Daily Digest

Image by Jonas B, Flickr Creative Commons

Daily Digest 6/22 - Senate Unveils ACA Repeal Bill, Our Fear Of Nukes

Thursday, June 22, 2017, 11:22 AM

Economy

Senate Leaders Unveil Bill to Repeal the Affordable Care Act (jdargis)

The Senate bill — once promised as a top-to-bottom revamp of the health bill passed by the House last month — instead maintains its structure, with modest adjustments. The Senate version is, in some respects, more moderate than the House bill, offering more financial assistance to some lower-income people to help them defray the rapidly rising cost of private health insurance.

But the Senate measure, like the House bill, would phase out the extra money that the federal government has provided to states as an incentive to expand eligibility for Medicaid. And like the House measure, it would put the entire Medicaid program on a budget, ending the open-ended entitlement that now exists.

I moved my kids out of America. It was the best parenting decision I've ever made. (Chris M.)

For example, over the last six years, my children have experienced childhood without viewing the world through a privileged first-world lens. Though we live comfortably here in Ecuador, my sons are surrounded by families that work hard and live simply. There is no internet shopping. There are no big box stores stuffed to the brim with the latest useless merchandise. And Christmas in these parts is about church and family, not piles of presents and deepening debt.

Fewer People Think Continued GDP Growth Necessary or Possible -- Survey Results Released (Marvin M.)

The Institute for Studies in Happiness, Economy and Society (ISHES), a JFS partner organization, has been conducting surveys on these "almost invisible changes," in order to provide a clear picture of them. During the past several years, the institute has conducted surveys twice asking whether GDP growth is necessary or even possible. The results of those surveys indicate changes in people's sense of values about happiness and well-being, the things that are most important to them, how people work, economic growth, and the desirable state of the economy.

Amazon Just ‘Jumped the Shark’ (Tiffany D.)

Ben Rogoff, a technology mutual fund manager, said: “This is the first major combination of an online company and a bricks-and-mortar company” in this sector of the economy. “It’s the deal that everyone will have to follow,” he said.

Ahem … except it wasn’t the deal everyone had to follow.

Two-And-a-Half Minutes to Midnight: Our Fear of Nukes and How We Got Here (jdargis)

The Clock measures how near we are to a global, human-caused disaster. Upon its debut, the clock was set to seven minutes to midnight (on the Doomsday Clock, midnight signifies, well, doomsday: total catastrophe). The Doomsday Clock’s hands have moved backward and forward a total of 22 times; it remains one of the most accessible ways for the general public to assess how much danger we’re all in.

Tesla Deals A Blow To Competitors As Its Stock Price Soars (Michael K.)

Cleantech Group reports that it’s been a stellar year for its index, with price returns up 12.5 percent through the end up April. Last year ended at an 11.2 percent increase. As for years seeing declines in the index, these included 2008, 2011, and 2014; with the gap narrowing in recent year with less severe losses than during the Great Recession.

In Flint Water Crisis, Could Involuntary Manslaughter Charges Actually Lead to Prison Time? (jdargis)

While some see the severity of the charges as a sign that someone may actually be held accountable for the contamination, Mays is skeptical. She points to former state epidemiologist Corinne Miller, who was originally charged with felonies for failing to tell Flint residents about a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak. Miller’s felony charges were dropped, and as part of a deal with prosecutors in March, she pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor. Her punishment: Writing a letter of apology.

Heat can kill and we’re turning up the thermostat (jdargis)

And in a scenario where emissions continued to climb unabated, almost half the Earth’s land area and three-quarters of its population would cross the danger line for 20 days or more each year. While the tropics will generally warm less than higher-latitude regions, they’re also closer to the heat threshold—and for a great portion of the year. Areas in the humid tropics would cross that line almost every day. In this scenario, A huge area of the globe, from 40 degrees north or south latitude would cross the threshold for about 60 days in a year. That would include all of Africa and Australia, and anything in the US south of New York City. (To see for yourself, take a look at this interactive map showing the study’s results.)

Gold & Silver

Click to read the PM Daily Market Commentary: 6/21/17

Provided daily by the Peak Prosperity Gold & Silver Group

Article suggestions for the Daily Digest can be sent to [email protected]. All suggestions are filtered by the Daily Digest team and preference is given to those that are in alignment with the message of the Crash Course and the "3 Es."

11 Comments

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1884
Stockman: The Trump Coup is Underway

Stockman Warns "A Great Big Coup is On the Way." (ZH summary)

"Mueller is a card-carrying member of the Deep State who was there at the founding of today’s surveillance monster as FBI Director following 9/11... So he will 'find' extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking..."

-------------------

The Little Putsch (in the Ukraine) that Could Beget a Great Big Coup

So let’s start with two obvious points about the whole Russia fiasco…

Namely, there is no “there, there.” First off, the president has the power to declassify secret documents at will. But in this instance he could also do that without compromising intelligence community (IC) “sources and methods” in the slightest.

That’s because after Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013, the whole world was put on notice — and most especially Washington’s adversaries — that it collects every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related communications grids.

Washington essentially has universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence). Acknowledging that fact by publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.

...I can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing that declassifying the “evidence” would amount to obstruction of justice! ...

...

Will Mueller get to the bottom of it?

Mueller is a card-carrying member of the Deep State who was there at the founding of today’s surveillance monster as FBI Director following 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on an exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going — a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to.

So he will “find” extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking. And his investigatory team is being packed with prosecutorial killers with proven records of thuggery. They’re determined to find crimes that create fame and fortune for prosecutors — even if the crime itself never happened.

For example, Mueller’s #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. This character had led the fraud section of the department’s Criminal Division and served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director. And more importantly, Weissmann was the driving force behind the Enron task force — the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery in 100 years.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5727
Mueller..

Just to be clear, we're talking about the same Mueller that was in charge of the FBI when it obstructed any and all inquiry at the very highest levels into the investigation of a 9/11 conspirator in the days both before AND after 9/11.  Let that sink in for a minute.

Make of that what you will....but the mysterious case of FBI agent Colleen Rowley is not at all mysterious to me...she was being obstructed from performing her job and then a massive coverup ensued.  

The following memo shows that FBI field agents had a 9/11 involved person identified and in custody in August 2001.  They had confirmation of his involvement in extremist Islamist activities, and they had his laptop.  Searching that laptop would have revealed much about 9/11 before it happened.  FBI HQ refused to allow a search of the laptop.  Say whaaaat?  Who made that decision?  Why?  

This is a small portion of her very detailed memo to Mueller.

May 21, 2002

FBI Director Robert Mueller

FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.

Dear Director Mueller: I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th.

The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.

To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring.

The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

I feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI agents.

2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects.

The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.

3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota.

Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring.

As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources.

The two possible criminal violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States") and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities).

It is important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1 Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information.

Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The probable cause did not otherwise improve or change.

When we went to the United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph 19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th.

Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act!

Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5).

5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.

In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes! Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities.

When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval!

6 ) Eventually on August 28, 2001, after a series of e-mails between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, which suggest that the FBIHQ SSA deliberately further undercut the FISA effort by not adding the further intelligence information which he had promised to add that supported Moussaoui's foreign power connection and making several changes in the wording of the information that had been provided by the Minneapolis Agent, the Minneapolis agents were notified that the NSLU Unit Chief did not think there was sufficient evidence of Moussaoui's connection to a foreign power. Minneapolis personnel are, to this date, unaware of the specifics of the verbal presentations by the FBIHQ SSA to NSLU or whether anyone in NSLU ever was afforded the opportunity to actually read for him/herself all of the information on Moussaoui that had been gathered by the Minneapolis Division and the French intelligence service.

Why....that last part in bold...shows an AMAZING amount of concern for the rights of a foreign national who has overstayed their visa, with known ties to terrorist organizations, and about whom extensive probable cause had been established.  

Is this the same FBI that has unhesitatingly infiltrated Quakers, and Occupy Wall Street and conducted tens of thousands of FISA operations against US citizens with no known affiliations and without any probable cause?  Why yes, yes it is.  

Again, draw your own conclusions.

Also, feel free to be more than a little skeptical that Mueller, aka "the fixer," has been brought in to lead this "investigation."  The cesspool just got a little deeper.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3157
Oops
Quote:

Make of that what you will....but the mysterious case of FBI agent Kathleen Crowley is not at all mysterious to me...she was being obstructed from performing her job and then a massive coverup ensued.  

I believe you mean Colleen Rowley.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

Kathleen Crowley was an actress who died recently.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Crowley

OTOH, Candy Crowley is a journalist who has worked for CNN and NBC and was/is a White House correspondent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crowley

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5727
Ooops is right
Doug wrote:
Quote:

Make of that what you will....but the mysterious case of FBI agent Kathleen Crowley is not at all mysterious to me...she was being obstructed from performing her job and then a massive coverup ensued.  

I believe you mean Colleen Rowley.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley

Kathleen Crowley was an actress who died recently.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Crowley

OTOH, Candy Crowley is a journalist who has worked for CNN and NBC and was/is a White House correspondent.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_Crowley

oops!  

Right you are...not sure where my brain crawled off to right then.  :)

Fixed.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2385
LOL Doug..

Faced with more evidence of the deep state's efforts to not allow their 9/11 false terrorist patsy narrative to be thwarted by our own law enforcement agents trying to do their jobs.... you point out the typo/brain fart.  Just LOL...    

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3157
Just to be clear

Ms. Rowley was an FBI whistle blower who famously wrote the memo Chris quoted from about failure of the FBI to adequately heed evidence before 9/11 of ties between El Queda and possible terrorist plots.  She continues to be an anti-war activist since her retirement in 2004 and speaks on "ethical decision-making and balancing civil liberties with the need for effective investigation."  She discusses government incompetence and, at times, nefarious activities intended to cover up said incompetence.  However, she is not a conspiracy theorist.  She accepts that 19 terrorists flew planes into the WTC, Pentagon and a field in PA.

In 2011 she wrote: "I'm on record calling for a new 9/11 investigation, but I haven't thus far seen any real evidence or likelihood of controlled demolition or any of the other wilder "conspiracies.""

https://consortiumnews.com/2011/09/05/911-incompetence-and-dishonesty/

Although I haven't read extensively of her writings, I have not found any reason to think she has changed her mind in the last six years.

Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 470
Further clarity

Assuming for the moment that the planes brought down the towers rather than controlled demolition, her writing suggests:

  1. Evidence gathered prior to the attacks strongly pointed towards the existence of a very significant planned terrorist attack.
  2. The FBI and likely a broad range of actors in the executive branch and elsewhere deliberately thwarted actions that would have likely prevented the 9/11 attacks.
  3. These same actors quite possibly  knew of the attack plans including details of the nature of the attack.
  4. They would be aware that flying planes into building would at the very least kill every one on the plane and dozens to hundreds of people in the buildings and could possibly bring the buildings down, raising the death toll into the thousands.

This line of investigation deserves serious effort, because, if it is true, it doesn't matter whether or not there was a controlled demolition.  9/11 would be an inside job either way.

 

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1884
History Commons Timeline on Zacarias Moussaoui (Repost)

Oops.  Put this in the wrong thread....   Moving it here

-------------------

The official narrative of the failure to investigate the hijackers taking flight training depends upon several themes:

  • -inefficiencies of government bureaucracy
  • -miscommunication between agencies (FBI, CIA, INS)
  • -miscommunication between field offices and HQ
  • -intradepartmental politics at the FBI
  • -minor bad judgment calls that with "20-20 hindsight," were in error.

But all in all,there was no obstruction and no one was to blame.

About 1/3 of the way down the History Commons Timeline on Moussaoui, the story of the FBI agents who wanted to search the laptop of Moussaoui is chronicled.  Quite a story.  One agent, Harry Samit was "absolutely obsessed" with Moussaoui and the the other Muslim's taking flight training.  After being ignored and stonewalled repeatedly, he risked his career at the FBI by arresting Moussaoui --but only on a on on visa overstay charge --- on August 16, 2001, despite being ordered not to by superiors in the FBI.  But then he was NOT ALLOWED TO SEARCH HIS LAPTOP where the identities and plans to hijack airplanes was contained.  Only after 9/11 was the laptop searched and its evidence used to convict Moussaoui as the "20th hijacker."

One entry in the timeline reads:

After Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested (see August 16, 2001), the FBI’s Minneapolis field office becomes very concerned that he may be part of a larger operation involving hijacked aircraft and that he represents a real threat to US national security. One of the agents, Harry Samit, will later say that he and his colleagues are “obsessed” with Moussaoui. Samit sends over 70 communications warning about Moussaoui to the following:
bullet The Hezbollah, bin Laden, and Radical Fundamentalist Units at FBI headquarters (see August 20-September 11, 2001);
bullet Another FBI field office (see August 23, 2001);
bullet The CIA (see August 24, 2001);
bullet The FBI’s offices in Paris and London;
bullet The FAA;
bullet The Secret Service;
bullet The Immigration and Naturalization Service; and
bullet Another intelligence agency (possibly the National Security Agency)

The local FBI office was ordered to NOT arrest Moussaoui, NOT communicate with the CIA, and prohibited from searching his laptop.

Despite that FISA warrants are almost always granted, in this instance a FISA warrant request of the local FBI office to search Moussaoui's laptop was not granted.  (This was very unusual as the FISA warrants are considered a rubber stamp.)  But somehow, the information that Moussaoui had many contacts with terrorist groups worldwide was accidentally omitted from the FISA request and the request was denied. 

You really can't pull of false flag's unless you have people in key positions of power to fumble any investigation.

 

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 285
Jim H, I'd remind you ...
Quote:

Faced with more evidence .... you point out the typo/brain fart.  Just LOL...

Jim H, I'd remind you that the owners of this site have asked the readership to report errors so corrections can be made.

I'd also point out that getting someone's name wrong is more than just a typo, it's what the lawyers would call a substantive error.

Doug spotted a detail which was clearly and unambiguously wrong, and needed to be fixed.

It behooves the rest of us to thank him for helping to improve the reliability of this site.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 845
Yoxa wrote: Quote: Faced with
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:

Faced with more evidence .... you point out the typo/brain fart.  Just LOL...

Jim H, I'd remind you that the owners of this site have asked the readership to report errors so corrections can be made.

I'd also point out that getting someone's name wrong is more than just a typo, it's what the lawyers would call a substantive error.

Doug spotted a detail which was clearly and unambiguously wrong, and needed to be fixed.

It behooves the rest of us to thank him for helping to improve the reliability of this site.

Sure, it needed to be corrected. However, Doug did so with a thinly veiled passive aggressive comment. It was just so...well, Dougish.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 285
Style
Quote:

 It was just so...well, Dougish.

Learn to separate style from substance. Someone whose style you don't like can nonetheless have valuable things to say.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments