While adding alligators.
Ed Rendell is an insult to all intelligence.
We really do have to wonder WTF goes on in Pennsylvania.
4 Likes
well, the first thing I would do was insist that Trump prove that everyone who installed the greens was in this country legally. I mean, if there was $17K worth of damage, then Trump should be able to prove it.
And if he can’t, then he should be cited for filing a false police report.
3 Likes
"Who wants to know?"
5 Likes
“Russ” is short for “Russian.”
2 Likes
Which won’t matter a damn because of the politicized DoJ.
1 Like
When a person or entity is described by the press as “America’s” something or other, you can be sure that (a) their PR office are the only ones who call them that, and (b) a large proportion of the citizenry actively loathe them. For example, Giuliani, Arpaio, the Dallas Cowboys.
6 Likes
It’s not breaking the law if you’ve stacked the courts.
1 Like
No, it’s subverting the law and/or the Constitution.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t fall under the DoJ umbrella at this point anyway…it would be a FEC issue, which is even more toothless than normal at this point, due to resignations making it impossible to fill a quorum.
This only hit the radar at all, because some guy who lost half a million on a failed movie project is hot in pursuit of the guy who took the money from him…ie, a potential civil action. There is nothing in this article that rises to the level of criminal activity.
Which is a bit of a problem in itself.
4 Likes
In concept, yes. A negative interest rate would mean that the Fed is charging member banks a fee for depositing their excess reserves at the Central Bank., as opposed to paying them the normally positive Federal interest rate. Something like that would occur if 1) the Fed felt there was too much money being held back by banks that way AND 2) there wasn’t enough lending happening in the credit markets.
It would be a monetary policy/credit policy type move, and an extremely short term + desperation move by a central bank.
2 Likes
That part doesn’t make much sense. Its a super PAC, it will spend the money in any number of ways, including putting up TV and digital ads. But the way super PACs work is the money is aggregated on purpose…not each donation earmarked. So I am not sure who you think you are going to ask (or even what the question would be), or what they would have to deny?
As far as who it is from…that part still seems murky, but it does seem to still be related to a Giuliani associate trying to do business in the Ukraine. That might raise some eyebrows, but the owner of the shell company making the donation (or supposed to have made the donation, but actually didn’t) is American, so nothing the FEC could charge anyway. As it turns out, they money is from a private trust, which isn’t disclosing ownership…so still nothing the FEC could charge.
What the article does underscore is how easily a foreign power can insert money into a super PAC with even less subterfuge than happened in this case. And again, this would never have caught anyone’s attention (newly founded shell company of guy trying to drum up business in the Ukraine/Eastern Europe/Russia), if the guy in question wasn’t also being pursued by a 3rd party who feels he got swindled on a movie deal that fell through.
4 Likes
Well if you are going to do something illegal do it with a lawyer. Then you can claim lawyer client privilage.
1 Like
Ok, maybe I’m dense, but wouldn’t making lenders pay borrowers interest on what they lend make them even more hesitant to lend?
That was going to be my question. If this is a legitimate way to shield identities in mega donor world, then I would guess we will be seeing a lot more of it in the future.
As @rascal_crone said so succinctly
4 Likes
only full public funding of campaigns will end this bullshit
1 Like
I recall after the Citizens United decision, John Roberts said very clearly that ensuring that where political donations come from, and further legislation on making sure everyone knows where it comes from, is something that the decision does not influence, and which SCOTUS would support.
The big push for bipartisan legislation to counter Citizens United could gain a lot of traction by first pushing for really clear sunshine laws on where the money comes from. No shell games allowed, for example.
5 Likes
And cash?
And Republicans would go along with this “bipartisan” effort after all the work they did stuffing the courts to tee-up Citizen United in the first place why?
1 Like
yes
2 Likes