Here s the latest email scandal involving Hillary Clinton:
There may be no immediate end in sight to Hillary Clinton's new email troubles.The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday afternoon that federal agents are getting ready to parse through roughly 650,000 emails from former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop.
Officials are trying to determine how many relate to the Democratic presidential nominee's previous investigation into her private server while serving as Secretary of State, according to The Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter. CBS News reported late Sunday that FBI officials had obtained a warrant for the electronic missives.
Weiner did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment, but the Clinton campaign wasted little time in blasting the new report.
The former Secretary of State and her surrogates have been in damage control mode since news first leaked on Friday, and have launched a coordinated campaign demanding more information from federal officials—who themselves have been vague about what they know.
Brian Fallon, Clinton's press secretary, said in a tweet linking to the WSJ story that the FBI's probe was "shameless and misleading."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced Friday it was looking into newly uncovered emails related to its investigation of Clinton, leading Clinton supporters to criticize the FBI and giving new life to Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign, which had been floundering recently.
The news also took the air out of the U.S. stock market, with the three major U.S. indexes unable to regain previous gains at Friday's close.
Note that bad news for Hillary, is also bad news for the capitalistic Wall Street. And all of this information is available due to another Democrat's alleged sexual immoral and perhaps illegal acts:
Anthony Weiner’s lurid communications from his latest sex scandal prompted the FBI to reopen its probe into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server — a bombshell development that rocked the presidential race Friday.
FBI Director James Comey told members of Congress in a letter that “in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI learned of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent’’ to his probe.
A law-enforcement source told The Post the e-mails came from an electronic device seized from Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, as part of the federal investigation of Weiner’s sext messages to a 15-year-old girl.
Like Watergate, Hillary's Emailgate also involves cover up:
The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.
Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.
The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.
So here is where we go into a Mike Rounds-like EB-5 scandal:
A Department of Homeland Security watchdog report issued Tuesday blasted the agency’s No. 2 official for repeatedly intervening on behalf of well-connected participants in an investor-visa program, including Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.) and Tony Rodham, a brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The inspector general report faults Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for creating “an appearance of favoritism and special access” as a result of highly unusual steps he took while serving as director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversaw the investment-based program known as EB-5.
Mayorkas’s involvement in a McAuliffe-backed effort to win funds for a fledgling electric car company called GreenTech Automotive became an issue of contention when McAuliffe mounted a successful bid for the Virginia governorship in 2013. The inspector general report cites that as one case in which USCIS employees believed political influence was at work.
“Mayorkas intervened in an administrative appeal related to the denial of a regional center’s application to receive EB-5 funding to manufacture electric cars through investments in a company in which Terry McAuliffe was the board chairman,” the IG report said. “The intervention was unprecedented and, because of the political prominence of the individuals involved, was well as USCIS’s traditional deference to its administrative appeals process, staff perceived it as politically motivated.”
The report also draws attention to the role played by Rodham, who ran an EB-5 visa investment known as Gulf Coast Funds Management, which directed funds to GreenTech. Rodham’s sister was secretary of state during much of the time that Gulf Coast and GreenTech were pressing USCIS for approvals to accept investments that could lead to green cards for foreigners willing to front up more than $550,000 in principal and fees.
So clearly Hillary fits right in with the GOP crony capitalist system, and South Dakota Democrats who have rightly been critical of South Dakota's EB-5 scandal should take note of this. They have also been critical of the Rounds' nepotism. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have been made from the same GOP cloth.
While doing some reading yesterday, I ran across the "iron law of oligarchy":
The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties. It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.
Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.
Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy." He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.
Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable. Later Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next legitimate step of modern societies.
The Washington Times applies this to the current presidential race:
There is much hand-wringing these days about the evils of campaign finance, with many Americans — and all liberals — concluding the answer is to impose limits on spending (tantamount to limits on speech) and to bring elections more and more under the control of federal bureaucrats. This of course would simply move the country closer to oligarchy, with those in power controlling who will be allowed to challenge their power.
No, the evil in the system is the system, a marathon of frenzied debates, polls, breathless television commentators, vast advertising budgets, and endless travel — all requiring huge pools of cash in amounts that preclude most people, even highly qualified people, from competing. Into this mess walked Donald Trump, who could simply write a check for his nomination effort and dispense with the fundraising rigamarole. He didn’t have to listen to anybody, and it shows.
Does anybody think Donald Trump will be the last billionaire to seek to leverage himself or herself into the White House in an era when so much of the process comes down to money? Not likely. Thus does the push toward oligarchy proceed.
Which brings us to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They don’t have billions. But they have the Clinton Foundation, a money-gathering machine that does some good works around the world but exists primarily to provide the former president and his ambitious wife with what The Wall Street Journal calls “a shadow super PAC,” designed to serve as a kind of base of political operations. Forget those little urban bosses who once held sway over nominations even in the face of Joe Kennedy’s millions. Now we have a political institution that bypasses those mere citizens in seeking cold cash from foreign nations, many of them unsavory, and global fat cats. The cash is used to fuel the Clintons’ lavish lifestyle, keep them in the national limelight, and succor those paladins-in-waiting who will man their next campaign.
Leave aside the suggestion, which seems to getting more serious, that this was used as a kind of “pay to play” leverage point during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, bringing huge amounts of money into foundation coffers from foreigners with interests before the government and vast stores of cash into the Clintons’ bank account via speaking fees to Bill. Even putting that aside, it represents yet another push toward oligarchy — powerful people cadging a corner on the political market by entrenching their power and raising the barriers to entry for those who might challenge them. If that wasn’t enough, the Democratic National Committee was ready to place a thumb upon the scales of political competition during the primaries.
A century ago the German sociologist Robert Michels wrote a book called “Political Parties,” positing what he called the “iron law of oligarchy” — elites always emerge and zealously protect their power, while the masses ultimately depend psychologically upon autocratic leadership. Is that happening today in America? The Trump candidacy and the Clinton Foundation suggest the answer may be yes.
And the Clinton Foundation is about oligarchy and globalization:
Following the Cold War, the Clinton administration, as part of its evangelism on behalf of “globalization,” defined the foreign policy strategy of the United States as the mission to “enlarge the circle of market democracies.” This curious formulation implied that the rival model was not the authoritarian or totalitarian state, but “non-market democracies.”
Indeed, the Clinton administration applied the Washington Consensus—which then, as in the present Democratic era, favored privatization and liberalization of market regulation for the United States as well as for the inhabitants of what are now called “emerging markets.” Declaring that “the era of big government is over,” Clinton collaborated with the Republican Congress in destroying one New Deal era federal entitlement, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and came close to proposing partial privatization of Social Security. Rejecting the single-payer approach to social insurance of New Deal Democrats from Roosevelt to Truman to Johnson, Clinton proposed a health care reform that, like Obama’s later plan, was so deferential to the private sector that it was strangled by its own contortions. And Vice-President Al Gore was identified with the fad of “reinventing government,” which for the most part meant the privatization and outsourcing of government functions—a trend that culminated under George W. Bush with the costly and often lawless privatization and outsourcing of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, from the Seventies to the present, a sort of New Deal in reverse took place, with the blessing of Democrats like Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Deregulation, combined with deliberately lax oversight, reduced the effectiveness of government in the realm of finance, even as it liberated the financial industry to revive practices known only from the history books during the middle of the twentieth century.What is a non-market democracy? For that matter, what is a market democracy? At the height of the New Deal, during the Thirties and the Forties, it was fairly standard practice to refer to the United States and similar advanced industrial nations as “mixed economies,” combining to varying degrees socialism. competitive capitalism, and state capitalism or utility capitalism. Even though the United States never nationalized major industries or banks, as Western European democracies did at times, it combined capitalism with socialism, via social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. To define the United States not only as a democracy but as a “market democracy,” as the Clinton administration did, was to imply that America’s home-grown version of social democracy was as illegitimate in the New World as the brand of social democracy incubated in Europe.
So the Democratic members have been fooled by their leadership into thinking that they care about the little person and have them thinking that the solution is voting for Democrats. That is how the iron law of oligarchy works. And my attempts to help Cory Heidelberger understand that has feel on death ears.
And here is how we can understand how the SDGOP fooled the South Dakota Democrats, including Cory Heidelberger, into supporting their tax and spend policy on paying teachers more money during the last legislative session:
And as we gaze out further on the Washington Consensus that drives the conceptualization of domestic policy, we find a still more insidious adaptation of financial thought in the notion of “human capital.” Just as “market democracy” replaced “democratic republic” as our dominant national self-image, so has the formation of “human capital” replaced “education” as one of our chief prescriptive social aims. Since the eighteenth century, most Americans had viewed the purpose of education as political—to inculcate the critical thinking and the knowledge necessary for citizens to play their parts in preserving a democratic republic from the machinations of demagogues and tyrants. But in the late twentieth century, the language of the corporate boardroom and the consulting firm replaced the language of Lockean republicanism. The individual was a firm, and the child was a start-up. Teachers were venture capitalists tasked with the mission of how best to invest “human capital” in a classroom full of fledgling enterprises competing with billions of other human firms in the new, borderless global marketplace.
Never mind that in reality, four-fifths of the U.S. workforce toils in the domestic service sector, engaged in activities that can only be performed in the United States and are immune to foreign competition. Never mind that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most of the jobs to be created within our borders require only a high school education plus brief on-the-job training.
So this solution may make big government liberals happy:
Today, as in previous eras, a too-feeble government faces an economic oligarchy that can threaten to shut the whole system down if it does not get its way. What else does “too big to fail” mean? The Obama administration has argued that the federal government lacked the manpower and resources to supervise the bankruptcy of major Wall Street funds and other financial institutions.
If the problem is a lack of government capacity and not merely political will, then the solution should be obvious: Create that capacity. The crash of 2008 provided an opportunity to right-size America’s financial regulatory regime, while downsizing and trimming an out-of-control financial industry.
Unfortunately, the capture of the Obama administration and both parties by Wall Street already may have ensured that the political system has missed that opportunity. It is increasingly likely that there will be insufficient reform, followed in time by another debacle—and, perhaps, another opportunity for reform. If the next opportunity is not to be missed as well, then reforms that go to the root of the problem—such as a new Glass-Steagall-style division of retail banking from investment banking and speculation, along with the replacement of revolving doors with firewalls between the financial industry and its regulators—must be at the center of the debate and not on the sidelines.
I argue that we would not need Glass-Steagall if we done away with the Federal Reserve. But the last president who tried that was assassinated.
But the liberal's multi-cultural special interests will not like this component of the solution:
But reform will fail unless it is accompanied by the liberation of thought and language themselves from the semantic hegemony of market fundamentalism. We must insist that we live in a country, not an economy; that while our economic system is and should be predominantly capitalist our society is liberal and our form of government is democratic; and that maintaining a republican community depends on the health of a broad and independent middle class, not on the wealth of a tiny investor elite. Most of all, we must think as well as act as though we belonged to the nemesis of an oligarchy: a citizenry.
Cory Heidelberger's insistence that we welcome cheap labor from foreign countries only plays into the hands of the global oligarchy, and not into the political philosophy of a democratic republic run by the citizens. Those American citizens have been fooled into supporting Trump. There is no way Trump will fair any better than JFK into standing up to the oligarchy. And supporting Hillary Clinton for president also plays into the hands of the global oligarchy. Both political parties are undermining the will of American citizens and are instead working to destroy America's democratic republic in favor of a global oligarchy. The democratic process of the upcoming election is illegitimate. The oligarchy will win no matter which party wins. And by making that point got me banned at the so-called Dakota Free Press in July. One has to ask, is Cory Heidelberger a complete fool, or is he striving for a leadership position in the oligarchy?