"... (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?"
That's the first of "Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company," by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker. (And of course Davidson means everything that "an e-mail, say" seems to suggest.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११६ टिप्पण्या:
The IRS certainly seems to be giving a pass to certain groups, The Clintons, Sharpton and MSNBC among them.
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it?
Which is why the standard before the Clintons came along was the appearance of corruption was unacceptable.
Probably the best thing the Clintons have ever done was expose the Left for the lack of integrity and principles it has. Feminists will defend a sexual predator and populists will defend the corrupt rich.
That's the first of "Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company," by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker. (And of course Davidson means everything that "an e-mail, say" seems to suggest.)
It's hilarious that she has to say it in a "wink, wink" sort of way, for plausible deniability.
The media tied Bush to Enron on way less substance than this.
the quid is always before the quo, but the time-delay is variable. Sometimes immediate, sometimes much, much down the line (think the mob). In this case, some of the quo happened during Hillary's SecState tenure, other is expected to happen during her presidency.
Clinton does not have to intervene. They know what they are supposed to do. She "intervenes" if they do not do it, to the long term detriment of their careers and lives.
When Amy says, "Why have they made it so easy?" she means "Why do they keep making my job so hard?"
Which is why the standard before the Clintons came along was the appearance of corruption was unacceptable.
This is still the standard for some politicians. Ask the McDonnells of VA.
Reading though that, I'm struck by how soft it is.
Faux-tough questions laced with kid-glove treatment.
Coleridge wrote that a conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
Wittgenstein wrote
52. If I am inclined to suppose that a mouse has come into being by spontaneous generation out of grey rags and dust, I shall do well to examine those rags very closely to see how a mouse may have hidden in them, how it may have got there and so on. But if I am convinced that a mouse cannot come into being from these things, then this investigation will perhaps be superfluous.
All the millions donated via the Clinton's "charity" for one purpose, buying influence with the Clintons. There are thousands of reputable, well run charities with documented histories which every Clinton donor could have supported.
The Clinton charity donations were and are pay for play.
Bill and Hillary Clinton's speaking fees are and were bribery.
"The Clinton charity donations were and are pay for play."
The "Clinton Foundation" would be audited for its failure to pay a large enough proportion of funds collected to charitable causes. No social services bureaucracy would call this a "charitable foundation."
Amy Davidson asks more than just five questions but the last one is the most intriguing:
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?
I suppost the answer is timing--get the bad stuff out there ASAP so it looks like the candidate is "vetted."
Meanwhile, Scott Walker keeps saying the right things.
Imaging if Scott Walker's wife started doing speeches at $5,000 each for the exact same people as Bill Clinton.
.....The media would go berserk.
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it?
It also speaks to the Clinton Fatigue. 4 more years of playing "depends what the definitions *is* is"...?
Nope. Not interested in going through all that bullshit again. 8 years of Bill was enough. Next.
The Clinton's are right in this case. There is an organized campaign using insider material, that's been kept locked up for years, being dripped out. This is material that was probably well known by the NYT and other media organizations, and filed away.
There is a powerful organization at work here. It goes without saying that this organization has great influence with most of the MSM, or rather seems to have effective control of it, as well as great influence in government agencies.
Who are these people/what is this organization?
It certainly isn't the Republican party or any part of their support network.
However much we dislike, distrust the Clintons, whoever is running this campaign is probably even more dangerous to the general welfare.
I think we have returned to arguing what the definition of is is.
Tens of millions in foreign cash to Bill and Hillary......nothing to see here, move along citizen.
buwaya puti said:
There is a powerful organization at work here. It goes without saying that this organization has great influence with most of the MSM, or rather seems to have effective control of it, as well as great influence in government agencies.
Who are these people/what is this organization?
It certainly isn't the Republican party or any part of their support network.
However much we dislike, distrust the Clintons, whoever is running this campaign is probably even more dangerous to the general welfare.
Soros?
@bp,
There is a powerful organization at work here.
It does seem like it's the Clinton Machine versus, well, who exactly? You're right, since this is all insider baseball, that it's coming from some group or groups on the Left.
It's like watching the Sinaloa cartel go after the Zetas, isn't it?
"In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust?"
You go through their secure, recorded, and archived communications...
!!!
On another note I would put some quid on the NSA having copies of all of her emails in Utah. The Russians and all of the people she corresponded with do too. I have all the emails people sent me.
buwaya puti said...
"There is a powerful organization at work here. It goes without saying that this organization has great influence with most of the MSM, or rather seems to have effective control of it, as well as great influence in government agencies.
Who are these people/what is this organization?"
They have all of Clinton's emails too most likely.
She is a dead duck.
If you are looking for a "who" it isn't a single person or organized force like that. It is the permanent aristocratic class that wants it's serfs in the US back. And yes Soros is one of them. This whole freedom and personal property thing got out of hand according to them.
Smoke does not always equal fire. But if everywhere you go there are charred timbers and smoking coals in your wake... bet on fire.
"...I would put some quid on the NSA having copies of all of her emails in Utah. The Russians and all of the people she corresponded with do too."
Let's contemplate the possibility that Putin has emails that Clinton really wants to keep from the public. Emails that would prove Bill and Hillary were bribed. If Putin held such a card, would any of us doubt he'd try to use it to influence US policy?
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.
Clinton Foundation only gives 15 percent of donations to charities
"Undeniably," 85% of the donated money DIDN'T get used for "good work."
Its old information, held for years, being dripped out weekly more or less, usually by the NYT, but repeated in synchronicity by others.
Similar stories of this sort died because they weren't amplified.
No, this is organized and directed. Its not a change in consensus among a class of people.
However much we dislike, distrust the Clintons, whoever is running this campaign is probably even more dangerous to the general welfare
Are you suggesting I feel sorry for them? I hope not. I'm not gonna vote for Hillary!!! because she has powerful enemies.
Even if "they" sat on this information for a long time, the Clintons are the ones taking the quid for quid pro quo.
Dream on. This is just the media drawing the sting in 2015 so they can go back to business as usual in 2016 - covering Hillbilly's ass and slaughtering Republicans.
And yes it does seem like the Sinaloa cartel vs the Zetas.
Whoever is after the Clintons seems more powerful than they are. The Clinton's don't seem to be able to shoot back. This isn't like them.
Something is happening in gangland.
Putin knows what's in those e-mails. Obama is on a string to Iran because of his own blindness and delusions.
Nobody ever accused the Clintons of delusions. They know exactly what they are doing and always have since Ross Perot put Bill in the White House.
The middle east is rife with conspiracy theories about everything. That's because they have been ruled by tyrants for centuries. We have a much shorter history of this but we are on our way.
This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it?
Which is why the standard before the Clintons came along was the appearance of corruption was unacceptable.
Don't blame the Clintons and their sycophants entirely. The usual stupid suspects, i.e. Republicans, are to blame too.
All the Republicans and establishment Republican media on this that I've heard have spoken of trying to find proof of a completed exchange. Never underestimate the ability of these boobs to screw up a sure thing.
But, as noted above, the actual standard is, for ethical purposes, an appearance of impropriety, and for legal/criminal purposes, the expectation of a quo when the quid is obtained. Whether Hillary intervened or otherwise did something for the benefit of donors is not the question, whether she led them to believe that they would get something in return is. It is no defense that, in typical Clinton fashion, they probably scammed people, taking the money under false pretenses with a wink and nod, and then not giving anyone their money's worth. They got the money up front like all prudent prostitutes do, and once it was in their pocket, there was no need to actually follow through.
They aren't drawing the sting. Who listens to this stuff at this point in election cycles? Who cares about political news ? The sting will come when someone uses all this inherently credible stuff - its in the NYT after all - in $billions of attack ads.
What the NYT and friends are doing is handing weapons to Republicans in order to undermine her viability and dissuade her backers.
I think the objective is to get her to drop out, and soon.
Hillary has no need of following through with the quo once she has the quid in hand.
She knows she isn't going to get the Harry Reid treatment, no thug is going to come over and make her slip on some exercise equipment, so she can do whatever the hell she wants with complete impunity.
Conspiracy theory du jour: Okay work with me here, as we head out deep into the weeds.
Do you ever wonder why HRC joined the Obama administration? After all the Clintons despised the Obamas & the feeling was mutual. Who goes "I know how to polish up my resume'. I'll take a job with an incompetent asshole who hates me, just so I can have the albatross of his failed administration around my neck when I run"? (That this is true or not is beside the point. In 2008, HRC had every reason to believe it, and did). She could have stayed Senator from NY, and run on a "well, mistakes were made, but let's save the good stuff & build on it" platform as an outsider. Hey, "Senator" worked for Obama!
And then there's the Clinton Foundation, involved in all those do-good projects around the globe. Taking in oodles of money, both domestic & foreign, and all, unlike a "real" publicly-traded corporation, with almost no outside oversight. Matter of fact, the guy brought in from the outside who tried to impose "standards" recommended by the non-profit business consultants just quit/was forced out.
Now, if HRC wanted to be of value to a foreign government, what's the best position she could get in the Obama Administration? Secretary of Defence? Nope. Vice President? Nope. But, Secretary of State, sure. And, what better way to launder foreign money, including the payoffs, than an international foundation?
I'm starting to suspect that HRC has been "turned" by a foreign government. If I'm suspecting it, others within the government are, too. HRC's supporters always felt that she was "cut out" of major decision making in the Obama administration. It was always chalked up to personal animus between Obama & the Clintons. HRC may have set up an external mail server because the DoS didn't want her internal to their network! It may be that the Obama administration was in its own way, much more "patriotic" than it's given credit for.
I don't really believe this (yet...), and I certainly don't want to believe it, but it sure does explain a lot.
"and then not giving anyone their money's worth."
No, I disagree. The Clintons are in this for the long haul. They know that Marc Rich's pardon has paid good dividends for 15 years.
Michael The Magnificent said...
Clinton Foundation only gives 15 percent of donations to charities
Great find. I was wondering what percent it was. I didn't bother googling because I thought they were smart enough to lightly skim. Once again I underestimated the depths of the Clinton corruption.
There will be no direct link proven. They have been playing at a level well beyond such simple schemes for too many years.
If you don't want to act smart and recognize what's happening, prepare for 8 years of shadowy pay offs and no accountability. They won't even pretend to be transparent.
"There will be no direct link proven."
Why do you think the e-mails were deleted ?
Putin has them, though and he has Hillary's phone number.
Clinton Foundation is an illegal foreign money laundering operation.
The current administration and its friends are much smellier than the Clinton's. The Wall Street and media conflicts of interest are just the tip of the iceberg I think. The Clinton's are looking like small time grifters.
Its looking like the good old days were back when it was just Pentagon corruption and retired generals on the take.
Small potatoes.
Now the whole economy is paralyzed by regulatory miasma that exists only as a way to suck rents out of everything.
Young Hegelian may be onto something.
If the Russians [or China or even Obama's CIA] hacked Hillary's email and /or have pictures of Bill with an underage girl, is it too far-fetched to believe the Clintons are being blackmailed?
Or perhaps they would they wait to blackmail her after she is elected President?
The Pope Francis of Rome and the Pope Bill of Chappaqua have a similar organization set up. They keep the organization collecting cash while a charitable operation and a famous female deity is a cover that attracts good will from the sheeple.
The question will be whether the Democrat College of Cardinals picks a new Pope or not.
I agree with the posts that suggest the Clintons are trying to "vet" this issue so it can become "old news". Dragging the process out allows them to later say that this was the subject of an many month witch hunt where nothing was proven.
@YoungHegelian, if you want to hear ringing laughter for a half hour or so, just ask a cybersecurity expert whether Hillary Clinton's Email server was secure against hacking by the Chinese, Russians, and, for that matter, 14 year old kids.
@Althouse, I'm sure you can get confirmation only three blocks away at the Computer Science Building -- ask for Prof. Somesh Jha.
Why do you think the e-mails were deleted ?
I doubt there would be anything there beyond a hint of suspicion. They do things by ensuring the right people are in place and their intentions are understood. Correspondence is so very old fashioned.
@Bobber,
I agree with the posts that suggest the Clintons are trying to "vet" this issue so it can become "old news".
I don't. I think that the Democrats know that she is damaged goods & that if she is the candidate they'll be looking at a a Republican House, Senate, and WH, soon to be followed by an "even more" conservative Supreme Court. The Democrats have to somehow push her to the side & run someone who won't implode in time to make the general election. Somehow, though, she has to be pushed aside while only revealing enough to get the job done, not enough so that even the low-information swing voters start to wonder "What other corruption are the Democrats hiding?".
"Now the whole economy is paralyzed by regulatory miasma that exists only as a way to suck rents out of everything."
Bingo !
Jose Fernandez:
“Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not inexperienced amateurs.
Hillary Clinton would not have made direct contact.
She probably would tell Huma Abedin to check the progress of whatever she was pushing for, and gently - gently - try to push things one way, and not even by Huma speaking directly to the person in charge but by going through an intermediary or two.
If he wanted to do anyway, what she wanted, fine.
And if there seemed to be a problem, see if the person who was an obstacle could be manuvered away or around it.
Or find out if there was some way to overcome the objections. Like making promises that the Russian company would not buy 100% of the company and that managers in the USA would retain control of any decisions about uranium mined in the United States.
Jose Fernandez is not saying he never had any contact with superiors.
And this was anyway, something that had a reasonably high probability, but not a certainty, of success.
Jose Fernandez:
“Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton are not inexperienced amateurs.
Hillary Clinton would not have made direct contact.
She probably would tell Huma Abedin to check the progress of whatever she was pushing for, and gently - gently - try to push things one way, and not even by Huma speaking directly to the person in charge but by going through an intermediary or two.
If he wanted to do anyway, what she wanted, fine.
And if there seemed to be a problem, see if the person who was an obstacle could be manuvered away or around it.
Or find out if there was some way to overcome the objections. Like making promises that the Russian company would not buy 100% of the company and that managers in the USA would retain control of any decisions about uranium mined in the United States.
Jose Fernandez is not saying he never had any contact with superiors.
Just not with Hillary Clinton in person.
But Hillary Clinton had quite a few loyaliosts surrounding her.
Sprry for the near duplication.
This was anyway, also, something that had a reasonably high probability, but not a certainty, of success in the first place.
And the Clintons' guidance could also have been useful in telling Frank Giustra what to attempt, and also, inside information as to when to make a move.
There is no question the Russians, Chinese and other countries were smart enough to read Hillary's email address and find and hack her mail server. It isn't hard to do.
Hell Hillary is unknowledgeable and a great candidate for phishing attacks.
Bill:
"I didn't bother googling because I thought they were smart enough to lightly skim. Once again I underestimated the depths of the Clinton corruption."
There's no legal impediment, as long as they report it - of course the reporting as to where the money went can be kind of vague - and they just wanted to keep that kind of information out of the news, and they succeeded, till now.
They were careful not to take saleries, although Bill Clinton was separately hired by some of the donors. (by a private college, by Frank Giustra to make speeches in favor of the Columbian free trade deal)
So now they'll make some apology, and change some of the structure of the foundation.
In fact they did that already some time ago, by renaming it, and bringing the hitherto univolved Chelsea in.
To ask the question is to answer the question.
Mark said...
"Hillary has no need of following through with the quo once she has the quid in hand.
She knows she isn't going to get the Harry Reid treatment, no thug is going to come over and make her slip on some exercise equipment, so she can do whatever the hell she wants with complete impunity."
Hillary already "slipped" in her Chappaqua bathroom and hit her head causing enough damage (concussion and blood clot) to necessitate hospitalization -- December 2012.
The Clinton slush fund has operated full tilt since early in their Arkansas days. Journalists who can't immediately weave all the threads of corruption together to get the obvious implications are too stupid, or too deep into their role as left-wing propagandists, to bother worrying about their credibility any more. They're toast.
This is old news. The Clintons actually lost money on their Whitewater investment. It's all a product of a vast right wing conspiracy. You want to find stories like this, just drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park. There is no controlling legal authority that what they did is wrong. This is just a diversion from the important issues facing America. Inequality!
What do you do when the voters don't care about corruption?
Over at "PostPartisan" Ed Rodgers asks how the Clinton scandals will end.
I think they'll end when baby Charlotte dies of old age.
The media tied Bush to Enron on way less substance than this.
Bush DoJ secured prison sentences for Enron executives.
Big Mike:
Good one!
[But I hope to hell you are wrong!]
There is a powerful organization at work here...[..]
Soros?
Jarrett.
If you don't want to act smart and recognize what's happening, prepare for 8 years of shadowy pay offs and no accountability. They won't even pretend to be transparent.
prepare for a future of shadowy pay offs and no accountability…
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." - George Orwell
buwaya puti: Now the whole economy is paralyzed by regulatory miasma that exists only as a way to suck rents out of everything.
Excellent comment.
And can someone please explain to me what "Rent Seeking" means to them? Pretend I am an idiot ;)
what "Rent Seeking" means to them? Pretend I am an idiot.
Solyndra's taxpayer-backed loan guarantees.
Ethanol subsidies.
Wind-energy credits.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentSeeking.html
Rent seeking” is one of the most important insights in the last fifty years of economics and, unfortunately, one of the most inappropriately labeled. Gordon Tullock originated the idea in 1967, and Anne Krueger introduced the label in 1974.
The idea is simple but powerful. People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena....
.... David Ricardo introduced the term “rent” in economics. It means the payment to a factor of production in excess of what is required to keep that factor in its present use.
So, for example, if I am paid $150,000 in my current job but I would stay in that job for any salary over $130,000, I am making $20,000 in rent.
What is wrong with rent seeking? Absolutely nothing. I would be rent seeking if I asked for a raise. My employer would then be free to decide if my services are worth it.
Even though I am seeking rents by asking for a raise, this is not what economists mean by “rent seeking.”
They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”
It always sounded like looking to acquire a sort of "ownership" position through a change in the law, like the way owning some land or a house would enable you to charge rent.
And can someone please explain to me what "Rent Seeking" means to them? Pretend I am an idiot ;)
Obamacare. Cash for clunkers, though all subsidies are rent seeking, be it to buy a new car, or a first home, or solar panels, or upgraded windows and insulation, or hybrid cars.
traditional guy, as someone who is not a Catholic, I remain amazed, shocked and appalled at your continual attacks and derogations of Catholics and Catholicism. I really think you should explain yourself.
"They use the term to describe people’s lobbying of government to give them special privileges. A much better term is “privilege seeking.”
It means using an office or position as though it were private property which could generate rents. A good example is taxi medallions when Uber and Lyft show up to compete.
Licenses which have no real purpose other than to deter competition are another example. Mortuary licenses or hair straightener licenses.
The regulatory agency gets rents for selling the license, then the owner gets rents by keeping out competition.
Buwaya Puti, YoungHegelian et alii, I was going to make a joke about the Jesuits and their agents everywhere but I couldn't think of one that wouldn't leave certain parties nodding their heads, seriously, in agreement with the premises. Then it occured to me to try again, making the brethren of the free and enlightened Lodges out to be the conspirators: but that could be not a joke at all (apart from my lack of comic talent, I mean).
Quid pro quo rent seeking: Blackwater, Halliburton, DynCorp, KBR.
@Unknown,
I really think you should explain yourself.
I don't. I think he should just shut the fuck up.
Karl Marx once said that Antisemitism is the socialism of imbeciles. Tradguy comes from that long strain of American politics where anti-Catholicism was the conservatism of assholes.
But when have modern Democrats ever cleaned their own house of corruption?
I remember something about Caesar's wife.
Exactly, on Pentagon corruption.
And it goes back a very long way. You can probably cite program misdeeds, sourcing irregularities, revolving door employment, and direct and indirect politician payoffs.
All this going back to the US Civil War. At least.
But that was small stuff. Halliburton may have made a bit better margins than it would have with better guard dogs on the contract. SOP historically.
We are in a different world now though.
Howard argues:
Quid pro quo rent seeking: Blackwater, Halliburton, DynCorp, KBR.
To quoque sara sara reasoning at best. Try again, sir.
Fen:
Another example....In Philadelphia, they dole out the rights to an airport restautant to connected people/ donors even if they have never run a bar or restaurant. And it is pretty hard to lose money when you have a captive customer base like you do at an airport.
Headline in today's NYT internet version "Russian Hackers read Obama's e-mails". Those who say they have Hillary's are spot on, apparently.
"Hillary 2016: You Can't Prove a Thing!"
It's catchy….
Ann Coulter had it right.
These Clinton Foundation donations are a way of providing quid pro ho.
Howard:
Welfare, Affordable Healthcare Reform (aka "Obamacare"), "green" energy production, minority "leaders", "rights" businesses, abortion or planning industry, etc.
"Hillary 2016: You Can't Prove a Thing!"
It's catchy….
Catchy, but in the post-accountability Age of Obama, the slogan may as well be:
Hillary 2016: Yeah, I did it. BFD, bitch, because you ain't going to do a damn thing about it.
Howard, all you prov e with such recitations is that you are not an honest interlocutor. Please to demonstrate how those are examples of rent seeking. I doubt you can. They are just bogeymen. That's how you think. In terms of yes, Alinskyite named targets to beat on.
YH,
STFU would do but he never will, so should be challenged to prove or retract.
UNK: War profiteering is a particularly macabre form of rent-seeking. I'm sure you view environmental rent-seeking as the greater evil. It must be because you call yourself a christian who hates the current pope.
YH and UNK:
Do I have this right?
Anti-money-changer-catholic = bad
anti-Brazilian-foot-washing- Pope=good
Fen, nn, at al
Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat (the poor), and swallow a camel (corporate giants).
No wonder you hate the pope
Providing materiel in support of our armed forces - bad.
Crony fleecing for 'renewable energy' - good.
Here's an idea, maybe Hillary really doesn't want to run, but is under threat from the people she owes favors. The NYT is actually doing her a favor by making her candidacy unviable. Giving her a chance to bow out with grace.
FABI:
Making money off of slaughter = good
Trying to find cleaner energy = bad
The only reason we hire these mercs and war profiteers is it allows us to not have a draft. In the bad old days, these jobs were performed by the army.
It's all about having a chicken-hawk painless war. Do you part for the war on terror: Go Shopping 'Geo W Bush in response to 911
Hiward, environmental rent seeking affects the entire economy. Even if we consider only rules relating to electric power generation, these are effectively unlegislated taxes on everything. The magnitude of this is tremendous. Making a larger margin on defense procurement (which is a fraction of the defense budget) is chickenfeed.
And that's just energy. Add the rent costs on fuels, on industrial processes of all kinds, bloated legal and hr expenses for any business of any sort, increased overhead for each employed person, the loss of business formation (the rate of which has collapsed) due to increased costs plus business risk, and all other cascading second and third order effects. Anybody with an inquiring mind who has been in a responsible position in an industrial firm can give you chapter and verse.
You can and should check this all out. The basic information (energy prices, energy cost structures, power rates, etc.) is public and posted.
Point to the place on your emotional support pig where the evil capitalist touched you, Howie.
And, it shouldn't require spelling this out, the richest people in the US (who aren't the Koch's) make and hold their money by dealing in money, not electricity or coal or gas or asphalt or sheetrock.
The wealthiest LIKE regulation, its playing in their field. That's why these guys finance Democrats.
Its the little guy with the concrete business or the hot sauce bottler who deals with the consequences, and its their employees (or those who would be their employees) who suffer most of the cost.
Howard, you have a future as a comedian if you can just tune down the angry self righteousness.
"Blogger Howard said...
UNK: War profiteering is a particularly macabre form of rent-seeking. I'm sure you view environmental rent-seeking as the greater evil. It must be because you call yourself a christian who hates the current pope."
You obviously know nothing about economics. You are reciting leftist talking points.
"Daddy Warbucks" was a 1920s myth that most adults grew out of. There was this theory that Krupp pushed the Germans to build weapons and make war for profit.
It was baloney.
Environmental rent seeking fits the definition. In 1780 France there were what were called "Tax Farmers" Unfortunately for LaVoisier, his father was one and it cost him his head.
Current enviro companies are the modern equivalent as they would never make it without big time subsidies from warmest idiots.
These attacks on Hillary are just misogyny and it's disgusting.
There is absolutely no evidence of anything ever happening anywhere. Just a bunch of innuendo and conspiracy theories.
If she were a he, we'd not be hearing any of this.
Yes, that's what we're going to hear for 4 to 8 years.
"(American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One)."
It looks like the Reset Button turned out to be a Remit Button
she follows up with a directive—an e-mail,
e-mail deleted.
Daddy Warbucks is true.
There have been war profiteers since there have been wars. There has also been corruption in military procurement since then too. WWI, which launched Daddy Warbucks as a meme, had its share of dodgy military contracts. Everybody was desperate for equipment and supplies, and lots of corners were cut. Check out Basil Zaharoff for the model of the type. And there were honest vendors that went above and beyond, and thereby lost their shirts.
The US is no exception. There have been long running procurement problems in the US military since WWII, and some questionable dealing even during that war. There is no denying this, or even that there wasn't some appearance of impropriety in the logistics contracts of the last war. There may have been substance to these appearances, there may not have been. It may have been true in some but not other cases. This stuff happens.
What's been happening in the civilian economy recently is orders of magnitude greater.
There are scoundrels and there are greater scoundrels.
Wanna know how ridiculous it is to NOT label as 'a bribe', the handing to the spouse of the Secretary of State $500,000 for a 'speech'?
This ridiculous: It's like NOT labeling as prostitution, betting a woman $75 she can't bring you to orgasm using only her hands and mouth.
"Hey officer, it was just a friendly bet between consenting adults!"
Depends what your definition of "pro" is.
Krauthammer has a good take on this.
Howard: It's all about having a chicken-hawk painless war.
Once again, I remind you that since your Chicken Fallacy claims "you can't support the war unless you have served in the military", the reverse must also be true - by your own standards:
If you never served, you cannot *condemn* war either.
So for the 2nd time now, I ask if you have served in the military? As I have?
If not, then you need to abide by your own chickenhawk rules and sit down, shut up.
Given the Clinton history, it is likely she deleted emails that would prove her crimes without regard for the obvious implication that she was doing just that.
The Democrat base, particularly the idolatrous ethnic and genitalia voters cannot be persuaded by evidence, let alone obvious implications.
"There have been long running procurement problems in the US military since WWII, and some questionable dealing even during that war."
Oh, I don't dispute this. The "Daddy Warbucks" myth was that the war profiteers could start a war just to profit and that was Howard's delusional statement.
Washington's army got rotten beef at Valley Forge. Darius the Great probably got some, too.
Romney speaks out:
“I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery. I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery, if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails. But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”
My dream: Biden, O'Malley, or Warren channeling that.
Shorter Bill: "I did not have diplomatic relations with that GRU." -CP
hombre said...
"Dream on. This is just the media drawing the sting in 2015 so they can go back to business as usual in 2016 - covering Hillbilly's ass and slaughtering Republicans."
No. BP is right on this. The people in the media in the Clinton camp are trying to defend her. But this smells a lot like Obamas Organizing for America group.
The Clintons are corrupt and horrible people. I wouldn't cry if Hillary died in a fire like Stevens. But they didn't hate the US. They wanted to profit off it. The group trying to take them down is my guess those who want the US taken down too and that Venn diagram includes the Obama's.
Mark said...
"Hillary 2016: You Can't Prove a Thing!"
It's catchy….
"Catchy, but in the post-accountability Age of Obama, the slogan may as well be:
Hillary 2016: Yeah, I did it. BFD, bitch, because you ain't going to do a damn thing about it."
"What difference at this point does it make?"
Howard said...
"FABI:
Making money off of slaughter = good
Trying to find cleaner energy = bad
The only reason we hire these mercs and war profiteers is it allows us to not have a draft. In the bad old days, these jobs were performed by the army.
It's all about having a chicken-hawk painless war. Do you part for the war on terror: Go Shopping 'Geo W Bush in response to 911"
Dear Howard:
I am one of those Vets/Mercs. I am a horrible person. This is a horrible country protected by horrible people. Your soul is too pure to be infected by people like us. So please save yourself and get the fuck out. Go to any other country in the world.
I'm not a Christian, Howard, but I suspect you are one only for the purpose of preaching statism. I think I asked you to explain what military contracting by the parties you named was rent-seeking as buwaya puti defined it. You're not going to do that, please don't say anything else to me.
Hillary 2016: I am not a crook!
UNK: No. Agnostic. Sorry I slandered your nom de plume. Not a statist either, small l libertarian. Just not a hysterical idiologue. Like it or not, we live in the bullshit universe, not the one you wish existed.
Achillies: Do you own a merc company? If so, you will rot in hell. Otherwise, you are not horrible just another honorable useful idiot for the banksters. I will leave this country when you pry my colt 1911 from my cold dead fingers because this is the land worthy of armed defense. Liberating Arabs and Aryans to make safe haven for Sharia was and is a fools errand.
Fen: OK then, please publicly post a link to your DD214 so we can verify non-trollage. NB, the Navy or AF doesn't count unless you logged stick time, was a corpsman, seal or otherwise jump qualified. BTW, chickenhawkery is a one-way highway. Everybody can morally be anti-war, you know like Hey-Zeus.
MikeK: Is Little Orphant Annie the best you can do? I think those statins have clogged your brain-pan. Perhaps it's all the PM2.5 you inhaled in LA during the 40's and 50's.
buwaya puto: You are right, the health benefits of environmental rent-seaking in the US is the envy of the world. Did you know Europe has less stringent environmental controls and they are an economic basket-case. China and India are drowning in their own filth and their best and brightest are clamoring to reach our clean shores, become free-marketeers and grow our economy.
Howard,
You should investigate these matters a little more I think. You and I are so far apart in our worldview that we can't have any sort of productive conversation. I am not in a position to provide an education in blog comments. A little more reading of economic subjects and following the business press, plus a fair bit of research on energy industries, would be very useful. Yergin (on petroleum) is a good read, if you like.
Its Buwaya puti - white crocodile in Tagalog. My old school nickname.
Buwaya, I suspect he's trying to hurt your feelings. People as educated as he are likely to get off on wondering if you know what "puto" means in Spanish.
Howard,for the Devil-quoting Scripture-to-his-own-purpose Daily Double:
This alleged Son of God said, He that has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा