HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » leveymg » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Wed May 5, 2004, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 36,418

Journal Archives

See #111. The close split on capitalism most closely reflects the outcome of the referendum.

Given that neoliberalism and capitalism are virtually the same thing, I would argue that this poll means just the opposite of what you think it does. The referendum was a closely fought rejection of the economic outcomes of several decades of neoliberal policy.

Social wedge issues are important politically, but Brexit was really about the failures of globalized capitalism and governments to cope. If there were plenty of stable jobs with generous benefits and pensions, or if public services were adequate, there would never have been any real urge to Leave.

The primary reason for that is that unlike most charities, the Foundation has foreign gov'ts, huge

multinationals and a network of politically-connected donors and thus doesn't have to pay substantial advertising costs to raise funds. While it receives many small donations, it has a network of huge donors, including nation-states such as Saudi Arabia which contribute tens of millions of dollars.

Cumulatively, that has added up to some $3 billion over 41 years, much of that in recent years since Hillary left the State Department. According to a recent Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

The Washington Post observed a year earlier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-raised-nearly-2-billion-for-foundation-since-2001/2015/02/18/b8425d88-a7cd-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html

Foundation tax records show that it reported raising $1.69 billion in cash and pledges between 2001 and 2013, the last year for which documents are available. As of the end of 2014, donations reached nearly $2 billion, foundation officials confirmed. The scope of the foundation’s finances show the unparalleled fundraising power of one of the world’s most important political brands.

“To be raising $250 million a year, certainly puts them in the top ranks of U.S. nonprofits in terms of fundraising,” said Steven Lawrence, director of research for the Foundation Center, which studies philanthropy. Lawrence said the Clintons’ ability to draw support from overseas — a coveted goal for many U.S. charities and university endowments — was especially unusual.

. . .

The donor list shows that the foundation has relied most heavily on seven donors that have each given more than $25 million, including a foundation established by a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra; the national lottery of Holland; and Chicago-based Democratic donor Fred Eychaner. Other major donors giving at lower levels run the gamut of industries and interests, such as the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, beverage giant Coca-Cola, and the governments of Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

Interesting how the divide on capitalism most closely reflects the actual vote.

If I were to try to draw conclusions (not sure how reliable Lord Ashcroft Polls are), I would say that attitudes toward capitalism (neoliberalism) is a factor that corresponds most closely with the way people cast their ballots.

The others, while certainly significant, may not have as great an overall weight. It also shows how deeply reactionary many of the Leave voters are on social issues and things, such as the Internet, that many simply take for granted as part of contemporary life.

I already answered that. Like Ireland, Scotland and N Ire gain from EU and global investment

and may more so now with the withdrawal of England from the EU.

The impact of globalization on poverty has been by no means evenly distributed across the EU and the UK. The post-industrial Midlands and South, other than the City of London, have seen massive loss of unionized jobs -- you know, the type that used to be stable and had benefits, including pensions -- after decades of neoliberal restructuring, plant closures, and underemployment, people are becoming desperate. Underemployment and declining benefits particularly impact aging workers in the Midlands and South who tend to retire later, as this map shows:


In addition, the geographic breakdown of the Brexit vote tends to follow incomes. Lower income persons tended to vote to Leave, as the maps below and at the bottom show. That is particularly clear in post-industrial Manchester and the East Midlands, the epicenter of the Leave vote, which is also now the poorest part of England.

The result of globalization has been real wage decline and dire prospects for many as successive British governments have also cut back on the social support network. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/04/british-workers-suffered-biggest-real-wage-fall-major-g20-countries

The decline in real wages and underemployment is more acute in the post-industrial areas that voted to Leave. Economic insecurity, particularly afflicting an aging population across areas once reliant on manufacturing across England, is what drove Brexit, and it fully explains the geographical and age group breakdown of the results.



Why did HRC use her unsecure Blackberry/Clintonemail.com when she had a secure phone/fax?

Something doesn't quite add up in the story released in the WSJ Thursday about HRC's use of her unsecure Blackberry and email to authorize drone strikes. We are told that her use of private email server was just a work-around of normal information security protocols.

As we have all known for a long time, HRC didn't like using secure computer terminals and refused to use the one installed in her office. So, her aides had to print classified messages off of secure systems and send them to her hard-copy by secure fax.

So, as the WSJ revealed, when the State Department was brought into the CIA decision-making process for authorizing drone strikes in Pakistan, she sometimes had to be contacted at home to co-authorize kill orders, occasionally late at night.

The problem, we have been told, is that she couldn't (or wouldn't) use authorized secure systems. Apparently, for this reason a secure message facility, a "SCIF", with secure terminals wasn't installed in her residence, as they are in the homes of other high government officials.

However, we know that Secretary Clinton had a "secure fax" in her home. And, she knew how to operate it. If she had a secure fax, that means she probably had a secure phone, or could have have plugged one in. She certainly could operate a business desk phone. Tens of thousands of government workers use these desk phones, just like the one shown above, some of which also operate secure faxes and video conferencing. Without a keyboard.

The WSJ reported:

Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes
Source: Wall Street Journal

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan. The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems. <snip>

Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems. The State Department said in January that 22 emails on Mrs. Clinton’s personal server at her home have been judged to contain top-secret information and aren’t being publicly released. Many of them dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes, congressional and law-enforcement officials said.

Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

This implies something else. HRC's apparent violation of laws that forbids transmission of classified information over unsecure systems can be chalked up to her unwillingness to comply with normal secure information procedures. In other words, bad judgement was used to accommodate her, but not an intentional violation of law on anyone's part. Her staff, knowing she refused to sit down to a computer terminal, merely did what they could to accommodated her desires.

So, why was she using her private Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for the drone calls if she could have had a secure phone terminal to run the secure fax we know she had?

If we take this into consideration, it become even more difficult to understand why she used her Blackberry when at home for DOS calls.

These government issued secure phone systems can be used anywhere you can plug in a phone jack. Wiki tells us the "Data" version of the Secure Terminal Equipment (STE) phone:

Data - The Data STE provides remote access for voice, fax, data and video-conferencing. This model has two serial EIA-530A/EIA-232 BDI ports and allows for data transfers to multiple destinations.

Yet, she insisted on using her Blackberry/Clintonemail.com system for messaging such as the Top Secret joint CIA/DOS Drone targeting communications. Why, when she could have simply used a government-issued secure phone/fax?

And, of course, she could also have used an approved, secure Department issued cell phone, as was offered her at the beginning of her term. But, she refused to use that, too. Something doesn't quite add up here.

Intel Community and DOS IGs found that HRC "emails were not retroactively classified"

The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRC's violations of classified information laws before the FBI issues its final report, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution. Here is the Joint Statement of the Inspector Generals:


(If pdf does not come up, go to statement posted at office of the Director of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/210-press-releases-2015/1232-statement-from-the-inspectors-general-of-the-intelligence-community-and-the-department-of-state-regarding-the-review-of-former-secretary-clinton-s-emails )

July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails

Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and it will be devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.

There is abundant precedent for the prosecution of heads of federal agencies for classified information violations. Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.

Petraeus plead down to Sec. 1924, a Misdemeanor, while Deutch was referred for prosecution by the CIA IG, but Attorney General Reno ran out the clock without convening a Grand Jury and Deutch was pardoned on Bill Clinton's last day. Both of them were found to have committed acts of mishandling classified materials. Deutch hooked up CIA laptops to his home internet, which was a chargeable offense under the law as it stood in 1996, and as it remains today.

Here's what the Deutch CIA IG Report found in 2000. (The forthcoming Clinton Intelligence Community IG Report will likely contain very similar findings): https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html


109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:

Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.

113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.

114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:

All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.

115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:

Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.

116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:

Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.

117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:

Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.

The Koch Bros cashed out of Bernie Madoff's scheme in 2005 before the meltdown, moved $ offshore

So, what did these RW uber-funders and some hedge fund operators know about Bernie Madoff's scam that other investors, some of whom lost their life savings in 2008, didn't until it was too late? An article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune suggests a few answers, and raises some other bigger questions about who knew what leading up to the 2008 Wall Steet meltdown.

Koch Industries Inc. invested an unknown sum with the con man's now-defunct securities firm years ago, and walked away with $21.5 million in profits before Madoff's arrest in 2008. But since 2012 the company run by the conservative-activist brothers, worth today a combined $109 billion, has refused legal demands to return the money.

Irving Picard, the trustee liquidating Madoff's firm, contends in a suit that the cash is fraudulent proceeds of the fraud and should be shared among the thousands of victims. Koch Industries, and dozens of other early investors named in 87 other lawsuits, argue the company can keep the profits because the money was sent overseas and is beyond U.S. jurisdiction. At stake: a total of $2 billion.


Contrary to the Koch spokesman misinformation reported vebatim in the Tribune report, but not corrected, Madoff's scam was already known to some in the SEC, which took no public action, and to well-connected hedge funds on Wall Street.

Koch Industries has said the suit lacks merit. "The Koch entity involved made an investment in an entirely separate fund," Koch spokesman Rob Carlton said in an email. "That Koch entity no longer exists, and its investment was redeemed in 2005, long before anyone knew of Madoff's fraud." The Koch brothers are controlling shareholders in the company, and have other investors.

Gotta wonder if the Koch fund that was moved safely off-shore is one of these hedge funds, and what the Koch and others knew early on about Madoff and the crooked balance sheets of other money managers. Koch had been placing money in Madoff funds since the 1990s, the Tribune reports, all the while Madoff's fund continued was shown to grow until it's reported worth tripled its actual capital received.

Koch Industries, an industrial conglomerate and one of the biggest private companies in the U.S., started investing with Madoff in the mid-1990s, court records show. At first, it invested with a Fairfield fund in the U.S., Greenwich Sentry.

In 2003, the company set up the entity in Britain, Koch Investment (U.K.) Co., to invest through a different fund that Fairfield set up in the British Virgin Islands that was exclusively for foreigners, called Fairfield Sentry. Two years later Koch Industries withdrew the cash that's now at the center of the trustee's lawsuit. (Koch also withdrew $58 million from Greenwich Sentry that same year, according to the fund's Chapter 11 filings.)

Here's a report from the WSJ that directly contradicts the claim of the Koch spokesman that Koch cashed out "long before anyone knew of Madoff's fraud": http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125211472134588207

SEC Caught Madoff in Lies in 2005 Exam
By Kara Scannell
Updated Sept. 4, 2009 9:46 p.m. ET

The Securities and Exchange Commission caught Bernard Madoff in lies during a 2005 examination and found him belligerent, but didn't pursue details that could have uncovered his fraud, an inspector general's report found.

The examination, prompted by suspicions raised by a hedge fund, was one of the most extensive looks by regulators at Mr. Madoff's money-management firm. It is one of the missed opportunities discussed in a report released Friday by the SEC's inspector general, David Kotz.

Examiners spent two and a half months working inside Mr. Madoff's firm on the 16th floor of a Midtown Manhattan office tower known as the Lipstick Building. Their sole contact was Mr. Madoff, even though his firm had several compliance officers.
Read the Report

Read the SEC's 477-page internal audit at SEC.gov (4 MB)

The report says SEC examiners from the New York office found this "odd" and also recalled that Mr. Madoff was trying to manipulate the investigation and its focus.

At times, the money manager was a good storyteller, while at other times he grew frustrated, according to the report. One examiner recalled that Mr. Madoff's veins were popping out of his neck.

Mr. Madoff operated his business on the 16th and 17th floors. The SEC examiners said they spent all of their time on the 16th floor where Mr. Madoff's market trading business operated. Examiners said they never knew that Mr. Madoff used the 17th floor to run the firm's money management business, and instead thought it was a back office, the report said.

The SEC examiners never asked to go to the 17th floor and never asked to speak with anyone responsible for the money management business, the report said.

During the examinations, Mr. Madoff told the SEC he wasn't managing any money, yet two news articles said that he was managing money for hedge funds.

Who knew about Madoff and all the crooked books on Wall Street? Follow the money, particularly the ones who got out early.
Go to Page: 1