My turn reviewing a book in the community. We have KINDLE UNLIMITED and, with my daughter using it, Elaine using it and me using it, it really does 'pay for itself.' I was looking for a different book than usual and couldn't find one. So I asked C.I. for a suggestion? She suggested Elizabeth Kolbert's THE SIXTH EXTINCTION: AN UNNATURAL HISTORY.
The sixth extinction? There have been five previous mass extinction events in earth's history that we know of. We may be living through a sixth.
Chapter one takes you to modern day Panama, specifically, El Valle de Anton which used to be overrun with golden frogs (they are a poisonous frog that has yellow skin and brown spots). An American researcher, visiting Panama, studied the golden frogs by the border that Panama shared with Costa Rica. A few years later, they were gone. The researched had to move further inland. Repeatedly. Realizing that they were growing extinct, a plan was devised to take some males and some females out of the wild in an attempt to preserve the species. This is when Elizabeth Kolbert stumbled upon an article in a kids magazine and became aware of the sixth extinction that appears to be taking place now.
Amphibians are disappearing around the world -- including throughout the Americas. In DC, for example, The National Zoo was known for its blue poison-dart frogs. Then they started dying off. They'd developed a fungus -- a new chytrid fungi. This new fungi? It's all over. Bleach will kill it. But you can't bleach the rain forest. So the frogs you manage to save and keep alive in an artificial environment? How do you save them other than keeping them out of the real world?
An amphibian species should go extinct over a thousand years. Normally. That would mean that a person wouldn't be able to track the sudden vanishing of, for example, the golden frog. But this is happening before our eyes.
The concept of extinction shows up late in human history, in the 1700s. Earlier (surviving) writings on animals noted the animals alive when the tracts were written but don't consider that some may no longer be alive. The mastodon -- or rather its bones -- led to the study of extinction -- study and search. President Thomas Jefferson had hopes that Lewis and Clark might come across the American mastodon (he was convinced -- and wrote a paper about it -- that it might still be alive but in unexplored areas).
So much of extinction is recently know. For example? "Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction" is a famous paper about how "sixty-five million years ago, an asteroid six miles wide collided with the earth. Exploding on contact, it released enery on the order of a hundred million megatons of TNT, or more than a million of the most powerful H-bombs ever tested. Debris, including iridium from the pulverized asteroid, spread across the globe. Day turned to night, and temperatures plunged. A mass extinction ensued."
Walter and Luis Avlarzez (son and father) published that paper in June of 1980 -- after beginning work on the study that led to it in 1977. That's relatively recent. I found that section fascinating. The paper and its conclusions were attacked for years. Until 1991, in fact.
It traces history very well and explains how dangerous things are today. We are seeing rising CO2 levels, this will lead to ocean acidification.
This is a fascinating book that I strongly recommend.
Stealing from THIRD, here are the books covered so far this year in the community:
"Crispy Calamari in the Kitchen"
-- Trina reviews AIR FRYER COOKBOOK FOR BEGINNERS: EFFORTLESSLY GRILL,
ROAST AND BAKE HOMEMADE MEALS: YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE FOR BEGINNERS WITH
QUICK, TASTY & HEALTHY RECIPES.
"Vincent Price and Universal"
-- Marcia reviews John L. Flynn's 75 YEARS OF UNIVERSAL MONSTERS and
Vincent Price's I LIKE WHAT I KNOW: A VISUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
"3 books to skip" -- Kat reviews Bertill Nordahl's CAT SEVENS, CARLY SIMON AND LEONARD COHEN AND ALL
THE OTHERS, David Redford's NEIL& JONI: 2 LIVES, 21 ALBUMS and Ellen Sanders' ROCK AND ROLL
WOMENHOOD: CASS ELLIOT, GRACE SLICK, LINDA RONSTADT, FANNY AND MORE.
Friday, April 21, 2023. Matt Taibbi is being attacked by a pretend
Congress member and it needs to be called out -- and she's actually
harming election chances for the Democrats with her unhinged and rabid
behavior.
These
snapshots are dictated. I'm usually working out -- if I'm away from
home, they're dictated while I'm running, otherwise I'm on a treadmill
or stepper. Things are pulled all the time before something gets
published. I dictate these primarily to three friends. And one would
tell you that if I'm bothered by ______, he tells me "stop, you know
it's not going to make it into the published snapshot." And he's
actually right, it usually doesn't but _____ is so frustrating that it
helps me get whatever out of my system. Sometimes something's dropped
because it overwhelms something else that I want to emphasize.
Sometimes it's dropped because I think I could do it better covering it
the next day. Sometimes it's dropped for space, I think the snapshot's
going way too long. Or maybe it's a humorous note in the wrong place.
Example:
Yesterday, Glenneth Greenwald raged at Mark Hamill (fine with me, Mark's not my
friend) and then Glenneth typed "From experience, no sub culture is
dumber than Hollywood." Oh, Glenneth, should you really talk about Jane
Hamsher that way?
Another dropped this week, longer, was on Matt Taibbi. We're copying and pasting that in. After I'll explain why.
I'm not a Medhi Hasan fan. That predates this decade and
goes back to Iraq and statements -- especially on THE DIANE REHM SHOW
-- that were flat out lies. Mehdi and Matt Taibbi got into it on
Mehdi's show not long ago. Ava and I covered it in "TV: The media's lack of accountability."
Matt Taibbi is back from Disney Land and his trip to meet family in Hawaii. And he's back on Twitter. Lee Fang is using Twitter to question Medhi's reporting.
Lee's charge -- use previous link -- is that Mehdi is guilty of
plagiarism -- a serious charge. There is no defense of, "I was only
writing about ___ and that's not hard news." You're a journalist and
you chose to write about it, you were required to be accurate and, no,
I'm not going into this in any greater length, it's not the 90s and
NEWSWEEK hasn't just lied that Chandler was the one handcuffing a
woman. (An error NEWSWEEK refused to correct and claimed, it was only
an entertainment story -- only. Rachel's boss handcuffs Chandler, for
those who didn't see the episode.) It was revealing about the author --
that he was a liar and that clearly he had his own kink at play if he
needed to see it a way other than how it actually happened. The same is
true of Medhi -- the spanking focus tells a great deal about him.
Matt seems to think this is where he (Matt) goes for the throat. It's not.
Don't know what to do here but speak slowly. Ava and my piece resulted in hysterics insisting we had crucified Matt.
The
topic of our piece was accountability. Confronted with errors, two or
three, Matt took accountability. When others lied after the interview
aired -- there appears to be a gulf between honesty and YOUTUBERS --
Matt took accountability and noted he did not come off well. We noted
he was one of the few adults in the room, we noted too many others that
week were not taking accountability.
That's not slamming him and it's definitely not crucifying him.
There
was an error in a Tweet. Not the end of the world. But when your
'report' is not a written report but a series of Tweets, yes, all Tweets
have equal value. He needs to write a report.
While
he went on vacation, a series of people have mocked him -- as he knew
they would. Not a slam for him going on vacation before someone e-mails
a "How dare you!"
My opinion, he should be working on a report. Not Tweets.
I'd be lying if I said I didn't spend last week wondering how to undo any damage to the #TwitterFiles caused by ...
Post-segment,
Hasan took the incredibly serious step of accusing me of lying to
congress. Talk about “press as police”: that’s a felony charge, and
Hasan has been insisting to everyone who’ll listen that I’m guilty of
it. Hasan's claim is
based on the idea that I was “suggesting a nonprofit was an intel
agency to try & prove government collusion/censorship.”
This
was a reference to my conflating the Center for Internet Security (CIS)
and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in a
#TwitterFiles tweet. One letter in an acronym may not sound like much,
but it would have been a serious mistake indeed, if I’d implied an
“intel agency” like CISA was partnered with Twitter and Stanford’s
Election Integrity Project, if it was not.
But
CISA absolutely was a partner to the EIP, as was the CIS. Hasan
appeared not to have been aware of this, which may be why (apart from my
bumbling demeanor) he seemed to think this was such a gotcha moment on air.
CISA, CIS, and EIP openly partnered through the 2020 election process, as TwitterFiles emailsdocuments as well as publicly available information repeatedly demonstrate. I even tweeted months ago, in TwitterFiles #6,
that the two agencies were easily confused, as both were partners to
Stanford’s election initiative. Neither CISA, the CIS, Twitter, nor the
EIP has ever claimed CISA wasn’t a partner to the EIP project. It would
be an impossible thing to assert: there are too many public
announcements describing the CISA-EIP partnership. From the EIP’s own
website:
Hasan
said claiming CISA involvement with the EIP was “key to my thesis,” and
since this “thesis” wasn’t true, House Judiciary chief and
Weaponization of Government Subcommittee chair Jim Jordan needed to
correct the record. (He doesn’t). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose MO
these days seems to involve loudly planting a flag in every online wedge
controversy with any chance of trending, chimed in to claim the “entire
Oversight hearing and investigation” was “based on these errors,” and
therefore the GOP had wasted “tons of public time and dollars” on the
Files material.
To
say that all of this has been infuriating is a massive understatement. I
have three little kids and these people are accusing me of a serious
crime for which I could go to jail, yet they themselves are the ones
making the mistake. The sheer viciousness of the ploy is mind-blowing.
I
don't live in a world where no one makes mistakes -- I make mistakes
all the time. But I do expect to live in a world where people own their
mistakes.
If you're seeing me crucifying Matt or anything similar, that's your mistake.
We've
noted various reactions -- by reposting videos -- and people can have
whatever reaction they want. But speaking for me, the end of the world
would have been Matt saying, "No, no, I don't make mistakes." Instead,
he owned the one that was explored and I think he said he'd have to
check on the other but if he was wrong, he was wrong. He also owned
that it was a bad interview.
A
friend once had what she thought was a career-ender interview. It
didn't help that her (cheating) husband was against her doing the
interview to begin with and slammed her for it to everyone they knew.
She didn't get any sleep in the 24 hour period ahead of the interview.
You could see it in her eyes which were glassy and watering.
"Repetitive but effective" is how a major periodical termed her part of
the interview. She's a major communicator who had much more experience
with hostile interviewers. And she felt she choked. She could have
been better (and maybe with support from the hideous husband she would
have been). But it happens to everyone. I never forgave Barbara
Walters for that interview and I was so happy that it ended her marriage
-- she didn't just go after my friend, she harmed her husband's
business interest with that interview.
Most people don't remember the interview today -- not even the ones who watched it -- and it won the time slot.
Matt handled himself like a grown up.
I
didn't appreciate the people who lied and said, "Matt showed him! Matt
destroyed him!" I don't appreciate lies. By the same token, those
insisting that Matt's work on The Twitter Files got destroyed are also
lying. Again, he'd be doing himself a favor to write a report but his
work did not get destroyed.
Nor
did he lie to Congress. We reported on that hearing. I don't think
most of the people saying Matt lied before Congress know what they're
talking about. They don't appear to have even read his opening
statement, let alone know what he actually said at the hearing.
Lee
Fang has reasons to continue his probing of Mehdi's work. It would
probably do Matt better to leave that alone. Barbara Walters sold her
soul (many times over) and when she did (every time) the bill was
collected. Medhi, like Barbara, will have to live in a hell of his own
making. Matt should take comfort in that and not bother giving Mehdi
another thought.
People
were high-fiving Barbara Walters for her stunts. By not going after
her publicly but instead focusing on their own work, those Barbara
attacked came off looking better. There's nothing Mehdi benefits from
more than a back-and-forth on this issue. It fuels publicity for his
show and it fuels the people who do hate Matt. So the best thing Matt
can do is leave it alone, Lee Fang has it under control.
That
was pulled for space and also because the piece Ava and I wrote was
also slammed by some for 'rescuing' Matt so I wanted to read over it
before I included it (which I haven't -- even now, I just said to paste
the above in -- there's never enough time).
So the reason we're on Matt today, and we have to be, is a new attack on him which Glenn notes in this Tweet:
He also calls her a "fake" which she is. Go back to the March 10, 2023 snapshot for when Stacey pops up on this site's radar (also to "TV: The Tired and The Disappointing").
We didn't cover her in the '00s or the '10s when she was a Republican.
Not because she was a Republican but because she was a failure -- she
was an abject failure.
Stacey's a Karen --
yes, there can be Karens of color. They're women of color who steal
roles that are not their roles to take, roles that belong to women of
color. So if, for example, Raza Unida was looking for a spokesperson in
1971 and a woman of color seized that role? She may have been a woman
of color but was she Chicano because that's was a Chicano political
party? Nope. But she couldn't get a prominent role any other way so
she stole the role from a deserving woman of color. That's how she
ended up a Karen.
Stacey was a failure. She
was born in the Brooklyn and she grew up there. She was a Republican
and, until her 'strange' (you term as you'd like) 'relationship' with
Bully Boy Bush, she was going nowhere. Strange? Kind of like MTG and
Kevin McCarthy who touch and peer at each other on the House floor as
though they're lovers and not colleagues. That sort of relationship led
Bush insiders to joke that Bully Boy was grooming Stacey as his
"Condi-spare."
For whatever reason, bowing and scraping didn't get her too far.
So
she ends up moving to the Virgin Islands where she remakes herself -- I
don't just mean the cheap weave, I mean she switches to the Democratic
Party and begins running for office. Running for office requires her to
switch to the Democratic Party because there is very little support for
Republicans in the Virgin Islands. If you win the Democratic Party
primary, you pretty much win the general election. (See her 2014 race,
for an example).
So she got her fake weave, her fake political positions and she faked her way into office.
The Virgin Islands does not have real representation in Congress.
They have no voting rights. So she is a fake member of Congress.
She's
also a fake member of Congress in that the office she holds is nothing
but representational and, as such, should go to someone who grew up in
the Virgin Islands.
But Stacey couldn't win on the mainland of the US. So she goes somewhere else to steal a seat. She's a fake ass Karen.
The
Democratic Party needs to curb her and keep her on a short leash
because she's not acting like a Democrat. That's why she seems like
some strange object right now. She's bringing the worst of the
Republican Party with her and it's not a good look for Democrats.
Let's go into the worst for a second so that we're all clear.
The
Republican-led House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday struck
comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and ended her time to
speak after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a
liar.
[. . .]
But as Greene continued with her comments, she criticized Mayorkas for the spread of fentanyl in the United States
“I
want to know from you, how many more people do we have to watch die
every single day in America? How many more young people do we have to
see die? How many more teenagers?” the Georgia Republican asked.
Mayorkas
tried to respond to the lawmaker, saying, “let me assure you that we're
not letting it go on,” before Greene said she was reclaiming her time
in the committee and called Mayorkas “a liar.”
Rep.
Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., sought to have Greene’s words taken down,
saying “We have a history of being a bipartisan committee that works on
solutions. Now we can disagree, but we’ve gotten to the point of the
language that we're using is not the kind of language that historically
we as members of this committee have used.”
Committee
Chair Mark Green, R-Tenn., approved the move, saying “identifying or
calling someone a liar is unacceptable in this committee.” The chair
then noted that Greene was no longer recognized.
No
longer recognized? She needs to be removed from the Committee. Her
applause for the leaker is disturbing. Her applause for mishandling
classified documents is appalling.
She should not be allowed to sit on the Homeland Security Committee.
WDBJ notes that
a closed door briefing on the leak was supposed to take place earlier
this week but did not and they quote Senator Tim Kaine stating, "There's
no way he should have been able to do this with the brazenness and
without his chain of command being aware of it. And so, there is a real
dereliction of duty by the chain of command that allowed this to go on
and I want to understand what consequences that are going to be there."
One
consequence should be expelling MTG from the Committee for applauding a
leaker -- not a whistle blower -- who took the documents online in
order to impress his 'buddies.'
MTG?
I just can't stand the press coverage of her that tries to treat her
as sane and rational. Glenn Greenwald and Tara Reade love her so I
guess they're admitting to loving racism.
Her
defense of the leaker? She applauded him for his race, among other
things. I've noted here before being at hearings where that woman can't
shut up about "White." She'll supposedly be expressing concern for
children, for example, but it will come out of her big mouth as "White
children." This happens over and over. She's a racist and this needs
to be noted. In 2023, Georgia's 14th Congressional district has elected
to be represented by a racist.
If
Georgia won't take their trash to the curb, Congress needs to. She
applauded the mishandling of classified information that makes her unfit
to serve on a Homeland Security Committee. For those who are too dumb
or sheepish to join that call, Marjorie could be a poster girl for
2024. "Today's Republican Party? It's not your parents party.
Marjorie Taylor Green, dangerous to national security. She Tweeted to
praise a man who mishandled classified documents noting that he was 'white, male, christian and antiwar.'
Ron DeSantis, dangerous to business and to taxpayers. He has left
Floridians in debt as he has launched one lawsuit after another at
DISNEY. Lauren Boebert, dangerous to the rule of law. If your son has a
wreck and has drugs on him, he'd be in jail, not so for Boe-Boe. . . ."
Just
go down the list. Just show how out of touch they are. That's your
campaign commercial. Especially in a bad economy. "They treat a
legislative session like encounter group therapy and that's why nothing
gets done."
Or "While
Ron was flirting with his 2024 run for president and attacking DISNEY,
Floridians were left having to beg the governor to do his job. As NEWSWEEK reported:"
Ron DeSantis is being put under further pressure to resolve Florida's gas shortage issue as Twitter users rage at the governor.
Heavy
rain in eastern Broward County last week caused floods in Port
Everglades roads, preventing truck drivers from making fuel deliveries.
Social
media users have complained and shared clips of gas stations without
any fuel and the long lines they would have to queue in to get any gas.
The
ads write themselves but for them to be effective, those of you who
consider yourself foot soldiers of the Democratic Party should be
laying the groundwork now. I don't consider myself a foot soldier.
People who are friends can pick up the phone and call and they'll offer
an issue or something and ask me to game it out. And I will and I'm
good at it. But writing like that here? That's not the role here. And
I'm looking around wondering where are the Spencer Ackermans? They
obsess over elections long before the cycles start. So why aren't they
calling out Marjorie for her praise of someone who mishandled classified
information? You don't save that for two weeks before the election.
You build it and you talk about it and you chip away at her daily.
Back
to Stacey. She really needs to be put in a corner and told to think
about her actions. She's not just lying about Matt, she's harming the
face of the Democratic Party.
Supposedly, Joe Biden's about to declare he's running for relection.
If
that's the case and he gets the nomination (Marianne Williamson and
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are both declared in the race for that
nomination), the party's not going to be able to handle fake ass Stacey
and her anger issues. Nor should we have to handle her, she's a bit
player desperate for attention.
But
if we get stuck with Joe as the nominee? The only card the party has
to play is "We're responsible, look at those crazies."
When you got crazy Stacey, it makes it harder to play, "Look at the other side."
She
is a non-voting member of Congress -- a woman who stole the seat from a
person born in the Virgin Islands. It does matter.
Crazy
Stacey needs to learn to shut up. She's nothing and she's never going
to be something. Her tantrums in public get her press attention but
it's not the sort of attention the Democratic Party needs going into a
2024 election -- especially if they end up saddled with Joe Biden as the
nominee.
So that deals with Matt.
Let's deal quickly with Glenneth on another issue. Four people are accused of something by the government.
We've noted videos when others have defended them. I'm not defending them.
That's not saying they're guilty, that's not saying they're not.
Why would I defend people I don't know? I don't know the particulars other than they supposedly collaborated with
a foreign government (Russia) -- on the face of it, the charge seems
ludicrous and part of the re-starting of the Cold War. As we hear what
evidence is available, I'll be better able to make a determination of
where I stand.
But,
as it stands, there are charges that have not been argued in court
about four people I don't know. I would assume they are innocent -- and
that's the legal assumption in this country. But that's about all I
can say of the four of them.
Where to start? "They're coming for you next!"
I
don't play with scare tactics. Yesterday, there was a woman who'd been
hurt outside a building and after she had assistance and was fine, one
of my friends said they always marvel over how calm I remain. Enemies
would say, "How cold you are." I don't like drama. The woman needed
help, first aid and greater medical assistance. When everyone was
standing around her -- I didn't know these people, I was exiting the
building -- building drama and nonsense, my loathing of drama kicked in
and I began issuing orders because that's how you get a hysterical group
to calm down and I began speaking with the woman that everyone wanted
to help but no one was listening to.
That's
because I don't respond to scare tactics. That's why I called out THE
NATION with their "torture election" nonsense. They didn't know how the
election was going to go but knew it could go one of two ways. To
scare up voters, they started pimping the lie that the election in
question would determine the fate of the US and where it stood on
torture. No, for the American voters it was just another election.
So, if you're trying to get me to support the four, you're not going to win me over with, "They're coming for you next!"
No,
crazy, they're not coming for me. The US government didn't come for me
with the MEK. It's not coming for me with regards to Russia. Because
I'm not a devotee like Tara Reade. I don't worship Russia. I don't
worship the MEK. I've tried never to make this statement that I'm about
to make but to make it really clear, I'm going to have to.
The
MEK are, I'm sure, no different than you or me. However, their leadership is
creepy as can be. I defended them with regards to the US' legal
obligations to them. They are Iranian dissidents who were in Iraq.
Under Saddam Hussein, they had his support. When the US overthrew
Saddam, they had no protection. Some Iraqis felt the MEK was
threatening and carried out or would carry out violence against Iraqis.
That did not happen. The MEK felt they would be attacked by Iraqi
militias and troops and that did happen.
Prior to the attacks, the US government asked the MEK to disarm. They would ensure the MEK was safe if they disarmed.
They did what was asked of them.
And then the US wanted to walk away.
No. Under international law, they were required to provide protection.
I
got attacked constantly for defending the MEK. At one point, when I
was visiting a friend at the Justice Dept (I regularly lobbied for a
compassionate release for Lynne Stewart who was dying in prison), the
friend said, "We need to talk." He closed his office door and brought
up the MEK. To which I replied, "I'm not even offering, 'Look, you know
me.' Because that shouldn't matter. I am offering that you know
everything I've written online. I rarely mention them in campus
speeches but I'm sure you have notes on that. And I know you have the
only exchange that ever took place between the MEK and myself. The
leadership had e-mailed the public account to say that I should be
emphasizing this and not that." I replied back: Do not write me again.
I am not having contact with you. I cover the issue from my
perspective and I'm not coordinating any message with you. They replied
back in an angry manner."
They
creeped me out. I never said that then. I would prefer not to say it
now. I got a lot of flack for defending them. But every point I made
was sound and backed up by the law.
The fact that they (leadership) creeped me out has nothing to do with legal obligations.
Two
politicians with national profiles were investigated -- that is
public. I know both. One I know and I like, the other I can't stand. I
didn't bring their names up when speaking with DOJ. Because I didn't
know what they were doing and wasn't part of their effort.
What I did was done here. Anything stated on campus was reflected in statements made here.
I
never made the case that the MEK were saintly. I made the case that
the US government had a legal obligation. And made that case to the US
State Dept especially when a friend with the State Dept complained that
they were doing all they could and the MEK was responding that, no, they
wouldn't go there. At which point, I said legally this is not a travel
agency. They need to arrange for a host country. It can't be Iran
because they're Iranian dissidents. And it can't be a country cozy with
Iran. But other than that, if Sweden, for example, agrees to take 50
and this offer is made but the MEK says no, then the legal obligations
are over. Good faith efforts were made, a host country was found and
the MEK just didn't like it. Too bad. They're now on their own.
No
one's ever accused me of writing fan fiction for governments in other
countries. I would not end up in the boat that is sinking for four
Americans.
And I know that
and, with regards to the MEK, the US Justice Dept understood that as
well which is why I was not under investigation -- they had all I'd said
and the one communication I'd had with the MEK -- so don't give me the
nonsense of "This is how it starts!"
Tara's
crazy and Caitlin Johnstone is worse. The one thing I've yet to call
Tara is "coward." Tara's not a coward. Caitlin is. I'm tired of you
pathetic losers in other countries who won't call out your own country
but continue to fixate on the United States. Caitlin, you live in
Australia. Police your own government. It's far from perfect. John
Howard took your country to war -- the Iraq War -- and you had nothing
to say about that. You did make time to Tweet about Bully Boy Bush on
the 20th anniversary.
How
brave!!!!! I'm not impressed. I call out Joe Biden here. I called out
Donald Trump. I called out Barack Obama. I called out Bully Boy
Bush. I'm not a scared bunny who can't call out her own government.
Robert
Pether has been held in an Iraqi prison for two years now. He's an
Australian citizen. When exactly does Caitlin intend to call that
imprisonment out? When does she intend to hold her own government
accountable? After Robert's dead.
No, she'll probably still be a coward then.
Catilin Tweets, "Look at the bizarre verbal gymnastics they're performing to justify outlawing political dissent."
Do they not speak English in Australia.
She's
referring to these words in a WASHINGTON POST article: "conspiring to
have US citizens act as illegal, unregistered agents of the Russian
Government."
Again, is it English that's the problem. She didn't highlight the full sentence. Maybe grammar is her problem?
At any rate, I've looked at what's known publicly.
Not a lot is known publicly.
So you won't see my staking my reputation on four people I don't know when they are surrounded by unknowns.
I think a lot of people are stupid.
When
I defended Tara, I didn't vouch for her character. Within a few weeks
of her going public, her character did not impress. But even when it
wasn't a known issue, I didn't vouch for her character. I said she was
credible (I still believe that and that she had more supportive
documentation backing her up then in any other he-said/she-said).
But I don't know her from Adam.
I'm not going to be an idiot.
Caitlin
and Tara are idiots. They're telling you that nothing happened. They
don't know that and they don't know the people involved. I'm not an
emotional person. I'll cry for children and I'll cry for Iraq. But I'm
not someone who gets conned over and over.
Crazy people are the ones screaming, "They're innocent!"
You
don't know that. I support them getting a strong defense, I support
the press looking seriously into the charges. I don't believe anything
is true just because someone in the government or a government agency
insists it is.
I'm not getting tripped up in this because I'm not pathetic.
And
I really do think a lot of people are pathetic because they have to
butt in to topics they know nothing about and insist that this is true
or that is true or I peered into his soul and saw . . .
I don't have time for the nutty talk, sorry. "This is how it starts! They're innocent!" I don't indulge in nutty talk.
If
I know you, I'll defend you or say I think you're guilty. When I
don't know you, I'm not playing a fool and stepping forward just because
others are.
I
went to the matt for Lynne Stewart because I knew Lynne. I lobbied
everyone who would listen in the Justice Dept, I begged the White House,
and I'd do it again.
But
the reason that I can make a case like that, the reason people will
sometimes listen, is because I'm not the drama queen. I'm not running
barking after every ambulance.
The
people -- I don't believe Glenn did this -- who were lying that Matt
won in the exchange on MSNBC? They just made it harder to defend Matt
next time because he didn't win. Your own eyes told you that. And all
you revealed was that you'll say anything so why should anyone believe
you?
While
we're talking about Congress, and as we wind down, something needs to
be clarified because there's a lot of confusion out there.
Dianne Feinstein does not own a Senate seat. She occupies a Senate seat.
That
seat is reserved for someone who represents California. Dianne has
overstayed her welcome by many years. She no longer is present in DC.
That's her job. I don't care that she's a she, I don't care that she's a
Democrat. I do care that she can't do her job.
As
a California voter, I'm not paying for her to sit on her ass at home
and derail the work of the Senate -- especially not the Senate Judiciary
Committee. If a Democrat does not win the White House in November
2024, it's very likely that we will see more court packing like we did
from January 2017 to January 2021. Judges need to be appointed now
because there is a backlog of cases. The Republicans are happy to let
Dianne run out the clock on Joe's judicial nominees. I'm not.
This is bigger than her sorry ass. She needs to do what's good for the collective and step aside.
In
two months, she'll be 90 years old. She needs to step down. She is
owed nothing. This is an elected position that has certain job
requirements. She is not fulfilling those job requirements, she needs
to go. I don't fire people very often but when I do it's because they
are not meeting the job requirements. Call me cold blooded but I never
feel bad for firing someone who is not doing the job they were hired
to do. That's now the case with Dianne.
Sen. John Fetterman, who returned to Congress this week after
receiving treatment for clinical depression, is speaking out about how
his tough Senate race last year worsened his mental health.
Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, shared with People magazine in
an interview published Wednesday that criticism about whether he could
serve effectively following his stroke was particularly painful.
“These kinds of personal things accelerated the depression,” Fetterman said.
Fetterman checked himself into Walter
Reed National Military Medical Center in February. A statement released
by his office at the time said the freshman senator had dealt with
“depression off and on throughout his life” but “it only became severe
in recent weeks.”
He
got through the long absence in terms of he wasn't forced to resign.
But people should be paying attention. I find this troublesome in the
CNN report:
Fetterman
described that following the election, he had “stopped eating and
drinking and I wasn’t functional.” At the time of his swearing-in
ceremony, he added, “My depression was in full force.”
After
a little over a month in office, Fetterman made the decision to seek
treatment for his depression after talking to his family and team, and
after six weeks of care, he was discharged from Walter Reed.
So,
he's admitting, when he was sworn in, he wasn't up to the job. That's
what that is. He better get up to the job. No one twisted his arm to
run. He ran. He was sworn in. It's time to start serving the people.
Now
for THE GOLDBERGS. Latest episode aired last night. It only gets a
B. Too much Adam. He was the subplot. He's an . . . uptown girl. I
wish I were joking. I'm sure there's some 'meta' humor in how the
series is now trashing the lead character. But it's not actually
funny. Adam wanted to use his new girlfriend's dad's mechanic shop to
film a video of Billy Joel's "Uptown Girl." It wasn't just that his
friends didn't think he projected the "rugged masculinity" of Billy
Joel. Even his girlfriend was embarrassed to have the 18 year old (19
now?) flouncing around her father. He was a joke. An effete joke. He
was the uptown girl that Billy Joel sang about.
The
writers are now openly mocking Adam. And, excuse me, they are the ones
that made the character so awful. They're the ones who refused to
allow him to grow up. So these snide little jokes aren't funny. I've
tried to draw a clear line between the actor playing Adam and the
character itself.
This
was no longer keeping Adam a boy, this was mocking any hope/pretense
that he was masculine. I really felt the writers were trying to push
the problem off on the actor. (I think the actor should have fought for
his character to grow up. I do not think the actor has been the
problem.)
The other
storyline was Erica. She's concerned about her future. Now that she's a
mom, how is she going to help provide for her child and raise her? She
saw Diane Keaton's BABY BOOM and decided she could do both, like Diane,
if she started a baby food company. She wanted to go into the baby
food business with her mother. Beverly was so happy.
But also alarmed.
Why?
That home made baby food she makes for her new grandbaby?
It's Gerbers with the label pulled off.
The hijinx ensued and Beverly finally came clean. If that had been the whole episode, it would have been an A+.
But
this thing of when even Adam's girlfriend is embarrassed by him,
embarrassed to have him around her dad, warning him not to bring his
"dolls" (he was talking about a dolly tracking shot -- that's a film
camera reference), etc? Just too much.
The writers came off like school bullies picking on Adam.
Thursday, April 20, 2023. The US Congress hears about Iraq (kind of),
while prisons are overcrowded in Iraq the Iraqi government shuts down . .
. displacement camps, Crooked Clarence and his sugar daddy Harlan Crow
have a special day of celebration, and much more.
Iraq
was actually discussed in the US Senate yesterday. It was a hearing of
the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand chairs the Subcommittee,
Senator Joni Ernst is the Ranking Member. Dr Sean Kirkpatrick was the
witness appearing before the Subcommittee. Kirkpatrick is the Director
of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office. The what?
From Kirkpatrick's opening statement:
We are grateful for sustained congressional engagement on this issue, which paved
the way for DoD’s establishment of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office in
July of last year. Though AARO is still a young office, the spotlight on UAP [Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena] in
recent months underscores the importance of its work and the need for UAP to be
taken seriously as a matter of national security. All leadership that I’ve had the
pleasure of working with, whether DoD, IC, DOE, Civil, Scientific or Industrial,
view Congress as a critical partner in this endeavor.
AARO has accomplished much in the 9 months since it was established. The
AARO team of more than three dozen experts is organized around four functional
areas: operations, scientific research, integrated analysis, and strategic
communications. In the nine months since AARO’s establishment, we have taken
important steps to improve UAP data collection, standardize the Department’s
UAP internal reporting requirements, and implement a framework for rigorous
scientific and intelligence analysis, resolving cases in a systematic and prioritized
manner. Meanwhile, consistent with legislative direction, AARO is also carefully
reviewing and researching the U.S. Government’s UAP-related historical record.
AARO is leading a focused effort to better characterize, understand, and attribute
UAP, with priority given to UAP reports by DoD and IC personnel in or near areas
of national security importance. DoD fully appreciates the eagerness from many
quarters, including here in Congress and in the American public, to quickly resolve
every UAP encountered across the globe, from the distant past through today.
It is important to note, however, that AARO is the culmination of decades of DoD,
Intelligence Community, and congressionally-directed efforts to successfully
resolve UAP encountered first and foremost by U.S. military personnel,
specifically Navy and Air Force pilots.
The law establishing AARO is ambitious, and it will take time to realize the full
mission. We cannot answer decades of questions about UAP all at once, but we
must begin somewhere.
Here's a segment of the open section of the hearing.
In other news, AP notes,
"The United Nations on Wednesday expressed concern over Iraqi
authorities’ rapid closure this week of a displaced persons camp housing
more than 300 families allegedly linked to the militant Islamic State
group." How rapid? Those in the camp were told on Monday that they'd
be evicted in two days. The United Nations issued the following
statement:
Baghdad,
19 April 2023 – The Office of the Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq
calls on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safety and well-being of
the 342 families who had to depart from the Jeddah 5 IDP camp in Ninewa
Governorate following its closure.
The
humanitarian community is concerned by the impact of the closure of the
camp on 18 April by the Government of Iraq, without adequate
notification and preparation for the IDPs and the receiving communities.
The United Nations in Iraq will continue to work in close coordination
with the Iraqi authorities, to ensure the sustainable reintegration
of those 1,566 former camp residents, with almost two thirds are
children.[i]
The United Nations reiterates its
longstanding principles that call for the voluntary, informed, safe and
dignified return of all IDPs. The UN also urges the relevant authorities
to ensure IDPs are able to return to their homes or places of habitual
residence, integrate locally or relocate voluntarily to another part of
the country in a safe and dignified manner.
The UN stands ready to provide further
assistance to those former camp residents and is working with the
Government of Iraq to find durable solutions for all the remaining IDPs
in and out of camps.
While they can shut down camps that people need to survive, the Iraqi government is fine with overcrowding . . . in prisons. IRAQI NEWS reports:
The Iraqi Ministry of Justice announced on Saturday that the overcrowding rate in government prisons reached 300 percent.
The spokesperson of the Iraqi Ministry of Justice, Kamel Amin, said
that the number of prisoners reached 60,000, while the capacity of
prisons does not exceed 25.000, Al-Rafidain TV reported.
Amin also indicated that it is difficult to control this big number of prisoners.
Iraqi War Crimes Documentation Center (IWDC) revealed that Iraqi
authorities detained tens of thousands of people in inhumane conditions,
and placed them in overcrowded and unsanitary cells for several years,
out of revenge and sectarian motives, according to a report issued by
the center.
Moving over to the topic of
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his sugar daddy Harlan Crow,
today is a very special day for the pair, April 20th. Do they celebrate
the birth of Hitler with a dry hump?
Roslynn
R. Mauskopf, the director of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, said in a letter to a pair of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday
that she had passed along their concerns and a recent report by
ProPublica to the committee.
"I
have forwarded your letter to the Judicial Conference Committee on
Financial Disclosure, which is responsible for implementing the
disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act and addressing
allegations of errors or omissions in the filing of financial disclosure
reports," she wrote in the letter, obtained by NBC News.
Controversy has exploded over Justice Clarence Thomas’ financial entanglements with Harlan Crow,
a billionaire and major GOP donor, including his private plane and
yacht travel and real estate transactions. Having administered the
Ethics in Government Act in the White House as ethics counsels for
presidents of both parties, we believe that Thomas was required to report his financial dealings with Crow. He failed to do so. That is why we have joined Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in asking the U.S. Department of Justice and the chief justice of the Supreme Court to open investigations into whether, as it appears, Thomas violated the law.
First we learned that Thomas did not disclose years of gifts
of luxury travel that he received from Crow in his annual financial
disclosure reports—despite apparently being required to do so by the
act. It requires judges and justices to file an annual financial
disclosure report. The law provides that disclosures must include the “identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts,” and the Judiciary Conference Filing Instructions say
that all gifts over $415 must be disclosed. Similar information is
required for gifts of travel reimbursement under the act.
Then it emerged that Thomas failed to
make yet another required disclosure—the $133,363 sale by the justice
and his family to Crow of three properties in Savannah, Georgia. The law
requires justices to report “a brief description, the date, and
category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange which exceeds $1,000
… in real property.” This required Thomas to disclose the transaction
in his report. He did not.
The law’s exemptions to reporting requirements do not apply here. Let’s start with the real estate transaction. A carve-out in
the Ethics in Government Act exempts Thomas from having to report sale
of “property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting
individual or the individual’s spouse.” While Thomas’ mother has lived in one of the properties
sold to Crow, Thomas and his wife did not. Moreover, nobody lived in
the other two properties that Crow bought; they were empty lots, not “a
personal residence.”
As for the travel, the relevant exemptions do not apply either. The so-called “personal hospitality” exemption says “any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported.” The act defines
“personal hospitality” as “hospitality extended for a nonbusiness
purpose by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the
personal residence of that individual or the individual’s family or on
property or facilities owned by that individual or the individual’s
family.”
But
this does not include plane or yacht travel. It never did, and everyone
knows that. In the White House, we told everyone that they had to
report flights paid for by close personal friends.
Our reading of the exemption was recently confirmed on March 14 when the Judicial Conference
clarified the contours of the “personal hospitality” exception in its
filing instructions. These instructions explain the longstanding
statutory language and state: “The personal hospitality gift reporting
exemption applies only to food, lodging, or entertainment” and “the
reporting exemption does not include … gifts other than food, lodging or
entertainment, such as transportation that substitutes for commercial
transportation.”
But that just reinforces what was already clear: As other ethics scholars and practitioners have
also noted, there was never material ambiguity about Crow’s gifts to
Thomas or the justice’s responsibility to report them. Yacht and air
travel are not “food, lodging, or entertainment,” and disclosure has
always been required by the act.
Thomas’ previous 1997 reporting of other private plane travel suggests that he understood this. That earlier travel was reported publicly in 2004, creating criticism. Then he stopped reporting. That pattern calls into question his defense of his failure to report; the notion that he was advised that he didn’t need to disclose the travel strains credulity.
Crooked
Clarence gets exposed at a time when the public's trust in the Supreme
Court is already at a historic low. He's disgraced himself and the
Court. Atlanta's FOX 5 notes US House Rep Hank Johnson's response to Crooked Clarence's scandal:
In response to the reports, Rep. Hank Johnson said that he was
"deeply disappointed and angered" by the allegations that "Justice
Thomas has been using his position as a Supreme Court Justice, to live
like an out of control billionaire baller, on a $263K per year salary,
lining his pockets and traveling in luxury-Elon Musk style, all the
while falsifying his disclosure forms to keep his opulent lifestyle a
secret from the American public – a public that deserves his honest
services."
Johnson called the justice "brazenly corrupted" at a press conference Wednesday.
"To
protect what little is left of public trust and respect for the United
States Supreme Court, Justice Thomas must resign immediately. It's not
enough to amend and try to hide your corruption. It's too late for
that," the Georgia congressman said.
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!
For more on the calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to step
down or be impeached in light of the recent revelations, we’re going to
look at a historical reference, when, “54 Years Ago, a Supreme Court
Justice Was Forced to Quit for Behavior Arguably Less Egregious Than
Thomas’s.” That’s the headline of an op-ed in The New York Times by Adam Cohen, lawyer, journalist, former member of The New York Times editorial board, author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.
Adam, you write that Justice Abe Fortas’s departure from the court in
1969 is both a blueprint for how lawmakers could respond today and a
benchmark of how far we have fallen. Can you lay out this history?
ADAMCOHEN:
Sure. It is really the most on-point parallel we have historically. And
one thing that’s important to note is that what Abe Fortas did is, in
many ways, much less bad than what Clarence Thomas did. The amount of
money was much smaller. He took $20,000. And as you mentioned, and as
Justin mentioned, you know, Clarence Thomas, the amount of island
hopping and free plane rides over a 20-year period is staggering,
probably well into the millions. So the dollar amount was different, but
also Fortas gave the money back, which is something that Clarence
Thomas has not done. So, we have a much smaller scandal in many ways.
And what was striking is the bipartisan response that there was in
1969. Fortas ended up resigning from the court, not because Republicans
were out to get him — and he was a liberal Democrat — but because Walter
Mondale, who was in the Senate, demanded that he resign. One of his
biggest supporters in the Senate, Senator Tydings from Maryland,
demanded that he resign. He was afraid that he would be impeached by a
Democratic Congress. And what’s really striking also is that this is in a
time when there was a Republican president, Nixon. So, Democrats were
doing this even though they knew that they might, quote, “lose the
seat,” a liberal being replaced by a conservative. But these Democrats
were so concerned about the integrity of the court, and they kept
saying, “What matters is that the public have faith in the court.”
We’re not seeing that at all today. Where are Republicans who are
coming out in favor of Thomas stepping down or Thomas doing anything,
really, because of the integrity of the court? We don’t have that kind
of bipartisanship anymore.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could
you also talk, Adam, about how the media have responded to this case?
Fox News has filled the void by locating, quote, “an expert” to declare
that the story about Justice Thomas is politics, plain and simple.
ADAMCOHEN:
That’s exactly right, yes. The media has — right. The conservative
media have defended Clarence Thomas. As you said, they found an expert,
who doesn’t seem like much of an expert, to say that it’s not a big
deal.
But also, you know, just where are the voices of Chief Justice
Roberts, for example? Right? I mean, we saw last year, when there were
— when there were leaks of that abortion ruling a year ago, the chief
justice immediately launched an investigation: “We have to get to the
bottom of this, what’s going on in the court.” Why is he not saying that
now? Why is it a much bigger deal that there were leaks of an abortion
ruling, which conservatives were upset about, compared to Clarence
Thomas apparently ignoring ethics rules for years? Where is the chief
justice in this? We’re not hearing from him at all.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And why has the Supreme Court been able to get by for so long with essentially no ethics requirements?
ADAMCOHEN:
That’s exactly it. It’s the least accountable part of government we
have. There is a judicial code of ethics that’s quite — I wouldn’t say
strong, but it’s a reasonable code. But it doesn’t apply to the Supreme
Court. It applies to lower court judges. Why does it not apply to the
Supreme Court? Why do we not have, as I said, investigations internally?
Even the liberal justices could be talking out now. If they think that
Clarence Thomas is breaking the law, I think they have a duty to say
something. So, there’s really no one holding them accountable.
AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We look now at the growing calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas to step down or be impeached. A second damning ProPublica report
on his relationship with Republican megadonor Harlan Crow has revealed
that in 2014 Thomas and his family sold a house and two vacant lots in
Savannah, Georgia, to Crow for around $130,000 but never disclosed the
sale, which appears to be a violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government
Act. CNNreports
Thomas’s mother lives in the home owned by Crow rent-free, but she’s
reportedly responsible for paying the property taxes and insurance.
On Sunday, The Washington Postreported Thomas has for years claimed rental income from a Nebraska real estate firm that shut down in 2006. It’s also been reported
previously that in 2009 Crow gave half a million dollars to a
conservative lobbying group founded by Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas.
CNN reports Justice Clarence Thomas now intends to amend his financial disclosures in light of ProPublica’s other recent bombshell investigation
detailing unreported luxury trips Harlan Crow lavished on Thomas over
two decades, in apparent violation of a law requiring justices and other
federal officials to disclose most gifts. Thomas frequently vacationed
at Crow’s resort in the Adirondacks of New York, where a painting on the
walls depicts Clarence Thomas sitting with four other men, including
Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. Thomas never
reported any of the free trips as gifts.
In addition to being a major benefactor for Thomas and the GOP, Crow is also an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. He’s got a signed copy of Mein Kampf
— that’s right, signed by Hitler — paintings by Hitler, Nazi
medallions, swastika-embossed linens, and a garden filled with statues
of 20th century dictators.
For more, we’re joined by Justin Elliott once again, reporter for ProPublica, their new follow-up report headlined “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property from Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.”
Justin, welcome back to Democracy Now! I mean, your initial report
has unleashed an avalanche of reporting and investigations and calls
for Clarence Thomas to be impeached or to step down. He says he’s going
to amend his disclosure forms. Can you talk about the latest findings?
JUSTINELLIOTT:
Yeah. You know, for our first story, both Thomas and Harlan Crow put
out statements about the luxury travel, saying, “We’re very close
friends. These were family trips.” They both used the word
“hospitality.”
We subsequently learned, then reported, that there was actually a
direct business deal, a real estate deal, between the two men, so actual
money flowing from Harlan Crow to Clarence Thomas. What we found is
that around a decade ago, Crow bought a house and two vacant lots that
were owned by Clarence Thomas and some of his relatives down in
Savannah, Georgia. You know, as you mentioned, the house that Crow
bought is actually the house where Thomas’s elderly mother was living,
and apparently still lives, which puts Crow in the extremely unusual
position of being the landlord to the mother of a sitting Supreme Court
justice, although it’s actually not clear if “landlord” is the right
term here, because CNN has reported that Crow
is not charging her rent. So, there’s all kinds of exceedingly unusual
financial entanglements between this billionaire political donor and the
Supreme Court justice.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And,
Justin, what about this claim that they’ve been longtime friends? What
were you able to find out about how Thomas and Harlan Crow first met and
how their friendship developed?
JUSTINELLIOTT:
Yeah, you know, so I think they actually are friends, but it turns out
that, at least according to Crow, they met back in the mid-1990s. This
was after Thomas was on the court. They weren’t like college roommates
or something like that. They actually, apparently, met at a conservative
political conference, and Crow gave an interview to The Dallas Morning News
a couple days ago in which he says that they actually first met when
Crow offered Thomas, it turns out, a private jet ride on Crow’s jet from
Washington, D.C., to Dallas, and apparently they hit it off on the jet.
So that’s what we know about how it started.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, from the start, then, Thomas was accepting, in essence, undisclosed gifts from Crow.
JUSTINELLIOTT:
Yeah. I mean, you know, I have personally never been on a private jet,
but I’ve learned a lot about them and, you know, these things. I mean,
Crow’s current jet, it’s a particularly nice private jet. It’s a Global
5000 Bombardier. If you were to charter one of these on the open market,
you’d be paying $15,000 per hour, per flight hour. So, yes, these are
extraordinarily expensive flights. And it’s obviously not exactly a
normal situation to offer somebody you just met a private jet ride. But
again, I mean, Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court justice at the time,
so I think that probably goes a long way to explaining why this
happened.
AMYGOODMAN:
And can you talk about Ginni Thomas, Clarence Thomas’s wife, the
connection here and the financial connections with Harlan Crow — I mean,
the getting more than a half a million dollars, her lobbying group?
JUSTINELLIOTT:
That’s right. So, I think one of the other really intriguing financial
connections here between Crow and the Thomas family is related to Ginni
Thomas. So, it actually came out around a dozen years ago that Ginni
Thomas was running a small tea party group, nonprofit political
organization. And it came out that none other than Harlan Crow was
pretty much the sole funder of that group, that was paying Ginni
Thomas’s salary, which I believe was on the order of $200,000 a year.
So, essentially, through this kind of pass-through organization, Crow’s
money was ending up, you know, in the pocket of the Thomas household.
Following that reporting, around a dozen years ago, there was sort of
another round of — a previous round of questions about this, but — and
we don’t really know what has happened since then, partly, actually,
thanks to the Supreme Court. As you know, the whole regime of disclosure
of political spending and giving to groups has really fallen apart, and
there’s anonymous dark money flowing all over the place, so it makes it
very difficult as a reporter to figure out where money is flowing and
from who. But, you know, we’re still reporting on all this.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And Justice
Thomas has claimed that Crow has no business before the Supreme Court.
But for those who do not know — of our audience who do not know Crow,
who is he, and what would be his interest in being able to have this
friendship with Thomas?
JUSTINELLIOTT:
So, Crow is a real estate billionaire who was born into a very
successful Dallas real estate family. And it is true that Crow has not
had — he’s not been a litigant in a case at the Supreme Court. It turns
out the Supreme Court doesn’t actually take that many cases every year,
so there’s very few people and companies that actually have a case at
the court. But the court regularly takes up matters that affect the real
estate industry, that the real estate trade groups that Harlan Crow
helps fund is involved in some of those cases, filing briefs and that
kind of thing.
But I think the larger issue is that Crow has a whole set of
ideological interests related to the court. He’s a funder of a number of
groups that specifically push conservative legal theories, groups like
the Federalist Society. He’s on the board of a number of think tanks,
like the American Enterprise Institute, that do a range of — work on a
range of issues, but, among them, issues related to the Supreme Court
advancing conservative legal theories. So, it raises the question — and
we don’t really know the answer at this point — of whether Crow and sort
of his other friends, who he’s bringing on some of these trips with
Justice Thomas, are having any influence on the justice. And, you know,
even shifting a Supreme Court justice’s thinking a little bit on an
issue, if that ended up in an opinion, I mean, it could have just
enormous consequences for basically all of us.
The
issues is not going away. There is probably more scandal to come.
Crooked Clarence doesn't care. He doesn't care about the Court and he
doesn't care about the American people. He's in it for him. His greedy
hands are going to grab all he can until he dies or gets removed from
the Court.
