Draining the Swamp

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 08, 2017 5:41 pm

Trump nominee Monica Crowley accused of plagiarizing 50 passages of her book
9:32 a.m. ET

President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for director of strategic communications for the National Security Council, Monica Crowley, has been accused of plagiarizing more than 50 passages of her 2012 book, What The (Bleep) Just Happened. A list published by CNN on Saturday compares sections from the conservative media personality's book with online content from sources including Wikipedia, Fox News, Investopedia, National Review, Politico, and more. The book does not have a bibliography.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/671887/tr ... sages-book


Trump confidants could face tangle of potential conflicts as presidential advisers
Image
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn could benefit from Trump administration policies. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg) (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg)
By John Wagner and Ylan Q. Mui January 8 at 2:49 PM
Billionaire investor Carl Icahn will have the ear of President-elect Donald Trump as an adviser focused on cutting government regulations. But Icahn also stands to benefit if his advice is taken: It could make the energy companies and others in which he has a stake more profitable.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who’s a major figure in her father’s business, has been present at transition meetings and is expected to continue to counsel him at the White House. So, too, is her husband, Jared Kushner, who has a web of business interests of his own that could be impacted by Trump administration policy.

And another Trump intimate — his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — is making no secret of his desire to profit on his continuing closeness to Trump, setting up a new lobbying firm with an office just a block from the White House.

With confirmation hearings set to start for Trump’s Cabinet, ethics experts are voicing alarm about several other confidants of the president-elect — dubbed the “shadow Cabinet” by one — who might not be subject to such scrutiny and could face a tangle of potential conflicts between their personal interests and those of the public.

His lawyer said this weekend that Kushner is preparing to resign from his position overseeing his family’s real estate empire and to divest “substantial assets” if he takes a role in Trump’s White House.

Trump advisers Stephen Bannon and Jared Kushner make their way to Carrier Corporation in Indianapolis, IN on Thursday, Dec. 01, 2016. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
In other cases, it’s unclear whether the usual safeguards of public disclosure and divestment will come into play to prevent those serving the president from profiting personally from their work. The concerns have been amplified by the fact that they will be reporting to a Republican president who has been slow to address the potential conflicts stemming from his own real estate holdings and other business interests.

Some of the advisory roles Trump has set up or is openly contemplating fall into “very murky territory” said Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer under President Obama.

Richard W. Painter, who held the same position as Eisen under President George W. Bush and now sits with him on the board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said “it poses an enormous risk to have a shadow Cabinet.”

Trump transition officials did not respond to requests for comment. An attorney for Icahn said he will “follow the law as he always has,” while Kushner’s lawyer said he is consulting with the Office of Government Ethics regarding the steps he would take.

The appointment of Ichan — whom Trump praised as “someone who is innately able to predict the future, especially having to do with finances and economies” — has drawn the sharpest criticism. Painter said Icahn’s status as an unpaid adviser was “disingenuous.”

The billionaire investor made his name on Wall Street as one of the most successful corporate raiders of the 1980s, including making nearly $500 million from his stake in Trans World Airlines. As an investor in Trump’s hotels, he has clashed with the president-elect over business deals in the past but also provided financing at critical moments to keep Trump afloat. Icahn now ranks among the 50 richest people in the world, according to Forbes.

In the wee hours after Election Day, as supporters celebrated Trump’s stunning victory in a ballroom at the New York Hilton in Midtown Manhattan, Ichan ducked out of the festivities. He was tracking the initial plunge in financial markets over Trump’s upset win and decided to make a bet.

“I couldn’t put more than $1 billion to work,” Icahn told Bloomberg TV the day after the election. “The world was going into a panic for no reason. I think Donald coming in is a good thing for the economy, not a bad thing.”

Trump’s presidency also stands to be particularly good for Icahn. He has long railed against regulation from Washington, most recently in the energy sector. Now he is being tasked by Trump to help him slash government regulations in the newly created role of special adviser for regulatory reform.

Trump’s transition team emphasized that the title comes with no official duties and no salary — and is therefore not subject to federal disclosure requirements or conflict of interest laws. In an interview on CNBC, Icahn said that he will simply be“talking to Donald as I’ve talked before.”

The confirmation process is designed in part to air potential conflicts. For example, Trump’s incoming commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, who made a fortune in the steel industry, will likely be asked to explain how he will oversee a department that has significant oversight of that sector.

While White House staff do not face confirmation hearings as Cabinet secretaries do, they must file disclosure forms, revealing their finances. They also have to divest assets that create conflicts of interest or abide by rules requiring them to recuse themselves from decisions that could affect those assets.

Icahn’s role is so nebulous that it is difficult to tell how it should be categorized. The nature of his work could make him a de facto government employee — subject to disclosure requirements and conflict of interest laws — even if he is not paid.

“Is it in the public interest for him to take that position and for us to not know what he’s doing?” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University.

Watchdog groups have raised concerns about how much influence Icahn might wield over rolling back regulations that could benefit him personally. In the CNBC interview, he expounded at length over what he deemed “insane” rules dictating how much ethanol refineries should blend into gasoline. Shares of CVR Energy, a petroleum refinery in which he holds a significant stake, have almost doubled in price since the election.

In addition, it is unclear whether Icahn’s position could provide him special access to political intelligence. Legislation passed in 2012 prohibits members of Congress and certain positions within the executive branch from trading based on nonpublic political information.

Democrats are already questioning whether Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, violated that law by trading health-care stocks during the crafting of the Affordable Care Act.

Trump’s unusual willingness to intervene in the business decisions of individual companies could also create greater potential for conflicts of interest. On Thursday, Trump criticized Toyota for building cars in Mexico and selling them in the United States, sending the company’s stock plunging.

“The fear would be that he could be privy to knowledge that could affect the market in some ways or different corporations he has a stake in or against,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He could make a move before the rest of America knows about it.”

In an email, Jesse Lynn, general counsel of Icahn Enterprises, said Icahn’s title was not intended to formalize his role in the new Trump administration but to acknowledge the long-standing relationship among two New York dealmakers.

Jan Baran, a campaign and elections lawyer at Wiley Rein, said conflict of interest laws only cover information that has the potential to affect a specific company, not a broad industry. And he said that many presidents often have a coterie of unofficial advisers, many of whom lack real power.

“It kind of reminds me of Peter the Great when he was the czar of Russia” in the late 1600s and early 1700s, Baran said. “He didn’t have much in the way of money that he could give to anybody, so he started giving blue ribbons. This might be Trump’s version of a blue ribbon.”

Trump has not made formal announcements about the role his daughter and son-in-law will play in the administration. But those around him have suggested that Ivanka Trump could be involved in policies affecting working mothers, while Kushner’s portfolio could include advising the president on foreign policy, particularly the Middle East.

What would happen to their business interests remains unclear. Ivanka Trump has played a leading role in her father’s business and has a clothing line. Kushner has a web of business interests of his own, focused heavily on real estate development.

Though Kushner’s company is focused primarily on development in New York and New Jersey, it has often relied on foreign investment, and its earnings could be influenced by Trump administration trade and foreign relations policies.

Kushner’s lawyer, WilmerHale partner Jamie Gorelick, said Saturday that Kushner would recuse himself from matters that would have a direct impact on his remaining financial interests and abide by other federal ethics rules.

A federal anti-nepotism statute enacted in 1967 could also complicate the fate of the couple, who recently purchased a house in Washington. The law, which came about after President John F. Kennedy named his brother as attorney general, forbids public officials from hiring family members in agencies or offices they oversee.

There’s some disagreement among lawyers as to whether appointments to White House positions are exempt — Hillary Clinton’s role in the health-care reform proposal during her husband’s presidency is cited by those who take that view. Gorelick declined to comment on that matter.

But both Eisen and Painter say they counseled their respective presidents to avoid appointing relatives to administration positions. Painter argued that the ideal solution — if Trump wants to put his daughter and son-in-law in positions of influence — would be to ask Congress to amend the anti-nepotism law and give them formal roles.

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
Lewandowski remains in regular touch with the president-elect and is expected to continue to do so when Trump enters the Oval Office.

There is a long tradition in Washington of lobbyists trading on their access to powerful figures, but ethics experts were taken aback by how bluntly Lewandowski pitched his new lobbying shop. A news release issued by the firm, Avenue Strategies, touted its location “just a block from the White House” on Pennsylvania Avenue and quoted Lewandowski saying, “I will always be President-elect Trump’s biggest supporter.”

“We’ve been overly desensitized to shock, but we should be shocked,” Eisen said.

“How did Trump not repudiate that announcement?” Eisen asked. “I think he should repudiate it. I doubt he will.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 14eac47dd3
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:59 pm

The Grifter in Chief names his grifter son-in-law advisor to president


Jared Kushner, a Trump In-Law and Adviser, Chases a Chinese Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/us/po ... .html?_r=0





In total there are 119 users online :: 2 registered, 6 hidden and 111 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:41 pm

With Rex Tillerson in Leadership, Exxon Skirted U.S. Sanctions, Did Business With Iran Anyway

By Elliot Hannon

While now-CEO Rex Tillerson was a top executive at Texas-based ExxonMobil, the company circumvented U.S. sanctions in the mid-2000s against Iran, Syria, and Sudan, all deemed state sponsors of terror, and did business with the sanctioned regimes anyway through a European subsidiary, USA Today reported Monday. The sales to the sanctioned regimes took place from 2003 to 2005; Tillerson became a senior VP in 2001 and president and director in March 2004, but did not assume the CEO role until 2006.

From USA Today:

The sales were conducted in 2003, 2004 and 2005 by Infineum, in which ExxonMobil owned a 50% share, according to SEC documents unearthed by American Bridge, a Democratic research group. ExxonMobil told USA TODAY the transactions were legal because Infineum, a joint venture with Shell Corporation, was based in Europe and the transactions did not involve any U.S. employees. The filings, from 2006, show that the company had $53.2 million in sales to Iran, $600,000 in sales to Sudan and $1.1 million in sales to Syria during those three years.
ExxonMobil did not disclose its dealings with the pariah regimes with shareholders at the time, a decision the Securities and Exchange Commission questioned the wisdom of. “These are all legal activities complying with the sanctions at the time," Alan Jeffers, a media manager at ExxonMobil, told USA TODAY. "We didn’t feel they were material because of the size of the transactions.”

Tillerson, of course, is headed to Congress this week to begin the confirmation process for Secretary of State where the company’s sanction-evasions are sure to be raised along with his connections to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... tions.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:03 am

Exxon Mobile predicted to make 1 trillion dollar profit from Trump presidency.

Oil and gas giant ExxonMobil stands to gain nearly $1 trillion from Trump administration policies, according to a new report from the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

The report, titled "How Exxon Won the 2016 Election," details how the energy and environmental policies of Trump's Cabinet picks could benefit Exxon, the eighth-largest company in the world and the largest of the world's six Big Oil companies.

The CEO of Exxon and Trump's pick for secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, will be grilled in a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday about the potential conflicts of interests he faces as a result of his company's extensive global operations. The company produces oil and gas in 22 countries, a nd Tillerson owns company shares worth $180 million, according to the report.

Tillerson has promised to sever ties with Exxon if he is confirmed by the Senate, in exchange for a payout that matches the value of his shares. But he is also likely to face questions about his personal ties to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, whom the US intelligence community said last week ordered an "influence campaign" aimed at diminishing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the presidential election.

Tillerson, whose relationship with the Kremlin dates back to the early 1990s, has struck several major deals with the Russian state-run corporation Rosneft and received the prestigious Order of Friendship award from Putin in 2013.

In 2014, Exxon was on the brink of signing a lucrative deal with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Russian Arctic when the US leveled sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine. The Obama administration sanctioned Russia again late last month for its meddling in the presidential election.

tillerson putin
In this photo taken June 21, 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin presents ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson with a Russian medal at an award ceremony of heads and employees of energy companies at the St. Petersburg economic forum in St. Petersburg, Russia. AP
Tillerson's close relationship with Russia and Putin, however, has led to speculation that as secretary of state, he could push for sanctions on Russia to be lifted — allowing Exxon's Arctic agreement with Rosneft, reported to be worth $500 billion, to proceed.

Exxon, meanwhile, still has its eye on the deal. The head of the company's operations in Russia, Glenn Waller, said last April that the company will return to its joint project with Rosneft once sanctions against Moscow are lifted.

Exxon would also benefit from the likely reversal of the Obama administration's executive order requiring a presidential permit to construct cross-border pipelines. The construction of additional pipelines — supported by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — would facilitate the mining and transportation of Canadian tar sands, which make up more than one-third of Exxon's global liquid reserves. The reserves are worth roughly $277 billion at current oil prices, the CAP report estimated.

Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has sued the agency multiple times to prevent rules that would curb air and water pollution from taking effect.

Pruitt has opposed the EPA's Clean Air and Clean Power acts, arguing that energy regulation should be left to individual states. Exxon, like any oil company, would likely benefit from the relaxation or elimination of anti-pollution laws that have often required companies to invest in research and technology to make their operations safer and more efficient.

Trump's pick to lead the Department of Energy (DOE), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, has received more than $5 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry, the CAP report said, including $40,000 directly from Exxon. Perry said during a 2011 run for president that he wanted to eliminate the DOE — which, among many other things, regulates fracking and offshore drilling.

rick perry
Texas governor Rick Perry, Trump's pick to lead the Energy Department, has received more than $5 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry. Scott Olson

Between Tillerson, Pruitt, and Perry, Trump's proposed Cabinet seems broadly committed to sustaining the fossil fuel industry, eliminating federally mandated environmental protections, and deprioritizing the development of renewable energy. Those policies, the CAP report suggested, will increase oil demand and drive up oil prices, which are " the single largest determining factor in Exxon’s profitability each year."

Exxon may yield influence over the Justice Department, too, which will be led by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions if he is confirmed by the Senate. As attorney general, Sessions would be able to put a definitive end to calls for Exxon to be investigated for allegedly knowing about the dangers of climate change as early as the 19 70s, but failing to disclose them to the public.

Under Tillerson, the company became more accepting of evolving climate change science. But such an investigation could end up setting the company back anywhere from $84 billion to $246 billion in settlement costs or fines.

In 2016, Sessions and four other Republican senators wrote a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking her to “immediately cease” the investigation into Exxon, which they said confirmed that the government was trying "to silence debate on climate change."

It is unclear how much Exxon's lobbying influence would have been quelled by a Clinton administration, however. The Clinton Global Initiative has received between $1 million and $5 million from the oil company, according to its website. And as The Daily Beast noted in May, Ursula Burns, a member of the company’s board of directors, gave the Clinton campaign the maximum contribution of $5,400.http://www.businessinsider.com/how-exxo ... its-2017-1



Sessions failed to disclose oil interests as required, ethics experts say
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 9#comments





Opposition grows to Senate confirmation of Betsy DeVos, Trump’s education nominee
By Valerie Strauss January 10 at 3:53 AM

President-elect Donald Trump watches Betsy DeVos, his choice for education secretary, speaks in Grand Rapids on Dec. 9. (Reuters/Mike Segar)
Public education wasn’t much of an issue during the 2016 presidential campaign — but it sure is now as opposition grows to the Senate confirmation of Michigan billionaire Betsy DeVos, President-elect Donald Trump’s education secretary nominee, who once called the U.S. traditional public school system a “dead end.”

The confirmation hearing by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions had been set for Wednesday, Jan. 11, but late Monday it was postponed until Jan. 17, with panel leaders releasing a statement saying the date was changed “at the request of the Senate leadership to accommodate the Senate schedule.” They did not note that Democrats had been pushing for a delay because an ethics review of DeVos has not been completed.

DeVos, a leader in the movement to privatize the U.S. public education system, has quickly become a lightning rod in the education world since her nomination by Trump in November 2015.

Supporters say that as secretary of education she would work to expand the range of choices that parents have in choosing a school for their children and that she is dedicated to giving every child an opportunity to succeed. Her critics say that her long advocacy for vouchers and her push for lax regulation of charter schools reveals an antipathy to public education; they point to an August 2015 speech in which she said that the traditional public education system is a “dead end” and that “government truly sucks.”

Thousands of people have signed petitions, started Twitter campaigns and called congressional offices urging that DeVos not be confirmed. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), expressing concern about the nomination, sent DeVos a long list of questions she wants answered, while Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has worked alongside DeVos on some school reform issues, said in a December interview with The 74 website that he had has “serious” issues with her confirmation.

A coalition of more than 200 national non-profit organizations on Monday sent a letter (see text below) to the Senate education committee accusing DeVos of seeking “to undermine bedrock American principles of equal opportunity, nondiscrimination and public education itself.” The letter was sent by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, composed of groups including the NAACP, the National Urban League, a variety of labor unions, and the League of Women Voters. Teach For America is a member, as is the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Sierra Club. (You can see the complete list of members here.)

Answer Sheet newsletter
Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.
Sign up
The two major teachers unions are also working against her confirmation, mobilizing teachers to oppose her nomination. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, gave a speech on Monday saying in part: “Betsy DeVos lacks the qualifications and experience to serve as secretary of education. Her drive to privatize education is demonstrably destructive to public schools and to the educational success of all of our children.”

There is a push, too, by her supporters to persuade the education panel to confirm her as education secretary, which seems likely despite the outcry against her.

Twenty Republican governors, for example, sent a letter to Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who heads the Senate education committee, saying that Trump had “made an inspired choice to reform federal education policy and allow state and local policymakers to craft innovative solutions to ensure our children are receiving the skills and knowledge to be successful in the world and modern workforce.”

Mitt Romney, a DeVos supporter, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that her nomination by Trump had “reignited the age-old battle over education policy.” He said that the debate is “between those in the education establishment who support the status quo because they have a financial stake in the system and those who seek to challenge the status quo because it’s not serving kids well.” (Translation: DeVos opponents are self-serving and DeVos and her supporters are thinking about the kids.)

Here’s the letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights:
Image

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... d6cfdd8e24
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:26 am

Torture Allegations Shadow Rex Tillerson's Time at Exxon Mobil
His former company is being sued for its alleged role in unprovoked shootings and arbitrary detention of Indonesian people.

SAMANTHA MICHAELSJAN. 11, 2017 6:00 AM


Rex Tillerson during an Economic Club of Washington event in DC in 2015 Tripplaar Kristoffer/SIPA/AP
This week, Congress will consider whether to confirm President-elect Donald Trump's appointment for secretary of state. Trump's choice, former Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, has come under fire for his close relationship with Russia's Vladimir Putin and his lack of government experience. As Tillerson seeks to become America's top diplomat, another aspect of his past should come under scrutiny: his former company's troubling ties to allegations of torture and other grave human rights abuses in Indonesia.

Until recently, Exxon Mobil worked extensively in Indonesia's Aceh Province, home to one of the globe's largest natural gas fields. A company executive once said that for a time, Exxon Mobil's operations in the region were "the jewel in the company's crown." Back in the 1970s, Mobil Corp.—which in 1999 merged with Exxon Corp.—obtained exclusive rights to extract gas from the area and began a joint venture with the Indonesian government to process it. The company soon started employing Indonesian soldiers to protect its operations there. But in the 1990s and early 2000s, amid a war between the Indonesian military and armed separatists in the region, some of the soldiers working for the company allegedly detained, tortured, and even killed local Indonesian people who lived and worked nearby, according to a lawsuit first filed in the United States in 2001. Another lawsuit was filed on behalf of more Indonesians in 2007 and consolidated with the first.

According to the lawsuits, one plaintiff was allegedly shot in the knee by an Exxon Mobil security official while riding his bike home from a local plantation, where he worked as a laborer. When another plaintiff tried to intervene, a security official stomped on his head. A third plaintiff said security officials shocked him in the genitals with electricity and brought him to a pit filled with human heads. Their lawyer, Terry Collingsworth of International Rights Advocates, says he's met dozens of people in Aceh with similar complaints. In response to my questions about the case, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil told me the company "categorically denies any complicity in any human rights abuses committed by Indonesian soldiers during an Indonesian civil war."

The Indonesian plaintiffs say top Exxon Mobil executives in Texas knew or should have known about the alleged abuse but kept the soldiers on board for security anyway. During the first few years of abuse outlined in the complaints, Rex Tillerson was executive vice president of Exxon Mobil Development Company, a subsidiary that develops Exxon Mobil's exploration and production projects around the world. He became senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp. in 2001 and its president a few years later. Exxon Mobil says Tillerson had no responsibility for operations in Aceh "during the relevant time period." Collingsworth says there's no evidence to suggest he was making decisions related to the retention of Indonesian soldiers as security.

But it's hard to believe Tillerson wouldn't have had some idea of what was happening in Aceh. The abuse was covered by news organizations—including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal—as early as the 1990s. "There wasn't a single person in Aceh who didn't know that massacres were taking place," a former top government official in Aceh told BusinessWeek in a 1998 investigation. In 2001, Time magazine wrote that in Aceh, "people literally line up to tell stories of abuse and murders committed by troops they call Exxon's army." Marco Simons, a legal director for the advocacy group EarthRights International who filed a brief in support of the Indonesians in 2010, says it's troubling that some of the problems in Aceh happened while Tillerson was among the company's top executives: "Either he knew about it and condoned it or he didn't have sufficient control over his operations to know about what was going on."

After the first lawsuit was filed in 2001, the abuse allegedly continued for a few years, until a brutal tsunami devastated Aceh and essentially ended the ongoing war between the separatists and Indonesia's military. Exxon Mobil continued to employ the soldiers after that. In 2005, Exxon Mobil's shareholders asked the company to report back to them about security arrangements with Indonesia's military, but the company's directors objected.

In 2006, Tillerson took the reins as Exxon Mobil's CEO. The company continued employing Indonesian soldiers in Aceh, according to the 2007 complaint. "Defendants have refused demands to investigate, improve, or cease its security forces' abusive actions," the plaintiffs charged. Years earlier, Tillerson and other Exxon Mobil executives had met with officials in Indonesia; some, like former CEO Lucio Noto and former executive vice president Harry Longwell, had discussed the security problems in Aceh, but it's not clear whether Tillerson broached this subject during his meetings. In 2015, Exxon Mobil sold its Aceh assets to Indonesia's state oil company.

The litigation between Exxon Mobil and the Indonesian plaintiffs has now dragged on for about 16 years. A judge ruled in 2015 that the case could continue to move forward, stating that "the Court accepts as true for purposes of this motion" the assertion that "Exxon exercised substantial control over the activities of these soldiers." Collingsworth says his clients are still waiting for justice. "Some part of that is Rex Tillerson," he says. "He [was] the CEO. He could say, 'These people got hurt, the war's over, why don't we help them?'"

Collingsworth worries a State Department under Tillerson could intervene to side with big companies like Exxon Mobil in future human rights abuse cases. There's some precedent for this: In 2002, the State Department under President George W. Bush warned a court in the United States that allowing the Indonesians to pursue their lawsuit against Exxon Mobil could have a "potentially serious adverse impact" on US government interests. Now, Collingsworth said, the State Department has the power to determine whether his plaintiffs and witnesses can get visas to travel to the United States for trial—he adds that a trial date is imminent. More generally, he adds, the State Department can play a role in promoting rule of law in countries abroad. But if Tillerson, "the most prominent of all CEOs of the biggest oil company," is appointed, he says, it'll send a message to people around the globe: "The world is open for business—environment and human rights be damned."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -indonesia



Josh Rogin ‏@joshrogin 6m6 minutes ago
Tillerson says he hasn't had an in depth discussion about Russia with Trump. Menendez: "That's pretty amazing."
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:50 pm

Follow

Alan FisherVerified account
‏@AlanFisher
Tillerson says he never personally lobbied against US Sanctions...Cmmttee Chairman says "I think you called me at the time".

CNN
“Don’t put Exxon in charge of the State Department”: Protester interrupts Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing http://cnn.it/2jDQHrK


However, Cardin has delivered a tough series of questions to Tillerson about Exxon's role in dealings with Russia, why he didn't mention the Russian cyber hacking in his prepared opening statement and how he will deal with a President elect who ignored the findings of 17 intelligence agencies and may want to make a quick ally of Vladimir Putin.

Cardin said he has "grave concerns" about what Tillerson sees when he looks into Putin's eyes not because Tillerson is naïve, but because Exxon's money helped fund Russia's crushing of opposition voices thru a Putin slush fund.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politic ... ng-n705646
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:58 pm

Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 1m1 minute ago
Kaine: Do you lack the knowledge to answer my question or refuse to answer my question?
Tillerson: A little of both
0 replies 3 retweets 10 likes
Reply Retweet 3
Like 10
More
Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 3m3 minutes ago
Here we go: Tim Kaine is asking Tillerson directly about #ExxonKnew, what Exxon knew about climate despite its public positions.
2 replies 33 retweets 57 likes
Reply 2 Retweet 33
Like 57
More
Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 22m22 minutes ago
Next minute Tillerson criticizes ineffective energy incentives and hodgepodge of climate mandates.
(fwiw Exxon gets subsidies too)
3 replies 10 retweets 20 likes
Reply 3 Retweet 10
Like 20
More
Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 22m22 minutes ago
One minute TIllerson said he could not comment on a carbon tax bc tax policy is beyond his purview at State
1 reply 7 retweets 19 likes
Reply 1 Retweet 7
Like 19
More
Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 28m28 minutes ago
Chairman interrupted Tillerson in the middle of his climate comments. He was about to say "the United States does a good job"...
0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Reply Retweet 1
Like 2
More
Rebecca Leber ‏@rebleber 32m32 minutes ago
Udall: Would you allow Exxon to lobby State?
Tillerson: I would recuse myself from Exxon decision for "statutory period"

(Which is 1 year)
0 replies 20 retweets 21 likes
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:09 pm

Cory Booker on why he’s testifying against Jeff Sessions
By Ed O'Keefe January 11 at 10:23 AM
Booker: Next attorney general needs more empathy than Sessions Play Video3:25
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) spoke at the confirmation hearing, Jan. 11, for attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions. (Reuters)
Later Wednesday, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) will become the first sitting senator to testify against a fellow senator’s nomination for a Cabinet post, when he makes the case against confirming Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) as attorney general. On Tuesday evening, he told The Washington Post how he came to make the decision, which was swiftly criticized by Republicans as a way to grab the spotlight.

[In Sessions hearing, ‘senatorial courtesy’ is lost in the tumult of Trump]

Why did you decide to do this?

So many of the issues that have been driving me since I was a city councilperson in Newark deal in areas of justice, equal opportunity, civil rights, LGBT rights. So many have to deal with this issue. I’m grateful for the senators that were able to ask thorough questions, but this is one of those times where on issues at the core of justice in America, issues that have been a strike point as we’ve seen over the last few years, issues at a time when America needs healing to address a lot of the things that are causing such rifts in our country, the most important law enforcement officer in the country, this is a position of profound importance on issues that go to the core of what we are as a country. To remain silent at this time, to me, is unacceptable. Even if it means breaking norms on issues of this kind of gravity, I could not have sat well with my own self to remain silent on issues that are the core of our conceptions of justice.

The civil rights case that haunts Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general Play Video7:20
The career of Jeff Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, has been shadowed by his prosecution of the "Marion Three." Sessions brought forth the voter fraud case as a U.S. attorney in 1985, and his critics alleged the charges to be racially motivated. (Video: Dalton Bennett/Photo: Dalton Bennett/The Washington Post)
Are you concerned about decorum?

I absolutely do worry about that, but you have to understand, when I go home, I go home to an inner-city community where the ravages of the lot of the challenges – equal justice under the law, the challenges with the criminal justice system, the challenges that core people face in getting a fair shake — where a lot of these issues have been a part of my life for a long time. I know that a lot of the folks who — when it comes to the justice system in America, people feel voiceless or that their lives don’t matter. For m,e to be silent in this moment in history, would be unacceptable to them and is unacceptable to me.

What about your work with Sessions in the past, on honors for civil rights activists?

I don’t want to get ahead of myself, because I address this in my remarks. It actually — in fact, some of the things that helped compel me to testify in the first place have to do with the marchers at Selma. But please understand, and I’m going to be short here, because I don’t want to take away from my testimony tomorrow, but I am where I am today directly because of leaders in the legal community who felt it was their affirmative obligation to defend the civil rights of others. I don’t say that just as somebody who is a generation born after the civil rights movement — and we all stand on the shoulders of giants. But I am where I am today directly because of activists in Alabama.

How do you mean?

I’ll explain that [Wednesday]. Not just the activists in Alabama, but the legal professionals who really saw an urgency in fighting for the rights of all Americans. I am really proud to have worked with Jeff Sessions on awarding that medal to those marchers. I am really grateful for the collegial relationship that he and I have had, the frank conversation, the decorum with which he had greeted me and I hope that he thinks I have greeted him.

How has Sessions reacted to your decision?

I met with him [Monday] with staff there, and that feeling of goodwill was there and he knew I was going to testify. This is not in any way, to me, an undermining of that collegiality that has continued and, as a result of us talking yesterday, will continue. He expressed to me, as I expressed to him, that should he become the attorney general, we have to work together. I think that our paths — even though we disagreed a lot, our past pattern of working together despite our vast differences — he is a guy in an environment where we’ve had bipartisan progress on things like criminal-justice reform. He’s been one of the few senators fighting against what has been years of my work in cooperation with people like Mike Lee and Chairman [Charles] Grassley.

The Daily 202 newsletter
A must-read morning briefing for decision-makers.
Sign up
Our differences don’t undermine the places where we find commonality or the collegiality that we enjoy. I am a United States senator. He is up for the most important law enforcement position in the country. Just voting yay or nay on this is insufficient, given the grand import of that position. This is a time where I think that silence is not just unacceptable, but in many ways, if Jeff Sessions continues as a U.S. attorney general in doing things that undermine reform, that undermine civil rights, that undermine equality under the law, that undermine voting rights, that undermine the advancement of gays and lesbians in this country, that silence at this point in history, silence would be tantamount to complicity to things that I fear he would do in that office.

When did you decide to do this?

I released a statement immediately [after the nomination was announced]. I called him on his cellphone but didn’t have a connection and … I know Jeff Sessions well enough that on the issues that I’ve been dedicating my life to over the last few years, I know the stance that he’s taken, I know that he’s worked against many of the things that both Democrats and Republicans, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Koch Institute have been working together on. I knew what it would be if someone like that were to become the attorney general. This was literally moments after what I knew what was going to happen. I let him know my grave concerns. I released statements on social media. This was nothing that I think he had a realization to. Then I thought long and hard what I felt were my obligations in standing up and speaking out against his nomination. So, again, I felt that as a colleague, that I should sit face to face with him and we should have this discussion.

And what was that conversation like?

It was cordial and collegial as we have always been with each other. I have a great respect for him as a colleague. We have always been respectful to each other. I don’t see this in any way as contrary to the relationship we’ve had. This is a moment where I felt a moral obligation to speak out because I feel that silence in these moments in history are unacceptable.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... c19ff72d33
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:33 pm

JANUARY 11, 2017
Extreme Xenophobia: Jeff Sessions and Syrian Refugees
by MICHAEL J. SAINATO

Despite the insufficient efforts of the United States government to provide solace for Syrian refugees,Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and many conservative politicians have played upon xenophobic sentiments to rally support against increasing the amount of refugees the U.S. currently takes in.

“Since 9/11, we have permanently resettled approximately 1.5 million migrants from Muslim nations inside the U.S. Ninety percent of recent refugees from the Middle East living in our country are receiving food stamps and approximately 70 percent are receiving free healthcare and cash welfare,” said U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, in a press release responding to Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement in late 2015 of a slight increase in refugees the United States would take in. “All of the nearly 200,000 refugees the Administration is planning to bring over the next two years would be entitled to these same benefits the moment they arrive. Since we are running huge deficits, every penny of these billions in costs will have to be borrowed and added to the debt. This refugee expansion would be in addition to the 1 million autopilot green cards handed out each year by the government to mostly low-wage migrants, including a large share from Middle Eastern nations.”

Senator Sessions claims are not only false, but represent incredibly xenophobic and Islamophobic misconceptions about the current refugees in the United States and the prospective ones from Syria. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit that advocates for immigration reduction, the amount of refugees resettled in the United States significantly declined after 9/11. The decline was, in part, due to the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 and funding cuts of resettlement programs. The Obama administration replenished the funding to the program, and refugees admitted to the U.S. have bounced back to the ceiling of 70,000.

Senator Sessions claim that 1.5 million migrants from Muslims nations were resettled is misleading. Immigrants are classified differently from refugees and are not resettled by the U.S. government. Due to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996, immigrants are not eligible for any welfare programs for at least five years. According to a study conducted by the CATO Institute, the 40 million immigrants currently in the United States use public benefits at rates lower than native-born citizens. People come to the United States to take advantage of the opportunities provided here, not the government assistance programs. Mr. Sessions usage of this statistic is subtly veiled Islamophobia, generalizing all Arabs as Muslim when in fact, two-thirds of Arab Americans are Christian.

The U.S. government deficit has been decreasing under President Obama’s administration and there isn’t any evidence to suggest taking in more refugees would negatively impact it. Since President Obama took office, the government deficit has decreased by two-thirds. The excuse that the richest country in the world can’t financially afford assisting the moral obligation of providing Syrian refugees with a safe haven has no bearing.

Senator Sessions added that instead of the United States taking in refugees, they should be diverted to other Middle Eastern countries. Countries in the Middle East have been taking most of Syria’s refugees, despite not having the resources the United States has to help them; 1.8 million have fled to Turkey, 1 million to Lebanon, and 600,000 to Jordan. Millions of refugeesare fleeing Syria daily, and the estimated numbers to be resettled in the United States are merely a small fraction that insufficiently helps the world’s largest refugee crisis on record.

The portrayal that all refugees will be a drain on food stamps, healthcare, and welfare programs has no basis. Refugees pay taxes. Their travel costs are repaid to the U.S. government through a zero interest loan to help them get on their feet once resettled, where they become upstanding contributors to American society. The use of welfare funds to assist them are only on a short-term basis. Refugees utilize the opportunities in America to become important contributors to society. Albert Einstein came to the United States as a refugee to escape the Nazis, as did the 2013 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Martin Kaplaus.

Albert Einstein was a refugee that came to the United States to escape the Nazis. The 2013 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, Martin Kaplaus, also resettled in the U.S. as a refugee at 8 years old. Other famous refugees include former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and Grammy nominated musician Regina Spektor. There is no evidence to suggest that refugeesdrain the systems or don’t contribute to the communities they are resettled in.

“I was fortunate to reach a refugee camp in northern Kenya where I lived for seven years on one meal a day until the U.S. Congress introduced a program to settle 3,000 South Sudanese boys to the United States. I was among the first to be settled here in 2000,” writes Sudanese Refugee John Ajak on the Department of the Interior’s website, where he now works as a Petroleum Engineer after earning his Master’s in Engineering Management at George Washington University. “CBS News named us the “Lost Boys of Sudan.” We were accustomed to surviving to see the next day, not the future. I was 16 when I settled with a family in Souderton, Penn. For these reasons, I feel fortunate to be giving back to the American public through the Department of the Interior’s mission.”

The fear of terrorism does not excuse America’s moral obligation and role as a global leader to take in more Syrian refugees. In order for other countries to do more, the United States needs to help lead in resettling refugees. Monetary aid is not enough; we should embrace the opportunity to integrate some of Syria’s refugees into our communities. The United States is a country of immigrants, which is what makes America such a great country, because of its diversity and culmination of different cultures. People have come to America for hundreds of years. A 443 page study published in September 2015 by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine analyzed the assimilation of immigrants in the past twenty years and found that common xenophobic assumptions are all untrue.

“The United States prides itself on being a nation of immigrants, and the country has a long history of successfully absorbing people from across the globe,” wrote the leading author of the study, Harvard Sociologist Mary Waters. “The integration of immigrants and their children contributes to our economic vitality and our vibrant and ever changing culture. We have offered opportunities to immigrants and their children to better themselves and to be fully incorporated into our society and in exchange immigrants have become Americans – embracing an American identity and citizenship, protecting our country through service in our military, fostering technological innovation, harvesting its crops, and enriching everything from the nation’s cuisine to its universities, music, and art.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/11/ ... -refugees/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Iamwhomiam » Thu Jan 12, 2017 6:08 pm

User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:47 pm

Security experts mock website of Trump's cyber czar

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaks with members of the media in the lobby of the Trump Tower in New York, on Nov. 22.

2016%2f09%2f16%2f9c%2fhttpsd2mhye01h4nj2n.cloudfront.netmediazgkymde1lzaz.ce8ca
BY COLIN DAILEDA
2 HOURS AGO
A good way to tell whether a "cybersecurity expert" truly knows something about cybersecurity is to take a look at their website, assuming they have one.

Does the site look like something coded for a middle school project? If so, you might want to be skeptical.

If, for example, the newly appointed informal cybersecurity advisor to President-elect Donald Trump has a company website that looks like it was built after a handful of coding classes, it makes sense to doubt his expertise.

SEE ALSO: Trump finally gives Rudy Giuliani a job ... kind of

Folks on the internet immediately denounced the cybersecurity chops of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was announced as an informal cyber advisor to Trump on Thursday.

Giuliani runs a management firm called Giuliani Partners that houses a company branch allegedly dealing with security services. The company's website was, laughably, down at time of writing.

Users on Twitter were quick to point out the site's multiple flaws.
Image
Michael Fienen @fienen
Giuliani Security has a completely exposed admin login.
3:25 PM - 12 Jan 2017
240 240 Retweets 267 267 likes


Michael Fienen
‏@fienen
Giuliani Security:
- Expired SSL
- Doesn't force https
- Exposed CMS login
- Uses Flash
- Using EOL PHP version
- SSL Lab grade of F

Probably not a good sign.

Another not great sign: The website, when it was up, didn't seem to detail any of the firm's cybersecurity work.

It offered generic descriptions of what they would theoretically do for clients, but didn't mention who its cyber "experts" are nor did it list any of its former or current clients. From that lack of information, the next question is obvious: Does Giuliani know anything about cybersecurity?

Image
Full Frontal ✔@FullFrontalSamB
Good luck to Giuliani on his new cyber security role! #RudyGiuliani
3:40 PM - 12 Jan 2017
512 512 Retweets 1,963 1,963 likes


Maybe not. But he does know about mingling government and business, something which others have pointed out.


http://mashable.com/2017/01/13/rudy-giu ... oxrqpNagqV





How bad is cybersecurity czar Giuliani at cybersecurity? His company website is a mess


BY TIM JOHNSON
tjohnson@mcclatchydc.com

President-elect Donald Trump tapped Rudy Giuliani as his “go to” guy this week on cybersecurity, but it turns out that Giuliani’s New York firm could use a little better security of its own.

The website for the former New York mayor’s firm, Giuliani Security, is riddled with vulnerabilities, and numerous tech experts cackled over the irony on social media.

“You wouldn’t need to be uber-skilled to hack it,” Aaron M. Hill, a web developer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who was among those bantering about the website’s shortcomings on Twitter, said in a telephone interview.


And by afternoon, that may have been the case. The site was periodically unavailable much of the day.


“A 7-year-old could take that site down,” tweeted Paul Gilzow, a programmer and security analyst from Columbia, Missouri.

The Trump transition office announced Thursday morning that Giuliani, part of a core group of Republican Trump loyalists during the campaign, had been tapped to “lend expertise to cybersecurity efforts.” The announcement didn’t offer many details about how Giuliani would fulfill his role, noting simply that hacks are rampant.

“Cyber intrusion is the fastest growing crime in the United States and much of the world,” the statement said.

The announcement prompted a few programmers to conduct their own free website analysis of giulianipartners.com. Their verdict? Pathetic. Sad.

Indeed, some may have tried their hand at a little mischief. “Service temporarily unavailable,” flashed the screen when one visitor sought to browse there in the afternoon.


“Seems Rudy may need a cybersecurity chief for himself,” tweeted Jeremiah Grossman, whose profile said he is chief of security strategy for SentinelOne, a cybersecurity company.

Others came to Giuliani’s defense.


“Giuliani has a ‘security’ business, not a ‘cybersecurity’ business. He hasn’t done anything ‘cyber’ related,” tweeted Rob Graham, a Georgia-based security analyst.

No one returned a query left on an answering machine at the New York firm’s office. While Giuliani could not be reached, he did speak Thursday on CNN about how he would lead a council of business executives from various industries that have suffered cyberattacks. Cyber intrusions are debilitating to U.S. business, he said, and industry leaders have not yet chosen to battle them collaboratively.

“This is like cancer. Everybody is studying it. Everybody has solutions. But nobody really talks to each other. Maybe we’ve cured it and don’t know,” Giuliani said.

In a conference call with reporters later, Giuliani said, “We’ve let our (cyber) defense fall behind.”

If Giuliani has shortcomings on internet security, Trump suggested on New Year’s Eve that “no computer is safe” and that it is better to send sensitive information by courier.

Back in September, Trump brought up his son, Barron, as the computer-savvy one in the family: “I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing.”


To help Giuliani out, a Kansas man, Michael Fienen, began tweeting about the vulnerabilities on his consultancy’s website, and within hours experts had identified more than a dozen problems that security experts consider egregious. Among them:

▪ The 4-year-old version of the open-source platform, or content management system, on which the website was built, Joomla!, has more than 10 known vulnerabilities to hackers.

▪ The site uses Adobe Flash, a multimedia viewing program that has become so flawed that even Adobe no longer recommends its use.

▪ The site uses an outdated script language and allows outsiders to access a log-in page for the content management system and the server’s remote log-in system, making the site far less secure.

Those were only a few of the reasons that security analysts gave the site a failing grade.

“Oh yeah, I totally trust this guy to put together a top notch (team) to protect us from hackers,” Fienen later tweeted.

Another twitter user, @swiftonsecurity, saw an upside for the cybersecurity business.

“Giuliani cyber security might be like the tow company who offers to charge for an oil change since you already have ur checkbook out,” the person said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... rylink=cpy
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:15 am

Meet Mike Pompeo, the Far-Right Christian Zealot Who Will Lead Trump's CIA
Rep. Mike Pompeo is a Rapture-believing evangelical who sees "radical Islam" at work in small-town America.
By Heather Digby Parton / Salon January 13, 2017


One of the many side stories that has been lost in the chaos of the Trump transition is the fact that far-right Islamophobe Frank Gaffney has been serving as a foreign policy adviser. Considering President-elect Donald Trump’s views about Muslims, this isn’t too surprising.

Trump’s shallow understanding of the issue of Islamist extremism has obviously been gleaned from the right-wing fever swamps and Gaffney owns that end of the bog. (The Southern Poverty Law Center has posted a full Gaffney dossier.)

But with all the excitement over Trump’s various mounting scandals, Gaffney’s influence has flown under the radar, at least until this week. That’s when one of his close associates went to Capitol Hill to testify at his CIA director confirmation hearing. That’s right, Trump’s nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency, Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas, is a Gaffney guy.

This article by Michelle Goldberg in Slate delves into Pompeo’s ultra-conservative religious beliefs, which clearly inform his ideas about Islam. And it led him to an alliance with Gaffney, who is so extreme that he believes Grover Norquist is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood who has infiltrated the National Rifle Association. He is so far out there that he was banned from CPAC for insisting that their board was similarly tainted. According to Goldberg, Trump’s CIA director nominee appears frequently on Pompeo’s radio show:

Gaffney once called Pompeo “one of the most intelligent men I know in public life,” and the two see the world similarly. In February 2015, they spoke about President Obama’s use of the term “violent extremism” instead of “radical Islam,” a linguistic choice that some on the right see as a secret message of solidarity with jihad. Gaffney suggested that Obama might be conveying “an affinity” for ISIS’s cause, if not all its tactics: “the raising up of the Muslim Ummah, a grand rebalancing of America’s role in the world.” Pompeo relied, “Frank, every place you stare at the president’s policies and statements, you see what you just described … every policy of this administration has treated America as if we are the problem and not the solution.”

While we have no word on Pompeo’s position on Grover Norquist, he has told Gaffney on his show that he believes “there are organizations and networks here in the United States tied to radical Islam in deep and fundamental ways. They’re not just in places like Libya and Syria and Iraq, but in places like Coldwater, Kansas, and small towns all throughout America.”

Pompeo is a deeply conservative evangelical Christian who says, “America had worshipped other Gods and called it multiculturalism. We’d endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.” He believes politics is “a never-ending struggle … until the rapture.” He does not sound like the type of person one normally associates with the intelligence community. But this is the Trump administration, and Trump has promised to shake things up. An apocalyptic Islamophobic fanatic at the head of CIA will no doubt bring change to the agency.

Before the hearings began on Thursday, I had assumed one of Trump’s main attractions to Pompeo for the job must have been his enthusiastic support for CIA torture. He was on the record after the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s report as being fully supportive of the program:

“Our men and women who were tasked to keep us safe in the aftermath of 9/11 — our military and our intelligence warriors — are heroes, not pawns in some liberal game being played by the ACLU and Senator Feinstein,” Pompeo said in a statement on Dec. 9, 2014. “These men and women are not torturers, they are patriots. The programs being used were within the law, within the constitution, and conducted with the full knowledge [of] Senator Feinstein. If any individual did operate outside of the program’s legal framework, I would expect them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

They were done under secret legal findings and were not within the Constitution, but that’s another story. The fact is that Pompeo was clearly an advocate of torture and his new boss, Donald Trump, is ecstatic about it:

“They asked me, What do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump?’ I said I love it. I love it, I think it’s great. And I said the only thing is, we should make it much tougher than waterboarding, and if you don’t think it works folks, you’re wrong.”

Trump has also declared that his presidential orders to torture suspected terrorists would not be refused by those under him. When told that torture is illegal, he simply said he would change the law because we “have to get tougher.”

Pompeo surprised the committee when he said he would not comply with an order to torture and that he couldn’t imagine Trump would ask him to do it. He insisted he would always comply with the law. Of course, he also says the Bush administration’s torture regime was legal, so that’s not entirely reassuring. Still, Pompeo’s testimony was widely interpreted as distancing him from Trump’s stated position.

Pompeo also seemed to come down hard on the Russian hacking allegations, which was again seen as diverting from the Trump party line. But then it was pointed out that he had enthusiastically tweeted about the hacking of the DNC, and Pompeo stumbled badly under questioning by Sen. Angus King of Maine. King asked Pompeo if he thinks WikiLeaks is a reliable source, and Pompeo said he did not. Then King inquired why Pompeo had cited WikiLeaks as “proof” that “the fix was in.” Pompeo hemmed and hawed, and finally said he’d have to go back and look at it. But that tweet shows that Pompeo has the temperament of a right-wing political activist, not the sober and mature temperament required for the job of CIA director.

Like many of Trump’s nominees, he deviated just enough from the boss’s craziest pronouncements and policies to give the impression that he will serve as a moderating force in the administration. This seems odd, considering Trump’s domineering personality. It is more likely that Trump and his team are telling the nominees to say whatever they need to say to be confirmed.

Maybe Trump isn’t listening to what his nominees say on the Hill, or just doesn’t care. Whatever the case, it doesn’t matter. Trump will be the president and they will either do as he says or they will have to resign. Judging from Pompeo’s past comments and his apocalyptic worldview, if Trump orders actions against “radical Islamic terrorists” or demands that suspects be tortured, he will probably have no problem following orders. Indeed, he will likely be eager to do it.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... trumps-cia
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 15, 2017 12:09 pm

In total there are 110 users online :: 2 registered, 2 hidden and 106 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)



How Betsy DeVos Used God and Amway to Take Over Michigan Politics
With her nomination as education secretary, a powerful political clan will bring its overtly Christian agenda to Washington.
By ZACK STANTON January 15, 2017


On election night 2006, Dick DeVos, the bronzed, starched 51-year-old scion of Michigan’s wealthiest family, paced to a lectern in the dim ballroom of the Sheraton Hotel in Lansing to deliver the speech that every candidate dreads.

The Michigan gubernatorial race that year had been a dogfight of personal attacks between DeVos, the Republican nominee, and Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm. Gloomy, bleached-out b-roll of shuttered factories in anti-Granholm ads made the governor’s sunny economic promise that “You’re gonna be blown away” sound less like an aspiration than a threat. Anti-DeVos ads cut closer to the bone, with one depicting a cartoon DeVos cheering a freighter hauling Michigan jobs to China. It was an unsubtle reference to DeVos’ time as president of Amway, the direct-sales behemoth his family co-founded and co-owns, when he eliminated jobs in Michigan while expanding dramatically in Asia. DeVos ended up personally spending $35 million on the race—the most expensive campaign in Michigan history—and when the votes came in, lost by a crushing 14 points.


At the Lansing Sheraton, the mood was grim. “If we aren’t going to be able to serve in this way, I look forward to the ways we can,” DeVos told his glum supporters. Behind him on the ballroom risers stood his family; closest to him was his wife, Betsy, choking back tears.

Though dressed in a blue skirt-suit, the uniform of a first ladyship that was not to be, Betsy DeVos was never a political accessory. Anyone who understood Michigan politics knew she had long been the more political animal of the pair. It was Betsy, not Dick, who had chaired the Michigan Republican Party; Betsy, who had served as a member of the Republican National Committee; Betsy, whose name was once floated to succeed Haley Barbour as head of the RNC; Betsy, who had directed a statewide ballot campaign to legalize public funding of religious schools; Betsy, who, as a college freshman, traveled to Ohio and Indiana to volunteer for Gerald Ford’s presidential campaign. She was a skilled and seasoned operator, but as her husband conceded in an overwhelming defeat, she was utterly helpless.

At the time, it seemed like a dead end for a neophyte political candidate. In reality, it was the opening of a new avenue the DeVoses followed to far greater political influence, reshaping Michigan politics and the national Republican scene. “I think that loss really solidified the idea in the DeVoses’ minds that the real way to get what you want is to be behind the scenes,” says Susan Demas, publisher of Inside Michigan Politics.

In the decade since that loss, the DeVos family, with Dick and Betsy at the helm, has emerged as a political force without comparison in Michigan. Their politics are profoundly Christian and conservative — “God, America, Free Enterprise,” to borrow the subtitle of family patriarch Richard DeVos’ 1975 book, Believe! — and their vast resources (the family’s cumulative net worth is estimated at well over $5 billion) assure that they can steamroll their way to victory on issues ranging from education reform to workers’ rights. “At the federal level, when GOP candidates are looking for big donors to back them, they have options,” says Craig Mauger, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “If you don’t get Sheldon Adelson, you can go to the Koch brothers, and so on. In Michigan, the DeVos family is a class of donor all by themselves.”

Top: Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos shakes hands while campaigning with wife Betsy and Arizona Senator John McCain. Bottom left: Betsy DeVos and President George H.W. Bush at a 2000 campaign fundraiser for George W. Bush. Bottom right: In 2004, Betsy DeVos campaigns with Representatives Mike Rogers and Candice Miller.
Top: Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos shakes hands while campaigning with wife Betsy and Arizona Senator John McCain. Bottom left: Betsy DeVos and President George H.W. Bush at a 2000 campaign fundraiser for George W. Bush. Bottom right: In 2004, Betsy DeVos campaigns with Representatives Mike Rogers and Candice Miller. | Regina H. Boone/TNS/ZUMAPRESS.com; AP Photos
Thanks to the DeVoses, Michigan’s charter schools enjoy a virtually unregulated existence. Thanks to them, too, the center of the American automotive industry and birthplace of the modern labor movement is now a right-to-work state. They’ve funded campaigns to elect state legislators, established advocacy organizations to lobby them, buttressed their allies and primaried those they disagree with, spending at least $100 million on political campaigns and causes over the past 20 years. “The DeVos family has been far more successful not having the governor’s seat than if they had won it,” says Richard Czuba, the owner of the Glengariff Group, a bipartisan polling firm in Michigan. “They have, to some degree, created a shadow state party. And it’s been pretty darn effective.”

Buoyed by the success in Michigan, the DeVoses have exported a scaled-down version of that template into other states, funding an archipelago of local political action committees and advocacy organizations to ease the proliferation of charter schools in Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia and Louisiana, among others. At the same time, DeVos-backed PACs have transformed the nature of American political campaigns. By showing the success of independent PACs that answered to a few deep-pocketed donors rather than a broad number of stakeholders associated with a union or chamber of commerce, for instance, the DeVoses precipitated the monsoon of independent expenditures that has rained down upon politicians for the past decade. In the process, they’ve reshaped political campaigns as well as the policies that result from them.

Ten years after she watched her husband give a concession speech, Betsy DeVos was unveiled as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education. Across the country, public-school advocates and teachers’ unions expressed almost unanimous horror: One of the most effective advocates for breaking down the rules and protections for public schools and teachers would soon be the nation’s most powerful education policymaker.

But people who’ve been watching the DeVoses closely knew they were seeing something else as well: One of the nation’s most ambitious, disruptive and downright unusual political families finally had a seat in Washington.

***

To understand the DeVos family, it helps to understand West Michigan. A sweeping landscape of flat, rolling farmland freckled with small towns, it sits on the opposite side of the state—in more than one way—from the big, diverse, reliably Democratic Detroit metropolitan area. Broadly speaking, it’s a region where people are deeply religious, politically conservative, entrepreneurial and unfailingly polite—think Utah, if it were settled not by Mormons but by Dutch Calvinists. “There’s an old expression here,” chuckles Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University in Grand Rapids. “‘If you ain’t Dutch, you ain’t much.’”

The DeVos family is Dutch, thoroughly so. All four of Richard DeVos’ grandparents emigrated from the Netherlands, and today, the family continues to observe the tenets of the Christian Reformed Church, a Calvinist denomination. Calvinism believes that God has decided our souls’ fates before we are born, assigning them to heaven or hell. It is a duty of practitioners to show their faith in God’s plan by displaying self-confidence, as though they know they have been chosen for blessings in the afterlife. One way to display this confidence is through entrepreneurship (one of the bedrock texts of sociology, Max Weber’s 1905 Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, is expressly about the link between Calvinism and economic success).

In this, Dick and Betsy DeVos’ familial roots serve as an object example. Dick is the eldest son of Richard DeVos, who co-founded Amway in 1959, and grew it from a meager soap factory into a multinational colossus with $9.5 billion in annual sales, enlisting his children to manage and expand the company. Betsy hails from a dynasty of her own. In 1965, her father, Edgar Prince, founded a small manufacturing company that came to be worth more than $1 billion on the strength of Prince’s automotive innovations, which include the pull-down sun visor with a built-in light-up vanity mirror.

When Betsy Prince and Dick DeVos married in 1979, it brought together two powerful Dutch families with perfectly compatible values. “There’s a close-knit atmosphere of the aristocracy of West Michigan,” Demas says. “It almost brings to mind the old monarchies of Europe where they would intermarry.”

There’s a close-knit atmosphere of the aristocracy of West Michigan,” Demas says. “It almost brings to mind the old monarchies of Europe where they would intermarry.”

Amway, the machine that built the DeVos fortune, is among the best-known multilevel-marketing companies in the world, relying on independent salespeople to start their own businesses selling Amway-produced goods and to recruit other independent salespeople to work underneath them. Over the past half-century, the company has attracted a healthy dose of criticism. In 1969, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Amway was a pyramid scheme, launching a six-year investigation that failed to prove the charges. In 1982, the government of Canada filed criminal charges against the company, alleging that Amway had defrauded the country out of $28 million in customs duties and forged fake receipts to cover its tracks; in November 1983, Amway pled guilty to fraud and Canadian prosecutors dropped the criminal charges against Richard DeVos and other company executives. Amway’s direct-sales model—which it has exported to more than 100 countries—has become a ubiquitous part of the modern economy. (Among those who've experimented with the approach is the president-elect, whose Trump Network in 2009 used an Amway-esque sales pitch to recruit sellers of nutritional supplements, snack foods and skin-care products.)

In Western Michigan, what matters isn’t how Amway is run, but what the DeVoses have done for the community. Drive through downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan’s second-largest metropolis, and the family’s contributions are omnipresent. There’s the Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital. A few blocks west, hugging the Grand River that bisects the city, you’ll find the sleek DeVos Place Convention Center, the DeVos Performance Hall and the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel. Across the water, the campus of Grand Valley State University is anchored by the spacious Richard M. DeVos Center. A few blocks north is the DeVos Learning Center, housed at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Museum. (You would be forgiven if you assumed that DeVos, not Ford, had been president.)

Today, the DeVoses’ charitable giving and local boosterism mean that people in West Michigan have a different view of them than Michiganders elsewhere in the state. “The political narrative that has grown around [the family] is unfair,” says Whitney, whose Hauenstein Center has received grant funding from the DeVos Family Foundation. “They have made life better for a lot of people, and I can’t say that loudly enough.”

The first and second generations of the DeVos family. Left–right: Dick & Betsy, Cheri, Helen & Richard, Daniel & Pamella and Doug & Maria.
The first and second generations of the DeVos family. Left–right: Dick & Betsy, Cheri, Helen & Richard, Daniel & Pamella and Doug & Maria. | Credit: Orlando Magic Media Guide
The DeVos family’s charitable giving and political activism sprawls across three generations. It’s not just Dick and Betsy, but Richard and Helen’s other children, too. There’s Daniel DeVos, who chairs the Orlando Magic, an NBA franchise the family owns, and his wife, Pamella. There’s Doug DeVos, Amway’s current president and the chair of the executive committee of the National Constitution Center, and his wife, Maria. There’s Cheri DeVos, who sits on the board at Alticor, Amway’s parent company. And there’s their children, a generation of young adults ready to carry the baton.

Over time, the DeVos clan has evolved an unusual and highly structured internal governance system. Family patriarch Richard DeVos, now 90 and retired from an active role in Amway, explained the formal structure of this family government in his 2014 book, Simply Rich:

“We formed the DeVos Family Council, which is made up of our children and their spouses and meets four times a year. The Family Council just approved a family constitution that essentially captures our family mission and values. … The Family Council also articulates how the family will work together in managing our shared financial interests and our philanthropy.

“We also have the Family Assembly …. When grandchildren turn 16, they are inducted … in a formal ceremony that everyone attends. An aunt or uncle makes a presentation of their achievements, reminds them of their responsibility as they go forward, and affirms them as a member of the Family Assembly. … They are able to vote in the meetings at age 25, after they have met additional qualifications for taking on this added responsibility.”

This collective approach is how the family runs their home lives, too. The DeVoses’ myriad properties are managed through a single private company, RDV Corporation, which both manages the family’s investments and operates as a home office, paying the family’s employees, maintaining the DeVoses’ residences and assuring them as frictionless a life as possible. (The duties outlined by one recent property-manager job with RDV Corporation include “ensur[ing] doors are well-oiled to avoid squeaking” and that “broken toys [are] repaired or disposed of.”)

This family-government approach has so far enabled the DeVos family to avoid the public schisms and disagreements that have plagued other multigenerational dynasties. Any dissent is hashed out in private, and that enables the family to focus its collective efforts with the precision of a scalpel and the power of a chainsaw. If you’re a politician who wins the family’s support, you’ll receive several maxed-out checks from multiple family members, all in a bundle.

Across those efforts, one constant is the DeVos family’s devout Christian beliefs, and the indivisibility they see between Christian and Calvinistic notions and their conservative politics. “The real strength of America is its religious tradition,” Richard DeVos wrote in Believe!. “Too many people today are willing to act as if God had nothing whatsoever to do with it. … This country was built on a religious heritage, and we’d better get back to it. We had better start telling people that faith in God is the real strength of America!” In the mid-1970s, DeVos made major donations to the Christian Freedom Foundation and Third Century Publishers, an outlet that printed books and pamphlets designed to strengthen the ties between Christianity and free-market conservatism; among those products was a guidebook instructing conservative Christians how to win elections and help America become “as it was when first founded—a ‘Christian Republic.’”

Clockwise, from upper left: Amway cofounders Jay Van Andel (left) and Richard DeVos (center) meet in the Oval Office with President Gerald Ford, who is holding a copy of Richard’s book, “Believe!”; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Richard DeVos during a 2009 event at the Scripps Research Institute; an aerial shot of Dick & Betsy DeVos’s primary residence in Ada, Michigan; Dick & Betsy enjoy their courtside seats at an Orlando Magic game—an NBA team owned by the DeVos family.
Clockwise, from upper left: Amway cofounders Jay Van Andel (left) and Richard DeVos (center) meet in the Oval Office with President Gerald Ford, who is holding a copy of Richard’s book, “Believe!”; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Richard DeVos during a 2009 event at the Scripps Research Institute; an aerial shot of Dick & Betsy DeVos’s primary residence in Ada, Michigan; Dick & Betsy enjoy their courtside seats at an Orlando Magic game—an NBA team owned by the DeVos family. | National Archives; AP; Getty Images
Though they aren’t quite as large or wealthy as the DeVoses, the Prince family—even further west, in Holland, Michigan—shares one big trait in common with their in-laws: the idea that patriotism and politics are inseparable from Christianity. Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, Betsy’s mother, donated $75,000 to the successful 2004 ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in Michigan; four years later, she gave $450,000 to an identical initiative in California. Betsy’s brother, Erik Prince, founded Blackwater, the military contractor that gained notoriety in 2007, when its employees fired into a crowd of Iraqi civilians, killing 17. (In 2009, two former Blackwater employees alleged in federal court that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader.”)

Throughout his adult life, Betsy’s father, Ed, donated handsomely to two religious colleges in Michigan, Hope and Calvin, the latter being his wife’s beloved alma mater in Grand Rapids. But his most important contribution—one that has shaped much of the past three decades of conservative politics—came in 1988, when Prince donated millions in seed funding to launch the Family Research Council, the conservative Christian group that became one of the most potent political forces on the religious right. “Ed Prince was not an empire builder,” Family Research Council President Gary Bauer wrote to supporters after Prince’s sudden death in 1995. “He was a Kingdom builder.”

In the 1960s and ’70s, Ed and Elsa Prince advanced God’s Kingdom from the end of a cul-de-sac just a few miles from Lake Michigan. There, they taught their four children—Elisabeth (Betsy), Eileen, Emilie and Erik—a deeply religious, conservative, free-market view of the world, emphasizing the importance of self-reliance and sending them to private schools that would reinforce the values they celebrated at home, small-government conservatism chief among them.

Ed Prince was not an empire builder,” Family Research Council President Gary Bauer wrote after Prince’s death in 1995. “He was a Kingdom builder.”

In a breakfast speech to volunteers at Holland Christian Schools on May 12, 1975, Ed Prince warned that lazy and neglectful U.S. citizens were not doing their fair share, forcing the government to, as a Holland Sentinel article described it, “play an increasingly larger role in our daily and personal lives.” (You don’t have to listen too hard to hear an echo of Ed Prince in his daughter, Betsy. “[For welfare recipients] to sit and be handed money from the government because they think a job like that is beneath them,” the heiress sighed to the Detroit Free Press in 1992. “If I had to work on a line in a factory, I would do that before I would stand in line for a welfare check.”)

From an early age, Betsy was pushed to compete. In 1965, she was one of two second-graders to make entries in Holland’s annual tulip festival (a citywide valentine to the area’s Dutch heritage). In middle school, she entered a poster and essay contest about crime prevention. In her teenage years, she was a member of the Holland City Recreation Swim Team. Betsy excelled at the breaststroke. In August 1972, she won the Mid-Michigan Conference Championship, a contest in which younger siblings Emilie and Eileen Prince placed third and fifth, respectively).

After graduating from high school in 1975, Betsy enrolled at Calvin College, her mother’s alma mater. Calvin’s mission, as stated in the 1975–1976 course catalog, was “to prepare students to live productive lives of faith to the glory of God in contemporary society—not merely lives that have a place for religion … but lives which in every part, in every manifestation, in their very essence, are Christian.”

On campus, Betsy became politically active, volunteering for the presidential campaign of hometown hero President Gerald Ford, who was facing off against movie star-cum-California Governor Ronald Reagan. She joined a pro-Ford group called “Friends of the First Family,” and along with her compatriots, took trips to Indiana and Ohio to participate in the Ford campaign’s “scatter blitzes.”

Betsy’s campaigning earned the attention of the Ford team, which tapped her to attend that year's Republican National Convention in Kansas City as a participant in the “Presidentials” program for young Republicans. The budding politicos attended training on campaign strategy and political techniques, and were divided into groups based on geography so that they could get acquainted with potential allies from their home states. There were also more practical desires for a squadron of young volunteers at a contested convention: “Anywhere there needed to be noise, there were always kids,” Betsy Prince told a reporter for the Holland Sentinel in 1976 (“Betsy Helps Cheer Ford Through in Kansas City,” read the headline, beside a photo of a T-shirt-clad Betsy sporting a feathered, Farrah Fawcett-lite hairdo).

Around this time, Betsy Prince met the two men with whom she would form the most important political relationships of her adult life. One became her husband; the other became her governor.

***

If there’s one law of physics that defined how Michigan politics moved in the 1990s, it’s that Governor John Engler was a master of the state Legislature. His political acumen—honed over a 20-year run in the Legislature, during which the 22-year-old boy wonder grew into his sturdy tree-stump physique and Ben Franklin hairline—was legendary even before he won a stunning upset in the 1990 governor’s race.

Never was that mastery more evident than on July 19, 1993, a date that set into motion every battle over education the state has seen since—a day that led to Betsy DeVos becoming Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education.

Deep into his first term, Engler wanted to show progress in his signature proposal to reduce the state’s onerous property taxes by 20 percent. Property taxes being the funding source for Michigan’s public school system, Democrats ruled out any plan that did not include a replacement for the lost revenue, and since any new revenue would require legislators to vote for new taxes or fees, that option had little appeal heading into the 1994 campaign. On July 19, 1993, Democratic state Senator Debbie Stabenow proposed an amendment that was interpreted as an attempt to point out the absurdity of Engler’s plan: Why not cut them by 100 percent without having any replacement revenue source?

Democrats were dumbstruck by what happened next: Engler whipped the state Legislature into action, and in the course of a 24-hour period, the Senate and House eradicated property taxes—in the process completely defunding Michigan’s $6.5 billion public-education system. In the ensuing crisis, Engler legalized charter schools.

Throughout the 1990s, Republican Governor John Engler was a force without parallel in Michigan politics.
Throughout the 1990s, Republican Governor John Engler was a force without parallel in Michigan politics. | AP Photos
By that point, Betsy DeVos was already a major Engler backer—she had served as the GOP chair in powerful Kent County, and in 1992, won one of the state’s seats on the RNC, ousting Ronna Romney (sister-in-law of Mitt Romney and mother of Ronna Romney McDaniel, whom Trump has chosen to helm the RNC). But education reform had long been a passion, and now she had an opportunity to help the governor who was enacting the changes she so badly wanted.

In May 1996, the chair of the Michigan Republican Party stepped down to run for Congress. John Engler had just the person for the job. Betsy DeVos accepted, and the following year, decided to run for a full term as party chair.

If Engler thought he had anointed a rubber stamp, he quickly learned otherwise. In January 1997, DeVos cleared house, unilaterally firing all of the party’s top directors and pausing all contracts with vendors, blaming them for the party’s losses months earlier. “Betsy regarded the governor’s input as good advice, not an order,” Greg McNeilly, a close associate of Betsy DeVos, told an Engler biographer years later. “That’s when the problems started.”

After an enormously successful 1998 campaign wherein Engler won a third and final term in a landslide, the governor encouraged Betsy DeVos to run for chair of the RNC. DeVos had a different battle in mind: a statewide campaign to legalize school vouchers.

The Michigan state constitution expressly forbids public funds from being used to pay for private, religious schools. Betsy DeVos aimed to change that via a constitutional amendment—Proposal 1 on the November 2000 ballots.

Engler was opposed to the idea—the timing was off. “I was pretty certain that it was premature to go to the ballot in 2000,” Engler says, “because if you’re going to go to the ballot, you want to win.” The DeVoses had counted on his support, and when it didn’t materialize, things soured. (“[John Engler] would have a hard time being a first mate even on the largest ship in the world,” Betsy DeVos later wrote. “I think he’d sooner be captain of a smaller boat than the first mate on a much bigger ship.”)

DeVos quickly realized that the situation was unsustainable. So she hatched a plan designed to surprise Engler just as his opposition had surprised her: She would resign as state GOP chair without notifying him in advance. She chose a date in February 2000 when she knew Engler would be in Washington. Around 9 a.m., she left a message on his phone, informing him that she would announce her resignation at an early-afternoon news conference. Engler quickly changed his itinerary and booked a flight home for his own news conference that evening. Publicly, Engler saved face, but the message from the DeVoses was unmistakable: We are a political force with our own agenda, like it or not.

The message from the DeVoses was unmistakable: We are a political force with our own agenda, like it or not.

Now, however, the DeVoses were on their own, pushing Prop 1 with minimal support from the state’s Republican establishment. Among the broader public, the opposition was fierce and widespread. “That was one of the best campaigns I was ever on,” says Julie Matuzak, who was, at the time, the American Federation of Teachers’ top political hand in the state.

While the DeVoses campaigned on expanding educational choices for parents and students, their opponents reframed the issue. “When you really looked at it, the parents weren’t the ones with the choices; the parochial schools were the ones with the choices,” Matuzak remembers. “If all you do is transfer the money, you don't transfer any of the other requirements that are put on public schools. Public schools are required to take everyone who comes through the door. But private schools, parochial schools, get to pick and choose. … It’s not really the parents who have the choice, it’s the schools. And people ultimately understood that.”

When Election Day came, the result was overwhelming: Proposal 1 failed with 69 percent of voters opposed. Across the spectrum, political observers viewed the initiative as a debacle that drove up Democratic turnout and likely cost Republicans a U.S. Senate seat, as Debbie Stabenow defeated incumbent Senator Spencer Abraham by 67,000 votes.

There was a silver lining for the DeVoses, albeit one not immediately apparent. They had established a purity test for fellow Republicans: Had they supported Prop 1? And in unintentionally contributing to Senator Abraham’s loss, they had created a scenario in which, once Engler was term-limited in January 2003, the state GOP would be without any marquee statewide officeholders. No governor. Neither U.S. senator. An attorney general and secretary of state without any previous statewide experience.

There was a power vacuum in the Republican Party, and the DeVoses were the only ones who could fill it. Which they did, with lots and lots of money.

***

When Dick and Betsy DeVos are asked why they’ve chosen to mount a personal crusade for education reform, they often cite their family’s charitable giving, which puts them into contact with scholarship applicants. For years, the DeVoses read reams of personal essays filled with wrenching stories of dire finances and an abiding hope in the transformative impact of education. Those stories, the DeVoses have said, made it clear that something had to change.

But there’s another reason why Dick and Betsy DeVos want to change America’s schools. They see it as the literal battleground for making a more Christian, God-centered society.

In 2001, Betsy DeVos spoke at “The Gathering,” an annual meeting of some of America’s wealthiest Christians. There, she told her fellow believers about the animating force behind her education-reform campaigning, referencing the biblical battlefield where the Israelites fought the Philistines: “It goes back to what I mentioned, the concept of really being active in the Shephelah of our culture—to impact our culture in ways that are not the traditional funding-the-Christian-organization route, but that really may have greater Kingdom gain in the long run by changing the way we approach things—in this case, the system of education in the country.”

Dick DeVos, on stage with his wife, echoed her sentiments with a lament of his own. “The church—which ought to be, in our view, far more central to the life of the community—has been displaced by the public school,” Dick DeVos said. “We just can think of no better way to rebuild our families and our communities than to have that circle of church and school and family much more tightly focused and built on a consistent worldview.”

For the DeVoses, an electoral loss—even an embarrassing one—is but a small skirmish on that Shephelah. Prop 1’s failure was evidence that they needed to redraw their battle plans for a much larger war.

Betsy DeVos stressed that Christians need to focus on “greater Kingdom gain” by “changing … the system of education in the country.
Dick DeVos echoed that: As the center of the community, “The church … has been displaced by the public school.”

They unveiled the new strategy in 2001, the same year they spoke at The Gathering: Instead of direct appeals to voters, the DeVoses would devote their resources to PACs and nonprofit organizations to push legislators to enact the changes they desired. Thus, the Great Lakes Education Project, or GLEP, was founded.

Initially, few in Michigan knew quite what to make of GLEP. At the time, most PACs were affiliated with membership organizations, like a labor union or chamber of commerce, and focused on issues important to those members. GLEP wasn’t anything like that. It was a largely family-funded effort with a singular focus on education reform; a multipronged structure gave GLEP great latitude to advocate, from lobbying legislators to purchasing attack ads on TV.

In the years since the DeVoses debuted GLEP, we’ve witnessed the nationwide rise of single-issue PACs funded by a small number of extraordinarily wealthy donors, especially since the Citizens United ruling uncorked the dam of corporate money. “The [DeVos] family has been forward-thinking in their use of money to influence politics,” says Craig Mauger of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “And what’s happening with them in Michigan seems to be an example of where we’re going as a country with the concentration of power in our politics.”

Betsy DeVos has pushed a drastic transformation of Michigan’s education system, with mixed and controversial results.
Betsy DeVos has pushed a drastic transformation of Michigan’s education system, with mixed and controversial results.
In 2002, the first election of GLEP’s existence, its PAC had more money than the Michigan Education Association, United Auto Workers, or any Democratic-affiliated PAC in the state. And if they lacked the influence and statewide presence of those groups, it was only a matter of time. “They take a very long-term view,” says Matuzak. “If you pick up a few new Republican legislators every two years, and throw a fair amount of money at legislators who are already there, you can create coalitions of folks who can tackle what seem to be impossibly large issues.”

It was the lesson of John Engler’s governorship: If you want to get things done, control the state Legislature. But you can’t get that without inspiring some degree of fear.

One Republican who caught the DeVos family’s ire was Paul Muxlow, a realtor and former educator elected to the state house in 2010, representing a mostly rural district in southeast Michigan. Muxlow was a dependable conservative, but disliked the idea of eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools. While he was fine with charter schools in underserved communities, he said he couldn’t support them in rural areas—“It would kill those districts,” he explained to the Detroit Free Press in 2014. When the cap elimination came before the state Legislature in 2011, it passed with Muxlow voting against it. The following year, when he ran for reelection, he faced a blitz of attacks from GLEP, which didn’t even need his district, but spent just under $185,000 to take him out in the primary. Muxlow won by just 132 votes.

Privately, many Michigan Republicans are afraid of getting on the DeVoses’ bad side. “At the American Federation of Teachers, there were always Republicans we’d endorse,” recalls Matuzak, who retired from the union in 2014. “And it got to the point where … the Republicans would say, ‘Please don’t endorse me because it will hurt me with the DeVoses.’ They’d send back money because the DeVoses would punish them.” (In an email to POLITICO, the chief of staff to one Republican state senator declined comment for this story, saying it would “not be productive” before linking to two anti-DeVos columns in the Detroit Free Press. The articles “speak for themselves,” he wrote.)

“The Republicans would say, ‘Please don’t endorse me because it will hurt me with the DeVoses.’ They’d send back money because the DeVoses would punish them.”

“There’s a general awareness if they’re not supporting you,” says John Truscott, a longtime Republican operative in Michigan and the president of Truscott-Rossman, a powerhouse bipartisan PR firm that represents the DeVos family on certain matters. “If you’re always getting along with everybody, you’re probably not making a difference.”

Year by year, cycle by cycle, the DeVoses built a state Legislature in their own image. By the time Democrat Jennifer Granholm was term-limited in 2010 and Republican Rick Snyder was elected governor without any political experience, it was the DeVoses, not Snyder, who knew how to get things done. Unlike the Engler years, this time, they had more sway than the governor.

Today, 16 years after the DeVoses’ failed constitutional amendment, this constant push has totally remade Michigan education. The cap on the number of charter schools eliminated and attempts to provide public oversight have been defeated, making Michigan’s charters among the most-plentiful and least-regulated in the nation. About 80 percent of Michigan’s 300 publicly funded charters are operated by for-profit companies, more than any other state. This means that taxpayer dollars that would otherwise go to traditional public schools are instead used to buy supplies such as textbooks and desks that become private property. It is, essentially, a giant experiment in what happens when you shift resources away from public schools.

And while a state constitutional amendment legalizing public funding for religious schools is unlikely to win public support anytime soon, charters have had much the same impact. While a charter school cannot be religiously affiliated, many walk a fine line, appointing, for instance, a preacher as head of the school board or renting school space from a church. “They have a couple ways of getting around it,” says Gary Miron, a professor of education at Western Michigan University who specializes in charter school evaluation and research. “I’ve been in charter schools where I’ve seen religious prayers to Jesus Christ—they mention Christ by name—and prayer circles with students, teachers and parents.”

For students, the results of the Michigan charter boom have been mixed. Most charters perform below the state’s averages on tests, even while their enrollment has grown to include more than 110,000 students, nearly half of whom live in the Detroit area. A 2013 Stanford study that compared Detroit’s charters with its traditional public schools found that the charter students gained the equivalent of more than three months’ learning per year more than their counterparts at traditional public schools. But that doesn’t mean they’re performing at a high level, simply that by some measures, certain charters marginally outperform the historically challenged Detroit public schools.

Whatever the quality outcome, the political lesson isn’t lost. The DeVoses have transplanted their organizational model to other states—New Jersey, Ohio, Louisiana, Virginia, Wisconsin, among them. They have done this by marshaling forces under the umbrella of their American Federation for Children, a nationwide campaign for school reform that has attracted high-profile speakers to its conferences, including New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, former Governor Bobby Jindal, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former D.C. school czar Michelle Rhee.

***

In the transformation of Michigan from a blue-collar Rust Belt Democratic stronghold to a free-market, Republican conquest, no issue may be more symbolic than the enactment of right-to-work legislation.

On its face, the debate over right-to-work is about an arcane bit of labor law—whether workers under a contract that was collectively negotiated by a union should have to pay dues to that union, regardless of whether they’re members. But that debate is a proxy for a larger battle that is less about employment law than political jockeying: Unions tends to align with Democrats, and as a result, if it becomes more difficult for unions to collect dues, they’ll be weakened and less able to advocate for the political causes of their choosing.

Days after the 2012 election, Dick DeVos picked up the phone and rallied Republican lawmakers to pass right-to-work in lame duck while they still had the votes, reportedly promising financial support to those members who would find themselves facing tough reelections and suggesting he would back primary campaigns against those who didn’t step in line. “There’s one family who gets these people elected, and consequently, you can assume they can get them unelected, too,” says Gretchen Whitmer, who was the state Senate’s Democratic leader at the time.

“There’s one family who gets these people elected, and consequently, you can assume they can get them unelected, too,” says Gretchen Whitmer, the former Democratic leader of the state senate.

To opponents, right to work ran counter to every story Michigan told itself about who it was, a repudiation of generations of hard-won gains. In metro Detroit, labor’s historic triumphs are retold like folklore by men with thick, calloused hands, lest future generations forget the Battle of the Overpass or the Flint Sit-Down Strike. Right-to-work, labor feared, would undo much of that.

Though anxious, labor officials had reason to feel confident. On November 26, 2012, the Monday after Thanksgiving, Republican Governor Rick Snyder had reassured them that right-to-work was “not on my agenda.” “The impression we had from the beginning was the governor wanted to keep this thing off his desk,” Steven Cook, president of the Michigan Education Association, said at the time.

Over the course of a few days in late November and early December, everything changed. Perhaps it had something to do with the $1.8 million blitz of TV and radio ads promoting right-to-work the DeVoses bankrolled.

On December 6, eight days after Snyder met with labor leaders, the governor flipped on the issue, announcing his intent to sign right-to-work into law. “The day it became apparent, he wasn’t returning phone calls from any of us,” remembers Whitmer.

Protesters in and around the state capitol in Lansing on December 11, 2012. "Governor 4 Sale,” read one sign. “Call 1-800-Dick-DeVos.”
Protesters in and around the state capitol in Lansing on December 11, 2012. "Governor 4 Sale,” read one sign. “Call 1-800-Dick-DeVos.” | AP Photo/Paul Sancya
The next five days saw large protests on the Capitol grounds, culminating with an estimated 12,500 demonstrators on December 11, the day the House voted on the legislation. Two-thousand demonstrators flooded into the Capitol, sitting in the hallways and laying down in the rotunda. They stomped their feet, chanted familiar slogans, sang “Solidarity Forever” — a cacophony that some in the House chamber one story up initially confused for thunder.

Right-to-work passed by a handful of votes, including an Engler-esque flourish: The legislation was amended to include a small appropriation, which meant that once signed, it would be impossible for voters to repeal by public referendum.

Outside the Capitol, state police donned riot gear while officers on horseback pushed protesters away from the building. Loudspeakers blared Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down,” and as the wind picked up, four 20-foot-tall inflatable rat balloons skittered from side to side. Each rat represented one of the key players protesters blamed for right-to-work’s hasty adoption: the governor, the House speaker, the Senate majority leader, and — the only unelected member of the rat pack — Dick DeVos.

It isn’t known what, if anything, the DeVoses said to Governor Snyder to change his mind and detonate this atomic bomb in Michigan politics. But Snyder would’ve been under no illusions about the possible consequences of inaction. “There was all kinds of scuttlebutt that if Snyder didn't sign up for right-to-work in 2012, he would’ve bought himself a primary in 2014,” says Demas of Inside Michigan Politics. “I think Snyder understands the powerful place the DeVoses have in Michigan, and that it’s often more trouble than it’s worth to tangle with them.”

***

In the weeks since Donald Trump announced that he would nominate DeVos for secretary of education, Michigan’s political circles have been abuzz. As ever, the DeVoses are loved and hated, with little in between. “She is a strong supporter of public education and of quality education for every child,” says Engler. “It’s horrifying. It’s a slap in the face,” says Whitmer. “The only people who have anything to worry about are those running failing schools,” says Truscott. “It is as if you were to appoint some radical pacifist as secretary of defense,” says Jack Lessenberry, a senior political analyst for Michigan Public Radio.

After years operating behind the scenes, Betsy DeVos is set to become the public face of education policy in America—an advocate of private Christian education helming the largest public-education agency in the country. Most education policymaking happens at the state and local level; the Education Department administers financial aid and collects and analyzes educational data, but doesn’t set state standards or school curricula. Even so, the position is a considerable bully pulpit, one with the ability to define the national discussion on education.

Donald Trump applauds as Betsy DeVos speaks at Trump’s “Thank You USA” rally in Grand Rapids, December 9, 2016.
Donald Trump applauds as Betsy DeVos speaks at Trump’s “Thank You USA” rally in Grand Rapids, December 9, 2016. | Reuters/Mike Segar
As secretary, it’s likely DeVos will pursue a national expansion of school choice and charters. In this, DeVos has an ally in President-elect Trump. “There's no failed policy more in need of urgent change than our government-run education monopoly,” Trump said in a September 8 speech. “It is time to break up that monopoly.” In that speech, Trump proposed a $20-billion block grant program to fund national vouchers administered at the state level. “Parents will be able to send their kids to the desired public, private or religious school of their choice,” Trump said.

It’s what Betsy DeVos has wanted all along.

Barring a surprise at confirmation hearings, the DeVos family will soon have a seat in Washington. But a question lingers: Will they continue as activists? While there’s a long history of Cabinet members donating to campaigns prior to assuming their roles atop the government, it would be fairly unprecedented for a Cabinet secretary to push policy within the government while her family simultaneously funnels millions to lobby and campaign for those same policies. But the DeVos family isn’t shy about using its clout.

Some donors couch their push for influence in the anodyne language of “improvement” and “empowerment.” Betsy DeVos is more upfront. “My family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican party,” she wrote in a 1997 editorial for Roll Call. “I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return.”

““I have decided … to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence,” Betsy DeVos wrote in a 1997 editorial for Roll Call. “Now I simply concede the point. They are right. We do expect some things in return.”

It’s one thing to be an advocate and quite another to be a policymaker in a realm where you have little professional training or personal experience—a charge that DeVos’ opponents are quick to lob. If confirmed by the Senate, DeVos would be the first secretary of education in at least 30 years without any experience as a government official, school administrator or teacher. “She’s not someone with an education background—she never went to a public school, never sent a child to a public school,” says Whitmer, who recently announced her candidacy for Michigan governor. “It’s just stunning that they’d want to export the ugliness [the DeVoses] have brought to the education debate in Michigan and send it to the rest of the nation.”

Even so, among the DeVoses’ skeptics, there are those who strike a hopeful, if cautious, tone. “I think Mrs. DeVos could potentially be a really good secretary of education if she allowed parents and school districts to make policy at the local level,” says Daniel Quinn, executive director of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, a nonprofit that receives a portion of its funding from the National Education Association. “But at the same time, I’m concerned.”

Julie Matuzak, the DeVoses’ foe from the 2000 voucher fight, disagrees strongly with DeVos’ appointment, but concedes the couple has good intentions. “I do believe they have a deep-seated belief in quality education for all children,” says Matuzak. “They see it as a continuum of public education that includes everything—private schools, parochial schools, charters, public schools. But they believe in the market force as the rule of the universe.”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ion-214631
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:43 pm

I've trademarked and copyrighted "(Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables™) and will begin production once all cabinet positions have been filled.

Imagine it, if you will, a clear covered, wood-framed rectangular box with cubby-holes large enough for a 3 inch stuffed silk screened likeness of each (designed by a local artist). Atop, will be another figure of the commander in chief at his desk in his Trump Tower oval office. He'll be the same size as the others but his hands will be huge, and attached to each finger will be a string that connects to each cabinet member. The string must be very strong so it will take the wear, and long enough to take one, two or more out to have a meeting. Always kept on this rather short leash, any one or all can be reined-in and put in their places with a wave of the commander's hand. The commander in Chief will never be free of his legacy, aye, there's the rub.

It won't be advertised. I'm counting on someone who never misses an opportunity night or day to tweet all I'll need.

Voo Doo needles are not an option, despite the many requests.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Draining the Swamp

Postby Elvis » Sun Jan 15, 2017 8:39 pm

Iamwhomiam » Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:43 pm wrote:I've trademarked and copyrighted "(Trump's Cabinet of Deplorables™) and will begin production once all cabinet positions have been filled.

Imagine it, if you will, a clear covered, wood-framed rectangular box with cubby-holes large enough for a 3 inch stuffed silk screened likeness of each (designed by a local artist). Atop, will be another figure of the commander in chief at his desk in his Trump Tower oval office. He'll be the same size as the others but his hands will be huge, and attached to each finger will be a string that connects to each cabinet member. The string must be very strong so it will take the wear, and long enough to take one, two or more out to have a meeting. Always kept on this rather short leash, any one or all can be reined-in and put in their places with a wave of the commander's hand. The commander in Chief will never be free of his legacy, aye, there's the rub.

It won't be advertised. I'm counting on someone who never misses an opportunity night or day to tweet all I'll need.

Voo Doo needles are not an option, despite the many requests.


Put me down for two.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7422
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests