A Tale of Two Shitties

Here's a couple of non-surprises for you this morning:

While sellers nationwide are suffering, the highest segment of the luxury market, in trophy property corners like Palm Beach, Fla., Beverly Hills, Calif., or the east end of New York's Long Island, has performed well.

[...]

[In] an elite enclave of the Venetian Islands, in Miami Beach, where one will often find sales of $20 million and up, there have been more sales in the first quarter this year than all of last year combined.

  Forbes

and...

NYT Headline: As Border Efforts Grow, Corruption Is on the Rise

...And you're still...just across...the borderline.

As onward we march to third-world status with widespread and deeply embedded political corruption and an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Insane McCain Digging Deeper - Part 2

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

[...]

But despite McCain's own somewhat detailed descriptions of his conversations with Paxson about the matter in the deposition, his campaign Thursday night stuck with its original statement that the senator never discussed the issue at all with the communications executive or his lobbyist.

"We do not think there is a contradiction here," campaign spokeswoman Ann Begeman e-mailed NEWSWEEK after being asked about the senator's sworn testimony five and a half years ago. "We do not have the transcript you excerpted and do not know the exact questions Senator McCain was asked, but it appears that Senator McCain, when speaking of being contacted by Paxson, was speaking in shorthand of his staff being contacted by representatives of Paxson.

  Newsweek

Speaking in shorthand? “I’m sure I spoke to him.” “I” being shorthand for “my representatives”?

An appearance of corruption. But who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Even though I lapsed in my blogger responsibilities, for which I humbly apologize, in a previous post about what McCain said in regard to his relationship with Ms. Iseman, he may wish he had said that instead of stepping into this.

But the campaign's insistence that McCain himself never talked to Paxson about the issue seems hard to square with the contents of his testimony in the McCain-Feingold case.

Abrams, for example, at one point cited the somewhat technical contents of one of his letters to the FCC and then asked the witness, "where did you get information of that sort, Senator McCain?"

McCain replied: "I was briefed by my staff."

Abrams then followed up: "Do you know were they got the information?"

"No," McCain replied. "But I would add, I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue."

"You were?"

"Yes."

Abrams then asked McCain: "Can you tell us what you said and what he said about it?"

McCain: "That he had applied to purchase this station and that he wanted to purchase it. And that there had been a numerous year delay with the FCC reaching a decision. And he wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I said, 'I would be glad to write a letter asking them to act, but I will not write a letter, I cannot write a letter asking them to approve or deny, because then that would be an interference in their activities. I think everybody is entitled to a decision. But I can't ask for a favorable disposition for you'."

Abrams a few moments later asked: "Did you speak to the company's lobbyist about these matters?"

McCain: "I don't recall if it was Mr. Paxson or the company's lobbyist or both."

Abrams: "But you did speak to him?"

McCain: "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."

Maybe he was naïve in the ways of Washington in 1999 and didn’t think writing a letter on behalf of a firm would indicate that he was trying to get a favor for that firm. Uh-huh. But letting his campaign deny the letter was ever asked for and that McCain ever talked with anyone from the firm or its lobbyist when his own testimony to the contrary is on record is probably not a good idea when in the midst of a presidential campaign.

On the other hand, the current president seems to have found no obstacle in bald-faced lies, so what the heck.

....and hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Insane McCain Digging Deeper

Let’s begin with a wide angle lens and zoom in.

Republican U.S. Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted Friday in Arizona on 35 counts of extortion, conspiracy, money laundering and related charges.

The indictment says the congressman conspired with one former business partner in an alleged land-swap scheme and with another to commit insurance fraud.

  NPR

One:

Renzi (R-AZ) is one of two dozen co-chairs of John McCain's campaign in Arizona. When reporters asked him today what he thought about Renzi's indictment, he seems to have gotten a little tongue-tied.

"I'm sorry. I feel for the family; as you know, he has 12 children," McCain told reporters on the presidential campaign trail. "But I don't know enough of the details to make a judgment. These kinds of things are always very unfortunate. ... I rely on our Department of Justice and system of justice to make the right outcome."

  TPM Muckraker

Two:

One day after The New York Times published an article raising ethical questions about Sen. John McCain's dealings with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, the Arizona senator pushed back today at a press conference in Cleveland, telling reporters, "Vicki Iseman did not force me into any positions."

Calling suggestions that Ms. Iseman could make him assume a different position "ridiculous," Sen. McCain said, "At my age, I'm not about to try out new positions that I'm uncomfortable with."

  Yahoo

And yes, this is a story involving allegations of a romantic liaison, so their choice of words is not only humorous, but exquisitely apt. [Update: I missed this one. Thanks to W3IAI for catching me lazy. Please see comments.]

Three:

[John] McCain has accused [Barack] Obama of rolling back on a pledge to limit himself to $85 million in public money for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee. Obama, who has raised over $140 million so far, has refused to recommit to the pledge, which he made in February 2007.

  Reuters

McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year. It meant that his struggling campaign would get $5.8 million in public matching funds in March. Now that he's effectively the Republican nominee, he wants out, because the system entails a spending limit of $54 million through the end of August. He's almost spent that much already, according to the Post.

So the McCain campaign sent the Federal Election Commission a letter (pdf) earlier this month saying that he was opting out. But there's a problem. And FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, made it plain in his letter (pdf) yesterday: McCain can't tell the FEC that he's out of the system. He can only ask.

[...]

It is a serious issue. As the Post reports, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."

[...]

But McCain has refused to support efforts to fix the system, so in a way, he has himself to blame for the fact that the system is so unworkable that he's possibly bent the rules to get out of it.

  TPM Muckraker

It’s a bit up in the air at the moment because there aren’t enough commissioners to hand down a verdict. The Senate is arguing over four nominees. I suppose we might be looking forward to some time-finagling on this issue while everybody jockeys for position.

McCain, the author of a prominent law that limits money in politics, asked the FEC for public money last year at a time when his campaign was in deep trouble.

[...]

McCain opted out of the system earlier this month because he has nearly reached the FEC's $54 million spending cap for the primary season and expects to raise more money.

[...]

McCain -- the likely Republican nominee in November's presidential election -- was told by the Federal Election Commission on Thursday that he might be required to use public funding and so abide by its accompanying spending limits until September when he formally would be anointed the Republican Party candidate.

[...]

[At] a campaign stop in Indiana, McCain replied with a dismissive "no" when asked if he was concerned by the FEC's letter.

"It's not a decision. It's an opinion, according to our people," he said.

  Reuters

He obviously has people a lot like the current administration’s people.

And he’s not so willing to rely on the FEC for the “right outcome” as he is on the Justice Department in the Renzi case.

You know, I’m just not entirely convinced that Insane will in fact be the GOP nominee.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Amazing

Don The Lord is With Me Young (R-BrassOnes) decided something needed to be added to a bill that had been passed by Congress, so while it was waiting for the president to sign or veto it, he simply slipped in the changes.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

What's the Fuss?

Stop reading if you do not understand this:

The following information are not statements of fact, but are allegations based on the above theory. We continue with the presumption that the information is not allegations of illegal activity directed at any specific individual with Sidley Austin, nor are they conclusions of law about the conduct of Ralston.

I have to admit that I had stopped reading well before that, and just started skimming, because I stopped understanding somewhere in the first or second paragraph.

But, in case you are willing and able, Cannonfire has pulled out somebody's anonymous comments on Josh Marshall's blog about what might really be behind the administration's refusal to comply with subpoenas and claims of executive privilege. Joe's summary is that this involves data mining by the administration through the warrantless wiretaps, not for information about terrorist suspects, but about political adversaries in an election year.

GOP Branch Operatives

Not long ago, in a different context, I asked, "Is there no federal agency that's clean?"

TPM has a list (maybe somebody will put them in list format soon) of agencies that Karl Rove has been manipulating to make them another arm of the GOP, and a question for Gonzo in his hearing today: was the DoJ on Karl's speaking tour?

Corrupt, and Proud of It

These two are among the same group of legislators who took a shine to calling themselves the "Corrupt Bastards Caucus." No wonder.

Check it out here. You'll be amazed. But maybe not surprised.

....and hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

"Don't Bother the Oil Companies"

A former top auditor at the Interior Department has accused senior officials of prohibiting him and other investigators from recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in underpayments from oil and gas companies that drill on federal land and in federal waters.

"There's hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars out there, and I don't think we should be scared of the oil companies," said Bobby Maxwell.

  International Herald Tribune article

Bobby. If Dick Cheney invites you to go hunting, I suggest you decline.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Cold Hard Cash

Well, cold anyway.

The subpoena is part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of [Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.)] who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman. Of that, $90,000 was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's D.C. home.

  The Hill article

Sibel Edmunds Is Waiting

Okay, listen up. Sibel Edmunds has been ignored long enough. For some background on the former translator working for the FBI just prior to 9/11, if you need it, you can go here. And for information about the legal case she has brought to try to get her testimony aired, you can go here.
Now, ex-CIA agent, Phil Giraldi, has some more to say about it.
Via a post by Lukery at Wot Is It Good For, we’re informed that Henry Waxman’s oversight committee is not interested in what Sibel has to say possibly due to Waxman's attachment to Israel and AIPAC.
Even though Waxman is seemingly hot to investigate the Bush administration on the forged Niger documents and Iraq contracting fraud, he apparently has no desire to look into Sibel’s claims of illegal arms sales in high government places. Has it been so long since the Iran-Contra arms deals that we should think that’s unlikely?

[Ms. Edmunds claims] that investigations already carried out by the FBI would demonstrate that three former senior officials were involved in illegal weapons sales and other activities that would justify charges of espionage and possibly even treason against them.

Who would these three be? Our old friends Doug Feith and Richard Perle, and a former State Department official, Marc Grossman. (She also puts Dennis Hastert and our buddy Paul Wolfowitz in the pot.)
Edmonds’ testimony in the past has been considered credible, but most of it has been kept under wraps, and she has been under a gag order since giving it. Giraldi speculates that Waxman is avoiding Sibel’s claims

[…] possibly because Israeli officials and the country’s defense industry are believed to have been involved in the weapons diversion activity.
Congressman Waxman is regarded as close to Israel’s principal lobby, AIPAC, and even promised Jewish voters back in November 2006 that there would be no Democratic congressional committee chairmen involved with Middle Eastern policy who were not completely supportive of Israel.

Lukery ends his post in the comments section arguing for the possibility that a slow resolution of all these types of inquiries and investigations might be best in the long run to essentially dig out the toxin that is the current administration and GOP from its roots, but that…”If it is business as usual, and Waxman is just bowing to AIPAC’s wishes, then we have truly been taken over and it is time for pitchforks.”
Sibel’s claims are all about illegal arms deals, money laundering and drug trafficking. And it’s been my belief from way back that when you look at those three things, you’ll find essentially all of the corrupt people in top positions of power in our country, and that’s their connection to 9/11. Not too hard to figure – that’s where the money and the power are all around the globe: drug trafficking and arms dealing.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

UPDATE 2/20/18:  Glenn Greenwald Twitter thread regarding Sibel Edmonds, calling her a "pathological liar and an insane person."