strib [source of the headline quote] reported:
So hate against Islam and defense of the tariff stressed rural economy. And Carnahan said it, the best they've got.
____________UPDATE____________
Not just guessing, but fact. With charts to explain trending:
"Futures Plunge After China Announces Retaliatory Tariffs On Another $75BN In US Goods"
by Tyler Durden -- Fri, 08/23/2019 - 08:12
Surely by election day Trump may abandon his trade war in defeat, calling it a "victory" much as the Vietnam war was ended. In a route, but helicopters not having to be pushed into the sea, this time.
Would the Trump base see through such a thing? That would involve guessing. It's Trump, so it is uncertain. Don't bother with rational expectations. Trump is driven by the moment, so each moment holds its degree of uncertainty.
________FURTHER UPDATE_______
WSJ reports on an outcome of voodoo economics:
The fat-cat tax cut the Republicans crammed through, plus normal levels of spending equates to disaster for the 99%, cream skimmed off the top by the 1%; and you can thank Republican voters for doing it to the rest of us. Doing as they were told, instead of thinking about the future.
Jason Lewis will be trying to sell all that to Minnesota. May he fail and perish in flames in the general election - still over a year away.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The Economist, reflecting indirectly upon the Lewis strategy of happy days are here again. Here, also.
A talk show clown, how can I not envision Mike Pence?
Lewis will have to get himself a Pence haircut. That or grow out some Trump hair.
That headline quote from Minnesota's Republican party chief is a damning statement against her party's statewide candidates during her tenure. Indeed, she said "decades!"
None better than Jason Lewis? Not a one? No wonder they're losers. The one and done talk show host was outworked on campaigning by Angie Craig, and Tina has incumbency. Lewis will be taking Trump's trade war message to the farmers, and will expect a victory.
Well, he'll likely hate monger against Hispanics, that part of Trump Gestalt. How much will hate sell, with the silo full of unsold grain or soybeans? Or what, hate on Omar and hope? That is a sicko approach. Yet, Strib [source of the headline quote] reported:
He called the Senate “the last firewall for freedom” in the face of liberals like U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and the other three members of the progressive “Squad” of congressional Democrats.
Pressed by journalists about his support for Trump, Lewis suggested that Smith should be asked, “Here’s what the Squad said today. What do you think about that?”
Lewis said he won’t distance himself from Trump’s positions on the economy, immigrants and other issues. “I have a hard time disagreeing with much of it,” he said.
So hate against Islam and defense of the tariff stressed rural economy. And Carnahan said it, the best they've got.
____________UPDATE____________
Not just guessing, but fact. With charts to explain trending:
"Futures Plunge After China Announces Retaliatory Tariffs On Another $75BN In US Goods"
by Tyler Durden -- Fri, 08/23/2019 - 08:12
Surely by election day Trump may abandon his trade war in defeat, calling it a "victory" much as the Vietnam war was ended. In a route, but helicopters not having to be pushed into the sea, this time.
Would the Trump base see through such a thing? That would involve guessing. It's Trump, so it is uncertain. Don't bother with rational expectations. Trump is driven by the moment, so each moment holds its degree of uncertainty.
________FURTHER UPDATE_______
WSJ reports on an outcome of voodoo economics:
Federal Deficits to Grow More Than Expected Over Next Decade, CBO Says -- CBO boosts 10-year forecasts for budget deficits by $809 billion, citing two-year budget deal
By Kate Davidson -- Updated Aug. 21, 2019 11:46 am ET
[...] In total, deficits are now expected to rise $809 billion more than the agency projected just a few months ago, bringing total deficits over the next decade to $12.2 trillion.
Annual deficits as a share of economic growth are expected to average 4.7% over that period, higher than the 4.4% the CBO estimated in May and well above the 2.9% average over the past 50 years.
Overall, the CBO said government debt as a share of the economy is expected to rise from 79% this year to 95% in 2029—up from 92% when the agency released its 10-year forecasts in May and the highest level since just after World War II, when debt exceeded the size of the economy.
[...]
The fat-cat tax cut the Republicans crammed through, plus normal levels of spending equates to disaster for the 99%, cream skimmed off the top by the 1%; and you can thank Republican voters for doing it to the rest of us. Doing as they were told, instead of thinking about the future.
Jason Lewis will be trying to sell all that to Minnesota. May he fail and perish in flames in the general election - still over a year away.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
The Economist, reflecting indirectly upon the Lewis strategy of happy days are here again. Here, also.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
"Is The Media Building Up Warren In The Hopes Of Destroying Bernie?" The question was posed two months, ten days ago at the Down With Tyranny website.
Rather than suggesting an answer, keep watching and collect evidence, which could cut either way.
Is mainstream media ignoring and bad-mothing both, but venting more bile against Bernie? That is not a snapshot question but a pattern divination exercise running from now to the 2020 general election date. Cut the examination for now, from now to the primaries.
Warren is a formidable candidate, and if she ends up the first woman president, it would be better than that recognition going to any other female politician I know of.
LINK.
Also, we have not had a female vice president, unless you count Mike Pence.
Is mainstream media ignoring and bad-mothing both, but venting more bile against Bernie? That is not a snapshot question but a pattern divination exercise running from now to the 2020 general election date. Cut the examination for now, from now to the primaries.
Warren is a formidable candidate, and if she ends up the first woman president, it would be better than that recognition going to any other female politician I know of.
LINK.
Also, we have not had a female vice president, unless you count Mike Pence.
Tired TV hucksterism. A/k/a Joe Biden's opening TV commercial. Can you say "unimaginative?" Yes, if you can say "Joe Biden."
Biden now has launched a minute long nothingburger TV ad. A nothingburger candidate produces as expected. No mention of all those fat-cat fundraisers. Puffery instead. Swinging off Obama's popularity. Touting Romneycare as if it's the best the nation can do for its citizens.
It does not say "Nothing will fundamentally change." That is for the moneyed fundraiser crowd, to reassure them.
The Biden thing says Trump has to be ousted, something the Bernie and Warren supporters understand too, only they've better thinking beyond that simple truth.
Tired TV hucksterism will not oust Trump. The truth is that Bernie will induce a massive turnout of the young and those believing the current system, though entrenched, can be bested. Biden? He is the entrenched system personified. And his turnout would reflect that.
A ho-hum turnout will not cut it. Trump's base is rabidly being aimed to turn out in droves, and the Democratic Party needs to energize a bigger turnout to win the Presidency, while also preforming well down-ticket.
As Trump characterized "low energy Jeb," who faded, "low energy Joe" has support of the Beast, bankers and lobbyists, but so does Trump.
Bernie mirrors the will of the people, being mainstream in that his policy positions are what polling shows the great majority of the people want from government. They want progress, not more of the same.
______________UPDATE_____________
Another video. What you see is what you get from someone who has spent thirty unimpressive years in DC, thirty years in the Senate; who is somebody telling you what cannot be done, (besides money-sucking trillion dollar regime change war on the other side of the globe). Somebody patronizingly throwing cold water on Green New Deal hopes, on idealism, with false "pragmatism." With ho-hum rhetoric. With blaming the Republicans for what is bipartisan sloth. This is done to the young, by one of Joe Biden's strongest allies, who is not even a tepid Kamala Harris Dem. It is an attitude thing which rings as the antithesis of responsiveness to needs and wants of the nation. It is entrenched beltway thinking, so no surprise we see a Biden endorsee, a multimillionaire for multimillionaires talking down to the next generation which will have to suffer the consequences of output from cramped, unimaginative minds beholden to the 1% and indeed, a part of the 1% and thinking of what benefits the 1%. Hello Diane. Hello Joe. Identical but for being of opposite genders. Same old, same old.
It does not say "Nothing will fundamentally change." That is for the moneyed fundraiser crowd, to reassure them.
The Biden thing says Trump has to be ousted, something the Bernie and Warren supporters understand too, only they've better thinking beyond that simple truth.
Tired TV hucksterism will not oust Trump. The truth is that Bernie will induce a massive turnout of the young and those believing the current system, though entrenched, can be bested. Biden? He is the entrenched system personified. And his turnout would reflect that.
A ho-hum turnout will not cut it. Trump's base is rabidly being aimed to turn out in droves, and the Democratic Party needs to energize a bigger turnout to win the Presidency, while also preforming well down-ticket.
As Trump characterized "low energy Jeb," who faded, "low energy Joe" has support of the Beast, bankers and lobbyists, but so does Trump.
Bernie mirrors the will of the people, being mainstream in that his policy positions are what polling shows the great majority of the people want from government. They want progress, not more of the same.
______________UPDATE_____________
Another video. What you see is what you get from someone who has spent thirty unimpressive years in DC, thirty years in the Senate; who is somebody telling you what cannot be done, (besides money-sucking trillion dollar regime change war on the other side of the globe). Somebody patronizingly throwing cold water on Green New Deal hopes, on idealism, with false "pragmatism." With ho-hum rhetoric. With blaming the Republicans for what is bipartisan sloth. This is done to the young, by one of Joe Biden's strongest allies, who is not even a tepid Kamala Harris Dem. It is an attitude thing which rings as the antithesis of responsiveness to needs and wants of the nation. It is entrenched beltway thinking, so no surprise we see a Biden endorsee, a multimillionaire for multimillionaires talking down to the next generation which will have to suffer the consequences of output from cramped, unimaginative minds beholden to the 1% and indeed, a part of the 1% and thinking of what benefits the 1%. Hello Diane. Hello Joe. Identical but for being of opposite genders. Same old, same old.
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Joe, now on his campaign website, has plans. We should wonder, what gave him the idea that having plans might be a good point of emphasis.
Link: https://joebiden.com/joes-vision/
Among the words and phrases absent on the page: poor, poverty, student debt, and paycheck-to-paycheck. Readers can check plan subpages, for word usage.
On that page, "middle class" appears 13 times. Change/changes once.
Particularly noteworthy, "Nothing will fundamentally change," is a missing phrase. It's reserved for fundraiser use, apparently.
If you see Biden and/or how he presents himself as more than a massive YAWN, then ask yourself what about Joe Biden inspires you the most. What is it about Joe Biden that makes you enthusiastic? When you put great trust in Biden, what most inspires that feeling?
Is it the slogan, "America is an idea?"
On that webpage: Where does the term "grass roots," or "grassroots" appear?
Last, does anyone know crowd sizes Biden is attracting? At fundraisers or other Biden events? People taking their time to go and see what Joe Biden is all about?
FURTHER; The Biden campaign website has an "EVENTS" heading. Is a phonebank an event under the generally accepted meaning of the word, "EVENT?"
Doesn't "EVENT" mean things such as Warren's appearance at Macalester College in Minnesota? Where Warren drew a Bernie-sized crowd estimated at 12,000 people, there to listen, approve, and to greet?
Maybe an EVENT is an idea?
Among the words and phrases absent on the page: poor, poverty, student debt, and paycheck-to-paycheck. Readers can check plan subpages, for word usage.
On that page, "middle class" appears 13 times. Change/changes once.
Particularly noteworthy, "Nothing will fundamentally change," is a missing phrase. It's reserved for fundraiser use, apparently.
If you see Biden and/or how he presents himself as more than a massive YAWN, then ask yourself what about Joe Biden inspires you the most. What is it about Joe Biden that makes you enthusiastic? When you put great trust in Biden, what most inspires that feeling?
Is it the slogan, "America is an idea?"
On that webpage: Where does the term "grass roots," or "grassroots" appear?
Last, does anyone know crowd sizes Biden is attracting? At fundraisers or other Biden events? People taking their time to go and see what Joe Biden is all about?
FURTHER; The Biden campaign website has an "EVENTS" heading. Is a phonebank an event under the generally accepted meaning of the word, "EVENT?"
Doesn't "EVENT" mean things such as Warren's appearance at Macalester College in Minnesota? Where Warren drew a Bernie-sized crowd estimated at 12,000 people, there to listen, approve, and to greet?
Maybe an EVENT is an idea?
Monday, August 19, 2019
Time to callout: "The New Democrat Coalition" is the old same old. And shame on them.
It is characterized by Joe Biden and John Delaney; the idea-free and progress-free trodden path of spin but don't change.
There is a Wikipedia page, where you can wordsearch =Biden or =Delaney or =Clinton; or try =Wasserman, as in DWS who was forced out of the DNC leadership position over bias and unfairness.
Those people.
There is nothing "New" about that. And at the last debate, Sen. Warren clarified that point beyond doubt when she flamed Rep. Delanety's BS screed-mongering with one clear question: "Why Run For President If You Don’t Want to Fight?"
Yes. The party of the "arguably too big tent," where a so-called front-runner tells fat cats he's running against the worse person ever to occupy the oval office, with the compelling pledge, "Nothing will fundamentally change."
So, with that as a platform, Warren's question is answered. Those New Democrats will not fight after all, if nothing is to fundamentally change. Ego-tripping is left as motivation for running tepid, as the candidate from Comcast, another big tent enclosing the entirety of MSNBC's shills, who are doing it to you for the paychecks.
And, oh, that does supplement ego-tripping. Try a websearch ="Hunter Biden." Now, not liking what that websearch discloses, it makes it three strikes and out: ego, paycheck, and slush.
Or am I too hard on the New Dems? Possibly, after all I supported Angie Craig and Dean Phillips, who allow Wikipedia to call them New Dems, and my sole defense there is Jason Lewis and the other, worse stiff, Paulsen; whom Craig and Phillips respectively erased from the halls of Congress. Compromise, yes. But when you're talking Lewis and Paulsen, . . .
Finally, having to close upbeat and on a positive belief that progressive change is possible, via voting of those having hearts and minds.
There is a Wikipedia page, where you can wordsearch =Biden or =Delaney or =Clinton; or try =Wasserman, as in DWS who was forced out of the DNC leadership position over bias and unfairness.
Those people.
There is nothing "New" about that. And at the last debate, Sen. Warren clarified that point beyond doubt when she flamed Rep. Delanety's BS screed-mongering with one clear question: "Why Run For President If You Don’t Want to Fight?"
Midway through Tuesday’s interminable Democratic debate, Senator Elizabeth Warren asked a simple question. Turning to John Delaney, a proudly centrist former congressman who is currently polling at 0 percent, Warren asked why he was on stage. “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” she said. “I don’t get it.”
Delaney, who accused progressives of introducing big proposals that were “dead on arrivYesal,” provoked Warren’s remark. But he was hardly the only candidate to cry common sense! as an objection to the left-wing policies favored by Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. [...] As the hours ticked by on Tuesday night, the centrist version of progress sounded more and more like an unjustifiable attempt to rebrand the status quo instead of changing it.
Yes. The party of the "arguably too big tent," where a so-called front-runner tells fat cats he's running against the worse person ever to occupy the oval office, with the compelling pledge, "Nothing will fundamentally change."
So, with that as a platform, Warren's question is answered. Those New Democrats will not fight after all, if nothing is to fundamentally change. Ego-tripping is left as motivation for running tepid, as the candidate from Comcast, another big tent enclosing the entirety of MSNBC's shills, who are doing it to you for the paychecks.
And, oh, that does supplement ego-tripping. Try a websearch ="Hunter Biden." Now, not liking what that websearch discloses, it makes it three strikes and out: ego, paycheck, and slush.
Or am I too hard on the New Dems? Possibly, after all I supported Angie Craig and Dean Phillips, who allow Wikipedia to call them New Dems, and my sole defense there is Jason Lewis and the other, worse stiff, Paulsen; whom Craig and Phillips respectively erased from the halls of Congress. Compromise, yes. But when you're talking Lewis and Paulsen, . . .
Finally, having to close upbeat and on a positive belief that progressive change is possible, via voting of those having hearts and minds.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Worth noting, news out of Denver from about a week ago - - -
The Intercept posted, "Denver’s City Council, Led by Democratic Socialist, Stuns For-Profit Prison Operators by Nuking Contracts - By: Ryan Grim - August 8 2019, 10:00 a.m."
The Intercept's item speaks for itself, so, no excerpt. What is striking is that the immense Sanders popularity as a "Democratic Socialist" with the best of ideas has opened up the term "socialism" as a good thing and not a mere Republican shiboleth-boogyman anachrnistically left over from the rubble of McCarthy-Coen red-scare days of the 1950's. It is a long-overdue change. And needed because private prisons are worth full scorn, and because Trump-Coen rhetoric needs as much a debunking and burial as Coen's earned.
 |
| image source: Frank Rich writing at NewYorkMag.com |
Letter-writing with a purpose and with a BANG!
Timmer at left.mn - speaking tightly on the issues (where any excerpting here would do injustice to Timmer and to readers).
Pelosi speaks to AP about the Trump-Netanyahu boycott of Tlaib and Omar intending to visit the Palestinians, in speaking indirectly, at best. AP reports, but without any posted interview transcript.
Earlier, this Crabgrass post.
Today, online at AP, this item. Reporting seems as if excerpted from some larger interview scope. Presenting an actual full transcript would be better than paraphrase. Readers should review that reporting, as to whether it is a sufficient defense of caucus integrity. Surely hurling rocks at the Don and Bibi twosome is appropriate, but did Pelosi hang Tlaib and Omar out to dry?
Leaving the post at the above would arguably be unfair to Pelosi. Trump is clearly trying to gin up "his base" via attack upon Muslim congresswomen of color; while Pelosi does correctly reposition the question of Trump-Bibi unreasonableness. Looking at the political ploy the Don-Bibi pair are ginning up and calling bullshit on it is, in essence, entirely appropriate. Perhaps it is Pelosi, this time, having the long-term larger perspective on the current state of affairs. Fairness requires mention of this in posting about Democratic Party caucus-wide best interests.
A transcript of the entire interview would aid understanding.
Today, online at AP, this item. Reporting seems as if excerpted from some larger interview scope. Presenting an actual full transcript would be better than paraphrase. Readers should review that reporting, as to whether it is a sufficient defense of caucus integrity. Surely hurling rocks at the Don and Bibi twosome is appropriate, but did Pelosi hang Tlaib and Omar out to dry?
Leaving the post at the above would arguably be unfair to Pelosi. Trump is clearly trying to gin up "his base" via attack upon Muslim congresswomen of color; while Pelosi does correctly reposition the question of Trump-Bibi unreasonableness. Looking at the political ploy the Don-Bibi pair are ginning up and calling bullshit on it is, in essence, entirely appropriate. Perhaps it is Pelosi, this time, having the long-term larger perspective on the current state of affairs. Fairness requires mention of this in posting about Democratic Party caucus-wide best interests.
A transcript of the entire interview would aid understanding.
Friday, August 16, 2019
Without knowledge of the website and without second sourcing, a link and a quote, and readers are tasked to pursue and verify, if interested.
The site is "Wall Street on Parade" and its about page suggests a small but experienced staff. The item of interest ends, "If all of this makes you want to gag at campaign finance law in the United States, do something about it. Vote for a candidate like Senator Bernie Sanders or Senator Elizabeth Warren who are not part of the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party." That suggests editorial bias, which exists here also, with the same sentiment. It is fair to disclose that caveat.
The item of interest is dated July 1, 2019, and is thus months from being current. However, as a snapshot in time it is relevant. In quoting, links are omitted, hence readers wanting more can link here. Excerpting:
If only about a lawfirm's focus on a single candidate, the value of the item might be limited. Yet the post continues:
Again, links in the item are omitted in excerpting. Claims the item makes can be verified or disproven in whole or in part by reader websearch. It was not done here, so the post is entirely to inform readers that the site and post exists with content beyond that reproduced here.
Repeated money to the DNC [Tom Perez version, Ellison no longer involved] and to multiple candidates low on my "desireables" list is a pattern not strongly ringing my bell. Biden was fence-straddling at the time, hence the firm might have since invested that direction also.
Bernie and Warren are more attractive to some people based on policy and on who they do not take money from, in running.
UPDATE: The site has more-current content of an interesting nature, so start at its homepage, if curious:
http://wallstreetonparade.com/
FURTHER UPDATE: If unfamiliar with the Paul, Weiss firm, it has a history page, and a Wikipedia entry, with the Wiki page noting early that the firm has a history of supporting political causes and candidacies. The firm's website allows exploration. It posts a spectrum of "Featured News" on its main web page.
The item of interest is dated July 1, 2019, and is thus months from being current. However, as a snapshot in time it is relevant. In quoting, links are omitted, hence readers wanting more can link here. Excerpting:
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps meticulous tabs on political campaign flows, as of this morning, the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison – which has represented Citigroup through more than two decades of serial fraud charges – is the number one campaign donor to the Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Kamala Harris. As the Center notes, the money isn’t coming from the law firm itself, but from its “PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals’ immediate families.”
The campaign ad for Harris reads like this: “Kamala Harris has spent her entire life defending our American values. From fighting to fix our broken criminal justice system to taking on the Wall Street banks for middle class homeowners, Kamala has always worked For The People.”
But here we are in the early days of the Democratic primary campaign, when the big money has not even yet entered the fray, and Harris has already collected $140,475 from the folks at Paul Weiss.
If only about a lawfirm's focus on a single candidate, the value of the item might be limited. Yet the post continues:
Paul Weiss has offices in New York, Wilmington, Washington D.C., London, Hong Kong, Beijing, Toronto, and Tokyo. Harris hails from California. Why are Paul Weiss lawyers so interested in financing her campaign?
As it turns out, they’re not all that interested. Numerous law partners at Paul Weiss are hedging their bets and contributing simultaneously to other Democratic Presidential candidates.
Donations from Paul Weiss also rank number one in the Presidential campaign of Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey; number three in the Presidential campaign of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York; number six in the Presidential campaign of Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana; and number 9 in the Presidential campaign of Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
The name Paul Weiss has become synonymous with getting serial miscreant mega banks on Wall Street off the hook or bargaining down the charges. [... Citigroup mentioned]
Citigroup’s stock ended up collapsing to 99 cents during the financial crisis and despite the mandate that the Federal Reserve cannot lend to insolvent banks, the Fed secretly funneled more than $2.5 trillion in revolving, below-market-rate loans to the bank from late 2007 through the middle of 2010, according to an audit by the Government Accountability Office. [...] Citigroup’s Citicorp unit became a felon bank in 2015, pleading guilty to one count lodged by the Department of Justice for its role in rigging the foreign exchange market. It got a deferred prosecution agreement and a three-year probation.
[...] But the really big heavy hitter at Paul Weiss is Mark Bergman, described on the firm’s website as “the head of the Global Capital Markets and Securities Practice Group” and working out of the London office. The website also notes that he speaks regularly on “subjects related to legislative and regulatory efforts to reform the financial system and address systemic risks.”
In March, Bergman donated $35,500 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Since January of 2015, he has written out the following checks to the DNC: $32,400 in January 2015; $33,400 in April 2016; $33,900 in March 2017; $33,900 in January 2018. In August 2016, he wrote out two checks totaling $50,000 to the Hillary [Clinton] Victory Fund, according to FEC records. So far this year, the only Presidential candidate Bergman has donated to is the Kamala Harris campaign, FEC records show.
What could Paul Weiss be expecting to get as a return on its investment in these Presidential campaigns? If it gets as lucky as rival law firm Jones Day did in the Trump administration, it might be able to send 12 of its partners to key posts in the next president’s administration right on inauguration day. [...]
Or, if it gets as lucky as Covington & Burling did under President Obama, it might get the two top spots in the Department of Justice.
Again, links in the item are omitted in excerpting. Claims the item makes can be verified or disproven in whole or in part by reader websearch. It was not done here, so the post is entirely to inform readers that the site and post exists with content beyond that reproduced here.
Repeated money to the DNC [Tom Perez version, Ellison no longer involved] and to multiple candidates low on my "desireables" list is a pattern not strongly ringing my bell. Biden was fence-straddling at the time, hence the firm might have since invested that direction also.
Bernie and Warren are more attractive to some people based on policy and on who they do not take money from, in running.
UPDATE: The site has more-current content of an interesting nature, so start at its homepage, if curious:
http://wallstreetonparade.com/
FURTHER UPDATE: If unfamiliar with the Paul, Weiss firm, it has a history page, and a Wikipedia entry, with the Wiki page noting early that the firm has a history of supporting political causes and candidacies. The firm's website allows exploration. It posts a spectrum of "Featured News" on its main web page.
Time is at hand to partially disable the Electorial College as a burden and an anachronism against true popular democracy. The National Popular Vote movement, online, cataloging national progress, with a sub-page on the effort in Minnesota.
Nationally. In Minnesota. When first seen the proposal to deal with the Constitutional electoral requirements in an indirect way seemed somehow wrong here. After the Trump election, the view here was more open, and the effort is now favored. The change of opinion is not because Trump's taking office with Clinton having a higher popular vote was viewed as against the nation's best interest; Clinton being equally bad a choice; but because the strategy of focus on "key states" with many electorial votes and not clearly biased for one party or the other means that a vote in a state not viewed, strategically, as "key" does not count as much in the final outcome as one in a "key" state. It is not one person, one equal vote for President, it is a Wyoming Republican person's vote or a Massachuttes Democratic person's vote being discounted in true importance when such states are not considered "key." One person - one vote gets distorted via electors and all, whereas in a nationwide count the debasement of some voters having an equal say in things, the power of a vote, means less as a practical matter in fact if not in theory. And that distortion effect is only at the presidential election level, not down ballot.
Short of Constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college set-up, the National Public Vote approach is the only alternative.
In Minnesota the House passed NPV, the Republican-led Senate punted. Once both houses and the executive are Democratic the hope here is that NPV will not then be forgotten or shelved. It is not a stunt. It is an honest attempt at reform.
Read about the concept, with links given above, if you do not already know what the proposal entails.
Short of Constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college set-up, the National Public Vote approach is the only alternative.
In Minnesota the House passed NPV, the Republican-led Senate punted. Once both houses and the executive are Democratic the hope here is that NPV will not then be forgotten or shelved. It is not a stunt. It is an honest attempt at reform.
Read about the concept, with links given above, if you do not already know what the proposal entails.
We could do better.
This image haunts me so much it gets a post:
Figuratively, each is wearing a Trump tie.
Disagree if you wish.
Figuratively, each is wearing a Trump tie.
Disagree if you wish.
City of Ramsey [in Anoka County where I live] is yet again wanting to tax its citizens more heavily, via a franchise fee.
Reflections in Ramsey took note. This franchise fee chicken-shit has been kicking around from time to time since Gamac times. A few years back it reached a Charter Commission debate. The do-nothing Charter Commission did nothing despite a proposed "Niska Amendment" to the Charter being proposed which would have curtailed the nonsense. Being on the Charter Commission then, and wanting it to do something was a frestration to the extent I got out of it as a waste of time since proaction was not in the cards.
Is the story that Ramsey already has reached some statutory limit on the general levy rate, taxing as much that way as they can, or what? Wanting to spend more than it should? If road maintenance is not made and kept a general fund responsibility, then the spending is irresponsible and should be curtailed.
If road upkeep is not being met from general funds, why not? All the hand-waving rhetoric can be marshaled to obscure that simple truth. BOTTOM LINE: A time when action could have happened was passed up, do-nothing prevailed, and now it looks as if a franchise fee will happen, no matter how the Reflector bleats about being shorn in a new way. Bless the Council and bless the Charter Commission.
Is the story that Ramsey already has reached some statutory limit on the general levy rate, taxing as much that way as they can, or what? Wanting to spend more than it should? If road maintenance is not made and kept a general fund responsibility, then the spending is irresponsible and should be curtailed.
If road upkeep is not being met from general funds, why not? All the hand-waving rhetoric can be marshaled to obscure that simple truth. BOTTOM LINE: A time when action could have happened was passed up, do-nothing prevailed, and now it looks as if a franchise fee will happen, no matter how the Reflector bleats about being shorn in a new way. Bless the Council and bless the Charter Commission.
Two U.S. Congresspersons, both Democrats, are barred from examining Israel. That is rouge behavior, and the pattern has been to impound the money of rogue states. It is Pelosi's caucus, so Pelosi should defend its members via an unequivocal stance. If she has the political will and courage, that is
Background for the headline's conclusions; e.g., here and here. And every year our nation gives Israel billions, instead. Policy needs rethinking. Tail wagging the dog is a phrase that comes to mind.
Will Pelosi defend her caucus members' right to examine a situation about which policies are pending? Or does Pelosi openly or indirectly support the Israeli position? Hoyer?
Trump's conduct on the issue has been shameful. Our leaders must have a sense of proper perspective, or they fail, as leaders.
And the latest news is the Israelis have more good common sense toward a partial compromise than our President.
However, half measures are offensive, and this is not of the scale of a trade war with China, but rather a lesser nation being disrespectful after its disrespect has been promoted by an ignorant and dangerous man in the White House.
Sad, indeed.
UPDATE: Tlaib appears to agree, insult cannot be tolerated. Or will not. The fact that Congressional members are shunned and insulted is offensive, per se.
Will Pelosi defend her caucus members' right to examine a situation about which policies are pending? Or does Pelosi openly or indirectly support the Israeli position? Hoyer?
Trump's conduct on the issue has been shameful. Our leaders must have a sense of proper perspective, or they fail, as leaders.
And the latest news is the Israelis have more good common sense toward a partial compromise than our President.
However, half measures are offensive, and this is not of the scale of a trade war with China, but rather a lesser nation being disrespectful after its disrespect has been promoted by an ignorant and dangerous man in the White House.
Sad, indeed.
UPDATE: Tlaib appears to agree, insult cannot be tolerated. Or will not. The fact that Congressional members are shunned and insulted is offensive, per se.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
"Through his spokesman, Mr. Wexner declined repeated interview requests and to answer questions as to why he did not contact the authorities about the claims that Mr. Epstein had misappropriated his money."
credit: Screen Captue and Headline Quote from N.Y,Times. Full sized image.
See also NYT, here and here.
The first of those items stating in part:
Within years of meeting Mr. Epstein, Mr. Wexner handed him sweeping powers over his finances, philanthropy and private life, according to interviews with people who knew the men as well as court documents and financial records.
Mr. Wexner authorized him to borrow money on his behalf, to sign his tax returns, to hire people and to make acquisitions. Over the years, Mr. Epstein obtained a New York mansion, a private plane and a luxury estate in Ohio — today valued at roughly $100 million all together — previously owned by Mr. Wexner or his companies. At the same time, he drove a wedge between Mr. Wexner and longtime associates and friends.
Virtually from the moment in the 1980s that Mr. Epstein arrived on the scene in Columbus, Ohio, where L Brands was based, Mr. Wexner’s friends and colleagues were mystified as to why a renowned businessman in the prime of his career would place such trust in an outsider with a thin résumé and scant financial experience.
The second item states:
For over 15 years, Jeffrey Epstein served as a close personal adviser to Leslie H. Wexner, the billionaire mogul behind Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works. Now, Mr. Wexner says Mr. Epstein “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him and his family.
Mr. Wexner, the chief executive of the retail giant L Brands, included the accusation in a 564-word letter he sent Wednesday to the Wexner Foundation, giving his most detailed account yet of how his life and affairs became intertwined with Mr. Epstein, who was arrested last month and charged with sex trafficking involving girls as young as 14.
In the letter, Mr. Wexner said the misappropriation was first discovered in 2007 as he separated from Mr. Epstein. In early 2006, Florida authorities charged Mr. Epstein with multiple counts of molestation and unlawful sexual activity with a minor. In 2008, he pleaded guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution from a minor and was required to register as a sex offender.
Yahoo.
Among characters fitting Matthew 25:31-46 a hope is that earthly effort might yield an eventual separation. In our lifetime.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Farmers suffer the Trump trade-war, with his Ag Secretary having Trumpian respect for their plight.
 |
| Way to go Sonny! Their stinking little acreage can go to BIG AG out of foreclosure, and they'll still reelect me. I'm TRUMP! |
To this White House bunch, Big Money Corporate Farms Rock. Little guys can suck eggs. And if they're unhappy, give 'em Joe!
I'm TRUMP!
I love the smell of Trade Wars in the morning. It smells like - Victory.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Scott Ritter writes: "Kamala Harris and the other Democratic candidates would do well to take note of the following reality—if the U.S. goes to war in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or elsewhere, Tulsi alone among her colleagues could be called upon to serve on the front line. 'The Congresswoman [Gabbard] is the most qualified and prepared candidate to serve as Commander in Chief, which I believe is the most important responsibility of the President,' Senator Mike Gravel, a Democrat who represented Alaska in the Senate from 1969 through 1981, noted in his letter endorsing Tulsi for president. Gravel, an Army veteran, is perhaps most famous for placing the Pentagon Papers in the public record in 1971. A popular progressive voice for peace, his endorsement should not be taken lightly. Kamala Harris should take note."
Italics added to the headline quote. The entire Ritter item is online here. Without any bone spurs bullshit, Gabbard volunteered, and she and Butting appear to be the only volunteer veterans running.
Gabbard, now on the House Armed Services Committee, had a duty to find truth, and a background to question possible lying by an administration to propose yet another in a string of very costly regime change wars.
Ritter quotes Harris:
That is chapter and verse of the propaganda being shoveled, and presages regime change war, should Harris become President in 2020. While not professing bone spurs for herself, Harris has only platitudes she's been told, to tell others.
Ritter gives links, including one to the Harris quote.
Tulsi wanted to learn. Harris wants to cat at it. Follow the Ritter link, and explain to yourself your personal take on "top tier candidate," and "cockroaches," and compare what Tulsi said during the debate and how Harris has entirely ducked the thrust and truth/falsehood of what Tulsi said. Attacking the messenger when the message stands unimpeachable is as old an evasive tactic as any. It does not reflect well on Harris and her approach to honest criticism. It's Harris' record. If she prefers diversion to defense of her record, how does that sit with you?
If you trust Harris, great. If not, great. Ditto re Tulsi. However, Harris has yet to address a position about the wisdom behind regime change war. Tulsi saw such a war, first hand and in person. What it cost. What it achieved. Tulsi has seen Syria, first hand and in person. Harris speaks platitudes from afar.
Trust here is in Bernie and Warren, and in Tulsi. That has been said here before. Of the two black candidates Booker seems the most promising, as a personal viewpoint. Opinions can differ. Whether Harris would use a "top tier" flippant remark against a criticism from Booker is unclear, as such criticism has not yet happened.
A Gabbard online Town Hall appearance, online per Youtube, here, and deserving more than thirty-three thousand views. The Gabbard campaign lacks the funding sources and depth Harris enjoys, all those fundraisers and such, so Gabbard's not going to be advertising as much. Thus, YouTube is essential to learn about who Gabbard is. Ditto, Harris. Because half-minute soundbite TV advertising stuff is garbage; take the time to learn before taking the time to vote.
_____________UPDATE____________
More from Gabbard interviewed by Anderson Cooper. In context, Trump has met several times with North Korea's leader. Negotiation does not need to involve name-calling. Rather it advances by looking for common grounds for coexistence, and readers should have opinions of whether negotiation or war is best for the nation, for the people, who, in fact, are not under attack by either Kim or Assad.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Transcript of Gabbard-Harris interchange during the debate at RealClearPolitics. Same outlet, current [early] polling, trust it as you choose.
FURTHER: Brietbart, trust it as you will. I do not. It is posted without any endorsement, of any kind, whatsoever. Other than that it has amusement value.
FURTHER: fivethirtyeight.com does its polling piece. Look at top gains and losses: Sanders and Warren are biggest gainers, Harris and Biden show biggest losses, other gainers exist. Is Sanders getting plowed under by MSM? What is there to really trust about early polling? Or early "trending?" Keep a level head. Feel the Bern.
And how about that picture fivethirtyeight posts of Harris? Is there bias afoot in image selection? Whatever you think of Harris, that image is unfavorable, while representing an editorial choice. Again, keep a level head.
Gabbard, now on the House Armed Services Committee, had a duty to find truth, and a background to question possible lying by an administration to propose yet another in a string of very costly regime change wars.
Ritter quotes Harris:
I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I’m prepared to move on.
That is chapter and verse of the propaganda being shoveled, and presages regime change war, should Harris become President in 2020. While not professing bone spurs for herself, Harris has only platitudes she's been told, to tell others.
Ritter gives links, including one to the Harris quote.
Tulsi wanted to learn. Harris wants to cat at it. Follow the Ritter link, and explain to yourself your personal take on "top tier candidate," and "cockroaches," and compare what Tulsi said during the debate and how Harris has entirely ducked the thrust and truth/falsehood of what Tulsi said. Attacking the messenger when the message stands unimpeachable is as old an evasive tactic as any. It does not reflect well on Harris and her approach to honest criticism. It's Harris' record. If she prefers diversion to defense of her record, how does that sit with you?
If you trust Harris, great. If not, great. Ditto re Tulsi. However, Harris has yet to address a position about the wisdom behind regime change war. Tulsi saw such a war, first hand and in person. What it cost. What it achieved. Tulsi has seen Syria, first hand and in person. Harris speaks platitudes from afar.
Trust here is in Bernie and Warren, and in Tulsi. That has been said here before. Of the two black candidates Booker seems the most promising, as a personal viewpoint. Opinions can differ. Whether Harris would use a "top tier" flippant remark against a criticism from Booker is unclear, as such criticism has not yet happened.
A Gabbard online Town Hall appearance, online per Youtube, here, and deserving more than thirty-three thousand views. The Gabbard campaign lacks the funding sources and depth Harris enjoys, all those fundraisers and such, so Gabbard's not going to be advertising as much. Thus, YouTube is essential to learn about who Gabbard is. Ditto, Harris. Because half-minute soundbite TV advertising stuff is garbage; take the time to learn before taking the time to vote.
_____________UPDATE____________
More from Gabbard interviewed by Anderson Cooper. In context, Trump has met several times with North Korea's leader. Negotiation does not need to involve name-calling. Rather it advances by looking for common grounds for coexistence, and readers should have opinions of whether negotiation or war is best for the nation, for the people, who, in fact, are not under attack by either Kim or Assad.
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Transcript of Gabbard-Harris interchange during the debate at RealClearPolitics. Same outlet, current [early] polling, trust it as you choose.
FURTHER: Brietbart, trust it as you will. I do not. It is posted without any endorsement, of any kind, whatsoever. Other than that it has amusement value.
FURTHER: fivethirtyeight.com does its polling piece. Look at top gains and losses: Sanders and Warren are biggest gainers, Harris and Biden show biggest losses, other gainers exist. Is Sanders getting plowed under by MSM? What is there to really trust about early polling? Or early "trending?" Keep a level head. Feel the Bern.
And how about that picture fivethirtyeight posts of Harris? Is there bias afoot in image selection? Whatever you think of Harris, that image is unfavorable, while representing an editorial choice. Again, keep a level head.
Epstein saga.
The Epstein theme song changed after the arrest. It had been "Thank Heavan for Little Girls," and now, dead, "With a Little Help From My Friends."
Monday, August 12, 2019
The objectification of women; guess who.
Link. Ignore the commentator's opining, but just figure, this is not the thing Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris got advanced degrees and launched careers, to be or become. This is not in any way conducive to gender equality. Nor is it very honorable.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
TIMMER WRITES: Glencore wants the money from the mining, with the chumps [us] to be jobbed, jobbed, jobbed into holding the risks and left yodeling to the Swiss firm's deaf ear, after the ore's gone and disaster may be all that remains.
It's like the old in and out; Minnesota "gets pregnant" and the gent, Glencore, wanders off wishing all well, but vanished from responsibility. Glencore to prosper more, elsewhere, glad to have known you.
Saying it that way is not saying it as well as Timmer wrote, here.
A sampling below, opening where Timmer quotes from a duluthnewstribune.com item before explaining in terms any/all Iron Rangers have to comprehend - we, the rest of us, will not shoulder Glencore's and the Range's risks. They cannot simply elect a Stauber to play along with an Emmer and other short perspective politicians against the best long term interests of the environment and the best interests of the general statewide citizenry of Minnesota.
[italics in original, embedded links omitted]
There's more, and readers here are made to link to Timmer's item to have links to follow, because it is only proper that reading Timmer's thinking is superior to reading the quote and moving on without the entire picture. Reading the full Timmer item and what he suggests via linking gives the meal, while excerpting gives a hint of the flavor. Again, Timmer, here.
Saying it that way is not saying it as well as Timmer wrote, here.
A sampling below, opening where Timmer quotes from a duluthnewstribune.com item before explaining in terms any/all Iron Rangers have to comprehend - we, the rest of us, will not shoulder Glencore's and the Range's risks. They cannot simply elect a Stauber to play along with an Emmer and other short perspective politicians against the best long term interests of the environment and the best interests of the general statewide citizenry of Minnesota.
Ultimately, the DNR can add Glencore to the permit under a longstanding operating principle, Walz said. Glencore was not a majority shareholder when the DNR granted PolyMet a permit to mine and other permits last year. [But anybody who couldn’t see that Glencore has been in practical control of PolyMet for a long time is either blind or a fool.]
Walz said Glencore was not particularly warm to the idea of adding its name to the permit because the company said it could affect financing option in the eyes of banks and lenders. PolyMet still needs to raise almost $1 billion in project financing to build its facilities.
[...]
[...] Loosely translated, that means, Our bankers aren’t interested in the project if we have to be responsible for all the mayhem we may cause.
We’ve all known for a long time that PolyMet has never had a toilet to call its own. PolyMet is still penniless; if the mine is built, it will be because of Glencore and not Karin Housley.
Frankly, a promise by PolyMet to fix any messes it makes is worthless. Perhaps it’ll promise to pay off the national debt while it is at it. Both promises are equally likely to be fulfilled.
Really, Glencore is saying, Look, if you don’t make the citizens and the environment of the state the tail-end Charlies, this thing is not going to get done.
To which I would respond, Hallelujah, somebody is finally being honest.
[italics in original, embedded links omitted]
There's more, and readers here are made to link to Timmer's item to have links to follow, because it is only proper that reading Timmer's thinking is superior to reading the quote and moving on without the entire picture. Reading the full Timmer item and what he suggests via linking gives the meal, while excerpting gives a hint of the flavor. Again, Timmer, here.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
The Godfather films were exceptional, with memorable scenes.
A favorite. Lawyer Tom meeting witness Pantangeli while Pantangeli was being held in federal custody.
Society's beloved child. Hobnobbed with the best. Still going.
Link. Today being Aug. 10, is this Aug. 9 story "yesterday's news?"
Wednesday, August 07, 2019
Wages have not kept up with inflation and the price index is not what it was.
Image from NPR, captioned as taken in "Des Plaines, Illinois, circa 1955."
Sleaze trifecta: Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Deutsche Bank. [UPDATED]
NOTE: The post was placed online before report that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in custody. See the updating.
Deutsche Bank sure looks like a high roller's best friend, through thick or thin, SAR reports tardy, oh my!
Focus on Epstein: Following Epstein's money will be tried. How successfully? How suppressed will news allowed out currently be, when compared with the secrecy of the Acosta disgrace out of Florida (when W was in the white house and do YOU think the plea deal was not approved upstream, W's AG at least, likely by W himself)?
We wait to see. ZeroHedge speculating on why Epstein flew back from Paris, Jesse on RT. Ehud Barak's less than open 2016 photographed visit to Epstein/New York property. Smoke/fire thinking makes the Epstein unwinding better than fiction. How it settles, who it touches, what might be suppressed by our government of the facts, are several questions now pending.
Julie K. Brown, whose investigative reporting tenacity likely broke the Epstein news to the public, write's Miama Herald's latest. It looks as if the defense wants to stall until after the next election, if feasible, while the prosecution wants it to trial or a tell-all plea bargain ASAP. Big surprise? How Ms. Maxwell's future will unfold is not being asked loudly enough by the press. The onion layer-by-layer cliche comes to mind.
Following the money is essential. Lolita Express and how many Bill Clinton trips is of collateral interest, but really, what in total Epstein was up to and whose money seeded things for him are more interesting in terms of our nation's having good or bad government in the past, re Epstein and what he was up to.
Drone footage of Epstein's Caribbean Island, here and here. Including the weird-shit temple. Why that?
Last, honey trap speculation; by Eric Margolis
Margolis posted, but did not link on the "Phil Giraldi" hearsay, and a quick websearch found one Giraldi online item matching the Margolis post's mention (dated July 23, 2019). That item, in a longish post, states in part
[links in original] The last link is Giraldi linking to another item he authored titled, "Edmund Burke Rides Again - But this time the horse is paid for by Israel."
[links in original] In that item, Geraldi links to another item he authored, where interested readers can have a look.
Readers are urged to read full items, beyond the above excerpting. Two authors with overlapping speculation and a common perspective on Israeli conduct are far from definitive that their Israeli honey trap guessing is correct.
But at least they are trying to make sense out of the Epstein-Maxwell underage sex situation.
The Israel Lobby does have a multiplicity of outlets and voices.
Any websearch "Israel Lobby" will yield links to diverse online content. So what of Epstein's abused young girls, that way? Will that rock actually get lifted to see all that crawls beneath it? Or will whitewash and diversionary events be interposed?
In Giraldi's post from which the quote is taken, this link, contains, bolded and set off conspicuously, this observation:
____________UPDATE______________
Old expresions abound, such as "a fly in the ointment." E.g.,
This websearch is troubling. Neither the 53p Florida draft paperwork nor the text of the Florida plea deal were located as posted on the web. Searching yields much commentary about the Florida fiasco, but underlying documents, if online at all, are online where? E.g., commentary of interest, without posting links to either the ghost 53p indictment, or settlement papers; including closing barn doors after the horse is gone investigations, state and federal; here, here, here and here. [FURTHER UPDATE: Wikipedia's Acosta post in footnotes links here, Scribd, for text of the deal Acosta cut in secret with a defense lawyer from his old private practice firm.]
This
How does the "who were the unidentified others question" fit the Israeli honey-trap conjecture, in your judgment?
Do you believe Dershowitz denials of being a co-participant in underage girl abuse?
AND - Do you think they taught Acosta to pull that kind of shit at Harvard Law School, or did he learn it while practicing law with the firm that he was negotiating with after his U.S. Attorney appointment? Or was a direct order handed down to the local lead attorney, Acosta, from superiors in DC, an order to let Epstein write his own deal through counsel? Would you expect any paper trail that way, or would there have been only oral communication from DC, if any?
______________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Saturday, 8/10/2019, link - We won't have Jeffrey Epstein to kick around any longer. Allegedly hanged himself. Ms. Maxwell has not been reported as anything besides alive and well, available for testimony.
What of those "unnamed co-conspirators" who "were given blanket immunity for unnamed crimes?" At a guess the entire question will be buried quicker than Epstein. As to what of them, I could only guess. Ask Alan Morton Dershowitz. He holds himself out as a legal expert of sorts. He'd likely opine that the deal puts them out of prosecutorial reach, and the matter should be put to rest on such terms. Trump, Clinton, each might agree.
Deutsche Bank, as an artificial person, a corporation, remains alive. On the ropes some suggest, but alive. Bless Deutsche Bank, and wish it a long life, in perpetuity being frequent corporate charter language, but events could cut a corporate life short, e.g., Enron.
____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
A major purpose of denying Epstein bail was possibility of escape.
Now, there is irony to that thought. "Escape" cannot be any greater in scope than croaking. So, did he escape or was he escaped: In custody, so that the reporting from custodial officials is all the evidence reported so far. Hanged, how? With what?
Suicide watch with a capability of a hanging? What kind of suicide watch is that?
Does the term mean that officials watched the suicide? What, then?
Again, Jesse on RT, per YouTube.
Do you trust the FBI to investigate?
FURTHER: N.Y. Mag's "Intelligencer."
This is like Bill Casey's death, or Osama's, where neither you nor I ever saw a body. "Trust me," from our governments' insiders is what we saw. Each of those two deaths was given us as the closing of a chapter.
FURTHER: A body, airplane crash, with the body identified by Israeli authorities as Amiram Nir. Death of an alleged mastermind or Oliver North accomplice in Iran-Contra activities. Another conveniently timed death, or what? And, it was not a reader or me who identified the body back during Reagan years.
FURTHER: Sometimes you're the Louisville Slugger. Sometimes the ball. No greased-skids plea deal this go-round. Will there be a quick quiet cremation, published as follow-up news; or will there be searching for pallbearers, too many unfortunately with other commitments?
Deutsche Bank sure looks like a high roller's best friend, through thick or thin, SAR reports tardy, oh my!
Focus on Epstein: Following Epstein's money will be tried. How successfully? How suppressed will news allowed out currently be, when compared with the secrecy of the Acosta disgrace out of Florida (when W was in the white house and do YOU think the plea deal was not approved upstream, W's AG at least, likely by W himself)?
We wait to see. ZeroHedge speculating on why Epstein flew back from Paris, Jesse on RT. Ehud Barak's less than open 2016 photographed visit to Epstein/New York property. Smoke/fire thinking makes the Epstein unwinding better than fiction. How it settles, who it touches, what might be suppressed by our government of the facts, are several questions now pending.
Julie K. Brown, whose investigative reporting tenacity likely broke the Epstein news to the public, write's Miama Herald's latest. It looks as if the defense wants to stall until after the next election, if feasible, while the prosecution wants it to trial or a tell-all plea bargain ASAP. Big surprise? How Ms. Maxwell's future will unfold is not being asked loudly enough by the press. The onion layer-by-layer cliche comes to mind.
Following the money is essential. Lolita Express and how many Bill Clinton trips is of collateral interest, but really, what in total Epstein was up to and whose money seeded things for him are more interesting in terms of our nation's having good or bad government in the past, re Epstein and what he was up to.
Drone footage of Epstein's Caribbean Island, here and here. Including the weird-shit temple. Why that?
Last, honey trap speculation; by Eric Margolis
Soon after I walked into the entrance of Epstein’s mansion on E 71st Street, said to be the city’s largest private home, a butler asked me, “would you like an intimate massage, sir, by a pretty young girl?” This offer seemed so out of place and weird to me that I swiftly declined.
More important than indelicacy, as an old observer of intelligence affairs, to me this offer reeked of ye old honey trap, a tactic to ensnare and blackmail people that was old when Babylon was young. A discreet room with massage table, lubricants and, no doubt, cameras stood ready off the main lobby.
I had arrived with Canada’s leading lady journalist who was then close to Epstein’s sometime girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell and, it was said, procuress – something Maxwell denies. Bizarrely, Maxwell believed that I could get KGB Moscow Center to release satellite photos that showed the murder on his yacht of her father, the press baron Robert Maxwell, who was a well-known double agent for Israel and KGB, and a major criminal.
Also present was the self-promoting lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, who had saved the accused murderer Claus von Bulow, as well as a titan of the New York real estate industry (not Trump) and assorted bigwigs of the city’s elite Jewish society. All sang the praises of Israel.
Epstein reportedly had ties to Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Britain’s Prince Andrew and repeatedly flew them about in his private jet, aka “the Lolita Express.” All guests deny any sexual activity. I turned down dinner with Prince Andrew.
Epstein’s residence in Manhattan and Palm Beach, both of which I visited, were stocked with young female “masseuses.” All were working class girls making big money in their spare time. I did not see any interactions between these girls and the guests.
[...] He claimed to be an exclusive money manager for a group of secretive millionaires. But the only one identified was billionaire Leslie Wexner, the owner of L Brands and Victoria’s Secret. Wexner denied any knowledge of Epstein’s alleged crimes.
Besides sexual frolics, Epstein and Maxwell were up to many odd things. The FBI found diamonds, cash and a fake passport when raiding his mansion and documents showing his net worth at $559,120,954.00. The IRS tax people will be eager to review the sources of this income.
It seems likely that political influence was brought to bear on then US attorney Alexander Acosta (he just resigned under fire last week) to make a sweetheart deal with Epstein, who had been charged by Florida with child molestation. Epstein got off with a token, 13-month jail sentence that allowed him to work from his office much of the day.
[...] There was talk of some sort of “intelligence” angle to the affaire Epstein that spared him a harsh sentence.
A respected former CIA official, Phil Giraldi has come right out and accused Epstein of being an Israeli agent of influence. Epstein was let off with a slap on the wrist on his first child abuse charge, says Giraldi, because of his powerful Israel connections.
To Giraldi and this writer, the Epstein “massage” operation was a classic intelligence operation designed to blackmail men of influence into doing Israel’s bidding. Clinton had reportedly already fallen into this trap years earlier while still president.
Margolis posted, but did not link on the "Phil Giraldi" hearsay, and a quick websearch found one Giraldi online item matching the Margolis post's mention (dated July 23, 2019). That item, in a longish post, states in part
Some journalists in the Jewish media are starting to complain that President Donald Trump is “loving Israel” just a little too much since he keeps citing his concern for the Jewish state as the driving force behind some of his erratic behavior.
It is a viewpoint that I most definitely share, though I would describe the apparent White House lovefest with the Israel as a “lot too much.” When the President of the United States calls a congresswoman an anti-Semite and demands that she apologize to him personally and also to Israel it is definitely a lot too much.
So Israel is always in the news, or so it seems, though it is often not in the news when the story might be derogatory. The story disappears from sight as soon as it is determined that Israel might be involved, as is currently the case with Jeffrey Epstein, or Israeli activity is excised completely as was the case with the Mueller investigation where Russiagate should have really been called Israelgate as it was Israel that was seeking favors from the incoming Trump Administration, not Russia.
As Noam Chomsky put it, Israeli interference in American politics “vastly overwhelms” anything Russia has done.
[...] Foreign influence as a potential national security threat is also a status defined in legal terms by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA), which requires anyone working on behalf of a foreign government to register and make transparent sources of income.
Uniquely, no foundation or individual working in America to advance the interests of the Jewish state has ever been required to register under FARA even though many, like the odious American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), boast unambiguously on their websites that they are “America’s pro-Israel Lobby.” Many of the foundations are regarded as educational or charitable 501(c)3 tax exempt non-profits, which means the U.S. taxpayer is helping support their activity.
[...] The most recent foundation being set up by Israel’s friends to promote the interests of the Jewish state is the Edmund Burke Foundation, which hosted a conference on “Nationalism” last week. The conference was interesting in that the Burke Foundation is headed by an Israeli and an American Jew who has served as Executive Director of the Christians United For Israel (CUFI). The event was held at the Washington D.C. Ritz-Carlton, suggesting that the Burkeans are not short of cash. Pro-Israel groups always seem to have plenty of Benjamins.
[links in original] The last link is Giraldi linking to another item he authored titled, "Edmund Burke Rides Again - But this time the horse is paid for by Israel."
Look at the people running it. Its President is David Brog, who is also the executive director of the Maccabee Task Force, “an effort launched in 2015 to combat the anti-Israel BDS movement. He also sits on the Board of Directors of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), were he served as executive director for its first ten years. Before CUFI, Brog worked in the United States Senate for seven years, rising to be chief of staff to Senator Arlen Specter and staff director of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He has also worked as an executive at America Online and practiced corporate law in Tel Aviv, Israel and Philadelphia, PA. Brog is the author of Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State (2006) and In Defense of Faith: the Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity (2010). In 2007, the Forward newspaper listed Brog in its ‘Forward 50’ most influential Jews in America.”
The Edmund Burke Foundation’s Chairman is an Israeli Yoram Hazony, who describes himself as a “Jewish philosopher.” He resides in the Jewish state and is a well-known Israeli nationalist, having written that nationalism empowers “the collective right of a free people to rule themselves.” He declares that “We should not let a hairbreadth of our freedom be given over to foreign bodies under any name whatsoever, or to foreign systems of law that are not determined by our own nations.” He adds “My first concern is for Israel.”
In other words, for Hazony all external criticism of what Israel is and does is illegitimate while Brog is what might be described as someone who has made a career out of being Jewish, along the way advancing what he perceives as Israeli interests. So why are they heading an ostensibly American foundation?
[links in original] In that item, Geraldi links to another item he authored, where interested readers can have a look.
Readers are urged to read full items, beyond the above excerpting. Two authors with overlapping speculation and a common perspective on Israeli conduct are far from definitive that their Israeli honey trap guessing is correct.
But at least they are trying to make sense out of the Epstein-Maxwell underage sex situation.
The Israel Lobby does have a multiplicity of outlets and voices.
Any websearch "Israel Lobby" will yield links to diverse online content. So what of Epstein's abused young girls, that way? Will that rock actually get lifted to see all that crawls beneath it? Or will whitewash and diversionary events be interposed?
In Giraldi's post from which the quote is taken, this link, contains, bolded and set off conspicuously, this observation:
In the media the Epstein story died almost immediately, submerged in the tale of Donald Trump telling several congresswomen to go back where they came from.
____________UPDATE______________
Old expresions abound, such as "a fly in the ointment." E.g.,
This websearch is troubling. Neither the 53p Florida draft paperwork nor the text of the Florida plea deal were located as posted on the web. Searching yields much commentary about the Florida fiasco, but underlying documents, if online at all, are online where? E.g., commentary of interest, without posting links to either the ghost 53p indictment, or settlement papers; including closing barn doors after the horse is gone investigations, state and federal; here, here, here and here. [FURTHER UPDATE: Wikipedia's Acosta post in footnotes links here, Scribd, for text of the deal Acosta cut in secret with a defense lawyer from his old private practice firm.]
This
Who were pedophile Epstein and prosecutor Acosta protecting with ‘bizarre’ deal?
[...] The non-prosecution agreement also shut down a South Florida grand jury probe that could have reached to others in Epstein’s international sex-trafficking ring. The deal even shielded unnamed “potential co-conspirators” from ever having to defend themselves.
“The federal Grand Jury investigation will be suspended, and all pending federal Grand Jury subpoenas will be held in abeyance unless and until the defendant violates any term of this agreement,” according to a copy obtained by Florida Bulldog.
Like the “potential co-conspirators,” the people on the subpoena list aren’t identified in the pact, and their names haven’t surfaced publicly since it was signed on Sept. 24, 2007. Four Epstein employees who received immunity are identified, but the list, “including, but not limited to” them, is clearly intended to be open-ended.
[...] The puzzling “potential co-conspirators” language in the Epstein-Acosta accord, the actions of Epstein’s friend and legal team member Alan Dershowitz, and what is known about long-ago contacts between Epstein and powerful, rich men like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, the present and former president, raise questions about who those grand jury witnesses, or perhaps targets, may have been.
Attorney Jack Scarola called the co-conspirators clause an “extraordinary provision” written for “inexplicable reasons.” He represents Bradley Edwards, a lawyer for Epstein victims, in a malicious prosecution claim against Epstein that was set for trial this week in West Palm Beach state court.
Scarola said, “I have been practicing law for 45 years, including five as a criminal prosecutor, and I have never heard of such a deal in which unnamed co-conspirators were given blanket immunity for unnamed crimes.”
Joel Hirschhorn, a veteran criminal defense lawyer who is not involved in the Epstein litigation, called the blanket immunity clause “bizarre,” and added, “The whole thing stank from the beginning.”
How does the "who were the unidentified others question" fit the Israeli honey-trap conjecture, in your judgment?
Do you believe Dershowitz denials of being a co-participant in underage girl abuse?
AND - Do you think they taught Acosta to pull that kind of shit at Harvard Law School, or did he learn it while practicing law with the firm that he was negotiating with after his U.S. Attorney appointment? Or was a direct order handed down to the local lead attorney, Acosta, from superiors in DC, an order to let Epstein write his own deal through counsel? Would you expect any paper trail that way, or would there have been only oral communication from DC, if any?
______________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Saturday, 8/10/2019, link - We won't have Jeffrey Epstein to kick around any longer. Allegedly hanged himself. Ms. Maxwell has not been reported as anything besides alive and well, available for testimony.
What of those "unnamed co-conspirators" who "were given blanket immunity for unnamed crimes?" At a guess the entire question will be buried quicker than Epstein. As to what of them, I could only guess. Ask Alan Morton Dershowitz. He holds himself out as a legal expert of sorts. He'd likely opine that the deal puts them out of prosecutorial reach, and the matter should be put to rest on such terms. Trump, Clinton, each might agree.
Deutsche Bank, as an artificial person, a corporation, remains alive. On the ropes some suggest, but alive. Bless Deutsche Bank, and wish it a long life, in perpetuity being frequent corporate charter language, but events could cut a corporate life short, e.g., Enron.
____________FURTHER UPDATE____________
A major purpose of denying Epstein bail was possibility of escape.
Now, there is irony to that thought. "Escape" cannot be any greater in scope than croaking. So, did he escape or was he escaped: In custody, so that the reporting from custodial officials is all the evidence reported so far. Hanged, how? With what?
Suicide watch with a capability of a hanging? What kind of suicide watch is that?
Does the term mean that officials watched the suicide? What, then?
Again, Jesse on RT, per YouTube.
Do you trust the FBI to investigate?
FURTHER: N.Y. Mag's "Intelligencer."
This is like Bill Casey's death, or Osama's, where neither you nor I ever saw a body. "Trust me," from our governments' insiders is what we saw. Each of those two deaths was given us as the closing of a chapter.
FURTHER: A body, airplane crash, with the body identified by Israeli authorities as Amiram Nir. Death of an alleged mastermind or Oliver North accomplice in Iran-Contra activities. Another conveniently timed death, or what? And, it was not a reader or me who identified the body back during Reagan years.
FURTHER: Sometimes you're the Louisville Slugger. Sometimes the ball. No greased-skids plea deal this go-round. Will there be a quick quiet cremation, published as follow-up news; or will there be searching for pallbearers, too many unfortunately with other commitments?