Wednesday, April 24, 2019

What really bothers me about Russiagate and the Mueller report

The fact that Trump looked as if he didn't want to be President. That was a common theme from journalists and other outsiders who spent time with his campaign.

Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.

On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!

We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.

The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.

And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).

I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
or
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?

Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.

It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election".  On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.

So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.



See also:

Monday, April 22, 2019

THEY JUST WON'T SHUT UP!!!!

Some people need to get the concept of "rights" and "due process".

One of which is the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which some people are happy to go by when it's their candidate, but won't let go of when it's Donald Trump.

Don't get me wrong. I am no fan of Donald Trump.

I am also no fan of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton wasn't popular and any rigging was to try and find someone more unpopular than she was.

The shit will really go down once people start reading the Wikileaked Democratic Party e-mails because the Russians ain't got nothing on the Democratic Party and the Media for pushing Donald Trump.

Which was a strategy that backfired spectacularly!

Not to mention that the Democrats looks set for a replay.

There is a big difference between this and Watergate. The Republicans were the ones responsible for Watergate. 2016 was a joint effort, which was probably more from the Democrats and Media.  But don't expect to get any mea culpas from the likes of Rachel Maddow John Oliver, et al. 

Naw, they are going to keep beating a dead horse and working to get Trump reelected.

Any luck, there will be a move for impeachment which will blow up in the Dems' faces.

At this point, I am getting even sicker of the Democratic Party than I was after the Philadelphia DNC for their failure to live up to their name.

Like it or not, the Mueller Report said there was no collusion. It's time to drop the matter and move on.

Or maybe the Republicans should start looking into the Democratic Party's shenanigans.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Maybe the Mueller report WASN'T a witch hunt: or be careful what you wish for!

While the Democratic Partisans are upset about obstruction and incorrectly accusing Trump of treason, they seem to be neglecting that one of the casualties of the Mueller Investigation is Gregory Craig, who was a former Clinton and Obama attorney. Craig was charged with violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).

DoJ's focus on FARA came about as an off shoot of the Mueller investigation.

Paul Manafort was convicted under this act for his work done for Ukraine's former President. Craig and Manafort worked together to help the Ukrainians, but failed to bother to register under FARA. Their client was Viktor Pinchuk, a wealthy Ukrainian steel-pipe maker. The Clintons and Pinchuk are linked via the Clinton Foundation.

There have long been allegations about the Clinton Foundation being a way to launder funds, if not straight out buy favours from the Clintons. The FBI has been said to have investigated the foundation for alleged “pay-to-play” politics while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

While the Mueller Investigation might not have been totally bipartisan, I can't help but wonder if it also investigated the Clintons and the Clinton foundation after hearing about the Craig indictment.

Wouldn't it be funny if the redactions about on going criminal investigations related to the Clintons and their campaign? That would really be egg on the face of the Democrats for fucking up the 2016 Election.

Anyway, the Dems should be careful what they wish for, they might get it.

And it might not turn out the way they want it!

See also:

Noam Chomsky on Russiagate

Russian interference was minimal if it even existed. No one is talking about Israel's interference in US elections.

"There's no interference in elections that begins to compare to campaign funding."

Saturday, April 20, 2019

More election rigging












Now if you were an environmentalist group and going to endorse a candidate, which one of these would you choose?

The person with the 100% (or 92%): Bernie Sanders?

Or the person with the 82%: Hillary Clinton?

Bernie Sanders was the highest rated candidate on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) scorecard and the Climate Hawks Vote PAC in 2016.

Clinton had the weakest environmental record of the Democratic candidates using the LCV's standard.

Yet, the LCV chose Clinton.

What the fuck?

LCV's Action Fund took an unprecedented step of endorsing Hillary Clinton for president after only one debate between the Democratic candidates and months before the first vote in the Democratic primaries was cast. That was a big mistake. It was far too early in this primary for the nation’s most powerful environmental political organization to make an endorsement.

Yet they did. And they chose a candidate who was poor by their own standards!
Clinton promoted the internationalization of fracking and oversaw the State Department’s initial support for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline during her tenure as Secretary of State. The one major climate accomplishment she touts, the Copenhagen Accord, is considered by climate activists to be a huge failure. Clinton is the only candidate with deep ties to the financiers and lobbyists of the fossil-fuel industry, on Wall Street and beyond.

Clinton supported the continued exploitation of our nation’s public carbon reserves, while Sanders had introduced legislation that would put an end to fossil-fuel leases on public lands. Sanders and Martin O’Malley actively supported the climate divestment movement, while Clinton ,  whose campaign and super PAC accept funding from fracking investors and fossil-fuel industry lobbyists did not taken a position.

This was Clinton's reaction when asked about her connection to the fossil fuel industry by a Greenpeace Volunteer.

Clinton never did the actions necessary to gain the support of the environmentalist movement (other than those establishment groups who are hopeful that change can come through the duopoly regime). On the other hand, climate change had short shrift if it received any attention at all during the campaign.

There are a lot of issues going on here from having a candidate chosen long before the primary process begins, failure to have a serious debate on the issue, and just plain off earning the vote.

The environment is just one of many issues where Clinton just wasn't trustworthy. And she didn't help the situation by antagonising environmental activists. She failed to give straight answers on the issue. I would toss in that she failed to address The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) issue in a meaningful manner.

But this is one of many issues where Clinton demonstrated she wasn't trustworthy.

I really have to question who rigged the election when a group such as LCV essentially declared that there’s no need for any further discussion of the environment or climate by the Democratic candidates before the primary process really began. And they decided that in favour of a candidate who was poor by their own standard.

See also:

It only gets worse from here

A little honest, self-examination would have been a lot more helpful than trying to blame all this on the Russians.
It will be even more amusing when the investigation gets investigated and shown to be a crock of shit.

Seriously people, it would have made a whole lot more sense to examine what REALLY happened than trying to blame the mess on the Russians.

Mud! Mud! Glorious Mud!

Here's the only collusion that was significant in 2016
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/1120/251
One of the pundits said that the Democrats see the Mueller Report as evidence of collusion and obstruction, while the Republicans see it as a vindication of the president.

And the Independent and Third Party voters?

We see it as neglecting the internal bullshit of the duopoly parties.

We have a document in Wilileaks, which has been confirmed as authentic showing that Clinton wanted a "Pied Piper" candidate to run against.

Trump received a significant amount of free media coverage, which wouldn't have been possible a while back. I remember in 1980 when the Ronald Reagan film "Bedtime for Bonzo" couldn't be shown on TV in the US because it would be free coverage. On the other hand, I've heard estimates of the free publicity received by Trump to be in the billions of dollars.

CBS CEO Leslie Moonves said that, “It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.” 

Never mind that the same media shut out Bernie Sanders. Now, who was it who was trying to meddle in the election.

Of course the media are going to be pushing the Russian collusion thing since it distracts from the far more egregious acts that are happening in the US electoral process.

The Clinton campaign wasn't too bothered by foreign assistance, which turns out to be dodgy. The Steele Dossier is coming up for scrutiny since the release of the Mueller Report.  Ukrainians and Russians aren't the same nation (I should know), and there is evidence that the Ukrainians were assisting the Clinton Campaign.

It gets even more amusing since there are also allegations that the Russians tried to assist the Sanders campaign! That went well! I think there is far more evidence that the Democrats rigged the game against Sanders which makes that claim truly laughable.

Especially since it's been shown that Clinton was chosen to be the Democratic nominee in 2015: well before the voting started. Sanders was an inconvenience that showed the primary process for being the farce it is.

One of the reasons I voted for the Greens was that I saw both of the duopoly candidates as being slimey and neither party is willing to take responsibility. One major thing they could do to clear up this is to work on serious election reform.

My takeaway from these investigations is that the duopoly and the US mainstream media aren't going to address this issue in a meaningful way since doing so makes it clear that the hoodwinking of the American public has been going on openly for a long time.

"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions," Neuman said. "The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

Neuman was League of Women Voters President Nancy M. Neuman who said that in October of 1988, which demonstrates that this conspiracy has been ongoing for some time.

And it is internal to the duopoly parties.

But it's a heck of a lot easier to point to countries that use the Cyrillic Alphabet as being the perps since few people can understand what is really happening.

And it's happening at home.

The real takeaway from all this is that the US needs election reform badly.

Sources:

Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Mueller Report is in: are you guilty of collusion?

Exhibit 1. Memo of Russian Operatives from Wikileaks

it seems that Russia's attempt to influence the 2016 election was to exacerbate the political divisions within the US and promote Trump as a presidential candidate.

It seems some people are conspicuously absent from the Mueller report. Why aren't the Russian operatives responsible for Exhibit 1 being mentioned?

I think that is prime evidence that the General Counsel's report was a witch hunt.

Let's face it, the entire thing is based upon leaked Democratic Party internal communications.

Next, it seems that the Russians wanted to use social media to turn people against Hillary Clinton.

Was that really necessary? Hillary Clinton was one of the most unpopular candidates to run: EVER!

The only candidate more unpopular was Donald Trump!

On the other hand, that seems to mean that you have to be some kind of Russian bot if you posted anything that was remotely critical of Hillary Clinton.  I mean who else would dare criticise the party's chosen candidate?

Those Bernie Bros were Russian stooges as was anyone else who dared not vote for Hillary.  And don't you dare to criticise her.

The reality is that there is more than enough documentation of Clinton acting like an asshole without anyone's assistance. She didn't need the Russians to make her look bad. She did a great job on her own.

So far, I have yet to see any remotely plausible reason for Clinton's loss other than the Electoral College, but some people want to go on like a bunch sore losers hoping that Trump will be impeached.

Aside: Do you think they would be happy with Pence?

Personally, I saw a lot more internal US actions that violated the concept of a free and fair election. The ironic thing was those actions came from the Democratic Party.

But who is investigating how independents who tried to reregister as Democrats were denied the opportunity to vote in closed Primaries?

And the Democratic Parties violation of its internal rules to favour Clinton over Sanders are an open secret. It's the elephant in the room about all this.

I mean the e-mails in question are internal Democratic Party Communications which have been confirmed to be authentic.

As a criminal defence attorney, I would be hammering on that one if my client were accused of this shit.

Monday, April 15, 2019

Navigating the disaster that is Brexit

Brexit and Donald Trump have one thing in common: They were intended to be alternatives which were so repugnant that no one would vote for either one.

I should be making a fortune off of this since my legal studies were geared toward the European Union. I was expecting to get hired to help someone navigate the European Union, and now navigating the disaster that is Brexit.

And Brexit is far more of a disaster than Donald Trump since no one expected to really have it happen. I could have told anyone who would have listened that it was going to be a disaster: especially since no one worked out what would happen when it happened.

Take the US Civil War: only make it non-violent with a lot of negotiation.

It was a bad idea to separate a nation which functions: no matter how poorly one may see it functioning. It's even worse when the party that wants to separate has less party than the what they are separating from.  The bad divorce analogy sounds really good.

Only most divorces try to be equitable: this one has no need to be equitable.

This one can have you pay for their education and support them. Then when the person who was supporting decides to leave has to pay twice the amount of support to leave.

Not only that the party separating finds that they can only sleep in the doghouse...

If they take the agreement.

And they are totally fucked if they don't take the agreement.

Unfortunately, there is the "prestige point" factor that says, "we can't go back since we have already gone to far to reconcile." Or so the person thinks.

Yes, Britain could, and should, have a second referendum since now they understand what exactly leaving the European Union means. They have been getting a preview and not liking it since the process began.

But the other thing that Brexit and Trump have in common is that the people have to live with the decision until they decide to elect them out.

Sunday, April 14, 2019

Obstruction of Justice..or exercising his rights?

There are a couple of things wrong with this meme.

Let's start with the most egregious.

No one has to testify or "cooperate" with an investigation according to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is the Jury Instruction about that:

You may have noticed that the defendant did not testify at this trial. The defendant has an absolute right not to testify, since the entire burden of proof in this case is on the Commonwealth to prove that the defendant is guilty. It is not up to the defendant to prove that he (she) is innocent.

The fact that the defendant did not testify has nothing to do with the question of whether he (she) is guilty or not guilty. You are not to draw any adverse inference against the defendant because he (she) did not testify.

You are not to consider it in any way, or even discuss it in your
deliberations.

You must determine whether the Commonwealth has proved its case against the defendant based solely on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits.
Pointing out that a defendant refused to testify is a reversible error.

I'm not going to bother to cite to anything because doing a search on "Defendant not testifying" will turn up a shitload of material to back me up.

Come on, people, haven't you fucking heard of "taking the fifth"?????

And while we are on it. "Hiding tax returns".   Here's what the IRS says about that:
Confidentiality rules apply to all information the IRS has about your tax return, whether that information comes from you or from some other source. ... Unauthorized disclosure of tax information is a felony crime, with a maximum penalty of a $250,000 fine and five years in prison.
Yeah, there are ways to have this information disclosed, but the rules are weighed toward the privacy of the individual: whether that person is public or private.

26 U.S. Code §6103 protects taxpayers from forced disclosure and trumps the primary legislation for disclosure, the Freedom of Information Act.  FOIA enables the public to inspect rulings and many other IRS documents, files, and memoranda, but it does not encompass “matters [that are] specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” IOW 26 U.S. Code §6103. Although some aspects of the statute's meaning remain to be elucidated.

Which would mean a court case that would delay any disclosure until well after Trump is president.

I've heard people say that Congress can request them, but here is Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation reg for doing that (Background Regarding The Confidentiality And Disclosure Of Federal Tax Returns ):

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5159

It's a little long.

Toss in that a personal income tax return, Form 1040, without schedules does not disclose that much information. It is an aggregate summary of information. Even with schedules, the returns would not provide very much information about  a candidate who earns income through corporations and/or partnerships, such as a businessman. The income and deduction information derived from those sources appear separately on other forms (for example, 1065 and 1041). Only the taxpayer's share of the net amount passes through or appear as a dividend. Disclosure of those forms would involve violating the privacy rights of the other people (e.g., shareholders and partners), which would require an additional waiver for disclosure.

So, wanting to see a tax return wouldn't tell you that much, unless you are a forensic accountant. And maybe not even then.

And just wanting to see how much someone earns isn't a compelling enough reason to demand their tax returns.

The thing about rights is that they protect even people you consider repugnant. It's when they do that they are the most effective.

I would add that going after someone just because adds to the sense of a witch hunt. which isn't really something the Democratic Party should be doing if they really want to elect someone besides Trump.

See also:

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Julian Assange Arrested

A couple of disclaimers here:
  • RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government
  • Julian Assange published Hillary Clinton's, John Podesta's, and the DNC's e-mails about the 2016 Election that no one has said were fraudulent.

Those things said, Julian Assange has been arrested for extradition to the US from his asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Here is an interview he had with RT about the 2016 US Election and Hillary Clinton.
I would think that Trump would pardon him ASAP if there was any collusion between his campaign and Assange.

Monday, April 8, 2019

Marbury v Madison or why the Heller and McDonald decisions are wrong

Scalia fucked it.

I'll say it again. Scalia fucked it as does anyone who buys into the bullshit which is comprised by the Heller and McDonald decisions.

In fact, those decisions should be laughed at and any academic who is shit for brains enough to give them the slightest credence should be barred from the practise of law since they ignore a fundamental basis of US Constitutional law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

It's one of the first cases any constitutional law class covers, which is why anyone who gives Heller and McDonald a shred of legitimacy should be barred from the practise of law. Why? First off.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that contravene the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial review for constitutionality is not a power granted by the US Constitution: it comes from this case.

More importantly it centred around a clause in the US Constitution (hint, hint, for those shit for brains who want to call themselves "Constitutional Scholars").

 Facts of the case

Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they were not valid until their commissions were delivered by Secretary of State James Madison.

The whole thing hinged on the interpretation of the US Constitution: in particular the clauses in it: 

"These are the clauses of the Constitution and laws of the United States which affect this part of the case." 

"Although that clause of the Constitution which requires the President to commission all the officers of the United States may never have been applied to officers appointed otherwise than by himself, yet it would be difficult to deny the legislative power to apply it to such cases. Of consequence, the constitutional distinction between the appointment to an office and the commission of an officer who has been appointed remains the same as if in practice the President had commissioned officers appointed by an authority other than his own.

"It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

The most important passages:

"f it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction."

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.

So, Heller and McDonald got it wrong. McDonald doubly so since the historic record shows that the Second Amendment is tied to congress' power under Article I, Section 8, clause 16: to arm the militia. That relates to power granted to the Federal government, not the states.

The bottom line: Marbury v Madison found that no clause in the constitution is without effect. It also found that the courts had the power to review cases.

That poses two dilemmas if the court wishes to ignore this case.  This is especially true if one is an originalist who believes that "the judicial interpretation of the constitution which aims to follow closely the original intentions of those who drafted it." The people who drafted the Constitution were around when this case was decided. the Madison in question was James Madison: the person who drafted the Constitution.

John Marshall, who wrote this decision, was also involved in the creation of the US Constitution.

So, the founders believed that no clause in the constitution was to be without effect. 

To put it plainly: the people who wrote the constitution said that no clause was to be without effect.

That means what Scalia and similar ignorant shits for brains called "preferatory"  is indeed significant. This points to the ablative absolute construction being the more likely explanation.

That means that the "preferatory" clause of a "well-regulated militia being necessary for the Security of the Free State" is indeed the reason "for the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed." That also fits in to the Constitutional frame work mentioned in the preamble: in particular the common defence.

I would also add that neither Heller nor McDonald were cases of first impression. Heller and McDonald are egregious in their failure to properly address the case law prior to their ultra vires act of amending the contsitution. Any proper decision would have to take into account Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) as well as  US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) is short and only points out the connection to Article I, Section 8, clause 16. But all those cases point out that the right is related to the active militia and Article I, Section 8, clause 16.

So, Scalia was right: US v Miller wasn't helpful since it contradicted the result he wanted to achieve.[1] Which is the case for all the case law and the text of the US Constitution. That means the Heller and McDonald decisions are ultra vires in addition to failing to adhere to the rule of law.

I would be highly embarrassed to be associated with these decisions. Justice Roberts should figure out some serious damage control unless he wants his reputation marred by these harmful decisions.

That is because of the harm caused to the public by ripping the Second Amendment from the constitutional framework.

So, yes, I do hold you in contempt for your failure to follow the document you swore to uphold. You should be laughed off the bench for this serious error of judgement.

One that anyone who has seriously studied constitutional law should not make.

see also:
Footnotes:

[1]  US v Miller said:
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Justice McReynolds used different terminology than calling it "preferatory" and "operative", but that is EXACTLY what he is talking about.

Bernie and the Demexit

I actively supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and am passively supporting him in 2020. Passively because I think Bernie's time was 2016 when he had the votes. Bernie was drafted to give people a choice from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Election. Sanders was popular then, but I think the coalition that would have made him the candidate in 2016 isn't present in this election.

The Demexit was where Sanders supporters left the Democratic Party. I made the Demexit early on: after when AP called the California Primary for Clinton. The 2016 Philadelphia Democratic National Convention firmed up my resolve that my being a Democrat was pointless: even if that meant that was the only way I could vote in a primary.

But the Primaries are acts of attrition to make sure that the candidate with the largest bankroll can make it to the end. Clinton had the big money while Sanders had the popular support in 2016. The fact that the Dems chose the most unpopular candidate was a sickener to me.

But Clinton wouldn't have won the 2016 primary if she had any competition, which is why the DNC rigged the game for her. But Hillary Clinton literally couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery and didn't count on the Electoral College making her plan backfire.

You would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson in 2000, but Russiagate was an example of Democratic ignorance.

Hillary Clinton is a symptom, not the disease. It took Sanders' run to make me see how much the Democratic Party is obsolete.

Anyway, The Green Party was far more appealing to me in how it explicitly addressed election reform and the environment. Hillary Clinton was openly hostile to environmentalists (this too). While some candidates make lip service about the environment, you have establishment democrats doing a Hillary.

So, while the Duopoly Parties like to talk about "Big Tents", you can't have a party with no real agenda. Parties that can include George Wallace and George McGovern aren't going to work. Especially if they are going to run unpopular candidates.

See also:
Democratic Autopsy: the Party in Crisis
The AP's call for Hillary Clinton ruined California's election party--and here’s why that matters
Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agree the 2016 primary was Rigged
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Was the Democratic primary rigged?
Dear Democratic party: it's time to stop rigging the primaries

Saturday, April 6, 2019

Trump Will Be President in 2020

This is like my desire to post that he was going to win in 2016 when I saw early on that the Electoral Votes were being tallied, instead of the popular vote.  That was because I knew the popular vote wouldn't matter.


I am saying this early on because I am hoping maybe a warning might reach the right eyes since I am already seeing the same trends that led Trump win in 2016 happening again.

First off, forgetting Whitewater and its outcomes. Bill Clinton was impeached, but was acquitted which might be the same result if Trump is impeached. Except it will make Trump stronger. Toss in the Democratic Party higher ups don't want it happening.

Of course, this presupposes that Trump will be the 2020 Republican nominee. Which is fairly certain unless someone comes in and does what Bernie Sanders did in 2016. That was to offer a choice to the Republican voters who don't want to run one of the most unpopular candidates ever.

But unpopularity doesn't matter which is something neither party has learned since they don't have to. They are the duopoly and the sheep will keep voting for the lesser evil.

So, as in 2016, the Democrats will end up with a candidate who is unpopular. Sanders will face some of the same shit he had in 2016 less the media blackout. But I am sure that the Democratic Party "members" won't want him running based on his "not being a democrat".[1]  Of course, they will support Liz Warren.

Liz Warren is another story. Her brand was tarnished in 2016 when she went with Clinton instead of Sanders. She was heckled at the 2016 DNC with shouts of "We trusted you." UMass Amherst released a poll of the 2020 Democratic primary in Massachusetts, and Warren garnered just 11 percent of the sample. That is not good in a state where her name recognition is already high and Democrats are as intimately familiar with her record as any 2020 voter is going to get.

The irony here is that Warren was a republican well into the 90s. Possibly into the 2000s! A lot of progressives don't trust her any more.

Liz is one of many Sanders clones running which will give him competition, but there is only one Bernie. Although, I just learned about Sanders signing the Democratic loyalty oath which would mean that he is now a Democratic party member and one of the complaints about him is gone.

But, I don't think some of the party members will forgive Sanders for 2016.

The main things that bother me about the Democratic Party: that they failed to be honest about what happened in 2016 and that they will run another unpopular candidate are the real bottom line here.

I agree with Camille Paglia who said:
If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge.

While I supported Sanders in 2016. I'm not sure I would do it now. I think Bernie's time was in 2016. The Democratic party brand is tarnished beyond repair (and the Republicans are way too far out).

Footnotes:
[1] Sanders signed a loyalty oath to the Democratic Party, but I think some Clinton supporters will still hold a grudge.

See also:

Friday, April 5, 2019

My vote didn't count in the 2016 Presidential Election.

In fair disclosure, I am an independent who voted with the Democrats since I vote in a jurisdiction where there is a closed primary. I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary. Then I voted for Jill Stein.

My vote for Jill Stein in no way influenced the outcome of the election. Clinton still would have lost even if all the people who voted for Jill Stein where I am registered to vote. An aside here: people who voted for Jill Stein weren't very likely to vote for either duopoly candidate.

Still even if my state had voted for Hillary Clinton, that wouldn't have made too much of a difference where the voting really counted: the Electoral College. It might have shifted a few votes, but it wouldn't have given Clinton the 270 votes needed to win.

The popular vote is irrelevant to the outcome of the election as I have pointed out. It has nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with the constitution.

I find it liberating to know that I am able to vote my conscience knowing that the popular vote is meaningless.

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Russian Interference refuted.

It's really easy.


Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes) Clinton's margin  of victory in the popular vote was larger than John Kennedy's and Richard Nixon's, I've seen a statistic that her popular vote margin was the third largest in US elections! (It was the third highest for someone who lost an election, it was also fairly significant among the people who won the election)

Multiple candidates in American history have been elected president with far smaller margins than Clinton's in the popular vote. According to figures from the Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections—and as alluded to by one Atlantic reader—they include:

James Garfield in 1880: 0.09 percentage points
John F. Kennedy in 1960: 0.17 percentage points
Grover Cleveland in 1884: 0.57 percentage points
Richard Nixon in 1968: 0.7 percentage points
James Polk in 1844: 1.45 percentage points
Since the final vote count did, indeed, put her well above 2 percentage points ahead of Trump, her margin went beyond those of winning presidential nominees Jimmy Carter in 1976 (2.07 percentage points) and George W. Bush in 2004 (2.47 percentage points). And all this is not to mention the presidents who’ve been elected without winning the popular vote at all. That’s a list that includes Bush in 2000, and Trump.

2,868,686

That is the number of popular votes that Hillary Clinton had over Donald Trump. It was a number that was 2.1% more of the popular vote than Donald Trump won.

That is a number which is larger than the population of 16 States and District of Columbia (Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virginia, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana Delaware, South Dakota,    Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming). It is slightly less than the populations of 4 States: Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, and Utah). It is slightly more than the combined populations of Alaska, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming (2,578,472).

It's also a number which is larger than most of the 100 largest US Cities (Only NYC and LA have a larger population).

Now, given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin: How did Donald Trump become President?

Russian Interference?
The Electoral College?

It was the Electoral College that made Trump President, not any foreign interference.

OK, let's do it right if we want to investigate why Trump is president.

First off, there needs to be an investigation of the US election process altogether from campaign funding to the actual mechanics of running them (e.g., gerrymandering).

Next, there needs to be an investigation of the Democratic Party and how they treated Bernie Sanders, which was the subject core to Russiagate. That was what all those hacked e-mails mentioned.

That leads into how did two of the most unpopular candidates ever get chosen to run for president?


A biggie is that there has to be an examination of the Electoral College, which was the real cause for Trump being President.

Finally, let's look into the misconduct of the press from the media blackout of a popular candidate to the pushing of a nonsensical foreign interference led to a Trump win (and why the fuck can't they shut up about it).

The bottom line is that Russiagate has been a big distraction from much more pressing problems.

See also:

Monday, April 1, 2019

Of Course MSNBC and the US Mass media can't let Russiagate Drop.

It was stories like this that probably helped increase voter apathy.
The thing is that Clinton's winning the popular vote by a large margin, yet losing in the Electoral College totally changes the narrative. How did the Russians cause that outcome?

Russian Interference had nothing to do with Clinton's loss.

Sunday, March 31, 2019

My Response to Congressman Adam Schiff

Who asked:
“My colleagues might think it’s okay that the Russians offered dirt on a Democratic candidate for president as part of what’s been described as an effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that’s okay,” he starts, establishing a motif. “You might think it’s okay that when that dirt was offered to the president’s son, who played a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president’s son did not call the FBI or adamantly refuse. No, instead he said he would love it.”
Well, you have every reason to be upset, Congressman Schiff, since that dirt was internal Democratic Party communications that left the party not looking very good.

Toss in that the publication of those messages may have come from an internal Democratic Party leak who was upset about the Democratic Party failing to follow its internal rules. But it wasn't a revelation since most of that was being talked about amongst the Sanders Supporters.

Things like the Media blackout of Sanders and that the Democratic party and the media may have been behind what managed to get Trump into office.

Toss in the Clinton supporters said that these e-mails weren't going to be an issue. Remember that one? I sure do. But, it's really funny how this fuck up has to be atoned for. so find a convenient scapegoat by blaming the Russians.

Toss in the class action suit alleging that the DNC had committed fraud by taking donations in a “rigged” primary battle. Part of the lawsuit claimed that the DNC favoured Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over Sanders which was in violation of the DNC charter.

Who was behind AP declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of the California and Several other primaries on the 6th of June, the day BEFORE the primaries?  Was that the Russians? Are you OK with that?

How about these allegations of Democratic misconduct? Are you OK with that? (I've tried to find compilations that show the actions of the DNC in 2016 in regard to suppressing dissent and Bernie Sanders campaign)


The following clip addresses the lack of democracy in the US: Internal forces are doing far more than "Russian Intervention."


Why the fuck didn't the Democrats do something about the Electoral College after the 2000 election? Why the fuck are you trying to get people to ignore that the Electoral College was behind Trump's victory in 2016? Are you OK with that?

Yeah, dude, you've got every reason on the planet to get all upset about the "Russian Collusion" thing because at the core of it all is Democratic Party bungling which you, your party, and the media don't want to take responsibility for. Are you OK with that?

Especially since it meant that your party preferred to lose with Hillary Clinton to an opponent who wasn't supposed to win instead of running with a popular candidate. Are you OK with that?

Yeah, it's a fuck of a lot easier to claim "foreign interference" instead of admitting your side fucked up and we ended up with Trump.

But you might be OK with the fact that YOUR PARTY FUCKED IT, which is why you want to keep the "Russian Interference" charade going on after the Mueller Investigation confirmed what I have been saying all along: That the real misconduct is internal to the US, in particular the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. And that the body that made Trump president was the Electoral College.

So, the congressman doth protest too much, methinks.

Because his party fucked it and he doesn't want that made public.

See also:

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The Problem of Analysing the US 2016 Presidential Election

There's a big problem with trying to analyse the US 2016 Presidential Election.

TRUMP WASN'T POPULARLY ELECTED

He was elected by the Electoral College, which isn't tied to the popular vote.

As I like to point out, that Hillary Clinton had a significant amount of the popular vote kind of trashes most of the "she was unpopular" analysis. Since she WAS popular: just not where and how it counted.

So, talking about what the Clinton campaign and the Democrats did to lose the election seems wrong. Unless you are doing it in a strategic manner.

The Clinton campaign thought that no one would vote for trump. That led to the assumption that most of the brown states in this map would vote for Clinton. That's why there were all the predictions of a "landslide" for Clinton.

She could have pulled off a win if she had taken Florida and any one of AZ, MI, NC, PA, or WI, but she didn't. But that isn't really about the popular vote as much as it is about the workings of the Electoral College and failing to realise that a "safe" state may not be that safe (e.g., MI, PA, and WI).

I'm going to add that I learned that Andrew Therriault, the former DNC director of data science, reacted, “Irony of her bashing DNC data: our models never had MI/WI/PA looking even close to safe. Her team thought they knew better.””

The real upshot of all this is that what counted were the Electoral College votes and getting enough to get all a states votes: since Clinton probably would have won if the Electoral College votes somehow reflected the popular vote.

But the real bottom line assumption was that there was no way she would lose to Donald Trump.

Boy, we're they WRONG.

See also:

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Remember Whitewater?

I was at some American Bar Association thing during the early Clinton Years where Webb Hubbell attracted a lot of attention since President Clinton has made him an Associate Attorney General. He was one of the many to fall from the investigations into President Clinton.

But one thing that came out of the Whitewater investigation was Hillary Clinton's Cattle Futures Trading:
Guided by her friend Jim Blair, an experienced commodities trader, Hillary began investing in cattle futures, and saw her initial $1,000 investment grow to nearly $100,000 in less than a year. That gain came in for considerable scrutiny during Bill's presidency; one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion. Hillary was also allowed to buy 10 cattle contracts (normally worth $12,000) with only $1,000 in her trading account, increasing suspicions that she had received favorable treatment because Bill held political office. A later White House investigation into the trades found no evidence Hillary committed any trading violations.
OK, that last part about "no evidence Hillary committed any trading violations" is a fudge: the statute of limitations had tolled. That meant that there is no way that Hillary Clinton could be investigated for insider trading: no matter how slimy this affair appears. So, it's been something of a footnote in Hillary Clinton's career.

Here's 60 Minutes' coverage on this:

On the other hand, REFCO, the financial services company that handled these trades is another thing. Looking into that company's history one finds that it had a long history of shady deals finally collapsing in $430 Million in bad debts.

Anyway, for the people who want to point out all the non-Russian collusion prosecutions that came from the Mueller report: I really wouldn't chortle since Hillary Clinton came out of Whitewater smelling like shit.

Enough that it was one of the many reasons I couldn't vote for her.

Although, the Russiagate thing seems really similar to this in that the Trump supporters see it as a vindication of Trump. The Russiagaters have lost perspective and see the result as something successful even if the prosecutions are in no way related to the issue of Russian influence.

And some of them may never result in charges actually being brought against foreign nationals.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's supporters have a lot of nerve talking about allegations which will never result in charges when you consider the Cattle Futures trading thing.

See also:

Monday, March 25, 2019

Any serious investigation of "Russian Influence" needed to look at both parties.

I don't think either of the two parties has clean hands in the "foreign influence" and election rigging thing. The Dems were basically caught screwing Bernie and pushing Trump in the e-mails the Russians were alleged to have given to Wikileaks.

There have been non-MSM media coverage which questioned the Russiagate thing.


Consortium News has republished articles originally appearing when they called the entire fiasco into question now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report resulted in no one being accused of “colluding” with Russia to steal the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Consortium’s Bob Parry was in the forefront of Russia-gate scepticism, recognizing its domestic and geopolitical dangers.
An irony of the escalating hysteria about the Trump camp’s contacts with Russians is that one presidential campaign in 2016 did exploit political dirt that supposedly came from the Kremlin and other Russian sources. Friends of that political campaign paid for this anonymous hearsay material, shared it with American journalists and urged them to publish it to gain an electoral advantage. But this campaign was not Donald Trump’s; it was Hillary Clinton’s.
Personally,I think that any investigation of election misconduct in 2016 needs to look at both parties and not focus on one or the other. On the other hand, you have to question whether a candidate who acted as if he wanted to lose the Election, Trump, was in anyway really doing anything wrong.

Anyway, there is a lot wrong, but I don't think Russiagate is the real problem here.

See also:

HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!!!

I feel like a broken record, but the Mueller Report thing vindicated people who were Russiagate Sceptics.

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 65,853,516 (48.5% votes) to Trump's 62,984,825 (46.4% votes), but lost in the electoral college by receiving 232 (43.1%) of the electoral votes to Trump's 306 (56.8%) vote
That fact pretty much refutes the "Russian Influence" bullshit.

While the Electoral College may suck, it does make it hard for external forces to screw up an election. Assuming each state (+ DC) gives all its votes to the Republican or Democrat using the "winner take all system", there There are 2 to the 51st power or 2.25 quadrillion (2,250,000,000,000,000) possible outcomes! Since there are no states with one or two electoral votes, a final total of 1, 2, 536 or 537 is not possible, assuming each state gives all its votes to the popular vote winner of that state.

That is because there are two possible outcomes (blue or red) for each state and DC, this is the same as flipping a coin 51 times and recording, in order, the outcome of each.

Anyway, there are a lot of ways that Clinton could have won the Electoral vote, but she didn't for whatever reason. But I am pretty sure that those reasons were domestic, and came from the Democratic Party: NOT FOREIGN.

So, the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote should have been the end of the Russian Influence shit.

But that would mean that people would have to look at what is wrong with US Elections.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

Imagine this actually happening at the US Constitutional Convention.

The Good News: Catherine the Great has promised to give us a Donkey Show if we create an Electoral College.
The Bad News: It won't be for another 230 years or so.

Next, Let's ensure that we will have gun mayhem and mass shootings in the future.
Oh, cake!

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Are you reallly sure you want a gun in the house?

Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Hey, they aren't my kids.

But if you really care about your kids are you sure you want to risk it? Remember that dead is hard to cure if you are willing to chance it.

Still, feel free to collect your Darwin Awards! No, I can't be sympathetic since your kind has shown you don't care about other people's children.

Why should we give a fuck about yours?


Talk about counterproductive though.

Friday, March 22, 2019

Judith Collins tells US lobby group NRA to 'bugger off' over New Zealand gun reform

OK, the correct Originalist intepretation of the Second Amendment should make it clear that it relates to the Common Defence.

Also, the Second Amendment means fuck all outside the US. Only a few other countries in the world recognise gun rights: mostly third world. A country that wants to somehow see itself as "Great" shouldn't go for a misinterpretation of its founding document.

That said, National Party MP and former police minister Judith Collins has told the National Rifle Association to "bugger off" out of New Zealand's affairs as it prepares to introduce sweeping gun law reforms following the deaths of 50 people in an attack on two Christchurch mosques.
"They talked about how we were trying to take away their Second Amendment rights to own guns. We don't have a right to bear arms. To own a gun in New Zealand is absolutely a privilege and not a right," she said.
Likewise, if owning a gun doesn't contribute to the common defence, then it is a privilege not a right according to a proper originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

If the founders had intended on people using guns for self-defence, killing their kids, or mass murder they would have said it clearly in the text.

It's not in the Second Amendment, only words that connote the common defence, a goal mentioned in the preamble, exist in the text.

Now, bugger off because the revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment is contrary to what the founders intended in so many ways.

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Grasping at Straws (or the Pro-gun side really has a problem)

I was trying to find the study that demonstrated using a gun for self-defence is usually counterproductive. Instead of finding that data, I was bombarded with this "Secret CDC Study" that "confirms" The 2-3 Million annual DGU number. It doesn't which is why I am publishing it in full.
Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.
Odd that most of the people who want to use this fail to quote the title: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

The reason I call this post what I do is that any person who says this somehow "confirms" the 2-3 million annual DGUs is either dishonest as fuck or illiterate.

This doesn't confirm anything other than gun violence research is not being properly carried out. The fact that the progun side is using this to back up their claims shows that they are really desperate to prove their claim.

Which this doesn't do.

Sorry, but the reason for the research ban was that the facts were against the "pro-gun" side. And it doesn't seem that is going to change looking at how they are using something like this to back up their claims.

The progunners would be better off letting the research happen and let if fall where it may

See also:

Friday, March 15, 2019

The Third Party Mindset.

OK, this blog post is from a Libertarian site. It's not Green, but it shows the mindset of people who voted for the third parties. Switch "Jill Stein" for \"gary Johnson" and this could be taken from a Green Party site:

I’m so tired of hearing this nonsense from both sides: "A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Hillary.  A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Trump."

For Heaven’s sake, ENOUGH of that broken record!  Remember the Electoral College?  That institution that guarantees one party will take all the state’s electoral votes in the presidential election?  Unless you live in 1 of 9 or 10 battleground states, the Electoral College guarantees your vote doesn’t matter.
Yep. There was a lot of talk about whether one was in a safe state or not. But the real bottom line was this:
5% in the general election will get us federal funds, automatic ballot access in all states, and inclusion in the national polls and the debates.  Gary Johnson has polled in the 20-30% range between last week and today.
The real issue for a lot of third party voters was to get the 5% ballot access since we knew winning was impossible. On the other hand, the 5% share of the vote for a third party seemed possible.

Maybe we could have done something to change the way elections are run in the US.

Source:

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

More proof that the Election Rigging is Internal, not External.

Exhibit No 1: The US Presidential Debates.

Here is a quote from one of the many articles I found when I went looking for the statement from the League of Women Voters about why they stopped hosting the Presidential debates (do a search on "League of Women Voters Presidential debates" for some interesting reading).
The Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit institution, is organizing the debates this year, as it has since its founding in 1987. Led by a board of high ranking members of the two major parties, the Commission largely operates behind closed doors, where it pre-screens questions and vets moderators. Though opaque, this week audiences caught a glimpse into how the body makes decisions. Its chief, Janet Brown, said it was the duty of the candidates, not of the moderator, to fact check each other.
Here is the video I was looking for:


The takeaway line from the speech is:
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
The League made sure that the debates were run in a truly impartial manner before the two parties created The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which is a non-profit corporation established in 1987 under the joint sponsorship of the Democratic and Republican political parties in the United States.

If that doesn't stink to you, then you probably should go back to believing the Russians rigged the election. This commenter pretty much sums up what the debates have become:
Instead of any substantive exploration of the candidates' proposals, we will be treated to a mélange of showmanship and complaining, obstinacy and irrelevance, petty quibbles, grandstanding, pandering, half-truths, and punchlines. The candidates will be rehearsed, the moderators timid, the questions calculated, and the answers at once too short and too long. We will learn little to nothing that could not be discovered at this very moment by any Google user of modest skill. And inevitably, we will drink — a shot for every boast, a chug for every lie — because drinking games have become as guaranteed a fixture of our presidential debates as the candidates themselves. Is it any wonder debate viewership has been on a steady decline for decades?

The bottom line is that the CPD has made it hard for third parties to get involved in the debates. Toss in that the debates have no real substance. That's because they are a pointless exercise in duopoly PR.

There is a reason that Climate Change got short shrift  no attention whatsoever in the 2016 debates. It is impossible for third parties to get the 15% share of the voting public without any publicity.

The CPD is one of many examples of how the US elections are not "free and fair".

On the other hand, isn't having a president who wasn't popularly elected enough to persuade you of that?

See Also:



Sunday, March 10, 2019

I don't get why Russiagate is a thing.

OK, the Mueller report is out: where are the indictments? For that matter why isn't everybody talking about it?

crickets chirp.

Let's toss in that James Clapper is alleged to be a perjurer. But like Hillary Clinton and the insider trading thing we can't talk about it since the statute of limitations has tolled. No matter how much both of those things stink.

Anyway, lots of talk about nothing which resulted in all the same issues still being around to cause trouble.

I am betting that Trump gets a second term because of the failure to address the problems that plagued the 2016 election.  His victory will be from a failure to learn from those mistakes.

See also: