RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Poll: Americans Hope Mueller Arrests Someone New Every Day Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Friday, 03 November 2017 13:47

Borowitz writes: "After a memorable Monday, in which the special counsel announced criminal charges against three men associated with Donald Trump's campaign, millions of Americans were sort of hoping that Robert Mueller would arrest someone new every day, a new poll indicates."

Special investigator Robert Mueller. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
Special investigator Robert Mueller. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)


Poll: Americans Hope Mueller Arrests Someone New Every Day

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

03 November 17

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


fter a memorable Monday, in which the special counsel announced criminal charges against three men associated with Donald Trump’s campaign, millions of Americans were sort of hoping that Robert Mueller would arrest someone new every day, a new poll indicates.

According to the poll, Monday’s news that Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, and George Papadopoulos had been charged may have unfairly raised Americans’ expectations that Mueller would be generating new arrests at the rate of at least three a day.

“Monday was one of the happiest days of my life,” one poll respondent said. “It started out great with Manafort and Gates, and then, bam, out of nowhere, Papadopoulos. I guess I started hoping all days would be like that.”

Although Jared Kushner and Donald Trump, Jr., continue to be Americans’ most popular picks for the person Mueller arrests next, the poll suggests that, at this point, the indictment-starved public would be willing to settle for a lesser-known figure.

“It doesn’t have to be someone I’ve heard of, like Ivanka or Pence,” one poll respondent said. “I’d be happy with Michael Flynn’s son, and I’m not even clear what he did in all of this.”

Perhaps in response to the poll results, Mueller on Thursday issued the following official statement: “I understand people’s eagerness for more arrests, but all I can say is that if they’re patient we have some new ones coming up that are just amazing.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Jeff Sessions Repeatedly Lied to the Senate While Under Oath Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Friday, 03 November 2017 13:43

Reich writes: "At every turn, Sessions has tried obfuscate and mislead the American people. He has repeatedly lied to the Senate under oath and eroded the public's trust in the Department of Justice."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (photo: Bill Clark/Zuma)
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (photo: Bill Clark/Zuma)


Jeff Sessions Repeatedly Lied to the Senate While Under Oath

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

03 November 17

 

ore fallout from Mueller's first indictments in the Russia investigation. According to newly released court documents, it appears that Attorney General Jeff Sessions lied to Congress about the Trump campaign's attempts to collude with Russian operatives. When asked during a hearing last month whether he was aware of communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, Sessions replied, "I did not, and I’m not aware of anyone else that did...And I don’t believe it happened.”

Well, it turns out that George Papadopoulos (the Trump campaign aide who has plead guilty to making false statements to federal investigators) told Trump and Sessions about his efforts to arrange a meeting with Vladimir Putin at foreign policy briefing in March of last year.

At every turn, Sessions has tried obfuscate and mislead the American people. He has repeatedly lied to the Senate under oath and eroded the public's trust in the Department of Justice.

What do you think?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Anita Hill on Weinstein, Trump, and a Watershed Moment for Sexual-Harassment Accusations Print
Friday, 03 November 2017 11:34

Mayer writes: "Charges levied at political figures, Anita Hill believes, face a particularly high hurdle. Her case, like those of the women who accused Trump, she says, 'was cast as a political story.'"

Attorney and law professor Anita Hill, a trailblazer in raising public awareness of sexual harassment. (photo: Andreas Branch)
Attorney and law professor Anita Hill, a trailblazer in raising public awareness of sexual harassment. (photo: Andreas Branch)


Anita Hill on Weinstein, Trump, and a Watershed Moment for Sexual-Harassment Accusations

By Jane Mayer, The New Yorker

03 November 17

 

uring the 2016 Presidential campaign, eleven women accused Donald Trump of making unwanted sexual advances toward them. Following a well-worn playbook used by other accused sexual harassers, Trump dismissed the women as “horrible, horrible liars” and their allegations as “pure fiction.” The women’s voices swayed very few voters, it would seem. Even after the “Access Hollywood” tape surfaced, allowing voters to hear Trump boasting about “grabbing” women “by the pussy,” he was elected President. Among those who put his candidacy over the top (at least in the Electoral College) were fifty-three per cent of white female voters.

So why have Harvey Weinstein’s alleged transgressions been taken so much more seriously? One answer, it seems, has less to do with the accused than with the accuser. Weinstein’s sexual-harassment scandal is unlike almost every other in recent memory because many of his accusers are celebrities, with status, fame, and success commensurate with his own. Sexual harassment is about power, not sex, and it has taken women of extraordinary power to overcome the disadvantage that most accusers face. As Susan Faludi, the author of “Backlash: the Undeclared War Against Women,” put it in an e-mail to me, “Power belongs only to the celebrities these days. If only Trump had harassed Angelina Jolie . . .”

Anita Hill, a woman with unusual insight into this topic, agrees that the nature of Weinstein’s accusers is the reason that his exposure has proved to be a watershed moment. In a phone interview, Hill emphasized that sexual-harassment cases live and die on the basis of “believability,” and that, in order for the accusers to prevail, “they have to fit a narrative” that the public will buy. At least until now, very few women have had that standing.

Twenty-six years ago, Hill learned this the hard way, when, as a young Yale Law School graduate, she famously testified that Clarence Thomas was unsuitable for confirmation to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that he had repeatedly harassed her while he served as her boss, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (I wrote about the confirmation process and Hill’s allegations in the book “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.”) Her testimony blasted the subject of workplace sexual harassment into the public consciousness, but it was swept aside by the Senate. In televised public congressional hearings, Hill’s credibility was attacked, her character smeared, and her sworn testimony dismissed as an unresolvable “he said, she said” conflict. After Thomas described the process as a “high-tech lynching”—despite the fact that both he and Hill are African-American—the Senate confirmed him.

Hill, who is now a law professor at Brandeis University, told me that what Thomas possessed, like many accused harassers, and unlike many accusers, was a winning “narrative.” The lynching story resonated deeply. Without a similarly widely accepted narrative, Hill was vulnerable to detractors supplying their own readings—imputing false motives, insinuating psychological problems, and smearing her, as the American Spectator notoriously did, as “a bit nutty and a bit slutty.”

In contrast, Hill pointed out, “the Hollywood-starlet narrative is part of the folklore. The casting couch is a long-standing issue.” In addition, she told me, “people often believe the myth that only conventionally beautiful women are harassed—and so it didn’t seem that far-fetched to people that this would happen to beautiful starlets who we all know and love.”

Charges levied at political figures, Hill believes, face a particularly high hurdle. Her case, like those of the women who accused Trump, she says, “was cast as a political story.” In such situations, “everything gets interpreted through a political lens, and it makes it almost impossible” for people to seriously consider whether the accused harasser “is the right person to represent you. It just becomes ‘This is our guy’ and ‘people are trying to bring him down.’ ”

Meanwhile, as Jessica Leeds, who accused Trump, during the campaign, of groping her on a plane thirty years ago, told the Washington Post, “It is hard to reconcile that Harvey Weinstein could be brought down with this, and [President] Trump just continues to be the Teflon Don.” Melinda McGillivray, another accuser, told the Post that she, too, was having trouble accepting the double standard. “What pisses me off is that the guy is president,” she said. McGillivray accused Trump of grabbing her at Mar-a-Lago, in 2003, when she was twenty-three years old.

Hill says she is “hopeful” that, in light of the Weinstein affair and other recent sexual-harassment revelations against powerful bosses, “people will revisit the women” who accused Trump. But she fears that the Weinstein lesson “won’t translate to everyday women, or even those in high-profile careers in places like Silicon Valley,” who still don’t have the fame, success, and standing of movie stars.

“We need to transfer the believability,” Hill said. She argued that the public needs to understand that Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie “are just like women down the street. People need to take this moment to make clear that this is not just about Hollywood.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Murder in Paraguay Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36478"><span class="small">John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Friday, 03 November 2017 10:49

Kiriakou writes: "Millions of Americans travel overseas every year, whether it's across the border to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, Cancun, or to more exotic locales. But nobody expects to die violently while abroad, and especially not a 16-year-old. That's what happened to Alex Villamayor."

Alex Villamayor, right, the 16-year-old son of a former Paraguayan congressman from Montgomery County, Luis Villamayor, was found dead on June 27th on the terrace of a farm in Paraguay where he was staying with friends over the weekend. (photo: Instagram)
Alex Villamayor, right, the 16-year-old son of a former Paraguayan congressman from Montgomery County, Luis Villamayor, was found dead on June 27th on the terrace of a farm in Paraguay where he was staying with friends over the weekend. (photo: Instagram)


Murder in Paraguay

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

03 November 17

 

illions of Americans travel overseas every year, whether it’s across the border to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, Cancun, or to more exotic locales. But nobody expects to die violently while abroad, and especially not a 16-year-old.

That’s what happened to Alex Villamayor.

Villamayor was an American citizen living with his parents in Paraguay. As the summer wound down, he made plans to begin his freshman year of college in Maryland. But first, he accepted an invitation to spend a weekend at the family ranch of a teenage friend in Paraguay.

That weekend ended with Villamayor dead of a gunshot wound to the head.

Paraguayan authorities were quick to rule the death a suicide. But this didn’t make any sense. There was no gun residue on Villamayor’s hand, and the gun was placed in such a way that it would have been nearly impossible for him to have fired the shot.

Moreover, Alex was a happy kid — an honors student — with a supportive family. As far as the people closest to him could tell, he was going places in life and seemed excited about the future.

The Villamayor family did what every family is supposed to do in a terrible situation like this: They immediately contacted the American embassy and the FBI for assistance. They asked embassy officers there to press for a proper investigation. But the Paraguayan authorities had already botched the case.

Under intense pressure from the Villamayors, the case was reinvestigated and the cause of death was changed to homicide. But the area where Alex died wasn’t sealed off. Witnesses weren’t interviewed. And the classmate who’d invited Alex to the ranch fled the country and is now incarcerated.

Meanwhile, the US embassy said it would “monitor the situation.” I’ve worked in American embassies around the world, so let me tell you what that means: it means that they don’t intend to do anything.

Indeed, all the embassy did was send a diplomatic note to the Paraguayan government asking for “clarification” of the investigation.

The family then contacted their elected officials. And this is where Donald Trump ought to come in. He’s made a mantra of putting “America First.” Now is the time to do exactly that, even if the Villamayors’ other elected representatives won’t.

After Alex’s aunt, Kim Luk, contacted her senators for their help, Maryland senator Ben Cardin and former senator Barbara Mikulski wrote back saying that the embassy was “working with the family” on the case, apparently not even realizing that it was the family who had contacted them in the first place.

Cardin’s staff had the gall to send a follow-up letter saying that they’d “spearheaded a call to the embassy.” Mikulski’s office didn’t even pretend to be interested in the case. She was retiring.

To his credit, then-representative Chris Van Hollen, who replaced Mikulski in the Senate in January 2017, has taken up the case and has pressed the State Department for action. But that begs the question: Where’s the State Department in all this?

The State Department’s Office of Overseas Citizen Services should be all over Paraguayan authorities to fully and properly investigate this case. It isn’t. It’s “monitoring the situation” too.

What’s going on? Citizens of the strongest country in the world should be able to count on help from Washington if they run into trouble overseas. Instead, they’re taking their lives into their own hands.

And in the meantime, what is the FBI doing? Remember, since the 1980s, it has been a crime in the US to commit a crime against an American overseas. So, because justice isn’t being done in Paraguay, Alex’s killers could and should be prosecuted in the US.

Paraguayan authorities, though, have banned the FBI from the investigation and from even entering Paraguay to get a lay of the land. Letters that the Villamayor family has written to the State Department, to the Paraguayan Ambassador to the US, to Senator Cardin, and to the embassy have either been ignored or brushed off.

Two of Alex’s accused killers will finally go on trial next week, more than two years after murdering their friend. Their co-conspirators still walk free. The accused have plenty of money to buy off witnesses, lawyers, judges, and pretty much anybody else. That’s how things often work when you’re rich and everybody else in the country is poor.

If there was ever a time for Donald Trump to “put America first,” this is it.



John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act – a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC Print
Friday, 03 November 2017 08:42

Brazile writes: "When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate's control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore's campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination."

Former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile. (photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty)
Former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile. (photo: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty)


ALSO SEE: Elizabeth Warren Says
DNC Rigged Primary for Hillary Clinton

Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC

By Donna Brazile, Politico

03 November 17


When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.

efore I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”

I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?

I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.

I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 Next > End >>

Page 1455 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN