Interesting posting at zerohedge.com

http://www.zerohedge.com/

Do you suppose Podesta has Robby Mook out looking for yet another groping allegation-slinger but with this one in particular to ideally have ancillary Kremlin involvement in the resume, as their gold standard press distraction flag of the day/week/fortnight?

As a cover question of interest, would not a future-years possibility viewpoint for now be to look at full tickets, and in that sense would not Citizen Kaine present down the line a Presidential option akin to Gerald Ford? A better world viewpoint be to contemplated now than that from Watergate torch passing, a/k/a Ford-Pardongate together with General Haig stepping from White House to NATO going his way, Congress scurrying another? Moreover, a "President Kaine" might well exceed what you'd ever get for a Pence.

A link. A hope readers have a look.

http://www.rogerjohnsonforsenate.com/

What is your definition of "regulatory capture?" Where the regulated industry writes the government's regulations, for it? What is TPP? What should be expected of the Clintons re TPP?

"The people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry," Clinton said.

Add to that the people who know the industry should be the ones writing the industry's rules? What you say for pay to industry insiders might differ from campaign stances; but believe me now??? Get real. You got paid massive amounts, by Wall Street to foster "insiders with pecuniary benefit at stake know best, and should write their own rules." Is that government of, by and for the people? Or less? Or "the people" wedged out of the driver's seat by some well connected big money player's [players'] assault? My vehicle, my steering wheel?


Wells Fargo creating phantom accounts is fair fodder for an arbitration clause? What rules would, under such a mythos, be expected if Wells Fargo wrote its own set, for itself, regarding maximizing account-related cash flow? Attorney General fires shot across the bow [a letter to Wells' CEO] as a step, at present, short of litigating in the public interest the notion "Wells Fargo knows best." Look at what it allowed itself to foist onto customers owed fiduciary loyalty duty; and let that set of bastards write their own can/can't do list? Get real.

This link. Scoundrels line the gutters. Or not, but it is something you are bound to arbitrate; have you not read . . . we have a neato arbitration clause on your non-fraudulent accounts which, we say, prohibits your suing over the fraudulent ones?

Fraud is a common law crime and/or tort; and how prominent a covenant not to sue but to arbitrate must be, to be distinct and apart from small print boilerplate of lesser impact?

Having to arbitrate being defrauded by one's banking agent is quaint as a concept; given reality as the measure of conduct deserving suit; independent of any contrary clauses, however read.

So much for a clear counter-example to letting the industry write its own regulatory rules, and back to the Clinton paid speeches to her real clientele.

Disproportionate dissembling into a far corner of fantasy land, prize-worthy dissembling - same opening link.

Among the emails was a compilation of excerpts from Clinton's paid speeches in 2013 and 2014. It appeared campaign staff had read all Clinton's speeches and identified passages that could be potentially problematic for the candidate if they were to become public.

One excerpt put Clinton squarely in the free-trade camp, a position she has retreated on significantly during the 2016 election. In a talk to a Brazilian bank in 2013, she said her "dream" is "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders" and asked her audience to think of what doubling American trade with Latin America "would mean for everybody in this room."

Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, has made opposition to trade deals a cornerstone of his campaign.

Podesta posted a series of tweets Friday night, calling the disclosures a Russian hack and raising questions about whether some of the documents could have been altered.

"I'm not happy about being hacked by the Russians in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump," Podesta wrote. "Don't have time to figure out which docs are real and which are faked."

Podesta deserves a medal for being more an incredible dissembler than his Clintonian cohort, DWS. Flat out lying about time pressure preventing verification; Podesta as little Jeremy, the no-where man, "Ad hoc, ad loc, ipso facto, quid pro quo. So little time, so much to know."

Again ...... get real.

All politics - local. SD 36, HD 36A and HD 36B candidate forums were held in Anoka, and can be viewed at the QCTV website.

The North Metro Mayors Assn. held the event; Anoka City Hall. The three sessions are currently being rebroadcast on QCTV Community Channel 15, and are linked for online viewing at the QCTC Elections page:

http://qctv.org/elections/

This direct link.

Links:
rogerjohnsonforsenate.com/
to contribute: this link

http://www.vote-for-andy.com/

http://www.wesvfor35b.org/

Speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum this week, Brennan said he's met with "princes or presidents and prime ministers throughout the Middle East" who are "outraged that their community -- their Muslim community -- has been infected by this cancer, individuals who have this distorted and very perverted interpretation of Islam that pursue these psychopathic agendas of horrific violence, and they recognize that they have a very important role -- the leading role to help purge their communities of these influences." "These individuals who are fanatics -- extremists and terrorists -- they are driven by this ideology that is not rooted in Islam," Brennan said. "It's a psychopathic ideology that is very absolutist, that either you are with us or against us."

The headline is from this recent online item. As to "psychopathic ideology [...] absolutist [...] you are with us or against us," this video. This one. Another.

Perhaps what the Goldman Sachs transcripts would say; what the TPP is aimed at? Who is to say?

CFR, they offer a book:

War by Other Means - Geoeconomics and Statecraft
Authors: Robert D. Blackwill, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, and Jennifer M. Harris, Senior Fellow

"Despite having the most powerful economy on earth, the United States too often reaches for the gun instead of the purse," contend Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Senior Fellows Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris in a new book, War by Other Means: Geoeconomics and Statecraft. Instead, argue Blackwill and Harris, the United States must strategically integrate economic and financial instruments into its foreign policy—what they define as geoeconomics—or risk losing ground as a world power.

"Russia, China, and others now routinely look to geoeconomic means, often as a first resort, and often to undermine American power and influence," the authors observe.

[links and bolding from original omitted].

With the CFR being the CFR, inside party citizen diplomats (and hangers-on), what should CFR questioning of its own imply?

With Clinton and Trump trying to out war monger one another, neither is "droning on" about -- drones.

QUESTIONER: I think one of the things that I'm very interested in -- and perhaps we can try and sort of give some hint to the people, you know, questioning Brennan on Thursday -- is just how they come up with their kill lists and the fact that there is this very broad area that all these people fall into. And you know, I'm trying to recall which White House press spokesperson said, when asked about al-Awlaki's 16- year-old American son, who was killed alongside the magazine editor in a drone strike and the -- sort of the response to that, well, that's what you get when you hang out with your dad like that and, you know, the idea that someone has made a decision that this is the list, and these are the people on this list, and what kind of oversight there is or, you know, just what kind of accountability there is in terms of who's on the list and how that gets decided, like what their sort of prerequisites are. Thanks.

HOLEWINSKI: Go ahead, Micah. Do you want to go?

ZENKO: Yeah, sorry. Well, I mean, one thing to understand is that most of the individuals who have been killed by U.S. targeted killings -- and of the 400-plus targeted killings, 97 percent of them happened by drones, but not all of them by drones -- most of the individuals killed don't appear on a kill list, right? The kill list articles that emerged last spring were a really interesting smoke screen to get over the issue of signature strikes.

You know, most of the individuals who the United States kills, they're -- they don't go through a careful interagency vetting process.

So, a quote from an anti-war leftist pinko weak-is-better low readership blog or other outlet? Well - The CFR is who it is, and readers can weigh possible implications - but really, who calls the shots, on what basis, is a starting question in any sane review and commentary on drone "terrorist" killing policy. Yet CFR left that consideration to the questioning after its dog/pony analysis of open questions of general public interest.

Do the Saudi ruling family get to make up their list? The Pakistani military? The ISI? The Iranians in consort with the Israeli IDF and Mossad? Okay, some possibilities are remote but what about those not so? Questions need asking; where evasion over answering is its own form of answer. What were the "CIA annex" folks up to in Benghazi is a related or independent and parallel question, depending on what relation drone kill policy has with the annex activity while an Ambassador was being killed by an unhappy and/or incited ideological mob. Is listing for targeting aimed at totalitarian stifling of dissent? Retaliation? If that, for what, when? It seems in "in retrospect analyses" among officials in public discourse, good motive and efficiency are always ours. We are the story tellers.

The wheel that squeaks getting grease seems an out of fashion way of thinking of "terror" and no longer a best howto about warring against it. "We strike the enemy, in order to lessen his ability to harm us. We strike before he might strike us. Sentinels. Ever vigilant. Never free of due trepidation, always attempting avoidance of lapses, of inattention."

Sounds warming to the soul; but a shade too simplistic. Ambiguity in a never ending enemy has advantage. Unlike precision having a place there; precision in the surgery-like nature of OUR strikes is precision's place; an unquestioned given premise at all times?

In fact, technological capability seems the offered fare instead of policy setting of who's in for snuffing. We are surgically precise in the particulars of the snuffing operation; we say; but what about target determination? That nuanced give-and-take? Ambiguity - who gives, who takes in calling who's in for a snuffing, seems something that naturally would NOT go unquestioned. We live among attentive media or co-opted comfort seekers? You decide.