#AskPreet How will the WH mob avoid prosecution for witness tampering? By Spocko
On former US Attorney Preet Bharara’s podcast, Stay Tuned with Preet, he and Anne Milgram, former New Jersey Attorney General, discussed quid pro cases and referred to politicians they successfully prosecuted. It was very interesting. Now I want to hear about cases where they busted politicians and how they did it.
Of course the “experts” on Fox & Friends say there was no quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine. Maybe it was something else…
Every seafood restaurant in DC should have a special this week called Squid Pro Quo.
But seriously, Preet, for your next podcast I want to hear about witness tampering cases. What evidence is needed to successfully prosecute them?
When you lost a case with a witness tampering charge, why did you lose? Were their lawyers too clever for you? Did the perpetrators use vague code phrases that could be re-defined as innocent comments? Did they avoid writing things down, so you had no hard evidence? Did they hide or destroy any electronic records of them talking about the case?
How did people avoid getting caught for witness tampering?
I ask because right now I see the White House is ramping up the attacks on witnesses.
“Top White House aides plan to present President Trump with a wide ranging response strategy to the growing threat of impeachment in the coming days”. NBC News
Trump attack quote.
….In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the “Whistleblower.” Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!
The lawyers for the whistleblower are concerned about his safety.
(PDF link to letter to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
The purpose of this letter is to formally notify you of serious concerns we have regarding our client’s personal safety. We appreciate your office’s support thus far to activate appropriate resources to ensure their safety.
The events of the past week have heightened our concerns that our client’s identity will be disclosed publicly and that, as a result, our client will be put in harm’s way. On September 26, 2019, the President of the United States said the following:
I want to know who’s the person that gave the Whistleblower, who’s the person that gave the Whistleblower the information, because that’s close to a spy. You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now.
The fact that the President’s statement was directed to “the person that gave the Whistleblower the information” does nothing to assuage our concerns for our client’s safety. Moreover, certain individuals have issued a $50,000 “bounty” for “any information” relating to our client’s identity. Unfortunately, we expect this situation to worsen, and to become even more dangerous for our client and any other whistleblowers, as Congress seeks to investigate this matter.
Trump will use the same methods to intimidate witnesses as before. How have these tactics been successfully busted before by prosecutors?
Barbara McQuade has talked about how hard it is to prosecute witness tampering because the state needs to prove intent.
Are there ways that prosecution lawyers were able prove intent? How did defense lawyers avoid criminal prosecution? If we know the tricks they will use, can we prepare to catch them in the act?
For example, did defendants use “cut outs” or third parties to do the dirty work for them, so the act of intimidation couldn’t be traced back to the defendant?
(I’m reminded of Stormy Daniels’ story: “A guy walked up on me and said to me: ‘Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,'” Clifford said. “Then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl — it’d be a shame if something happened to her mom.’ And then he was gone.” –Stormy Daniels, 60 Minutes on March 25, 2018
.
BTW, she was threatened by man who looked a lot like the son of Matthew Calamari, chief operating officer at the Trump Organization, first joined the company as a bodyguard in 1981. (My squid pro quo joke.. )
Good news on the Stormy front! She just won $450,000 from the city of Columbus Ohio. (Police arrested Daniels on July 11, 2018, at the Sirens Gentlemen’s Club on misdemeanor charges of inappropriately touching customers.)
We know how Trump fights. He learned from Roy Cohen. Author Selwyn Raab, who wrote about the Mafia and John Gotti, said in an interview in Slate, by Rebecca Onion.
“It’s important to remember that Trump learned his ABCs for success from Roy Cohn, who was mixed up in the Mafia, defended them, and mentored Trump exactly how to succeed in life. “Always be aggressive, take no prisoners …
”Roy Cohn defended major mob bosses two ways: He tried to bribe the judges, and he would undercut any witness against them. They demolished the witnesses. And Gotti’s lawyers did that until his final trial. You didn’t accept the word of any opponent, you demolish them.”
But what I want from you Preet and Anne are stories from our CURRENT justice system. What have our US Attorneys learned about how witness tampering works in our current system? What have the mob lawyers learned? What does it mean when the judge that might try a case, owes his appointment to the person on trial? How do the rules change when a mob boss can use millions of followers on Twitter to undercut or threaten a witness? What is the punishment for an entire media operation that will demolish a witnesses?
Bottom line. The WH will use mob tactics against the whistleblower and anyone who helped him. It’s what they do. A lot of people I’ve talked to (okay, at least 5 ) think Democrats won’t be able to pin a witness tampering charge on Trump. So I’m asking you to give us recent examples of cases where law enforcement WAS ready for threats, caught the people making them & successfully prosecuted them.
I want to give people both hope and a model to follow.
Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer Wants to Put Constituent in Jail For Posting A Note
By Spocko
Today’s right wing politicians have adopted Trump’s method of intimidation and attack. They use them on the press and critics. Even critics who are their constituents. First, it is important to acknowledge politicians on the right aren’t satisfied with silencing their critics, they keep attacking. They want to put them in jail. From Seeing Red, a website which self identifies as “Nebraska politics from the left.”
On Monday, September 23, Lincoln resident Patricia Wonch Hill is scheduled to go to court. Her “crime”? She allegedly taped a note onto the office door of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer in October of last year. The note was not threatening, and the tape was not some kind of unusual industrial glass-destroying tape. It was, according to the police report, a paper that read “Deb ♥s Rapists” affixed to the glass door with a piece of packing tape and two stickers. The staffer who called the police upon discovering the note claimed it had caused $1 worth of damage, though how a piece of tape could cause $1 worth of damage to a glass door was not specified. Presumably $1 is the labor value the staffer placed on the time it took her to peel the note off.
The message “Deb ♥s Rapists” appeared on the door shortly after Senator Fischer voted to confirm alleged drunken sexual assaulter and habitual dick-in-facer Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. If Hill is the one who taped the note on the door, this clearly political message was a communication from a constituent to the office of a seated elected representative on a matter of public interest.
It is shocking enough that a U.S. Senator is so willing to violate a constituent’s First Amendment rights, but it’s even more shocking that the city prosecutor is doing her bidding.
Patricia Wonch Hill holds a message for Sen. Deb Fischer as Fischer met with constituents during a listening session in Lincoln in 2017. Wonch Hill has been ticketed for vandalizing Fischer’s office and campaign signs for Rep. Jeff Fortenberry. Journal Star file photo and caption.
Why do they do this? I wrote several thousand words explaining the authoritarian mindset, but I recommend The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer if you are interested in the theory. But what I always want to know is, “How do we defeat them when they are in power?”
The Seeing Red article titled U.S. Senator Deb Fischer Wants to Put You in Jail if You Leave Her a Note, goes into detail how the city ordinance was used to go after a critic. People can be “fined up to $500 and be imprisoned for up to six months for allegedly taping a non-threatening note about politics on her office door”
I’ve been following this story for months because it also includes Senator Jeff “Googly Eyes” Fortenberry. After the trial tomorrow I’ll talk about his attacks on critics.
What is frustrating is watching the mainstream media in Nebraska cover the GOP politicians attacking their critics in this fashion. They are locked into the “he said, she said,” format, where the person in power portrays themselves as the victim. This story shows how Republicans in government have been taking their cues from Donald Trump. Fischer could have just let this go, but instead she and Fortenberry doubled down and went on the attack.
Whether Fischer wins or loses this case there should be a follow up investigation to find out how much money and resources were allocated for this. Who was pressured to move forward on this? This could then be compared to cases of actual crimes in the city of Lincoln that were pushed aside for this case.
(Whenever I mention crime lab costs and priorities someone always asks about rape kits in the city in question. Here is a story about Lincoln’s rape kit testing backlog) I don’t know the priorities of the Lincoln police and city attorney, but I would think that using the crime lab to track down the 148 guns stolen out of cars and homes in Lincoln would be a good start. But when a sitting US Senator tells you to pull fingerprints off a non-threatening sticky note on an office door, the police do as they are told. They don’t have a choice, but the city attorney could have decided not to move forward.
We live in an age of bullies. Political bullies. Today’s GOP bullies don’t back down when someone stands up to them, they double down–then go on the attack. Some use the power of their office to carry out the attacks. When the elected officials over react to criticism it shows both critics and supporters how weak they actually are.
Running the military like a business. How much are the Saudis paying?
by Spocko The Sunday morning shows are targeted at the beltway insiders and lobbyists. Especially military lobbyists. Military contractors are their primary sponsors. It would be fun if the hosts asked questions that would make the sponsors happy, like:
“How big is the Saudi protection contract? How long will it last? Which branch will make the most money?”
U.S. anti-missile weapons, such as the Patriot air defense system pictured here, are being deployed to Saudi Arabia in the wake of an attack that’s been blamed on Iran. (Sebastian Apel / U.S. Department of Defense)
We always hear that Trump thinks of things transactionally. So he will think of the Saudi protection contract as a “new business” contract that he got for the Pentagon. He expects the Pentagon will make money off the deal, after all, “They pay cash!”
With the recent deal that let him move money from military programs to The Wall, Trump can now see the military budget as just one big pool of money–that he just added to by signing a long term protection contract with “The Kingdom”
Trump will now expect the generals and the contractors to be grateful to him. He’s a good earner for them. The Wall money, from the military budget, is now rightfully his. After all, he got them the big contract. When he didn’t go after MBS for the murder of Khashoggi, he was protecting a huge revenue stream to the military.
When the Pentagon makes money, Trump expects to get some of that money. (I believe in the mob world they call that “kicking up” or “getting a taste.” All my mob knowledge comes from the Sopranos, so I could be wrong on the lingo.) Trump already got cash with Saudi hotel stays and their purchase of the 45th floor of his building.
What this means is that Fox News Sunday @FoxNewsSunday with Chris Wallace should be asking about the size of the deals and how long they will last, because the Pentagon is now a subcontractor for Trump, who is working for the Saudis. This would make Trump happy. And that is the job of Fox media, making Trump happy.
The other morning show are supposed to keep the military sponsors happy. No anti-war talk! When was the last time you saw a peace activist on the morning shows?
Final thoughts:
I wonder if the Saudis put out an RFP on the protection contract? Wouldn’t that be fascinating to see?
(Did Erik Prince bid on this? Was the US military the low bid?)
I’d love to see it broken down by line items, like those crazy hospital bills in our for profit Healthcare system.
X drones plus support team of 22 people each. 19 million each.
Y satellite time $59,000 an hour 24 hours for 7 days.
Z planes flying over Yemen 59 million each. NOTE: Fill up with gas at an airport close to Trump properties $11 million dollars per quarter.
To help Americans oppose wars, we often talk about the people who might die, the “boots on the ground.” I wonder how much do mercenary outfits charge when one of their people is killed? More or less that the US military?
When US military die working on the Saudi’s oil protection contract, do the generals say to their families, “It was nothing personal, it’s just business.”?
A fundamental flaw that this book struggles to overcome: “What’s the problem with mobster jokes? Mobsters don’t think they’re funny, and everyone else thinks they’re not jokes.”
It’s important to note that it’s not just ONE thing that Trump does. There is not just one method to defeat him. He is cunning and has been trained by mendacious experts like Roy Cohen. He uses multiple legal, illegal and psychological methods to get what he wants and to protect himself in the process. If you want to stop him each method needs to be addressed because he uses them concurrently and/or serially.
We are now at the point where President Trump’s own officials are basically admitting that he has dangled pardons to underlings, as part of an apparent effort to get them to build his border wall in time for reelection.
But they are qualifying this. Or at least they think they are: They are claiming Trump is “joking.”
But how exactly is this a defense? It’s actually an admission — and can we please recall that Trump has repeatedly dangled pardons before, in a manner that had no joking aura around it whatsoever?
The New York Times is now the second news organization to report this pushback, after The Post reported on it Tuesday. A senior administration official told the Times that Trump never seriously offered any pardons: “He winks when he does it.”
These supposed joke-pardon offers have come after he has instructed aides to “aggressively seize private land and disregard environmental rules,” as The Post puts it, adding the crucial detail that Trump has offered pardons when aides object that such directives are illegal.
Trump raged on Twitter that any suggestion he offered pardons is “totally fake.” But his own aides, by allowing he has done this as a “joke,” have partially undermined this claim.
Let’s walk through the ways this isn’t actually a defense. First of all, as I’ve noted, it puts Trump’s underlings in the position of having to decide whether to interpret Trump’s apparent demand that they break the law, and his offer of a pardon, as a real directive and offer.
Bolstering this point, we now have it straight from a senior official that Trump “winks” when he says this. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it calls to mind former Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s arresting description of Trump’s M.O. when it comes to communicating nefarious directives to his consiglieri.
As Cohen testified to Congress, Trump doesn’t “directly” issue such instructions, because “that’s not how he operates.” Instead, Cohen said, Trump would “look me in the eye” and ostensibly state the opposite of what he really intended, a device Cohen came to understand perfectly well. This is unquestionably very plausible on its face.
The part about “It’s a joke!” is a line used by bullies when someone calls them on it. We all know that trick. So what would you do if you were in this situation and you KNEW that the bully would try this either in real time or after the fact?
NOTE: Right wing bullies use these same methods to threaten people. They use them to fight back if they are challenged. Anticipate they will use one or more trick then USE that against them. It’s a jujitsu move
Example, “I was joking!” can be disproved by providing them with context showing it is not which has the added benefit of nullifying another dodge, the “It’s out of context!” complaint. Often times the context makes it worse, not better.
When I think about how I would respond I realize that people have tried to get Trump using these methods and have either failed or have been blocked by his other methods used by his protectors and fixers. We must learn from their experience.
1) Have witnesses who can testify that he asked them to do something illegal. Prepare for:
Their word to be questioned and to be threatened online, their money or freedom to be taken away. Their family threatened with violence. I can point to specific examples of Trump using all these tactics.
If they do testify in front of someone who can do something about it, the findings will be dismissed, downplayed or lied about. Sometimes, as we saw in a deposition, Trump finally is busted and throws money at the problem to make it go away like Trump University.
2) Have it recorded (video is best, but audio in a pinch because tone of voice and facial expressions can be used to show he wasn’t joking.)
Prepare for:
The video to be blocked. (The Apprentice tapes) People to be threatened by massive legal fines if they release them. If the video gets out, the Trump team dismisses what is said as, “Out of context. That is not what he meant. It was a joke! It’s not a big deal. It’s locker room talk! Why didn’t they object at the time? They knew it was a joke. They played along. They are out to get me because I’m successful and they are not. I’m the victim here. “
I cannot prove Trump is doing something similar when he dangles a pardon with a “wink.” But would it be unreasonable for officials (or indeed the rest of us) to at least wonder whether he might be? And isn’t putting those officials in that position itself a flagrant abuse of power?
Second, administration officials who are in a position to shed light on Trump’s habit of dangling pardons — jokingly or not — are clammed up tight.
Recall that the Times reported in April that Trump privately urged Kevin McAleenan, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, to close the border to migrants entirely — then said he’d pardon McAleenan if he encountered legal trouble. This, too, was explained away as potentially being a joke, but it “alarmed” officials, though DHS denied it.
Subsequently, House Judiciary Committee Democrats requested that McAleenan provide a list of all employees present at the meeting at which that reportedly happened, with an eye toward fleshing out the truth about the episode.
Yet now a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee tells me that on this issue, they have received “no response and no documents.” This is newly significant in light of the latest reports that Trump has again dangled pardons.
How do you deal with delay tactics? Anticipate that they will happen, use the next time he uses them to bring previous ones back to light.
Trump has done this repeatedly Third, we know Trump is capable of dangling pardons in a deadly serious manner — indeed, with corrupt intent — because he’s done it before. The special counsel’s report concluded Trump’s public statements about former campaign chair Paul Manafort “suggested that a pardon was a more likely possibility if Manafort continued not to cooperate” with the government.
Crucially, the special counsel also concluded that these statements were “intended” to induce Manafort not to cooperate. That’s improper intent.
Thus, Trump is perfectly capable of nakedly abusing the pardon power. And this is no small thing: as Benjamin Wittes put it, this was a “grotesque abuse of power for impeachment purposes,” and indeed “one of the most singular abuses of the entire Trump presidency.”
We know that in the legal system intent is often hard to prove. The good news is that Trump will often come out and confirm his improper intent. Why? Because he’s stupid? Yes, but he also believes that he can get away with it because he has done so multiple times in the past.
The unabashed, openly contemptuous nature of Trump’s abuse of the pardon power is key here. He cheerfully flaunted it; he delighted in advertising his willingness to use it. For Trump to dangle pardons as a “joke” inevitably shades into this kind of flaunting, albeit of a private sort: I’m only joking, but as I direct you to skirt laws and rules, maybe you should keep in mind that I really do have this power.
Trump’s underlying directivesWhich leads to what most of us aren’t even talking about here: the very orders Trump is issuing that might ultimately require a pardon — just kidding, not really! — which he obviously isn’t joking about.
It’s still vague what precisely he has ordered. But here’s what we do know: that Trump wants the project sped up primarily so he can boast about more wall completion as part of his reelection campaign.
This is the other part of dealing with right wing bullies. They will use the various systems: legal, linguistic, media and psychological to parse their words and actions. They will attempt to get others to give them the benefit of the doubt.
So, prepare for this use of the systems. I’m not a chess player, I’m a time traveler. I can go back and forth in time and see how they use the same methods over and over and what worked to defeat them. One thing that you can NOT do is assume that they are stupid. They often anticipate your move you aren’t the only one who figured this out.
They will figure out that you will use A, B, and C and have counter strategies. Prepare for their responses to your counter strategies. Sometimes their responses are overreactions which makes them vulnerable. One of the things we know is that when they are thwarted, they often want to “take the gloves off” and go right to violence. They aren’t joking.
I’ll remind people that both people Sargent quotes here, Cohen and Manafort are in jail. Trump protects himself first. We all want the catharsis of Trump getting busted. But let’s appreciate the work done to get those two convicted.
Michael “I’d take a bullet for him”
Cohen knew what to record and why. What he didn’t anticipate was Trump’s use of smarter lawyers, like Bill Barr, to protect Trump.
I/we need to learn from that experience.
Impeachment, like a criminal case needs more than just legal evidence. It needs to be built with an understanding of your opponent. Learn their tricks and the tricks of their supporters.
Who is supporting Trump NOW? They should be reminded they could be next to Cohen and Manafort in jail, especially if they break the law to help Trump to get what he wants.
Prepare, catch, prosecute, convict. Sentence. Repeat until done.
3 Potential Mass Shootings were foiled, let’s stop more
By Spocko
I’m always going on about how preventing gun deaths doesn’t make the news. But this time it did! Maybe because CNN put three of them together, and in the news business, three’s a trend!
James Patrick Reardon, Ohio. Tristan Scott Wix, Florida. Brandon Wagshol, Connecticut
(CNN) Authorities this weekend announced they had foiled three potential mass shootings after arresting three men in different states who expressed interest in or threatened to carry them out.
All three cases were brought to authorities’ attention thanks to tips from the public.
This is a good thing. Let’s stop more shootings. In the story we learn about how members of the public went to the police with what the men allegedly said on social media and in text messages. In the story we learn more details about their cache of weapons and ammo. Each was arrested based on slightly different charges.
Read the article. LINK You will see that there are some questions left unanswered, but what is answered is that all of them had the guns and ammo to carry out a threat.
Knowing the media and the gun lobby as I do, instead of focusing on the rock solid underlying connection between these three–THE GUNS–the focus will shift to the novel.
“What exactly was said? Is this a free speech issue? What if they were “just blowing off steam? What role did social media play? Are they involved with white supremacists? Anti-semites ? Are they Trump supporters? Is this a ‘pre-crime’?”
If you see any follow up on this story it will be about the government arresting people on the basis of their speech. “What’s to stop someone from taking a joke comment on Facebook seriously and taking away my gun? This is a slippery slope!” (What’s the opposite of a slippery slope? Grippy floor?)
If these guys were in another country and making these same threats the police response would be different. They could have the exact same motive and opportunity, but they likely wouldn’t have the means. It’s about the guns!
All three suspects had guns. Lots of them. The gun lobby wants us to see military weapons and high capacity magazines as normal.
The President wants to talk about a mental health problem and deny any racist, white supremacy connections found.
The lawyers for these men will want their case to turn on what they didn’t do vs what they said in their threats. “They didn’t shoot anyone! It was a joke! They didn’t mean to scare anyone!” There will be discussions about threats, true threats and the meaning of each word.
The NRA doesn’t really care about protecting these men’s 1st Amendment rights, but they will get others to argue about protecting them on their behalf so they don’t have to acknowledge that what makes the difference when these men make a threat are the guns they have.
We could be reading about their victims today. The good news is we are reading about their arrests.
Powerful men DO get convicted of sex crimes. Let’s learn from those cases.
By Spocko
We live in a world where powerful men have sexually trafficked women and raped children repeatedly, over years. They employ fixers who use multiple methods to stop victims from obtaining justice.
What can you do? First. Stop thinking the rich and powerful will always win.
It’s easy to be cynical when we see the powerful at the top get away with their crimes. But they don’t always.
In our system the powerful men’s fixers exploit victim’s lack of equivalent legal, financial and PR resources to prevent justice and to silence the victims. They use the general public’s cynicism, impatience and learned helplessness as a tool. But when you give up hope of men ever coming to justice, you let the child rapists and their protectors win. But they don’t always win.
Jerry Sandusky
I’ve written about the Epstein case twice. July 10th Epstein And Trump: The Cover Up And The Child Rape and July 26th, Epstein Found Injured in Jail. Suicide Attempt? Or Attempted “Suicide? As a time traveler I knew what was going to happen. Time travel is easy, what’s hard is knowing what has to change to get to a different outcome. It turns out that there are many things that need to change because there are multiple people and systems that are working to keep things the same. Each must be addressed.
I’m going to tell you what The Fixers, the people protecting the powerful, will be doing next. By anticipating what each type of Fixer will do, you can set traps and catch them in the act.
One type of Fixer is already at work on you now thought the media. They are telling you that there aren’t enough smart people with integrity who can stop them from getting away with human trafficking and child rape. Don’t believe them.
The 4 Fixers: Thug, Legal, PR and Media
1) Thug fixers intimidate witnesses, their families and prosecutors. The also destroy evidence. Actions:
BLACKMAIL or pay off internal people.
BREAK INTO evidence lockers.
BLOW UP evidence. Photo from Epstein’s 2018 island “accidental” explosion)
2018 “accident” on Epstein’s island
This is 2019, so expect high tech methods like corrupting copies, tampering with one video to contaminate the credibility of all the other videos. They are going to do this! Use the temptation as a honey pot. There will be more than one group trying to do this.
They will try to reach both victims and their families. Be prepared. Monitor, trace, identify, arrest, prosecute, convict and jail.
2) Legal fixers (Team Dershowitz) use payoffs and non-disclosure agreements to silence witnesses. Actions: Multiple legal maneuvers to delay the case and suppress evidence too.
The trickiest of the fixers, they are the most dangerous, to other fixers.
One way to bust them is to pit them against each other. This is happening right now. One Legal Fixer is working to keep victims quiet about THEIR specific client. They have a victim give out the names of other accused who are already dead, unprotected by power or lack leverage. Notice this Daily Beast story from one victim, Virginia Roberts. She names the accused who are the dead, already been accused and already have a defense strategy and vaguely name others.
From Roberts.
“There was, you know, another foreign president, I can’t remember his name. He was Spanish. There’s a whole bunch of them that I just—it’s hard for me to remember all of them. you know, I was told to do something by these people constantly, told to—my whole life revolved around just pleasing these men and keeping Ghislaine and Jeffrey happy. Their whole entire lives revolved around sex.”
Say you are the lawyer for the foreign president, “If you keep my client out of the story there is $12 million Euros in it for you and your family.” The victim’s lawyers (and their families) might suggest they take the pay out and sign an NDA.
Some people will say, ‘Can you blame them? They won’t ever get a conviction, take the money.” Others victims’ lawyers and their families will say, “Keep fighting! Don’t take the pay out!”
My friends who have been in situations like this say, ‘Listen to the victims.”
People make decisions for lots of reasons, respect them. We can’t force our idea of what is right and what is justice on them. HOWEVER, in this case, since it is such a big case, there are victims who WANT to keep pushing. We can support them.
There are women and their families who have already gone through the intimidation, pay offs and failure of the justice system. They are continuing to fight when others can’t. For example these women in the Miami Herald video
If you don’t want this case to drop, help these women.
What to expect from PR and Media Fixers
3) PR Fixers redirect the narrative away from their client perpetrators onto others.
Today, it was “The Clintons” This is the “both sides do it” the media are trained to respond to. They use guilt by association.
4) PR Fixers push a sense of inevitable failure. You will hear this from pundits with technical, political or legal reasons “Sadly, they got away with it because…” When people believe no change is possible because the most powerful people in the world haven’t faced justice yet it provides cover for all the people who CAN be caught and punished. We also need to remember those who have been caught and punished.
Booking photo of Dennis Hastert
5) PR Fixers ‘rehabilitate’ the guilty. I don’t want to go into detail with this method, because it is especially sad. There was a whole multi-million dollar campaign to get Epstein back into polite society.
How The Media Helps Cover Up For The Powerful
Another somewhat unwilling fixer is the main stream media. PR and legal fixers use the rules of journalism to keep stories about their clients quiet. They also use the rights of the victims to protect the predators. This is especially nasty because they use journalist’s good faith protection of the accused to protect the guilty.
Which reminds me of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s case (dubbed the D.C. Madam)
She was convicted on April 15, 2008 of racketeering, using the mail for illegal purposes, and money laundering. Slightly over two weeks later, facing a prison sentence of five or six years, she was found hanged. Autopsy results and the final police investigative report concluded that her death was a suicide.
“In combination with Palfrey’s statement that she had 10,000 to 15,000 phone numbers of clients, this caused several clients’ lawyers to contact Palfrey to see whether accommodations could be made to keep their identities private. Ultimately, ABC News, after going through what was described as “46 lb” [21 kg] of phone records, decided that none of the potential clients was sufficiently “newsworthy” to bother mentioning.“
From my July 26th story:
“We are told that pedophiles get a “tough time” in prison. We have been conditioned to expect a “suicide” like in the D.C. Madam case. If Epstein is killed and the videos and evidence disappear some people will be relieved, they will have gotten away with it, again. Like in his previous case. We can’t let those people rest easily.”
In the Palfrey case it was between consenting adults. I wonder if any of those people are “newsworthy” now? But sex trafficking and raping children is different. Will the media protect child rapists? They might if they think the victims’ privacy is an issue, or fear defamation lawsuits. So again, sometimes the rules of the journalism designed to protect the innocent and can be used to protect the guilty.
Larry Nassar
Most of you humans have empathy. When you use your empathy do you put yourself in the position of the powerful or the victims?
The Fixers for powerful people will be using all their tools, assets and leverage to make this go away for powerful men. They are counting on weaknesses in law enforcement, the justice system, and human frailty to keep their clients out of trouble.
But I know that there are hundreds of people working together to help the women, the survivors. Because the pay for the powerful is better, some humans are embedded in the system of fixers working to protect the powerful. Maybe you are one of them. These humans make choices on actions both big and small. Sometimes they make “mistakes” and slip up. After all, they are only human. We all need to look and listen for these accidental whistleblowers. They might be friends and relatives.
The powerful have insiders in our systems. We have insiders in theirs.
Finally, I’ve used the word victim a lot in this story, I know that survivor is a better term. I’m trying to change my perspective but I realize my internal word choice is part of the things that need to change. In that spirit I’d like to quote a line from one of my favorite stories about some survivors.
Unbreakable!
They alive, dammit!
Females are strong as hell.
Don’t blame the babies. They don’t know monsters are real.
by Spocko
From @flotus Twitter feed. The baby’s parents were shot while protecting their infant at the WalMart in El Paso.
The child is under the care of his aunt and uncle, Trump supporters, who brought the baby back to the hospital to meet the so-called president.
Newt:
My mommy always said there were no monsters – no real ones – but there are, aren’t there?
Ripley:
Yes, there are.
Newt:
Why do they tell little kids that?
Ripley:
Most of the time it’s true.
Engelsina Markizova with Stalin. The photo at first helped her, then her father was accused of being a spy and killed. Later her mother was imprisoned, deported and died at 32 in an accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelsina_Markizova
Nadler demands Kavanaugh’s WH records from 2001-06. Hannity freaks out
by Spocko
On August 6th, Jerry Nadler’s committee wrote The National Archives and Records Administration asking them to produce ALL the White House records from 2001 to 2006 when Kavanaugh served as Staff Secretary and in the White House Counsel’s Office. (Link to letter)
Predictably Sean Hannity freaks out and screams “LET… IT… GO.”
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, called it harassment and a fishing expedition. I’m surprised he didn’t call it a witch hunt, I expect that will be coming from Trump.
The people who don’t want evidence to be produced will work to delay release and attempt to block it claiming it was privileged or not relevant. When the new info is released–corroborating other evidence–they will work to reinterpret the smoking gun emails and Kavanaugh’s awareness of them as minor.
Here are more emails. It is simply not ‘normal’ to get real-time insider intelligence from a Democratic “mole” and marked “spying.” Red flags abound. And with 102,000 documents withheld by the Trump WH, mostly about judicial noms, we can bet there’s more. pic.twitter.com/FtbJsahkD7
I’m not going to go into all the various gambits the right will use to delay the release of records legally, but I expect some new BS legal gambit to be used which will take till 2020 to be ruled disingenuously stupid.
What I want to point out is that concurrently the right is working to solidify the “Kavanaugh is the real victim and Ford is a liar” narrative. This is designed for their usual audience. We see stories in the Washington Examiner like “Top House Republican: Nadler investigation into Kavanaugh ‘harassment’
To bolster the “Ford is a liar.” narrative they had the co-author of the new book Justice On Trial go on “Tight Shot” with Howard “No longer credible” Kurtz to repeat negative stories about Ford while chastising the “liberal media” for their bias against Kavanaugh.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
Note the claims repeated with no named sources.
I used to spend a lot of time listening to and reading right wing media. Most people reading this blog don’t. (Probably to protect their mental health) But the narratives created for Fox News audiences also influence narratives from sources that we read, listen to watch and find credible.
The “deny, delay, lie and attack” method is done to wear down the people doing the work and to discourage the public about the possibility of success.
Trump successfully got out of being interviewed by Mueller’s office. His delay game worked. The people whose testimony he couldn’t block at the time, he is blocking now, understanding that the video testimony now is different than a written report. However, this method did NOT protect several people from GOING TO JAIL. Those jail sentences are markers of our successes. Let’s not forget them.
The Nadler request that could lead to Kavanaugh’s impeachment is part of the official process, so it will get the official huge push back. It’s to be expected. Hannity is expected to freak out. I expect us to keep going. Keep talking about what is possible.
The narrative from NPR and mainstream news is, “Even if you democrats do get what you want, you will still lose. The Senate will never convict.”
The media will always talk to experts and politicians about how hard it will be to impeach, either Trump or Kavanaugh.
But you know what else was hard? Going to the moon. Getting a lying, lawbreaking President out of office. We did both. We can do hard things.
I don’t care what Sean’s going to say, bring impeachment on. I never listen to him anyway.
As I predicted, dirt on Ratcliffe forced him to withdraw as DNI #ExtremeVettingFail by Spocko
Five days after Trump suggested Rep. John Ratcliffe for Director of National Intelligence, Ratcliffe withdrew himself from consideration.
Trump announced Ratcliffe’s withdrawal by presidential tweet five days after the Texas congressman was suggested by presidential tweet as Director of National Intelligence. Image from: AP Vice News
While I am and will remain very grateful to the President for his intention to nominate me as Director of National Intelligence, I am withdrawing from consideration.
Our great Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe is being treated very unfairly by the LameStream Media. Rather than going through months of slander and libel, I explained to John how miserable it would be for him and his family to deal with these people….
1) Trump sees someone on TV, likes what he sees, BAM! Nominee!
2) The White House staff doesn’t know who Trump is going to suggest for a job, so they have no time to vet them.
3) The media does the vetting for the White House, and gets opinions on the candidate from the GOP and gauges the level of push back from Dems. If GOP senators or congress have issues with the person they are quiet or bring it up vaguely.
4) When the media dig up real problems, like scandals, the nominee withdraws.
5) Trump keeps looking for his Bill Barr/Roy Cohn for key positions. Trump needs someone smart enough not to be caught in a scandal and craven enough to want to work for Trump.
This “intention to nominate” process gives Trump a way to slow down the real nomination process. Meanwhile, Trump has another acting director he can push around.
I don’t want to make this sound like this is a strategic process for Trump. It’s not. He does what he does, sees someone defending him on TV and wants to reward them with a job, whatever is available at the time.
However, as we have seen time and time again, this usually ends up hurting the person offered the position.
If Trump went to this staff and said, “I like this Ratcliffe guy! Let’s make him DNI.” They might have said, “Okay, let’s check him out first. Remember what happened with Dr. Ronnie Jackson?” Trump: Who? Staff: Your doctor. You nominated him to head the VA and the media found problems. Let’s vet him first. Trump: No. Ratcliffe has been elected many many times, and people say he’s perfect for the position. If there were problems I would have heard of them by now. Coats is out. I want Ratcliffe in, now. I’m tweeting.
….be leaving office on August 15th. I would like to thank Dan for his great service to our Country. The Acting Director will be named shortly.
When writing about this 5 whole days ago, I found out that over 60 people Trump nominated had to withdraw. There is a whole page dedicated to it. With photos and everything!
In the past administrations would vet, then do trial balloons of names. The staff might wish it was still that way, but they let Trump be Trump.
The White House non-vetting process reveals scandals candidates were involved in they hid before. Some might never had been uncovered until they were put in the spotlight.
Remember when he nominated his personal physician to head the VA? That was sweet. Payback for saying Trump weighed 239?
I am pleased to announce that I intend to nominate highly respected Admiral Ronny L. Jackson, MD, as the new Secretary of Veterans Affairs….
What Ronny was thinking, “Tell the press I’m 6 foot 3, 239 pounds.” HA! Yeah, right. As if they would believe me vs their own eyes. photo: Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post
Trump thought bubble,”Is something funny Jackson? You tell people my real weigh or I’ll have Pence’s wife rat you out. Photo Jabin Botsford /The Washington Post
On April 26, 2018, Jackson withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He returned to duty with the White House Medical Unit but will no longer serve as Physician to the President. On February 2, 2019, President Trump appointed Jackson to serve as Assistant to the President and Chief Medical Advisor, a new position in the Executive Office. Wikipedia
Sorry about the whole VA thing. You’ll keep getting me the Adderall, right? Photo: Carolyn Kaster / AP
We know the White House doesn’t bother to vet their nominees for top administrative posts. He sees them on TV, likes what he sees, BAM! Nominee!
Then the media start looking into the person. If they find out something that should have disqualify them before even being nominated, the nominee withdraws.
Outsourcing the vetting of nominees to journalists is a good strategy. It slows down the whole process until he gets his Bill Barr/Roy Cohn. Meanwhile he has another acting director he can push around.
Did you know that there are over 60 people that Trump nominated that had to withdraw? There is a whole page dedicated to it. With photos and everything!
Ronnie: He said “Tell the press I’m 6 foot 3, 239 pounds.” HA! Yeah, right. As if they would believe me vs their own eyes.
Trump thought bubble,”Is something funny Jackson? You tell people my real weigh I’ll have Pence’s wife rat you out.
On April 26, 2018, Jackson withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He returned to duty with the White House Medical Unit but will no longer serve as Physician to the President. On February 2, 2019, President Trump appointed Jackson to serve as Assistant to the President and Chief Medical Advisor, a new position in the Executive Office. Wikipedia
Sorry about the whole VA thing. You’ll keep getting me the Adderall, right?
