Claims And Issues

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.

FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ....

You have probably heard about this.  I am writing this article to give you a link this morning to the full story.

Fool Me Once.

In 1989, William P. Barr wrote a memo for the U.S. Department of Justice.  In the memo, Barr reversed DOJ's position to allow federal agents to kidnap people who allegedly broke U.S. laws even though the people were on foreign soil and without even letting the host country know about it.  Let alone asking permission for U.S. agents to enter and arrest and remove people from the foreign country.

This would be like the KGB coming into the U.S., kidnapping Russian dissidents, taking them back to prison in Moscow, and never mentioning it to the United States.

Congress demanded to see the memo.  Barr refused.  Instead Barr offered a "summary of its principal conclusions."

That is what he did.  He testified, apparently under oath, to the memo's principal conclusions.

When the memo itself surfaced years later, something went wrong with Barr's  summary of principal conclusions, whether or not he was under oath when he testified to his summary.  Barr's summary wasn't nearly a summary of the memo.  Not even close.

In fact, the opposite.

 

Fool Me Twice.

In 2019, Mr. Barr wrote another memo.  Instead of releasing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Report once again he gave a "summary of its principal conclusions."

This time, he put his summary in writing.  For what it is worth, he was definitely not under oath.

Barr would not allow the public or even Congress, once again, to see any part of the Report unless he, Barr, said it was okay.

So, are you still inclined to famously give Barr the benefit of the doubt?  Or Mueller either, for that matter?  Or anyone else in this drama?

We already know everything we need to know.  When there is no reasonable doubt, what exactly is the benefit?

Here is another link to the full story:  Ryan Goodman, Barr's Playbook:  He Misled Congress When Omitting Parts of Justice Dep't Memo in 1989, JustSecurity.org, posted April 15, 2019.

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

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

This week is the beginning of 4 weeks now that the Mueller Report has been under wraps in the current federal government.  Once-seemingly powerful Representatives in the House said that they would subpoena the Mueller Report if it was not released to the public.  Other than talk, what are they going to do about it?

Tax returns are supposed to be released immediately upon the written request of the Chair of the House Committee concerned with finance.  Now that Representative has given them another extension, this time until April 23rd.  Once upon a time he and other Representatives said that they would subpoena the tax returns if need be.  Other than giving them more extensions, what is he going to do about it?

Representative Ilhan Omar has been attacked in one more contrived hit job this week, in addition to so many other hit jobs that seem to arrive about every week now in her case.  The people who do this are not negligent.  This is no mistake.  What is she going to do about it?

Did you think that if something is "against the law" it means that these people will not do it?  That's fine talk.  But it's only talk.  What are you going to do about it?

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

SECRET 33 YEARS. THEY MADE THEIR MONEY. NOW WE PAY.

Everybody knows that there is oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.  This myth has been around for decades.  Except that when the oil companies went looking they came up with a dry hole.  33 years ago.

In the meantime, the current Federal Government is rushing to sell leases cheap to drill for oil on our protected lands in Alaska.  Rushing to sell them and take in the money before 2020 comes.  Their reason for selling these leases?  Because everybody knows that there is oil in the Alaska protected lands.

Except that the oil companies came up with a dry hole when they went looking for it in 1986.  They drilled an exploratory well.  It was a dry hole.

They have kept it secret all that time.  Since 1986.  Until now.  See Steve Eder and Henry Fountain, Arctic Oil Well Hid Its Secrets For 3 Decades, New York Times, Wednesday, April 3, 2019, p. A1 (the New York Times may charge for online access to this article).

They kept their secret because two judges enabled them to keep it a secret.  There was testimony and there were documents.

The first judge sealed evidence including testimony in 1986 in a lawsuit among oil companies and their shareholders.

The second judge sealed the same evidence in a lawsuit that the oil companies filed against the State of Alaska to keep the public from seeing the evidence.

"Quiet in the Courts!"  This secret is now in plain sight.  It is also clear now that because this evidence was concealed 33 years ago, it causes us harm now.  That's a fact.

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

MOVE FEDERAL RESERVE TO BORDER. HE WOULD NOT GET IN.

The current chief prospect for the Federal Reserve owes $75,000 in back taxes.  For 5 years.

If he were at the border trying to get into the United States, they would not let him in.

But he is not.  He is in Washington, D.C. trying to get into the United States Federal Reserve.

Odds are he is likely to make it in the current Federal Government.

See Alan Rappeport, Jim Tankersley and Glenn Thrush, Fed Pick Who Owes Taxes is Latest Example of Trump's Vetting Woes, New York Times, Friday, March 29, 2019, p. B3  (New York Times may charge for online access).

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

MARTHA McSALLY and Dr. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD.

These two people have gotten very different treatment in the corporate and social media.  Martha McSally alleges that she was raped long ago.  Dr. Christine Ford alleges that a person or persons attempted to rape her long ago.

I have tried to figure out the reasons that they have been treated differently so far.  I do not think that anyone should be mistreated because they say that they were sexually harassed or raped.  EVER.  Here is what else I have thought about.

Rape v. attempted rape?  Is that a reason for the different treatment?

Appointed a Republican Senator by the Republican Governor of Arizona v. earned a Doctorate?  How about that as a reason for their different treatment?  That does not seem right, but it is 2019 after all.

No-name assailant v. naming her assailant?  That does not seem right, either, but then again ....

Dr. Ford testified to her allegations under oath.  Senator McSally has not.  She has never testified to her rape allegations under oath, so far as I know.

None of these differences seems satisfactory to explain to me why these two people have been treated so differently, one with bending-over-backwards deference it seems, and the other treated as though she were the criminal rather than her alleged assailant.

One other difference that I can think of is this.  Dr. Ford was assaulted a second time, by people with an agenda that did not want her story to be told.  These people not only did not want to listen.  They did not want ANYONE ELSE to hear her testimony, either.

In the end, maybe that's a difference that explains the different treatment that these people have received.

It's not a good reason, but it's a reason, Heaven help us.

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

SO LONG, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INVESTIGATIONS.

One of the next steps now will be for the current Attorney General to block investigations pending in U.S. Attorney's Offices across the nation, including in the Southern District of New York.

Or even more:  A press release or perhaps a letter telling us that the investigations exonerated everyone who has keys to the current Federal Government.

If any of these things happen you heard it hear first, as they say on a certain radio show.

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

READING BARR'S LETTER LIKE A LAWYER LIKE BARR.

Attorney General William P. Barr wrote a letter saying what Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller wrote.  What Mr. Barr wrote is not what Mr. Mueller wrote.  Mr. Barr wrote about what Mr. Mueller wrote.

That's for starters.  The media frenzy surrounding Mr. Barr's letter sometimes confuses Mr. Barr's letter with Mr. Mueller's report.  That is a mistake.

In the letter, Barr says a couple of things that are best understood, perhaps, with the help of a dictionary that translates Barr-bar-talk into English.

Mr. Barr writes that Mr. Mueller "did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."  (Emphasis added.)

"Find" means "conclude."

So, when Mr. Barr is saying that Mr. Mueller "did not find," he means that Mueller did not conclude.

That does not mean that Mr. Mueller "found no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia," as some have said it means.  Not at all.  (And remember, these are not the words of the Mueller Report that we are quoting here.  These are, to say again, the words of Barr in a letter he wrote to say what Mueller said.)

And it certainly does not mean that the Special Counsel 'found that the Trump campaign (etc.) did not conspire or coordinate with Russia."  Even Mr. Barr did not say that.  (And remember, again, that these are not the words of the Mueller Report but the words of Barr's letter that we are looking at here.)

Also, Mr. Barr's letter quotes a part of a sentence from the Special Counsel's Report that "[T]he [sic; so in Barr letter] investigation did not establish" conspiracy.  (Emphasis added.) Well, in the language of a lawyer like Mr. Barr, "did not establish" means that Mr. Mueller "did not file charges" of conspiracy that could arguably be proved beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

Again, that does not mean that "the investigation did not establish" that there was evidence of conspiracy, or that 'the investigation did establish' that there was no evidence of conspiracy either, just that the evidence that was established did not lead Mr. Mueller to seek indictments to prove crimes beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.

So, there you have it, a practical dictionary for interpreting the Barr letter.  Corporate media, those who have ears to hear, let them hear, as it says in the Good Book.

And as for understanding not so much what Mr. Barr wrote in the letter, but understanding why he wrote the letter and why in less than 48 hours he was able to divine that there was no intent by his boss to commit a crime where Robert Mueller and the Special Counsel's Office apparently could not prove intent based on the evidence, well to answer that question you do not need the help of any dictionary.  All you have to do is have a brain which, thank God, you have already.

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

SO MUCH FOR SEMPER FI, MAC: MORE PENTAGON PURGES PREDICTABLE.

Diverting troops to the border with Mexico is not only unnecessary, but even more important, it is undermining military readiness.  Who said that?  An opponent of the current Federal Government, perhaps?  Someone looking for headlines at their expense, maybe?

No to both.  The person who said that is the current Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Photo J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press.

Far from looking for headlines, he wrote it twice in two separate internal memorandums within the Pentagon.

In short, attempting to invent a national security crisis out of the U.S. border with Mexico is not working, so the current Federal Government is spending our taxpayer dollars inventing a national security crisis within the American military.  That's the real news.

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

PENTAGON PURGES PREDICTED.

See Edward Wong and Eric Schmitt, U.S. Strategy to Isolate Iran Roils Pentagon, New York Times, Wednesday, March 20, 2019, at A1 (Pentagon objects to current Federal Government's policies because they would likely put American service personnel in danger).

We can expect purges at the Pentagon soon.  These people in the current Federal Government do not like to hear anybody's views but their own, it seems.  Even when the other person's views come with obedience, these people only want to hear their own opinions.  (Look at James Mattis, for one example.)

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

WOULD YOU SIT STILL FOR A LECTURE FROM MIKE PENCE?

Well, neither would the Brits, the Germans, or the Belgians, among many others.  Mike Pence is apparently spearheading the current Federal Government’s drive to get other countries not to use Huawei telecommunications equipment.  The current Federal Government’s approach is, well, not very productive to say the least:

1. Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and others lecture other countries that they should not use the Chinese manufacturer’s equipment because it is a security risk.  Pompeo has reportedly threatened to withhold intelligence reports from nations that use Huawei equipment.
2. Scolding is all they do.  Figures like Mr. Pence and Mr. Pompeo have not provided “concrete evidence that Huawei poses a real risk.”
3. Last but not least, the current boss of the current Federal Government has suggested in his own way, that he would make criminal charges against Huawei go away “as part of a trade deal with China.”

For their part, other nations respond:

1. They test Huawei’s products in labs in their own countries. What they see, they can handle.  They don’t have an attitude, they have the test results.
2. Based on the evidence they have in hand, these other nations can control the risk – which is not nearly as great as people like Messers. Pence and Pompeo claim. Britain’s National Security Adviser, for example, says that any problems with Huawei equipment can be controlled through regulation, transparency, and standards (three things that are in short supply in the current Federal Government, so no wonder it says that it sees a threat of invasion here too).
3. They may not say so out loud, but if criminal charges mean so little, other countries understandably ask what does the rest of this routine mean anyway?

So there you have it:  This is your foreign policy now.  See Julian E. Barnes and Adam Satariano, Allies Spurning Campaign by U.S. to Block Huawei / Questioning Data Risk, New York Times, Monday, March 18, 2019, at A1 (New York Times may charge for online access at www.nytimes.com).

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

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE is SOCIAL SECURITY, MICK. FOR EVERYONE.

Mick Mulvaney said when unveiling suggested budget cuts for non-billionaires, that Social Security Disability Insurance is not Social Security.

Of course it is.  And you know better.

As Casey Stengel used to say, Mick, "You could look it up."  It's in many sections of my book, Catastrophe Claims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (Thomson Reuters West 2019 Spring Supplement in process).  You would probably get the most out of reading Section 18B:6, "Putting an 'insured status' into a covered disability in the Social Security Disability Insurance Program."

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

FEBRUARY 27, 1933: THE REICHSTAG FIRE. FEBRUARY 23, 2019: THE MADURO FIRE.

See Nicholas Casey, Christoph Koetttl and Deborah Acosta, Maduro Burned Aid?  Footage Shows Otherwise, New York Times, Monday, March 11, 2019, p. A1 (The New York Times may charge an online subscription for online access, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html).

Why would anyone believe the current Federal Government in the first place?

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

"MORE AMERICANS THAN NOT." MIKA, IT'S 64%!

In response to a recent poll, 64% of Americans surveyed think that the current occupier of the Oval Office committed crimes before he was given the keys to the office.

Earlier this morning, Mika Brzezinski announced this result on television by saying that "more Americans than not" think this.

64% is not simply "more Americans than not," you know.  These figures are unheard of.  If it were an election, it would be a landslide.

Have a cup of coffee this morning and digest that result.

Then talk about it.  A lot.

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

CORPORATE MEDIA DISTRACTED FROM THE SUBSTANCE BY THE SHINY, AGAIN.

Here is another example of the corporate media's feeding frenzy on the old "he said - she said" conundrum:  See Paul Kane, House Democrats Struggle to Break Through When It's All Trump, All the Time, Washington Post Online, posted Saturday, March 2, 2019.

I understand that can be a problem.  But that's not what I see and hear.

The House Democrats are actually doing a pretty good job of solving the problem.  They are breaking through.  Anyone who watches TV, listens to the radio or podcasts, or reads newspapers knows that.

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

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SECRECY ARE NOT ABSTRACT.

    Australia, a nation that prides itself on blunt talk and a "fair go" for all, often can't seem to manage either when it comes to prosecuting the most sensitive crimes.  The country shrouds law enforcement and the courts in unusual secrecy ....  That limits public scrutiny and, critics say, tilts the scales of justice against the victims.

Damien Cave, A Culture of Silence That Assaults Victims Twice, New York Times, Wednesday, February 27, 2019, p. A1.

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

"MODERATES" HIGH WATER MARK. AFTER THIS, WE GET REAL.

There are lots of words written and spoken about "socialism," and in particular that so-called "moderates" should reject anything different from  the way things have been done in the past.

In a "moderates" column today, The New York Times quotes a person at a Virginia town hall meeting who asked her Congresswoman how she could justify a party (Democrats) who "are the party of death and taxes."  This is the kind of person held up by corporate media and others as a "moderate."  See Catie Edmonson and Emily Cochrane, The Moderates Take a Grilling Back at Home, The New York Times, Monday, February 25, 2019, p. A1, apprehensively retitled online with the headline, In Conservative Districts, Democrats Have to Answer for Party’s Left Wing (the newspaper may require a subscription to access it).

Parenthetically, the reporting on town hall meetings does not mention that only Democratic Members of Congress are holding town hall meetings.

This is the high water mark of so-called moderates.  Soon reports will return to the facts, like:

• The vast majority of people in the United States favor, and will vote for, "Medicare for all" and "single-payer health care." Health insurance companies, hospitals, and many doctors are against it.  They make a lot of money the way things are.
• Increasing taxes on the rich is also favored by the vast majority of Americans. Rich people are understandably against increasing their taxes, so they spend less money than they would pay in taxes to promote campaigns seeking to make other people believe that everybody's taxes will increase.  But only their taxes will increase for the most part, and most people seem to know that in spite of the campaigns paid for by the rich.
• The Green New Deal is a resolution, not a statute. When any resolution is adopted -- and the Green New Deal Resolution has not been adopted yet -- it is a talking point, the beginning of a discussion of ways to do things.  Again, most people in this country know that the environment of 2019 is going to be way worse in 10 or 20 years or longer in terms of human existence.  The vast majority of people think that whether this will continue to look like the same country in 10 or 20 years, and what we as a nation can and should do about it, is a worthy debate to have in the United States of America.  Oil barons will turn up their air conditioners when things get too hot; many of the rest of the people will continue to die from the heat.

So, this is the high water mark of "moderate" stories disguised as reporting.  Apparently, "moderates" are "moderates" only if they keep you in power.  Inevitably, reporting will return to the actual facts.  Reality will become reality in spite of what we read and hear now.

In the end, we do not have a real choice.

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

"BREAKING NORMS" IS NOT THE SAME AS BREAKING LAWS.

  Part Three Today.

Incredible.  Seeing it all put together is just incredible.  See Mark Mazzetti, Maggie Haberman, Nicholas Fandos, and Michael S. Schmidt, Inside Trump's Angry War on Inquiries Around Him, New York Times, Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at p. A1 (New York Times Online may require a subscription).

NOTE ONCE MORE TO CORPORATE MEDIA:  This isn't just "breaking norms."  Read your own reporting. 

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

 

THEY'RE NOT "BREAKING NORMS." THEY'RE BREAKING LAWS. Part Two.

The Department of Education, led by Ms. Betsy DeVos, has been described as "a department that doesn't have much to lose."  Erica L. Green, published online under the headline, House Democrats Prepare to Scrutinize DeVos's Education Department, New York Times Online (posted Tuesday, February 19, 2019), quoting Michael J. Petrilli, who is identified in the article as president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

The Every Student Succeeds Act is a Federal law.  It requires the Secretary of the Department of Education to hold States "accountable for achievement gaps between white and minority students."  Reportedly, the Department of Education is not obeying the law.  The Department is apparently not holding the States accountable, which the law requires the Department to do.  Indeed, the Department may actually be doing nothing by way of accountability for anyone in compliance with the law. 

In addition, earlier this week, "[o]n Monday, Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general, filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's emergency declaration on the border."

On Tuesday, the current Administration vowed to terminate a Federal grant of $929 Million to the California High-Speed Rail Authority.  "It is unclear whether the federal government has the legal authority to withhold the grant," reports The New York Times.   Ms. Jennifer Medina, Trump Vows to Terminate Federal Grant For California, New York Times, Wednesday, February 20, 2019, p. A17, rewritten and republished Online with a different headline for unknown reasons, Trump Administration Wants California to Pay Back $2.5 Billion For High-Speed Rail (posted Tuesday, February 19, 2019).

NOTE AGAIN TO CORPORATE MEDIA:  The question is not whether they have the authority.  The question is whether they will get away with doing what they are doing.  Whatever else may be unclear to the corporate media, one thing is definitely not unclear:  This is all more than just "breaking norms."   It is clear that all this is of one piece:  breaking the law. 

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

THEY'RE NOT "BREAKING NORMS." THEY'RE BREAKING LAWS. Part One.

At least as soon as Michael T. Flynn entered the White House as the New National Security Adviser in January, 2017, at least some of the people currently in charge of our Federal Government quietly worked to enrich themselves and their friends by selling American nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia.

The technology for nuclear reactors is very similar to the technology necessary to build nuclear bombs, which is what Saudi Arabia wanted out of the deal.  Money it had, but nuclear bombs it lacked.

They all went nuclear so to speak but kept it quiet because it was against the law.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires consultation and cooperation with agencies of the Federal Government, like the Department of Energy which oversees American nuclear reactors.  The law also requires that the recipients of American nuclear reactors agree to certain conditions on using the reactors, which the Saudis have reportedly refused.  Finally, the approval of Congress is required whenever American nuclear reactors are sold to foreign actors.

This would all have been past history but, to borrow the famous Faulkner line, the past isn't dead, it isn't even past.  The current keepers of the Federal Government reportedly continued their efforts to secretly sell nuclear materials to Saudi Arabia as recently as last week.  See Nicholas Fandos and Mark Mazzetti, published online with the headline, House Opens Inquiry Into Proposed U.S. Nuclear Venture in Saudi Arabia, New York Times Online, posted Tuesday, February 19, 2019.

NOTE TO THE CORPORATE MEDIA:  This isn't "breaking norms."  This is breaking laws.  Call it what it is.

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