Claims And Issues

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.

BARR'S LAW IS TO AMERICAN LAW, AS BARR'S JUSTICE IS TO JUSTICE IN 2019.

Many people alive today remember the Vietnam-era saying and book title that went something like this:  "Military music is to music, as military justice is to justice."  It was so good, it feels right to bring it back in 2019, rephrased and refitted with this encore article for the occasion of William P. Barr's invitation to address the American Law Institute this week in Washington, D.C.

 

"The American Law Institute is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law."  That is how the American Law Institute or ALI for short, describes itself on its website's landing page, About ALI.

The ALI invited William P. Barr to speak at its Annual Meeting in 2019.  This week, Mr. Barr will address the membership of the ALI at the organization's Annual Dinner and Reception, at $125.00 apiece.

"By participating in the Institute's work, its distinguished members have the opportunity to influence the development of the law in both existing and emerging areas, to work with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics, to give back to a profession to which they are deeply dedicated, and to contribute to the public good."

Anyone paying attention knows that William P. Barr has not distinguished himself by working to "improve the law" or by working "with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics" or anyone else that you can name "to contribute to the public good."

Mr. Barr may be "deeply dedicated" but it is not to the legal profession.

The ALI did not ask its membership if William P. Barr should be invited to speak to us at our Annual Meeting.  Let alone to pay for the privilege for a price of $125.00 a head.

So a modest proposal here.  Since he's coming to speak, "leverage" William P. Barr's appearance at the ALI this week to generate a contribution to the public good:  As a member of the ALI, I call upon ALI leadership to donate the proceeds it makes from Mr. Barr's Annual Dinner appearance to at least one Legal Aid Society in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  In particular to Legal Aid in States along the U.S.-Mexico border where Barr's Department of Justice enables and perpetrates so many injustices. 

And if William P. Barr is charging for addressing the ALI, then the ALI leadership must donate an equivalent amount as well to Legal Aid.

They need the money.  William P. Barr does not.

This article is republished both on Claims and Issues Blog, https://claimsissues.typepad.com/, and on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.

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.

TODAY IS THE LAST DAY TO SUPPORT THE PAYDAY LOAN RULE!

I left the following Comments with the current Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier today in opposition to repeal of the Payday Loan Rule.  TODAY is the deadline for your own Comments to be heard!  The contact information is all set out in my own Comments, below.

 

May 15, 2019

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Online at:  https://www.regulations.gov

 

Re:    Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans;

          Proposal to Rescind or Repeal the "Payday Loan Rule."

          Docket No. CFPB-2019-0006

          RIN 3170-AA80

 

To the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

In your proposal to rescind the Payday Loan Rule you recite that it is cost-prohibitive for you to research the evidence to support your proposal.

          Then you list ten (10) cites as source evidence in your proposal anyway.

          Four of them are SSRN Working Papers which are, by their nature known to people who use them, unpublished pieces written as proposals for a future article.  They are drafts and as such, they are not cited because they are not reliable in that form.

          Another of your sources is from "Mercatus."  Even George Mason University, where Mercatus is housed, will not allow its name to be affiliated with them.

          One involved a survey of 48 borrowers in the Southeast of one State (not even across the whole State in question).  This matches up very poorly with the over One Million Comments that the CFPB has already received on the Payday Loan Rule.

          Another is to a cite that disagrees with your proposal to rescind the Payday Loan Rule.  You cite it apparently to criticize it for not being based on "sufficient evidence" (a common refrain for the current CFPB, it appears).  To the contrary, as I found when I examined the authority that you cite, the authors of that article applied "propensity score matching" in their investigation and explicitly stated that they actually did consider alternative causes before reaching their conclusion that you reject:  "Although a variety of policies could mitigate the health consequences of these exposures, expanding social welfare programs and labor protections would address the root causes of fringe services and advance health equity."  Jerzy Eisenberg-Guyot, Caislin Firth, Marieka Klawitter, and Anjum Hajat, From Payday Loans to Pawnshops:  Fringe Banking, the Unbanked, and Health, 37 Health Affairs 429 (2018).

          Another one of your cites, you note, found "a persistent reduction in liquor sales resulting from payday lending regulations that restricted access for frequent payday loan users."  84 FR at 4293.  This seems at odds with your conclusion that the authors of that article are of the opinion that the effects of regulating payday loans are "not clear."  Id.

          You describe another of your cites as based on a small sample that did not distinguish among types of loans including payday loans.

          That leaves your one cite, which you describe as using "a self-selected sample" to find that getting financial advice "is associated with less payday loan use, but that seeking debt counseling is correlated with a higher chance of payday loan use."  84 FR at 4293-4294.   This does not support your proposal to rescind the Payday Loan Rule.  It is evidence against it.

          In short, the evidentiary basis for rule-making here is definitely in support of retaining the Payday Loan Rule and against rescinding it without replacing it with something better in terms of consumer financial protections.  Your proposal does not replace the Payday Loan Rule with anything.  Your proposal to rescind the Payday Loan Rule is contrary to law and to the evidence and should be withdrawn.

          Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dennis Wall

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

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CALL YOUR REPEAL "CONSUMER PROTECTION"!

COMMENT BY MAY 15 against repealing THE PAYDAY LOAN RULE!

I left the following Comments with the current Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier today in opposition to repeal of the Payday Loan Rule.  Tomorrow is the deadline for your own Comments to be heard!  The contact information is all set out in my own Comments, below.

 

May 14, 2019

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Online at:  https://www.regulations.gov

Re:    Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans;

          Proposal to Rescind or Repeal the "Payday Loan Rule."

          Docket No. CFPB-2019-0006

          RIN 3170-AA80

To the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

Your assertion that it is too expensive to research the evidence is contrary to established administrative law and will not validly support your proposed rescission of the Payday Loan Rule.

          Your assertion is more than misleading.  It is downright false.

          It is clear that the current CFPB does not care about developing evidence at all in this proposal.  You have made no effort to support your proposal with new evidence.  The 47 printed pages of your proposal in the Federal Register is about 10% of the Payday Loan Rule and the evidence supporting it.  The Rule was printed at 449 pages in the Federal Register.  Its supporting evidence was sourced in 1,315 notes.

          Instead of evidence you are offering a different judgment based on the same evidence.  You offer only conclusions.  You do not provide evidence. 

          In the end, you may have the right to repeal the Payday Loan Rule.  But you have no right to call your repeal "Consumer Protection."

          Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely Yours,

Dennis Wall

 

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

 

ALI SPEAKING INVITATIONS: ALL IT TAKES IS A TITLE?

The true story of how William P. Barr was invited by the American Law Institute to speak for $125.00 apiece.

 

Some people are distinguished by their character.  I learned about how such people influenced the path of the law as a First Year Student in Law School.

Some people are distinguished only by the office they hold.  I learned about such people in the law as a child and later as an adult.

The lessons continue.

William P. Barr will address the Annual Dinner of the American Law Institute next week.  The ALI invited him to speak.

Did he earn his invitation to address the American Law Institute because he is distinguished by his character?

Or did he receive an invitation from the American Law Institute leadership to address the members of the ALI because William P. Barr is the person who currently sits in the office of the Attorney General?

You decide which is true.  But don't expect the ALI leadership to give you a vote.  They decided to invite William P. Barr to address the membership without asking the membership.  The ALI leadership did not think about whether it was William Barr's character or his office that stimulated their invitation to address the American Law Institute.

To paraphrase Mr. Barr, once the ALI's invitation came to him, this was his baby.

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

NOT BARRED, INVITED: WILLIAM P. BARR AND THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE.

"The American Law Institute is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law."  That is how the American Law Institute or ALI for short, describes itself on its website's landing page, About ALI.

The ALI invited William P. Barr to speak at its Annual Meeting this year.  In about ten days or so, Mr. Barr will address the membership of the ALI at the organization's Annual Dinner and Reception, at $125.00 apiece.

"By participating in the Institute's work, its distinguished members have the opportunity to influence the development of the law in both existing and emerging areas, to work with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics, to give back to a profession to which they are deeply dedicated, and to contribute to the public good."

Anyone paying attention knows that William P. Barr has not distinguished himself by working to "improve the law" or by working "with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics" or anyone else that you can name "to contribute to the public good."

Mr. Barr may be "deeply dedicated" but it is not to the legal profession.

The ALI did not ask its membership if William P. Barr should be invited to speak to us at our Annual Meeting.  Let alone to pay for the privilege for a price of $125.00 a head.

So a modest proposal here.  Since he's coming to speak, "leverage" William P. Barr's appearance at the ALI this month to generate a contribution to the public good:  As a member of the ALI, I call upon ALI leadership to donate the proceeds it makes from Mr. Barr's Annual Dinner appearance to at least one Legal Aid Society in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  In particular to Legal Aid in States along the U.S.-Mexico border where Barr's Department of Justice enables and perpetrates so many injustices. 

And if William P. Barr is charging for addressing the ALI, then the ALI leadership must donate an equivalent amount as well to Legal Aid.

They need the money.  William P. Barr does not.

This article is being posted simultaneously on Claims and Issues Blog, https://claimsissues.typepad.com/, and on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.

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.

THE MUELLER REPORT: REDACTIONS WERE NEVER HARD, BILL.

In Special Counsel Robert Mueller's March 27, 2019 letter to Attorney General Barr, he enclosed redacted copies apparently of his Introductions and Executive Summaries for both Volumes of his Special Counsel's Report.

It would take a month before Barr would reveal the Report, complaining that redacting this stuff was so hard.  Well, we do not -- yet -- have copies of what Mueller enclosed with his March 27 letter to Barr, but here is a pdf copy of the entire Introduction and Executive Summary on Volume 2 of the Special Counsel's Report:  Download Mueller ReptV2Int&ES

And here are the less-than-overwhelming redactions from those pages:

You can see them here for yourself.  There are two (2) pages with redactions.  We don't know the number of words redacted, but it ain't a lot, that's for sure.

Barr and his redactions.  What a piece of work they all are.

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.

"FAKE NEWS" AT THE BORDER. AND IN THE AIR.

There really is such a thing as "fake news."

Many ports of entry are being closed to migrants.  In their place are photographs of people who attempted to cross at other places that cannot be closed completely, like the desert.

Preexisting methods of processing migrants that were successful have been thrown away.  In their place are photographs of people who are interned in camps run by the current federal government.

Children were taken from their parents as a deterrent to coming here.  (Apparently this cruel policy was so brutal it is making a comeback with those who inflict it.)  Again, the only photographs of the children are the ones the current federal government allowed.

Where's the fake news?  That there is a "crisis" at the border with Mexico, that the United States is somehow under an "invasion" threat from families including mothers and children:  See Michael D. Shear, Miriam Jordan and Manny Fernandez, Migrants Pour Into a System That's 'on Fire' / U.S. Border Could Be at a Breaking Point, New York Times online Thursday, April 11, 2019 (the newspaper may charge for online access; I am not providing a hyperlink to this one because this article is not worth either a charge or using up one of your free articles in order to see it).

The enabling corporate media:  They couldn't do it without you.  Or without "fake news."

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

BAD BUGS, BAD PRESS ... AND BAD SECRETS.

Fungus resistant to antibiotics is killing people around the world.  Ironically, the outbreaks are killing people in many hospitals.  Including perhaps the hospital that for whatever reason you might go to in the United States.  Although you may not know it before you go.

Doctors, hospitals, the Federal Center for Disease Control (C.D.C.), and state governments won't tell people where, although they know.  That is because the hospitals and doctors have the benefit of secrecy agreements to keep the information from you.  They think that people dying from out-of-control fungi is bad for their reputations:

Even the C.D.C., under its agreement with states, is not allowed to make public the location or name of hospitals involved in outbreaks.  State governments have in many cases declined to publicly share information beyond acknowledging that they have had cases.

Matt Richtel and Andrew Jacobs, Deadly Germs, Lost Cures / A Mysterious Infection, Spanning the Globe in a Climate of Secrecy, New York Times online Saturday, April 6, 2019 (the New York Times may charge for online access; if you find that "you have one free article remaining," this is the one to use it on).

Secrecy agreements.  Good for their reputations, but they can stand any amount of our pain.  Definitely bad for our health if we go there without knowing any better while they are protecting their reputations -- maybe at the cost of our lives.

The author is at work on a book about "'Quiet in the Courts!' How Concealed Evidence and Secret Settlements Change Our Lives and Take Our Money."

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.