Claims And Issues

IT’S ALL IN THE WRIST. MAYBE IT’S IN ATTITUDE INSTEAD.

    A woman was born with polio. Let’s call her Dianne. (That’s her name.)
    She can still walk but it’s becoming more of a chore. She uses a motorized wheel chair a lot now.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

    Today Dianne went for an x-ray. Alone.
    She pulled into the parking lot by the front door. Luck or her guardian angel or both were with her. She found a space right near the front door which opened automatically.
    The x-ray office was down the hall near the back door to the building. The back door is not automatic.     Neither is the door to the x-ray office.
    Dianne waited by both doors until someone came through the back door. (It would have to be an able-bodied person, of course, since the back door does not open automatically.) Soon a woman entered the building through the back door. She had children in tow, one child holding each hand. Dianne asked her if she could ask a favor.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

    The woman said “Sure.” She may have had the back door in mind since a handicapped person in a wheelchair clearly cannot open it, and that’s what she had in front of her, namely, a handicapped person in a wheelchair. Although the back door had no sign on it one way or the other.
    However the favor that Dianne asked was instead to open the nearby door to the x-ray office. The woman said “Of course,” and she did.
    Dianne said to her then: “You see, you didn’t know when you woke up this morning that you were going to be an angel. But you were.”

    The children beamed to hear this truth be told about their mom.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 07.17.19.

THANK YOU, JOSH GOTTHEIMER.

The House passed a bill to re—fund Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which would have contained some protections for the children at the border. The Senate passed its own bill first, however. Blessed both by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, the Senate bill contained no protections but a lot of money with conditions that could easily be broken when the money – taxpayer money, your money and my money -- is spent.
    Then the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was confronted by a group of Representatives who insisted on passing only the Senate bill when it came to the House for a vote. (Senator McConnell refused to take a vote in the Senate on the House bill.) The group is called “the Problem Solvers” caucus. Half of its members are Republicans, and half describe themselves as Democrats. One of their co-chairs is Rep. Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey.
    Speaker Pelosi decided that she had no leverage and caved on the bill which the House had already passed, in favor of the Senate bill which Rep. Gottheimer and his caucus insisted was the only bill they would vote for now.
    That is how the House of Representatives passed the Senate bill as the law of the land with no conditions restricting how the current federal government spends the ICE money, whether to build a wall, or build or destroy something else, their choice.
    Representative Gottheimer and his caucus are interesting stories. Mr. Gottheimer was first elected to Congress in 2016. He represents a district that had previously elected Republicans for more than 20 years. During his short time in the House, he has represented Republicans although he registers as a Democrat. “He has consistently voted against the party even on procedural motions, threatening to hand control over the House to the GOP.” Ryan Grim, The Democratic Counterrevolution Has a Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, THE INTERCEPT online May 8, 2019.
    During a hearing in April of the House Financial Services Committee, on which he currently serves, Mr. Gottheimer was careful to present the Wall Street side of how they actually do good for their customers. The Chair of the Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, called the hearing “Holding Megabanks Accountable.” Representative Gottheimer’s idea of holding megabanks accountable was to ask Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase whether Dimon could talk about “the work that your firm has done in the small-business lending arena and how those loans are helping to facilitate small-business growth.” So, in Gottheimer’s mind, that is holding megabanks accountable.
    Mr. Gottheimer has voted with much the same view against holding Saudi Arabia to account for its activities in Yemen, activities in which thousands of innocent civilians – men, women, and children too – have lost their lives at the hands of the Saudis. Despite that, and despite the dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, Mr. Gottheimer not only voted against the initial House resolution based on the War Powers Act to demand that the current federal government stop supporting the Saudi’s war in Yemen.  He actively worked against it, essentially declaring according to reports that a vote for the resolution would be a vote against Israel.  (I don't know how a vote for the resolution to stop U.S. assistance to Saudi war-making in Yemen could possibly be twisted into a vote against Israel, but I am not the one who said so in the first place.)  

    The resolution eventually was passed in both the House and the Senate (it was ultimately vetoed). However, Mr. Gottheimer’s opposition as a so-called Democrat was not welcome. “This is a thing that he’s doing consistently, helping to organize against progress,” as Elizabeth Beavers described Gottheimer’s conduct on the War Powers resolution. Ms. Beavers was Associate Policy Director of Indivisible at the time.
    Disappointing, perhaps, but Representative Gottheimer’s attempt to intervene in the House on behalf of Saudi Arabia should not have come as a surprise. Mr. Gottheimer is reportedly among the top 20 recipients of Saudi money who serve in Congress, whether Republican or Democrat. However, the top 20 includes many leaders and legislators who have been in Congress long before 2016, when Mr. Gottheimer arrived. “Nobody as junior as Gottheimer comes anywhere close.” Grim, The Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, supra.
    Josh Gottheimer’s New Jersey district changed hands when the federal government changed hands, in 2016. An official of Indivisible who supported him in that election, says “we just want him to meet us halfway and act like a normal Democrat who believes in the party.” Quoted in Grim, The Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, supra.

    Still waiting.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 07.15.19.

WHY IS CURRENT APPOINTEE BERMAN INDICTING EPSTEIN, RISKING TELLING TALES?

Geoffrey Berman is indicting Jeffrey Epstein in federal court in the Southern District of New York. There is no issue but that Epstein deserves the indictment. But why has Mr. Berman indicted Mr. Epstein?
Geoffrey S. Berman is the current appointee as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was Rudy Giuliani’s law partner before he was appointed U.S. Attorney. See Alan Feuer, Trump May Nominate a Giuliani Law Partner as U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, NEW YORK TIMES online August 7, 2017 (New York Times may charge for online access).
Epstein apparently would have much to say about New York figures, if he talks.
So why has Berman been allowed to make that risk happen? Berman’s boss is Bill Barr. We all know who Bill Barr’s boss is.
I sense that not just current occupants of office are potentially in this picture, but I sense that Bill Clinton is also in this picture somewhere. And possibly Hillary Clinton too.
The stories Epstein could tell. If he talks.

Download CI 07.10.19.1.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

THIS IS HOW WE CELEBRATE THE FOURTH OF JULY NOW.

Really? Really.

Here is the full report of the Inspector General:   Download OIG-19-51-Jul19_.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THEY ARE HIS PARTY ALSO. WHAT DIFFERENCE DO DEMOCRATS MAKE?

A majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives were very afraid of giving their potential re-election opponents something to say about them if they left town for July 4th without passing a bill to fund border control and ICE, that they voted for a bill to provide the money without any restrictions.

They voted for a bill that was already approved by the White House and by the Senate. It has no restrictions on how the current federal government spends the money. The White House and the Senate refused even to look at the House bill that had restrictions.

After voting for the Senate version, the House Democrats left town.

They voted like Republicans. What difference do Democrats make?

See Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Emily Cochrane, House Passes Senate Border Bill in a Startling Setback for Pelosi, New York Times, Friday, June 28, 2019, p. A1. Parenthetically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not startled, despite the headline on the linked article.  She almost certainly knew what was going to happen all week long.  So did Chuck Schumer as we know from an earlier article posted here this morning.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

CHUCK SCHUMER, IT'S NO RUMOR: YOU'VE GOT TO GO.

The idea was that the House would propose restrictions on the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The non-negotiable restrictions would include limitations on spending to protect the children in ICE custody and the right of Members of Congress to check on ICE detentions without warning.

The Senate would then vote on its own budget bill for ICE. After that, the two versions would be reconciled and the non-negotiable restrictions on spending would be in the budget.

That did not happen. Instead, Chuck Schumer ("the Senator from Wall Street") once again voted like a Republican. Once again, he also urged the Democratic minority in the Senate to vote Republican.

What was also unmistakably on display this time was Chuck Schumer's new tactic. He acted opposite to what he promised the Democrats in the House. Once the Senate passed the Republican bill, the House had no more negotiating leverage. And the House capitulated. No restrictions on the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to protect the children as in the House bill.

See Jennifer Haberkorn and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Pelosi Takes a Hit as Congress Approves Border Crisis Money, Los Angeles Times online June 27, 2019.

Chuck Schumer, it's no rumor: You've got to go.

Keep looking behind you on his way out.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM U.S.: WHO THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, ...

 UNTIL NOW?

 

This may be a world in which children suffer, but we can lessen the number of suffering children.

 If you do not help with this, who will?

Albert Camus

 

In the name of the United States, children are being cared for by other children.  Although Border Patrol says they have the money in their budget, the  United States does not provide tooth brushes to the children it keeps in custody at a Border Patrol station in Texas.

The Border Patrol says that they have enough tooth paste too.  They already bought it out of their budget.  But the United States does not provide tooth paste to the children in custody, either.

The Border Patrol is indignant at the thought that it does not have enough soap to go around.  Despite some politicians who say otherwise, the people who actually work at the Border Patrol say that they have enough soap, thank you.  Yet the United States does not provide soap to the children.  See, e.g., Arturo Rubio and Caitlin Dickerson, Children Returned to Texas Shelter That Set Off An Outcry, New York Times, Wed., June 26, 2019, p. A1 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

This is evil.  And it is all in the name of the United States.

If you do not help in this effort to protect children in the custody of the United States, who will?

And did you ever once in your life in this country think that you would be needed to help protect children in the custody of the United States, until now?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.26.19.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY: "OUR ANSWER IS THE WORLD'S HOPE....

It is to rely on youth, not a time of life but a state of mind."

Hong Kong is relying on the world's hope. Youths are in the forefront of protests against new laws that would allow China to extradite people to be tried in China's courts controlled by the Communist Party.

The Hong Kong protests hold other lessons for the United States in 2019. They do not have a knight on a white horse. There is no single leader among the protestors this time. They have learned from past experiences. The last time a major protest erupted in Hong Kong, it had an identifiable, single leader. He was identified all right, by the government authorities and he was sentenced to prison for six years.

Returning to the main point, the protestors in Hong Kong are not waiting to be delivered from injustice. They do not expect anyone else to come and save them. They are all they have, and in their eyes that is their strength, not a weakness.

Organizers are announcing their activities and gatherings "through social media, word of mouth and secure messaging apps[.]" They absolutely believe in the importance of what they are doing. For the people of Hong Kong, the fight is existential. If China can deport them to China's prisons for activities frowned on by the ruling Party, they may never be heard from in the future. To say again, their fight is existential. See Mike Ives and Katherine Li, For Hong Kong's Youth, Marching is 'a Matter of Life and Death,' New York Times, Tues., June 18, 2019, p. A10 (there are no guarantees of quality hyperlinks or access to the New York Times which may charge for online access).

Those in the United States who have eyes to see with and ears to hear with, let them draw the lessons of Hong Kong. The people in Hong Kong today were in Tiananmen Square in 1989. In many cases, the protestors of Tiananmen literally moved south to Hong Kong to escape oppression. In their journey, they did not leave their courage behind.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.24.19.

SECRET EVIDENCE: IS AMERICA CHANNELING ITS INNER SAUDI ARABIA?

The United Nations just issued a report into the grotesque dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis say that they are putting the people who committed these atrocities on trial.

However, it is just that no-one knows who is being tried. Or where. Or on what charges.

The Saudi secrecy is so great that if "international observers" selected by the Saudis attend the trial they must not write or film anything.

The New York Times describes the Saudi secrecy this way:

    Although representatives of some foreign governments have been invited to attend the trial in Saudi Arabia, the report said, they have been required to commit to nondisclosure agreements, preventing them from reporting or commenting on the proceedings.

    “A shadowy presence of international observers cannot, although clearly meant to, lend credibility to eminently problematic proceedings,” the report said. It argued that the presence of foreign diplomats could make them complicit in the “miscarriage of justice.”

See David D. Kirkpatrick & Nick Cumming-Bruce, Report Reveals Chilling Details Behind Murder / Saudis Called Writer a 'Sacrificial Animal,' New York Times, Thursday, June 20, 2019, p. A1 (New York Times may charge for online access).

Federal Courts in the U.S. also operate with secrecy although perhaps not quite so easily as the Saudi courts if any. Nondisclosure agreements are very popular in the U.S. as well as in Saudi Arabia , particularly with the current U.S. Federal Government. See, e.g., Dennis J. Wall, § 2:19, Post-Claims Handling Practices Issues--The Presumption of Public Access vs. Stipulated Secrecy Orders, and §§ following including 2:19.50 - 2:24 inclusive, in CATASTROPHE CLAIMS: Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (May 2019).

Is the United States secretly channeling its inner Saudi Arabia?

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.23.19.2

 

WHO EXACTLY IS "A DEVOUT CATHOLIC" IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA?

The New York Times calls Ms. Carrie Lim, the "top leader" of Hong Kong, "a devout Catholic." She is also the person who called out the police who attacked the protestors recently.

She also famously said that the protestors were behaving like children. She was describing two million people. The entire population of Hong Kong is seven million. See Javier C. Hernandez, Christians Chip in and Drive Protests Against the Mainland, New York Times, Thursday, June 20, 2019, p. A12 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The corporate media similarly describes six of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as devout Catholics. Four of them voted to take your healthcare away under the Affordable Care Act.

Calling out the police who attack people is not being a devout Catholic.

Neither is describing two million people as acting like children when they are showing how devoutly they oppose begin sent to mainland China for secret trials in courts controlled by the Communist Party.

And neither is voting to take away your healthcare.

Being a devout Catholic in 2019 involves none of these things. You shall know them by what they do, and not what they say. They may say that they are Catholics, but what they say about themselves certainly does not make them devout.

It is apparently beyond the capacity of the corporate media in 2019 to know enough to know that what a person says they are is not necessarily what they are.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.23.19.1

THAT’S NOT OPPO RESEARCH.

Oppo research (opposition research) has been given a bad name lately. The corporate media and some candidates for high office have equated oppo research with committing crimes.

It is not oppo research to steal emails from the party of your opponent (or to steal emails from your opponent for that matter, which hasn't happened yet). It’s a crime.

It is not oppo research to meet with foreign government agents to get dirt from them on your opponent. It’s a crime.

It is not oppo research to manipulate social media such as Fakebook to show your opponent in a false light. If that’s not a crime, it is a disgrace.

So before we believe what the corporate media and some candidates say in 2019 is opposition research, we ought to stop and think for ourselves.

Please Read the Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.19.19.

MUSIC IN MY SOUL.

This is a short article about a big subject.  The subject is music.

Or, rather, the subject is the differences among people in how they make or hear music.

Or both.

Music is important to some and not as important to others.

My wife for example lives for music.  She is often unstructured about other things, but she is a perfectionist when it comes to music.

Music is central to her life.

For me, writing is the important thing to do.  Music is not something at which I strive to excel.  Music for me is not something at which I even want to try to excel.

Music is a pastime for me.  For her, it is how you fill time in the best possible way.

For me, the focus is story.  For her, the focus is melody.

And as the saying goes, "If life be a melody, play on."

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.17.19.

SPEAK, MR. BARR, SPEAK.

A guest article by John K. DiMugno, Esquire, a California attorney, legal educator, and the author or coauthor of multiple legal treatises and legal periodicals published by Thomson Reuters.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, recently spoke at the American Law Institute’s Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. The ALI likely extended the invitation shortly after Mr. Barr’s confirmation when there was hope that he would play a role similar to that of the departed General Mattis and General McMaster and place guardrails on the President’s more authoritarian instincts. By the time of the Annual Meeting, those hopes had evaporated. Mr. Barr’s dissembling about the contents of the Mueller Report raised serious concerns about the Attorney General’s complicity in administration efforts to undermine the rule of law.

This Blog highlighted the incongruity between Mr. Barr’s conduct in office and the core mission of the ALI. Notably, Mr. Wall’s post made no attempt to silence Mr. Barr, a solution that would have satisfied the wishes of many in the ALI who were rightfully appalled by Mr. Barr’s transparent attempt to mislead the American public. But barring Mr. Barr from speaking would have entangled the ALI in partisan politics, something the organization scrupulously avoids for good reason. Staying above the political fray insulates the ALI’s Restatements of the Law against charges of political bias and broadens their influence on courts and legislatures around the country.

Mr. Wall’s proposed solution—letting Mr. Barr speak while contributing the ALI’s earnings from the speech to legal aid societies around the country—perfectly balanced those competing concerns. It had the salutary effect of simultaneously benefitting public interest groups that desperately need the money while drawing attention to questions about Mr. Barr’s integrity.

Mr. Barr’s penchant for making transparently misleading and often contradictory statements has left some wondering what he hopes to achieve other than aggrandize power and influence in the Trump administration. Sharon LaFraniere, Charlie Savage and Katie Benner, People Are Trying to Figure Out William Barr. He’s Busy Stockpiling Power, New York Times on line, June 9, 2019. 

He misled the American public about the contents of the Mueller Report knowing full well that when the report was released several weeks later his lies would be evident to everyone.

When Mr. Barr sought confirmation as Attorney General, he told the U.S. Senate that he had known Robert Mueller for years and did not believe that Mr. Mueller would engage in a “witch hunt.”  Yet, shortly before his confirmation hearings, he sent a memo to the Justice Department characterizing the obstruction of justice charges against the President as “asinine” and sent an e-mail stating he saw far less reason to scrutinize the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia than to investigate whether donations to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation had influenced her actions as secretary of state. Once he was confirmed, he enabled the President’s attempts to distract from the contents of the Mueller Report by opening an investigation of those who investigated him.

When Mr. Barr was seeking confirmation, he told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that he was willing to reconsider the Justice Department’s decision not to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  But, when he became Attorney General, he put the resources of the Justice Department behind litigation in Texas federal district court seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act.

As the song goes, “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.” Buffalo Springfield, For What It’s Worth.  I say let Mr. Barr speak. Listen closely to what he says and watch what he does. Only then will whatever is happening start to become clear.

Download John DiMugno 06 13 19 Blog Article for IC Also (2)

Please Read The Disclaimer.

NEW IMMIGRATION POLICIES ALSO EXPLOIT DOCTORS AND NURSES.

The first article I posted this week featured Dr. Danielle Ofri,  The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses / One Resource Seems Infinite and Free:  The Professionalism of Caregivers, New York Times online Saturday, June 8, 2019 (The New York Times may charge for online access).

New immigration policies also exploit doctors and nurses.  The new immigration policies include armed agents following immigrants who face no criminal charges into examining rooms.  Even local police do not do that in most cases. 

Agents have also taken up residence in obstetrics wards keeping an eye on pregnant immigrants about to give birth.

They observe medical examinations and listen in on conversations.

One agent even stared at a 15-year old woman breast-feeding her child.  He had to be persuaded by a doctor to leave the room during that time.

Further, immigrants are presenting illnesses and medical conditions they did not have until they were detained, such as a pregnant woman who was exposed to chickenpox, and an 8-year old child who died of influenza and sepsis, all arising out of being in the custody of the current federal government.

For all these things, see Sheri Fink, Doctors Say Immigration Policies Endanger Migrant Health, New York Times, Monday, June 10, 2019, at A15 (again the New York Times may charge for online access).

How much pressure are caregivers expected to put up with?

It ought to be possible to provide medical care without imposing medically harmful practices.  In fact, the only practices that caregivers should be forced to follow are the practices that caregivers themselves find appropriate and necessary to give medical care to people that need it.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

ELAINE CHAO McCONNELL AND THE SHIPPING COMPANY FINANCED BY CHINA.

Elaine Chao has been married to Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, for 26 years.  Ms. Chao McConnell is the Transportation Secretary of the current Federal Government.

She has reportedly tried -- unsuccessfully, so far -- to slash the funding that shippers in the U.S. maritime industry receive through her Transportation Department.

Slashing funding provided through the Transportation Department to U.S. maritime shippers would hurt her family company's competitors.

It would not hurt her family's shipping company.  Her family's company is financed by China.

The story is bigger than an article posted on a blog, even this one.  See Michael Forsythe, Eric Lipton, Keith Bradsher and Sui-Lee Wee, A Cabinet Official, a Firm and a 'Bridge' to Beijing / Ethics Questions Focus on Chao's Close Ties to Her Family's Shipping Business, New York Times Monday, June 3, 2019, p. A1.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, now is the time to investigate this affair.  The American public deserves answers; we deserve to know the truth of the matter.  If press releases are ever enough, they are not enough now.

If Ms. Chao McConnell is innocent of these treacherous allegations, then there is no provable corruption there and that should end the matter, maybe even restore public confidence that the government of the United States acts in the best interests of the people of the United States.

I just telephoned the office of my own Member of Congress, Ms. Stephanie Murphy.  She is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.  As the House Committee that considers the current federal government's budget requests and proposed budget cuts, she is in a perfect position to investigate.

Have you contacted your Member of Congress?  The actions of Elaine Chao McConnell may or may not be impeachable as they say, but they call for an investigation into her administration of our tax dollars and where exactly she intends to spend them if not on the interests of the American people.  If her name is good, we have to do everything we can to clear her good name -- and the name of Mitch McConnell.  Do you think differently?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

GINIA BELLAFANTE CAN WRITE. THANK GOD FOR GINIA BELLAFANTE.

Ginia Bellafante can write.

And she writes about things that count.  See, e.g., Ginia Bellafante, Are We Fighting a War on Homelessness?  Or a War on the Homeless?, New York Times online Friday, May 31, 2019.

Thank God for Ginia Bellafante.  Read her stuff and give thanks for her.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

 

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, can HURT YOU.

What you don't know can even kill you.

Candida auris is a fungus that thrives in hospitals and nursing homes.  It is resistant to drugs.  It clings to walls and bedsheets even after the hospital and nursing home staff think that the walls and bedsheets are clean.

Candida auris also kills people.  "The C.D.C. [federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reports that nearly half the patients who contract C. auris die within 90 days."  Matt Richtel, New Rules Are Proposed to Battle Deadly Fungus, New York Times, Friday, May 24, 2019, p. A25 (emphasis added; the New York Times may charge for online access).

According to this newspaper article, New York state health officials have convened meetings with hospitals and nursing homes about potential new requirements to combat the deadly outbreak.

It would be good if federal and state officials were also convening meetings with hospitals and nursing homes to make people aware of the epidemic.  So far hospitals and nursing homes and others responsible for housing and treating patients are more concerned with harm to their reputations than with harm to their patients.  They tend to say nothing to inform their patients of the dangers of a fungus that is very difficult to control with available drugs, a fungus that within 90 days kills half of the people who came in contact with it.

As the reporter of this article observed, in a mild restatement of the problem from the patients' point of view:  "The spread of the germ in some hospitals and nursing homes has been cloaked in secrecy even as it can lead to devastating outcomes for individual patients and their families."    Matt Richtel, New Rules Are Proposed to Battle Deadly Fungus, New York Times, Friday, May 24, 2019, p. A25 (emphasis added; the New York Times may charge for online access).

Once again, as happens so often when things that can hurt people are kept from the public, secrecy benefits only those who want to pretend that bad things are not happening.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FAKEBOOK.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away called Fakebook, a company sold advertising and made millions broadcasting everyone's fake news and doctored photos all over the world along with cat pictures.

They even showed fake videos that were stolen from the real thing.

In the land of Fakebook, videos of Mark Zuckerberg showed him growing zits (again).

In Fakebook land, people the world over could see videos of Sheryl Sandberg not "leaning in," but, well, leaning out.

The only drawback to these fake videos was the same with each video:  They weren't true.  Actual film was changed, altered, cut up, and put back together to put on a show of their zits and their fake leanings.

But that was okay with Fakebook.  Even though they did not have fake news about Nancy Pelosi, they did have Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg.

That was enough in a land far, far away called Fakebook.  The ones who ran Fakebook lived very rich ever after.

See, e.g.,  Jim Waterson, Facebook Refuses to Delete Fake Pelosi Video Spread by Trump Supporters, The Guardian online Friday, May 24, 2019.

 

The End.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.  

SOMEBODY WANTS KREMLIN MOLE REVEALED. SOMEBODY WANTS TO KILL HIM.

We have learned over the last nearly two-and-a-half years that the United States had a mole in the Kremlin, telling the U.S. intelligence agencies a lot of what was going on.  There still is a U.S. mole in the Kremlin.

Putin wants to find out who the mole is.

William P. Barr may reveal who the Kremlin mole is.  Barr has been given authority to declassify everything the U.S. intelligence agencies have. 

Barr has reportedly asked for the identities of intelligence sources in Russia in particular.  See Paul Waldman, The Plum Line / Trump Extends His Corruption Into the Intelligence Agencies, Washington Post online Friday, May 24, 2019.

Revealing the Kremlin mole is part of the deal.

United States' intelligence agencies can smell it coming.  Barr's New Power Causes Concern Among Intelligence Agencies, PBS Newshour, Sunday, May 26, 2019.

What will they do about it?

 

What will you do about it?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

P.S. IT'S ABOUT PREDATORY LENDERS, NOT MICHAEL COHEN.

This is a postscript to an article I wrote earlier this week, NYC TAXI MEDALLIONS:  THREE DAYS, THREE ARTICLES ... WADDABOUT MICHAEL COHEN? (Wed., May 22, 2019).  In that article I speculated that the reporter must know something about Michael Cohen and taxi medallions in New York City because he wrote hardly anything about Michael Cohen in three days of articles about selling, buying, and taking out loans to get taxi medallions in New York City.

The reporter's name is Brian M. Rosenthal.  In a later piece, he revealed that his reporting sprang from the FBI's raid on Michael Cohen's office and the many documents, cellphones, laptops, and other things and devices that were seized in the process.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, How We Investigated Taxi Medallions, New York Times, Wed., May 22, 2019, p. A2 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The newspaper assigned five reporters to investigate Cohen's information that was seized by the FBI.  A sixth reporter, Mr. Rosenthal, took a look instead at the predatory loans that immigrants signed up for in order to buy taxi medallions in New York City.

In order to report this story, Rosenthal needed a database.  New York City "did not have reliable digital data on medallion sales, so I used paper records to build a database of all the 10,888 sales between 1995 and 2018," he writes.  (Obviously he had the help of the newspaper's financial and human resources in this expensive and time-consuming task.)   This gave him quick access to the financial records submitted by medallion buyers, which the city taxi commission "had never analyzed" as he did.

Brian Rosenthal's reporting revealed that NYC taxi medallions were purchased with the help of predatory lenders who had little if anything to fear from regulators.  As he put it himself, his stories "barely mentioned Mr. Cohen at all."  See Brian M. Rosenthal, How We Investigated Taxi Medallions, New York Times, Wed., May 22, 2019, p. A2 (to say again, the New York Times may charge for online access).

An example of reporting at its best.  Without Rosenthal's dogged insistence the story of predatory lending would never have become widely known.

Still, any stories about taxi medallions and New York City are incomplete without mentioning Michael Cohen's involvement.  I still think that this reporter knows something that we are not being told right now.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

NYC TAXI MEDALLIONS: THREE DAYS, THREE ARTICLES ... WADDABOUT MICHAEL COHEN?

The New York Times published three articles in three days about the taxi medallion 'industry' in New York City.  The first two articles published solid reporting describing how the City sold taxi medallions to immigrants who took out loans they could not afford in a business where regulators apparently looked the other way as a habit.  Only the first article mentioned the name of Michael Cohen, and then only in passing to mention that one of his partners was involved in a big way in the taxi medallion business.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, "They Were Conned":  How Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers, New York Times online Sunday, May 19, 2019 (the New York Times may charge a subscription or other price for online access); Brian M. Rosenthal, Taxi Drivers Fell Prey While Top Officials Counted the Money, New York Times, Monday, May 20, 2019, p. A1 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The third article, also published on the front page of The Times, told how many New York City and New York State officials announced within a day that they were looking into these possible irregularities.  The foremost of these officials, and the one reflected in the article as the most likely to succeed, is the New York State Attorney General.  For some of these other officials, it was a new sensation to investigate the selling and money-lending operations that surround taxi medallions in New York City.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, New York's Top Lawyer Begins Inquiry Into Reckless Taxi Loans, New York Times, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, p. A1 (to say again, the New York Times may charge for online access).

Yet for all his famous involvement with shady figures dealing with taxi medallions, Michael Cohen is conspicuous by his near-absence in this reporting. 

Hmm.  Brian Rosenthal, who wrote both articles, is too good a reporter to overlook something so obvious as mentioning Michael Cohen more than just in passing in an article or two or three about the business of buying and selling taxi medallions in New York City.

Does this reporter know something that we don't know?

I recall that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was not thrilled with Mr. Cohen, to say the least, at Mr. Cohen's sentencing hearing last year.  In fact, they went so far as to imply at least, or even to say outright, that Michael Cohen was holding out on them about some of the criminal investigations they were conducting into affairs in New York City.

Hmm.  Watch this space as they say -- and watch for Mr. Rosenthal's future reporting on the NYC taxi medallion 'industry.'

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

MITCH McCONNELL SAYS 'JUST A COINCIDENCE' AFTER RUSSIAN SANCTIONS REMOVED.

In January, Senator Mitch McConnell voted to lift some Russian sanctions.  So did his fellow Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul.

Yesterday, an aluminum company announced a $200 Million investment in its proposed factory in Kentucky.  The $200 Million is coming from the same Russians that used to be restrained by those sanctions.

The sanctions would have prevented the investment.  But, as you know, the sanctions were lifted and the Russian money is heading to Kentucky.

'Just a coincidence,' says Mitch McConnell.

Sure.  Expect more Kentucky horse droppings before this is over.

Look beyond the press releases reprinted in for example Kenneth P. Vogel, Democrats Seek Review of $200 Million Russian Investment in Kentucky, New York Times, Friday, May 17, 2019, p. A10.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY TIMES. 2020 IS NOT AN ORDINARY ELECTION.

Many people say wait till we vote to do anything.

That may be the way things were done back in the day:  Make change at the ballot box.  These are not ordinary times now.

Women's March 2017.

The 2020 election is not ordinary.

 

 

Women's March 2019.  (Jose Luis

Mangana / Associated Press).

 

 

 

                                                                                             

The harsh attacks on voting are so often reported that we can take one report and speak for them all:

    The F.B.I. has warned that the threat of Russian interference in American elections persists. Intelligence officials have said that Russia interfered throughout the midterm elections last year, and that those efforts are likely to intensify during the next presidential campaign.

Mihir Zaveri and Jacey Fortin, In 2016, Russians Worked to Discourage Black Voters, New York Times, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, p. A5.  And not just Russians worked to discourage voters:

    But domestic restrictions on voting, the vast majority of which are imposed by Republicans, proliferated in many states, the [National Urban League] report found.

Id.

To act as though ordinary ways will work in 2020 when they did not work in 2016 "is a recipe for disaster, and it's a lesson that should have been learned by now."  Dahlia Lithwick, The 2020 Election's Approach is No Reason to Avoid Impeachment / Democrats Are Repeating a Mistake They Should Have Learned in 2016, Slate, May 6, 2019.

More of the same old, same old.  Thinking that we are in a better place than 2016 has rightly been called "demented," even outright "insane."  Id.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY: "OUR ANSWER IS THE WORLD'S HOPE." Today.

"It is to rely on youth.  Not a time of life but a state of mind."

Robert Kennedy said that during dark days in our country.  He spoke at a time when U.S. cities were burning it seems like every summer, when people were being beaten and killed for standing up for civil rights, and when the federal government was trying to justify Vietnam.

In 2019 we are again facing dark days as a country.  Nancy Pelosi's answer is not youth, it is the same sort of so-called centrist politics that brought us here.

"Centrist politics" did not win the Presidential Election in 2016.

"Centrist politics" did not win the 2018 Midterm Elections.  Youth won the Midterm Elections in 2018.  New ideas won.  People won who live in the areas they represent.  The people who won were "outsiders" only to the centrists who think of themselves as the insiders and of everyone else as an outsider.

Don't get me wrong.  Speaker Pelosi has done a great deal during her 79 years.   She has been the most effective Speaker of the U.S. House that we have seen in years -- and she has done it twice.

But she is wrong that centrist politics will save us now.

To say again, "our answer is the world's hope.  It is to rely on youth.  Not a time of life but a state of mind."

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

IT'S NOT THE first MUELLER LETTER TO BARR.

Just in time for Attorney General William Barr's scheduled testimony to the Senate on Wednesday, on Tuesday evening we started getting reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had sent Barr a letter.  Since then, we have been told repeatedly that Mueller's letter to Barr was on March 27, 2019.  That's not the whole story.  And now, for the rest of the story you might say.

The Special Counsel delivered his long-awaited Report to the Attorney General on March 22, 2019.  That was a Friday.  And by the way, that was the day of the first letter from Special Counsel Mueller to Attorney General Barr.

According to Mueller's March 27 letter (view a copy here:  Download Special Counsel Mueller March 27 2019 letter to AG Barr.), he "reiterated" to the Department of Justice "early in the afternoon of March 24" that the Special Counsel's Introductions and Executive Summaries of both of the two Volumes of the Report were accurate summaries.  We do not know how Mueller "reiterated" that, but presumably it was either in-person or over the telephone or by email, perhaps.

Barr's "summary letter" was released "late in the afternoon of March 24," Mueller wrote, and Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions."

"We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25."  (Emphasis added.)  Once again, presumably the "communication" came in person, over the telephone, by email, or in some other way.

So, within the space of about 12 hours from "early afternoon" on Sunday the 24th to "the morning of March 25" there were two communications from Mueller to Barr and the Department of Justice.

Then, on Monday, March 25 there came a third contact:  Mueller sent Barr a letter which we have not yet seen.  Special Counsel Mueller says that he enclosed with that letter "the introduction and executive summary for each volume," with proposed redactions.

Apparently nothing happened on Tuesday, March 26th.

Not having heard anything back, Mueller again wrote to Attorney General Barr and again enclosed the introduction and executive summaries of both Volumes of the Special Counsel's Report, and again with proposed redactions.  This was Special Counsel Mueller's letter of March 27, 2019.  And this time Mueller specifically requested that Barr "provide these materials to Congress and authorize their public release at this time."  (Emphasis added.)

"At this time."  To say again, that was March 27, 2019.

It took Barr a month to provide any parts -- redacted, as we know -- of the Special Counsel's Report to Congress and to authorize public release of any other parts -- likewise redacted, as we know -- of the Special Counsel's Report.

In the interim, in testimony to the Senate on April 10, 2019, Attorney General Barr reportedly testified that he had no idea what redactions Special Counsel Mueller would have in mind.  Of course, as of April 10th, Barr had received at least four messages from Mueller relating to exactly that subject, and not just about redactions but proposing which ones to make, set out in two communications, and two letters in writing. 

Four.  That we know of "at this time."

Barr and his redactions.  What pieces of work.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

PROCESS AND SUBSTANCE, "HOW" AND "WHY."

 

                                            Photo ©2019 Dennis Wall.

 

Today is a day of process and substance, of "how" and "why."

I didn't do anything spectacular today so far.

To get a soda at Wendy's at lunch, you have to use a touch screen.  I touched "Coca-Cola" with everything left in it on a screen that featured balloons on the screen with the names of Coca-Cola products on them.  So, as I say, I touched the balloon that had "Coca-Cola" written on it.

Nothing happened.

I got two sodas at lunch today but I didn't know what I was getting.  (Thank the Good Lord, one of them was Coca-Cola!)

My wife bought a new car.  It has keyless ignition.  The car starts from a push button.

She tried starting the new car for the first time today.  It would not start.

Instead, words flashed on her dashboard, "Key is not within range."  My wife had put the keyless key in her purse.  She got it out and put it close to the push button.

Then the car started.

These things struck me today not because they are new to me but because they don't work.

Or at least they don't work the way they're supposed to.  In both cases, the "how" did not get you to the "why." 

If you want to get a soda, for example.  Touch screens may be how to get a soda, but getting a soda is the reason I was there, the "why" of it.  I was not there to navigate touch screens that don't work.

Or if you want to start a car.  Keyless keys may be how to start a car, but the "why" of it is to start the car, not to learn how not to put a keyless key into your purse.

"How" has overtaken the "why."  Process has trumped substance.  Today anyway.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

WORDS WITHOUT ACTION ARE A WASTE OF WIND.

William P. Barr refuses to testify unless he can arrange the furniture in the room.

Jerrold Nadler threatens to subpoena William P. Barr unless he testifies.

 (Image courtesy Consumer Rights and Responsibilities/Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services)

This may be awkward, but how are those subpoenas doing, people?  So far, not one person who has been subpoenaed has either testified or been held in contempt.

So, the downside of not testifying, of ignoring the subpoenas unless he can arrange the furniture, is exactly, what?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

TWITS TAKE OVER.

This morning Twitter took over my iPad.  I hit on an unidentified link (let that be a lesson to me) in an online newspaper and it took me to Twitter.  Once I was there Twitter would not let go until I turned my iPad off and turned it back on.

Twitter says they cannot stop hate tweets, but Twitter can take over my iPad?

Really? 

Why would anyone believe what Twitter says anyway?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THE ICEMAN COMETH: LET'S LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

We know some numbers but not others.  We are missing some key information here.

We know that the New York City office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ballooned by 266%.  In 2016, they had 313 employees.  Now they have 1,144.

Apparently the people responsible for ICE know the raw numbers of migrants they arrest.  But so far as we know, their numbers are not publicly broken down between people with criminal records and the obviously larger number of people who have not broken any laws.

If you want to pad the numbers of people you have deported, you deport the easy ones.  If you arrest criminals, criminals might hurt you for one thing.  It's an old bureaucratic trick:  If your supervisors are looking for numbers, give them numbers.

But that's not good enough.   We need to know how many of these people being deported have criminal records because that's where the primary focus should land, on violent criminals who are here illegally.

It should not be public policy to make your first priority be the people who have not broken the law.

This is (still) America:  Catch the criminals first!  That should be the first priority of any organization that calls itself a "law enforcement agency."

 

See generally Christina Goldbaum, Asylum Seekers Got Relief.  Then ICE Moved In. New York Times, p. A1, Monday, April 22, 2019 (reporting that certain immigrants were granted temporary residency when President Obama was in office for so long as they continuously checked in with ICE, but after President Trump took office ICE started arresting these people when they checked in and because they know exactly where they are; posted online with a different headline; before you click on the hyperlink, be aware that The New York Times may charge you for it).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

WHY?

Why did law enforcement officials keep silent when they were ambushed  for doing their jobs?  Okay, ambushed is one word.  Attacked from behind is also true.

The long-awaited report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, released on Thursday painted a portrait of law enforcement leaders more fiercely under siege than previously known. They struggled to navigate Mr. Trump’s apparent disregard for their mission through a mix of threats to resign, quiet defiance and capitulation to some presidential demands. While their willingness to stay quiet might have protected their institutions, it also helped empower Mr. Trump to continue his attacks.

Katie Benner and Adam Goldman, A Darker Portrait Emerges of Trump’s Attacks on the Justice Department, New York Times online Good Friday, April 19, 2019 (the New York Times may charge money for online access, or dock you for a free article).

So, who told them that it is a good idea to stay quiet?  In the end staying quiet has protected nothing.

Just the opposite. 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.