Search This Blog

Translate

Blog Archive

Middleboro Review 2

NEW CONTENT MOVED TO MIDDLEBORO REVIEW 2

Toyota

Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon



Showing posts with label political corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political corruption. Show all posts

Friday, February 2, 2018

Zinke's agency held up Indians’ casino after MGM lobbying


Zinke's agency held up Indians’ casino after MGM lobbying

Two tribes in Connecticut say the Interior Department illegally failed to say yes or no to their plans for a third casino in the state.


Ryan Zinke is pictured. | Getty Images

The Interior Department’s refusal to sign off on the tribes’ plans for a third Connecticut casino came after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and other senior department officials held numerous meetings and phone calls with MGM lobbyists and the company’s Republican supporters in Congress. | Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Two casino-owning American Indian tribes are accusing Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke of illegally blocking their plans to expand operations in Connecticut — a delay that stands to benefit politically connected gambling giant MGM Resorts International.
The Interior Department’s refusal to sign off on the tribes’ plans for a third Connecticut casino came after Zinke and other senior department officials held numerous meetings and phone calls with MGM lobbyists and the company’s Republican supporters in Congress, according to a POLITICO review of Zinke’s schedule, lobbying registrations and other documents. The documents don’t indicate whether they discussed the tribes’ casino project.
Federal law gives Interior just 45 days to issue a yes-or-no verdict after a tribe submits proposed changes to its gaming compact with a state, as the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes note in a suit they filed against Zinke and the department. But the department declined to make any decision in this case, an inaction that raises questions about whether an intensive lobbying campaign by one of the gambling industry’s biggest players muscled aside the interests of both the tribes and the state of Connecticut.
“I think the Department of Interior has been derelict in failing to give approval” to the tribes’ request, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told POLITICO. “We asked for a meeting, but they were unresponsive. They never even responded.”
Meanwhile, MGM and its allies had direct access to Interior. Zinke had multiple conversations last year with Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei — two Nevada Republicans whose state is a major center of employment for MGM, and who have each tried to impede the tribes’ casino plans. The company also doubled its lobbying spending and assembled a team that includes Bush-era Interior Secretary Gale Norton and Florida-based Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard.
The proposed Connecticut casino would sit on non-tribal land just across the border from a billion-dollar casino that MGM is planning in Springfield, Massachusetts. The Pequot tribe’s Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut previously provoked the ire of former New Jersey casino owner Donald Trump, who complained during a 1993 congressional hearing that “they don’t look like Indians to me.”
An Interior spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment, but the department is due to respond by next week to the suit the tribes filed in November. MGM has sought to join the suit on Interior’s side.
MGM and its supporters say the tribes are trying to circumvent restrictions on “off-reservation” gambling while still maintaining their exclusive access to Connecticut’s lucrative casino market, and that the new property would provide unfair competition to its Springfield project.
Interior officials sent the tribes encouraging signals as recently as May. But by mid-September the department reversed course, saying it would be premature to either approve or reject the plans.
“It’s 100 percent about delaying us for as long as they possibly can,” said Andrew Doba, a spokesman for the joint enterprise the tribes created for their new project.
The case is far from the first legal dispute to arise from Interior’s role as the overseer of Indian tribes’ gambling agreements with the states. Clinton-era Secretary Bruce Babbitt faced a special prosecutors’ investigation after Interior rejected three Wisconsin tribes’ plans for a casino that other, Democrat-supporting tribes opposed — though he ultimately was cleared. Indian gambling also played a key role in the George W. Bush-era Jack Abramoff scandal.
In the Connecticut case, the tribes have been operating two casinos — the Pequot tribe’s Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun — since the early 1990s. Their success in the market between Boston and New York provided competition to casinos in Atlantic City, including the formerly Trump-owned Taj Mahal.
As gambling spread across the U.S. in recent decades, MGM and other casino developers — including Trump — pursued projects in Connecticut but were ultimately unsuccessful. State law there limits casino ownership to the two in-state tribes and their new joint venture.
The tribes say they are fully complying with state law and the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which allows federally recognized tribes to operate casinos on their reservations or lands held in trust by the federal government. The casino they want to open is technically a commercial project that would be operated by MMCT Venture, a company jointly owned by the tribes that owns the casino site in East Windsor and entered into a development agreement with the town.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and the state legislature signed off on that arrangement last year, so long as the tribes agreed to amend their gaming compacts that guaranteed a certain share of slot revenues would go to the state. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires Interior to approve such compact amendments after a brief review window, unless the amendments violate the terms of the federal law.
The lawsuit seeks to force approval of the contract, arguing that the law does not allow Interior to refuse to render a verdict.
“IGRA and its implementing regulations leave the Secretary with no discretion to proceed in any other manner,” Connecticut and the tribes argue in their lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Nov. 29.
At one point, Interior seemed inclined to agree with the tribes’ interpretation of the law. In a May 12 technical guidance letter to the tribes, Associate Deputy Interior Secretary James Cason acknowledged that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for a 45-day review period for compact amendments and that the department may disapprove them only for violating the act, other federal laws or trust obligations to the tribes.
While Cason stressed that his advice was nonbinding and did not constitute a preliminary decision, he endorsed earlier guidance from the Obama administration that the Connecticut amendment reflected the “unique circumstances” at play and that opening a new casino would not affect the tribes’ exclusivity agreement with the state.
But the tribes’ request drew opposition from out-of-state lawmakers like Heller and Amodei.
“Under that framework, the tribes seek to expand off-reservation gaming without going through the procedures mandated by” the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Amodei wrote in a July 28 letter to Cason, following up on a discussion earlier that day. Amodei asked whether Interior planned to allow the 45-day review period to lapse, which would allow the amendments to be “deemed approved.”
Ultimately, Interior decided against approval. Acting Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Michael Black told the tribes in a Sept. 15 letter that approving or disapproving the amendment to their gaming compact was “premature and likely unnecessary,” and said Interior had “insufficient information” to make a decision. However, he did not cite any legal justification for that move, nor did he outline what additional information the department would need.
Interior has on at least one occasion returned a gaming compact amendment rather than make a yes-or-no decision, although the circumstances were slightly different at the time. In 2013, the department told the Cheyenne-Arapaho tribes in Oklahoma that it could not process their amendments because of incomplete information. But in that case, the department replied in less than 30 days rather than wait for the entire review period to elapse, and it cited specific regulations and outlined what additional information it needed from the tribes.
Black copied Amodei and Heller on his letter but did not include any Connecticut lawmakers. (He did say a separate letter was going to Malloy, the Connecticut governor.) Zinke and Heller also spoke on the phone on Sept. 15, according to an entry on Zinke’s calendar. And the day before Black sent the letter, Zinke and Cason were scheduled to meet at the White House with deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn, although Zinke’s calendar does not list the subject of the meeting.
Ahead of the decision, MGM “participated in Interior’s review” through meetings and correspondence in which the company urged Interior to either return the amendments without making a decision or to disapprove them for violating the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, according to a statement filed in court by Uri Clinton, MGM’s senior vice president and legal counsel.
MGM brought on heavyweights including Norton — who disclosed her work for the company just last month — as well as Ballard, a lobbyist who has helped raise millions for Trump’s campaign. MGM’s spending on lobbyists for all issues more than doubled last year, to $1.5 million spread across five outside firms and its own newly formed in-house team.
An affiliated company, MGM Public Policy LLC, also paid $270,000 last year to hire a team of lobbyists from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP to work on issues including gaming. That’s the firm at which Deputy Interior Secretary David Bernhardt worked until he joined the administration last year, though he has agreed to recuse himself from matters involving former clients of his firm without prior authorization.
“MGM Resorts last year established a public policy office in Washington to engage more directly on Federal legislative and policy issues,” an MGM spokesman said in a statement. “Our advocacy activity reflected that increased engagement. As the largest employer in Nevada, part of that advocacy is routinely engaging our elected representatives.”
Heller and Amodei each had multiple meetings and phone calls with Zinke last year, according to the secretary’s calendar, although it’s unclear whether they discussed the Connecticut casinos. On one occasion, Zinke joined Heller for dinner at a Las Vegas steakhouse on July 30, when he was in the state touring national monuments, one of several pieces of Interior’s portfolio of interest to Nevada.
A Heller spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. But the senator has tried to advance MGM’s interests in the past: In 2016, he offered an amendment to a defense bill that would have prevented Indian tribes from operating commercial casinos in the same state where they operate casinos on the reservation — precisely what the Connecticut tribes are trying to do. The amendment never came to a vote, and Heller does not appear to have ever discussed it publicly.
MGM employees and the company’s political action committee have given $96,000 this cycle to Heller’s reelection campaign and leadership PAC, making the company his largest single source of contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Amodei has received no donations from company employees or its PAC.
Interior’s Sept. 15 decision came two weeks after Zinke invited several lobbyists for MGM to join him and other guests for a social visit on his office balcony, which overlooks the National Mall. They included, according to Zinke’s calendar, Ballard and other lobbyists from his firm Florida-based firm Ballard Partners, which opened its first Washington, D.C., office in 2017. Also present were Zinke’s former family attorney and a major GOP fundraiser, according to copies of the secretary’s calendar.
MGM hired Ballard in March and paid the firm $270,000 last year, according to disclosure filings. Ballard was Florida finance chairman for Trump’s 2016 campaign and helped organize a fundraiser at the Trump International Hotel in Washington last summer at which donors gave $35,000 to attend or $100,000 to join the host committee.
Ballard declined to discuss his work for MGM or any other client and said he could not recall the details of that particular meeting, which took place Aug. 29, according to Zinke’s calendar. But Ballard said he had met Zinke and thinks “the world of him.”
In October, MGM brought on Norton, who served as Interior secretary from 2001 to 2006, to lobby on issues related to the Connecticut tribes. Norton began lobbying for MGM on Oct. 25, according to disclosures filed Jan. 19.
The next day, Oct. 26, Interior officials spoke to the tribes and asked them to explain why the department was obligated to weigh in on their casino since it was being built by a commercial entity and not on tribal land.
In a brief interview last week, Norton said she did not know why her disclosure form was filed so late — lobbyists are required to file disclosures within 45 days — and she did not respond to follow-up inquiries.
Meanwhile, a new state legislative session begins in February in Connecticut. MGM plans to ask legislators there to allow an open bidding process for new casinos in the state, arguing that Interior’s refusal to act shows that the state's attempt to limit casino ownership to the tribes would not work.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

RSN: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship | Resisting the Congressional Watchdog




It's Live on the HomePage Now: 
Reader Supported News


Sure, I'll make a donation!

FOCUS: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship | Resisting the Congressional Watchdog 
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan delivers remarks on the floor of the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) 
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Consortium News 
Excerpt: "Mark Twain noted that man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to. He also believed that 'public office is private graft.' Those two observations from our greatest and most sagacious humorist intersected with a bang on Capitol Hill Monday night, when the bright lights of the Republican House Conference met in secret behind closed doors at the end of the New Year's holiday." 
READ MORE

Contribute to RSN
Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter





Thursday, April 14, 2016

Zephyr Teachout




Bernie Sanders for President

When we talk about a political revolution, we also need to have people in Congress who aren't beholden to special interests.

That's why I want you to meet Zephyr Teachout, who's running for Congress in New York as a Democrat.

Zephyr literally wrote the book on political corruption. She understands better than anybody how special interests try to buy off politicians, and she's dedicated her life to fixing our broken political system.

Zephyr is exactly the kind of person I'd want in Congress when I'm president. That's why I'm asking you directly:

Split a contribution to Bernie 2016 and to Zephyr Teachout to make sure we have people in Congress who can stand up to special interests and do what's right for working people.


Zephyr's not just against fracking – she worked hand-in-hand with anti-fracking activists to help stop it in New York State.

She's not just against political corruption – she's led organizations to fight the influence of money in politics and to break up the banks too.

And now that she's running for Congress, she's doing it with a grassroots movement, with more than 10,000 donors to her campaign in just a few months.
Zephyr is the real deal. Can you help her with a contribution?

Contribute to help win the White House and elect Zephyr Teachout to Congress. Let's put a whole political revolution in power.

Thanks for being a part of our movement.

In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders














Paid for by Bernie 2016
(not the billionaires)
PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE


Sunday, February 28, 2016

Amir Parvez said it all!




Amir Parvez added 67 new photos to the album: Bernie Sanders / Elizabeth Warren 2016 — with Bernie Sanders and 3 others.

"The problems we face, did not come down from the heavens.
They are made, they are made by bad human decisions,
and good human decisions can change them.
The greed of the billionaire class has got to end and we are going to do it for them. I don’t represent the big-money interests and I don’t want their money.
What kind of nation are we when we give tax breaks to billionaires, but we can't take care of the elderly and the children?
We have billions to spend on war but no money to take care of the very pressing needs of the American people. That bothers me a lot.
Children should not go hungry in this country while profitable corporations and the wealthy avoid their tax responsibilities.
Education must become affordable to all.
Health care should be a right, not a privilege.
Nobody who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty.
I got into politics not to figure out how to become President.
I got into politics because I give a damn. And that's why I'm fighting for change.
I believe that at the end of the day when people come together,
when people are united there is nothing, nothing, nothing that can stop us."
"I don't take money from big banks. I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. Secretary Clinton has received over $600,000 from Goldman Sachs in one year, and she is not the only one.
Goldman Sachs has given this country two secretaries of treasury, one on the Republicans, one under Democrats. The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to Congress and tells us we should cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Congress is not listening to the American people. It's listening to the Big Money and Big Pharma interests.
Citizens United gave billionaires like the Koch Brothers an even bigger opportunity to purchase the House, the Senate, even the White House. Super PACs are enabling the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country to spend unlimited amounts on elections.
We have a campaign finance system that is corrupt, we have super PACs, we have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying, and the private insurance companies as well.
We've got to bring back the 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation and we've got to break up these huge financial institutions. They have too much economic power and they have too much financial power over our entire economy. We need to end Citizens United.
The CEOs of large multinationals may like Hillary. They ain't going to like me and Wall Street is going to like me even less."
“We have a problem: money. Our system of elections is riddled with corruption. Money floods our political system, money that lets a handful of billionaires shape who gets into Congress and may decide who sits in the White House.
But that does not mean that anyone with any integrity must roll over and play dead. This congress doesn't lack for workable ideas for how to root out the influence of money in politics. This congress just lacks a spine to do it.
Six years ago the Supreme Court turned loose a flood of hidden money that is about to drown our democracy. We can blame the Supreme Court, heck we should blame the Supreme Court. But that is no excuse for doing nothing.
A new presidential election is upon us. The first votes will be cast in Iowa in just a few days. Anyone who shrugs and claims it is too hard has crawled into bed with the billionaires who want to run this country like some private club.
All of us were sent here to do our best to make government work, to make it work not just for those at the top but to make government work for all people. And it's time we start acting like it.”
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
"Ever since Donald Trump has been opening his mouth, you're seeing all these bitter people, demagogues, latent racists who are becoming emboldened. You're seeing some ugly stuff happening around this country. I know you`re angry. And you know what? You should be angry because you`re working longer hours for low wages.
We've got millions of people who are in trouble today. They are fearful. They’re confused. They are anxious on a number of levels. We have people with two or three jobs, worried to death about their children, worried about their own retirement. The cost of everything, from college tuition to prescription drugs, has gone up and people aren’t getting paid a living wage.
People are hurting, they’re struggling, and no one is talking about it. They want something to be able to stand up and fight for. That`s what I believe the antidote is to Trumpism.
What’s the cause of their problems? What does it mean that 58 percent of all new income in America is going to the top 1 percent?Who is your enemy? Is it Wall Street? Is it Big Money? Is it massive inequality in terms of wealth and income?
Well, no one talks about that really. Why do you keep voting for people who are giving more tax breaks to billionaires, who are going to send your jobs abroad, not going to let you form a union, not going to allow your kids to go to college?
Because they pick out a victim whether it`s Blacks, whether it`s gays, whether it`s women, whether it`s immigrants, whether it`s Muslims who we can pick on.
We can't allow racism and xenophobia to gain traction. You want decent jobs. You want your kids to have an opportunity. We’re going to fight to give you that.
Don’t go to the dark side. Don't take it out on the Muslims or Latinos. Don’t go bashing immigrants or refugees. We've got to stand with those people who are being attacked today. We’ve got to stand up to the people who are so angry, who are so hateful.
Try to help us work together to create a country where your kids and you can have a decent standard of living. It has to be a bold and radical agenda, a political movement that will make your life better, not just other people's lives worse."
Bernie Sanders
Don't #MakeAmericaHateAgain
WHEN YOU & YOUR FAMILY/FRIENDS DON'T VOTE, REPUBLICANS WIN!
Many of you have few days left to register and vote Democrat for Bernie Sanders. Please make sure you do that.
Remember that all the ignorant Republicans are going to vote in huge numbers 'religiously' because most of them think their 'God' wants them to vote for the 'not so Republican' GOP morons.
Voting for HILLARY CLINTON would mean choosing Government Of the Rich, By the Corrupt, For the Corporations.
BERNIE SANDERS is a real Social Democrat.
=>Government Of the People, By the People, For the People
Choosing her over Sanders is like choosing the status quo... the same mess and unfair system that won't change anything.
It doesn't take rocket science to understand that corporations invest into politicians like Hillary only for profits and favors at the expense of our interests.
To the feminists who support her just because she is a woman... You don't need a female president but a feminist president who understands women's issues. And that would be Bernie. Clinton just doesn't care.
The GOP, Hillary Clinton, her billionaire/Wall Street friends, DNC, Media and all corrupt politicians and corporations will try their best to sabotage Bernie Sanders' political revolution. We the People must not let that happen. We cannot ignore this real, just war against the oligarchy destroying/controlling our lives and the world.
Media and DNC are against Bernie Sanders. Make sure you educate the people in your life about Bernie Sanders and and Social Democracy. Make them vote Sanders!
"There is a secret to being a supporter of Bernie Sanders. It is something that totally escapes the thinking of most Democrats and Republicans. It is the mental understanding that Sanders is fighting a war that most people are not. It is the war between corporations and the people. Unless you are fighting this war as well, you cannot possibly understand how important it is to vote for Bernie over Hillary. This is not about Hillary or Bernie, it is about fighting your real enemies, the multi-national corporations who are trying to control this nation and the world. You ignore this war at your own peril."
"The illusion of democracy is an insult to our intelligence.
The world is being taken over by a handful of business powers who dominate the natural resources we need to live, while controlling the money we need to obtain these resources. The end result will be world monopoly based not on human life but financial and corporate power. Corruption is not some by-product of capitalism, it is its very foundation.
Efficiency, sustainability, and abundance are enemies of profit. It is the mechanism of scarcity that increases profit. War, poverty, corruption, hunger, misery, human suffering will not change in a monetary system.
The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious informed public capable of critical thinking. They seek to keep you in a distracted, naive bubble. And they are doing a damn good job of it.
You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free. It's time to claim the unity and work together to create a sustainable global society, where everyone is taken care of and everyone is truly free."
-Jacque Fresco
“If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.
Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves and the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.
The challenge remains. On the other side are formidable forces: money, political power, the major media. On our side are the people of the world and a power greater than money or weapons: the truth. We live in a beautiful country. But people who have no respect for human life, freedom, or justice have taken it over. It is now up to all of us to take it back.”
-Howard Zinn
#Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern #WeAreBernie #NotMeUs #BernieOrBust #WeEndorseBernie

Saturday, May 30, 2015

RSN: Denny Hastert Is Contemptible, but His Indictment Exemplifies America's Over-Criminalization Pathology



Food for thought!


Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)
Glenn Greenwald. (photo: Reuters)

Denny Hastert Is Contemptible, but His Indictment Exemplifies America's Over-Criminalization Pathology

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
30 May 15

ush-era House Speaker Denny Hastert, who was indicted yesterday, is a living, breathing embodiment of everything sleazy and wrong with U.S. politics. That is highlighted not only by his central role in enabling every War on Terror excess, but also by this fact:
Hastert’s ability to make such large cash payments probably came from his career as a K Street lobbyist. He entered Congress in 1987 with a net worth of no more than $270,000 and then exited worth somewhere between $4 million and $17 million, according to congressional disclosure documents.
That common arc is more of an indictment of U.S. political culture than Hastert himself, but he’s certainly been happily and hungrily feeding at the trough. A political system that essentially ensures that every powerful political official becomes extremely rich is one that is inherently corrupt — as we’ve been taught for decades about those Bad Other Countries — and that is the most interesting and most important part of this story.
 
But Hastert was not indicted for any of that. Nor was he indicted for the alleged, unspecified “past misconduct” against an unnamed person to whom he agreed to pay $3.5 million to keep concealed.
 
Instead, Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him. That’s it. For those venial acts, he faces five years in a federal prison on each count.
 
Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused. His long record in Congress involved, among many things, denying equal rights to people based on the “Family Values” tripe, as well as continually supporting ever-increasing penalties and always-diminished rights for criminal defendants. So he’s reaping what he sowed.
 
Moreover, because Hastert is rich, well-connected and white, he’s highly likely to receive extremely favorable treatment from the U.S. justice system, as David Petreaus among many others will be happy to explain to you. That two-tiered justice system — a super-lenient and forgiving one for the rich, white and powerful; a relentlessly oppressive one for everyone else — was the topic of my 2011 book, With Liberty and Justice for Some.
 
But there’s a reason the U.S. has become a sprawling, oppressive penal state, imprisoning more of its citizens than any other nation in the world, both in raw numbers and proportionally. There are actually many reasons: the profit motive from privatized prisons, the bipartisan nature of the “tough-on-crime” agenda, the evils of the Drug War, mandatory minimum sentences, the disproportionate use of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment against minorities.
 
But one key factor is over-criminalization: converting relatively trivial and harmless acts into major felonies. The postal worker who just engaged in an act of nonviolent political protest — flying a gyrocopter to the U.S. Capitol lawn to protest the corrupting role of money in U.S. politics — faces up to nine years in prison on multiple felony charges. That is over-criminalization, as are the shamefully large number of people in prison for selling prohibited narcotics to consenting adults who wanted them, or even for just possessing them.
 
Radley Balko, who has done among the best work on the broken U.S. criminal justice system, said this morning: “Dennis Hastert is one of the last people I want to be defending. But these charges are the picture of over-criminalization run amok.” Indeed, who is the victim in Hastert’s alleged crimes, which — again — do not include the “past misconduct”? He literally faces felony counts and years in prison for hiding an agreement to pay someone claiming to have been victimized by him, an agreement that is perfectly legal and standard (even common) when done with lawyers as part of an actual or threatened court case.
 
Over-criminalization breeds injustice and abuse of power. As the New York Times’s Adam Liptak reported in a great 2008 article on the uniquely oppressive U.S. penal state: “people who commit nonviolent crimes in the rest of the world are less likely to receive prison time and certainly less likely to receive long sentences.” Moreover, “Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.”
 
Long-time appellate judge Alex Kozinski co-authored an essay entitled “You’re (Probably) a Federal Criminal,” noting how easy it is to become a felon. “Most Americans are criminals, and don’t know it, or suspect that they are but believe they’ll never get prosecuted … Violations are so common that any attempt to go after all criminals would sweep up millions of people.” The essay cited as examples misfiling tax returns even inadvertently, smoking marijuana, betting on a sporting event with a bookie, lying to a government bureaucrat — all acts that can be, and have been, prosecuted as federal felonies. In their book The Politics of Injustice, the criminologists Katherine Beckett and Theodore Sasson documented:
In 2000, police arrested more than 2 million individuals for such “consensual” or “victimless” crimes as curfew violations, prostitution, gambling, drug possession, vagrancy, and public drunkenness. Fewer than one in five of all arrests in that year involved people accused of the most serious “index” crimes [such as assault, larceny, rape or homicide].
When everything — even trivial transgressions — can become a serious felony, it empowers law enforcement to punish whomever they want. It’s a key reason they are able to basically use arrest and prosecution powers to control and punish minority populations in the U.S. The arrest and destruction of Eliot Spitzer for prostitution was accomplished through the same type of detection system and charges being used against Hastert.
 
Turning someone into a felon and putting them into prison for years, or even threatening to do so, is one of the most repressive things a government can do to its citizens. Only serious acts of wrongdoing should enable that. The “past misconduct” in which Hastert allegedly engaged may qualify, but that’s not part of his charges. The acts for which he has been charged — hiding withdrawals and lying to the FBI about why he wanted that money — do not qualify.
 
What we have here is a classic case of the warped American justice system. Hastert’s seriously bad and corrupt acts will remain unpunished. And the acts for which he is being punished, at least as laid out in the indictment, are not seriously bad and corrupt. One can harbor contempt for Hastert (as I do) while still recognizing the disturbing aspects of the U.S. justice system revealed by his indictment.
UPDATE: In the indictment, the DOJ made the decision not to expressly specify the “past misconduct” Hastert sought to conceal. Nonetheless, federal law enforcement officials apparently spent the day running around leaking to media outlets what the indictment worked hard to insinuate: that “Hastert paid a man to conceal sexual misconduct while the man was a student at the high school where Hastert taught.” So this seems to be a case where federal prosecutors wanted to punish someone for a crime they couldn’t prove he committed, so instead reached into their bottomless bag of offenses to turn him into a criminal for something else.
 
Obviously, “sexual misconduct” with a student is a serious offense, but that still is not part of what Hastert is charged with. In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers. What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one’s views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that.
 
 
 
 
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner

Sunday, April 26, 2015

RSN: Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company



Is this reminiscent of Ken Starr, Whitewater, David Brock, Lee Atwater's slimy tricks, a stained dress and dragging the nation through the mud to the amusement of the rest of the world?




There are Progressive Candidates who would serve the nation well, far better than the American Sharia running for the GOP nomination. Shouldn't we be wondering if GOP mud is what we want?




It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News


The Clintons. (photo: Getty Images)
The Clintons. (photo: Getty Images)

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company

By Amy Davidson, The New Yorker
26 April 15

he Times has reported that people involved in a series of Canadian uranium-mining deals channelled money to the Clinton Foundation while the firm had business before the State Department. And, in one case, a Russian investment bank connected to the deals paid money to Bill Clinton personally, through a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee. There were a number of transactions involved, and corporate name changes, but, basically, a Canadian company known as Uranium One initially wanted American diplomats to defend its Kazakh uranium interests when a Russian firm, Rosatom, seemed about to make a move on them; and then, after the company decided to simply let Rosatom acquire it (through Rosatom’s alarmingly named subsidiary, ARMZ), Uranium One needed State Department approval. (The approval was necessary because Uranium One controlled American uranium mines and exploration fields, a strategic asset.)

The Times sums it up this way:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million … Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
The Times says that the donations were not properly disclosed—the paper confirmed them by looking at Canadian tax records. Complicating matters, Uranium One’s corporate forebear had acquired the Kazakh interests after its major shareholder, Frank Giustra, travelled with Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan in 2005 and met with the country’s leader. Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, according to the Times, and so was not involved in the ARMZ dealings. But Giustra has put tens of millions of dollars into the foundation’s work; the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which bears his name, is a formal component of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. And Ian Telfer, the Uranium One chairman, whose family foundation donated the $2.35 million dollars, said that it had done so because he wanted to support that coöperation: “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he’d pledged the money in 2008, before the sale was on the table. Telfer also said that he’d never talked about uranium with Hillary Clinton. After the story came out, Giustra issued an angry statement, calling it baseless speculation and “an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign.” He added a note of Canadian admonishment: “You are a great country. Don’t ruin it by letting those with political agendas take over your newspapers and your airwaves.”
 
Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, told the Times, “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless.” There have been reports that other companies—Boeing, for example—gave money to the foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State and they had business before the department. The Uranium One story is more troubling, and potentially damaging, because of the personal ties, the foreign interests, the opacity, and the denouement, which involves Putin allies publicly gloating over Russia’s increased dominance of the world’s uranium supplies. The Times was tipped off to the story by a forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer, which a Clinton campaign spokesman has called a “smear project.” The Clinton people and others argue that Schweizer has an expressly conservative agenda, visible in his previous work, and ties to Republican candidates. The Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, addressing those concerns, said that, though she was troubled by the way the Times had described its relationship with Schweizer as “exclusive,” the paper had done its own reporting, and the story addressed valid questions about a Presidential candidate.
 
Here are five:
 
1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.
 
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:
 
2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me:?? the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.
 
Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.
 
This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms.
 
Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it.
 
Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.
 
And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.
 
3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”
 
4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.
 
5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?