Losers go to jail

That is the title of the job market paper of Mitch Downey, of UCSD, the subtitle is “Congressional Elections and Union Officer Prosecutions,” and here is the abstract:

Democratic societies rely on fair judicial systems and competitive political systems. If politicians can control criminal investigations of influential groups and use them to undermine political opponents and protect supporters, it subverts these systems. I test whether prosecutions of politically active labor unions respond to Congressional election outcomes. I use novel data on federal indictments, campaign contributions to measure support, and a regression discontinuity to recover causal effects. I find that union officers are 67% more likely to be indicted when the candidate their union supported barely loses. These indictments weaken unions’ ability to influence politics, making reelection more difficult for union-supported Representatives and easier for the union-opposed. As such, the discontinuity might reflect reduced indictments to protect election winners’ union supporters or increased indictments to target winners’ union opponents. A series of analyses suggest it includes both. The results show that US politicians manipulate the justice system to maintain power.

His other papers, at the above link, are interesting too, covering voting, labor market frictions, and also the political economy of Afghanistan.


So either Hillary or Trump will go to prison? I would prefer to embrace the power of "and" but that won't happen.

At this stage I can't see anything short of victory keeping Hillary out of prison.

It's pretty common for political opponents to be jailed overseas for one reason or another if they lose (think Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, the Philippines, even Greece), less so in the USA. But even in the USA civil laws like antitrust are selectively prosecuted depending on who is in office (Republicans are anti-antitrust, Democrats are pro-antitrust). Also laws cycle in how they are interpreted: patent laws go from strong to weak depending on fashion (60s-70s were anti-patent, 80s-90s pro-patent, thanks to Reagan's pro-patent court the CAFC established in 1982, now it's back to anti-patent). Inconsistency is bad for business but pols don't care too much about business. They've never created a business like I have (e.g., chicken farming; my latest venture is to import model maids from the Philippines into Greece: attractive domestic helpers and caretakers that are easy on the eyes and good value too)

Brazil's justice system is not used as a political weapon. Usually only the guilty people are sent to jail in Brazil. Our justice system acts with no fear an no favor.
There is nothing in Brazil like American wrongful executions. The Brazilian state has always been extemely careful when dealing with the fate of the defendants. Even when the death penalty was the law of the land, the former Emperor used to commute it to jail time since he learned one of the men hanged was actually innocent. The Republican revolution abolished the death penalty in peace time, showing the way for other countries.
The current president is a famous and accomplished lawyer who helped to write the current Constitution, was Secretary of Justice in the most important Brazilian state, presided Brazil's Congress three times and has a wife less than half his age. Under his correct leadership, Brazil's justice system is second to none in dealing with the uncertainties that haunt criminal procedures everywhere. The Brazilian people can look foward to tomorrow in the quiet knowledge that its system works and that, under the Brazilian regime, the dream of the late American president John F. Kennedy, a system where the strong are just, the weak protected and peace preserved, has been fulfilled in Brazil.
protecting the civil rights of its citizens."Carlos DeLuna was executed in Texas in December 1989. Subsequent investigations cast strong doubt upon DeLuna's guilt for the murder of which he had been convicted.[23][24]

Jesse Tafero was convicted of murder and executed via electric chair in May 1990 in the state of Florida for the murders of two Florida Highway Patrol officers. The conviction of a co-defendant was overturned in 1992 after a recreation of the crime scene indicated a third person had committed the murders.[25]

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed in February 1992 for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In March 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four months earlier.[26] Immediately following the nun's murder, prosecutors and police were certain the two cases were committed by the same assailant.[27] The flawed case is explored in a 2008 documentary entitled The Last Word."

"Usually only the guilty people are sent to jail in Brazil. ... There is nothing in Brazil like American wrongful executions."

I guess you don't count the ones who bleed out before they can get their day in court?

In the last few years, the government has crac the death squads and militias, which are becoming icreasingly uncommon. The important point is, the Brazilian system is designed to preserve and defend the dignity of the individual, while the American is little more than justification for murdering, jailing and torturing the poor. The Brazilian justice system represents neatly the moral superiority of the Brazilian people. When Pasteur famously suggested that Brazilian criminals sentenced to death be used for medical experiments, the Emperor revealed that he had abolished de facto the death penalty (the revolution abolished it de jure a few decades later). Suffices to say, the military regime never dared to sentence openly its enemies to death (it prefered to pretend they were killed while fighting the government forces). While most Brazilians were anti-Communists, the regime knew resorting to the death penalty would come as a shock the Brazilian conscience would never accept, a shock the regime itself wouldn't survive. Contrast and compare with the American and Soviet regimes resrted to judicial murders, (the Rosenbergs, Dmitri Poliakov, etc.). Brazilian moral superiority is unmistakable.

So, you're saying that Brazil is the greatest country on earth? A shining city on the hill? Land of the brave and home of the free?

Yes. The prophet Bandarra predicted that it is Brazil's mission to lead the world against Evil.

Brazil just had a judicial-parlamentary coup what are you talking about?

All legal procedures were strictly followed. The people who opposed the impeachment now, favored and apearheaded it in 1992 when their enemies were in power. Brazil is a nation of lwas and the law has spoken with neither fear, not favor.

In one of the two cases, I think it is safe to assume that due process will be followed.

What will they do when they come knockin' for you? Did you think the wrong free thought at the wrong time, and someone had to dig down into the blackmail file to whip you into line?

Let's have due process.

The Clinton camarilla belong in prison. Trump isn't criminal, merely vulgar and offensive.

Sexual assault is a criminal offense.

The notion that kissing a woman or putting your hand on her thigh is 'sexual assault' is an improvisation of partisan Democrats. Be nice if any of you had an ounce of integrity.

I am just guessing, but I doubt you would not think it was assault if he grabb your whatever or stuck his tongue in your mouth .

What apologies will you make if it is found that he did rape a 13 year old?

I will not have to make any. Her attorneys have dropped the suit yet again and the media have been repeatedly thwarted in efforts to interview her, most recently when her lawyer called a press conference where she was to appear, then said lawyer arrives and cancels. Here's a suggestion: this woman is a plaintiff of the Jackie Coakley persuasion, if she exists at all.

Right. When the guy whose supporters issue death threats and who sicks lawyers threatening to destroy the lives of any person who whispers ill of him, I conclude that she's a liar when she drops the case.

Anyways, it was always going to be a hard one to prove in court, and if it really happened, in her situation I wouldn't want to give Trump a chance of a record of a court case that where he was not found guilty.

You state that "media have been repeatedly thwarted in efforts to interview her". This is a private citizen with a private life, and she does not live at the beck and whim of all of society.

Your attitude is precisely why so many women would hesitate to come forward. Because you think it gives you the right to dissect their every move and entire life, whereas the only question of interest should be "IF the accused is not innocent, can he/she be found guilty in court?"

Nathan, you made up your mind on zero evidence, and embellished it with fantasies. Now you're in the business of questioning the character of anyone who draws a reasonable inference from this woman's behavior. That requires quite a bit of audacity on your part (or a wildly inflated self-assessment).

Art, does if = is?

In case there was any doubt about the extent of blindness in your partisanship.

Stick with the local issues where the brainwashing has not completely subsumed your mind. Apparently you do well with what is in front of your eyes.

Why not find me an example of someone being prosecuted where the top count on the indictment described something of which Trump has been accused (and I do not mean by a phantom plaintiff who files and withdraws suits according to whim)?

Raping a 13 year old child would get most people prosecuted.

Does it occur to you that an anonymous person who files, drops, refiles, drops, refiles, drops,refiles and then drops a suit 22 years after the fact might not be particularly credible, and might, in fact, be a fictional character invented by 'her' lawyers? Most particularly when her counsel is Gloria Allred's daughter?

There was a name of a victim, a name of a witness, a location, time and date.

However, it is not likely that there is evidence strong enough to win in court.

What benefit could there possibly be in signing up to Trump's enemies list? He's a famously vindictive person and these girls couldn't possibly take a dime for being encouraged to do so because Trumpistas and Nazis through the intelligence and police services will be chop chop onto abusing their powers to find any possible way to prove it no matter what the reality is.

So ... best just for this case not to go to court. But when someone drops a case against Trump, I assume intimidation on the part of him or his lackeys, not innocent on the part of Trump.

What benefit could there possibly be in signing up to Trump’s enemies list? H

Attention, and a pay day. It's worth it for some people.

I see. Women cry rape because they want attention. I see no other possible explanation.

Trump's taxes are under investigation. I think he decided to run for President when he realized he would otherwise be convicted.

Nah it's not that shady. There was a memo that leaked out of his campaign where he basically told his people he wanted to come in 2nd in the Rep primaries, with about 15% of the vote, to build his brand. He was as surprised as the rest of us that he caught fire. Once he did of course he then wanted to win.

Of course, this result does not tell us whether or not A) the innocent are persecuted by political opponents or B) the guilty are being protected by political allies.

I'll wager it's 90% the guilty skating. This administration is certainly unethical enough to use the prosecutocracy on it's opponents. I'll wager you in the vast majority of cases it's unscrupulous careerists like Patrick FitzGerald who harass the innocent in pursuit of notches in their belts. (All too many of those in the ranks of public prosecutors, IMO).

Lots of both, but you can't sway a court with zero evidence, so the data will reflect B. No?

Jury trials are almost never used in criminal cases.

The point is that if you're innocent, there's no evidence for the basis of something but may still be targeted for various forms of harassment that do not lead to any legal action.

Which means there is no information on how the courts are swayed in cases of people being innocent.

I'm operating under the assumption that such cases do not proceed to court without evidence, and that the difference between guilty and non-guilty in these cases has to do with deciding what shade of grey is in fact black.

No, but you don't necessarily have to make the case stick in order for the strategy to be successful. There seem to have been a number of instances of politically motivated uses of the legal and regulatory system against innocent parties. Even when they don't result in convictions (or even indictments), the process itself is intimidating, expensive, and time-consuming for the targets.

" intimidating, expensive, and time-consuming"

You'd think we'd have laws to prevent such abuses. Or, fancy that, even apply them. People who are subject to such experiences should have broad rights to sue if the situation progresses to the point that obvious witch hunting is going on. Not a la Trump who wants to shut down everyone from saying a bad word about him, but basically to help minimize the waste of public resources and negative effects on the ability to attract talent into leadership.

It's true in a solid democracy like US but it's nowhere near the brute reality of fake democracies out there, US is in good shape despite what Trump says or what this paper might suggest.

All democracies are fake.

I agree that democracy is well in America, and despite that being an unfashionable position, we should stand for it.

I mean, when I said I was not piling on Comey, but trusted the process, that nothing interesting would be found .. I was right.

All it took was a little trust.

agree that democracy is well in America, and despite that being an unfashionable position, we should stand for it.

You're insane. Local government has just enough autonomy to sneeze and perhaps blow its nose if the local federal judge or the state commissioner of education or social services countersigns an order allowing it to do so. Local government boundaries are conventional and nonsensical, as are provincial boundaries in much of the country. Police services are persistently placed in the wrong locus. The public schools exist to employ people who tolerate inane teacher-training programs. Full stop. Civil service recruitment and promotion has been ruined by the legal professions race-patronage schemes (and you still cannot fire a civil servant for anything but criminal conduct and gross absenteeism). The electoral calendar is an utter mess and the tabulation systems it uses are crude. The appellate judiciary inserts its snotty self into every area of public policy and makes it worse almost every time. No legislator dares put them in their place. State university faculty and administration have turned their institutions into disgusting little sandboxes and no one does a thing.

As my girlfriend says, "have you ever been anywhere else?"

Particularly appropriate this morning.

Actually no, Art has famously declared that he has only left his hometown for family gatherings in other parts of the US. He's harmless.

It's not 'appropriate', it's non sequitur. Get back to me when your hangover wears off and the man-eating bananas in your John disappear.

It tilted the polls nearly 5% and now everyone forgets that Trump is a serial sexual predator and molester who cannot be trusted with your sister, or any woman for that matter, for any number of seconds.

It could have waited another month. Just like investigations into how many women Trump has sexually assaulted over the years.

now everyone forgets that Trump is a serial sexual predator and molester who cannot be trusted with your sister,

My sister is 53. When she was younger, she was certainly capable of fending off a masher (which, in our low and dishonest times, Democratic partisans call a 'predator' or 'molester' when it's convenient for them).

Scenario: You're in a room with Trump and your sister.

Several urgent reasons to have to leave the room for a few minutes arise. Do you leave the room or no?

Of course I do.

1) my sister can damn well take care of herself and doesn't need a manfolk making sure she's ok.

2) This is assuming Adolf Dahmer von Stalinmao Jr levels of evil with no self control. Granted Trump is low on the self control spectrum, but neither candidate has justified that level of suspicion.

1. Yes, I leave the room. None of the women in my generation are the sort Trump would ever hit on. Those are the wages of age (and not living in a family of supermodels).

2. My sister has an impressively explosive temper and a sharp tongue, which, for whatever reason, she does not use on me. Setting it off would be a traumatic experience for DJT....


Fine, and if you return and your sister complained about aggressive unwanted advances while her boyfriend was in the next room? Would you get physically involved to prevent her boyfriend from kicking the shit out of him?


If it was just aggressive advances, I might get involved to break up a beatdown. My sis is totally entitled to a nongentle nard kick though.

I mostly thought it was a weird question to ask. I think Obama has been playing by the same disastrous playbook Bush has. Both have their hands coated in blood. Would I have a beer with Bush? Absolutely! Would I have a beer with Obama? Absolutely! I'm an alcoholic. The question is meaningless as for who would be the better leader.

I'd join the beatdown if I had clear evidence of worse. But these are clearly pointless hypotheticals. Would I leave Podesta alone in my living room with the Necronomicon ex Mortis and a bucket of blood? ... I have no idea, but by asking the question I'm doing my part to impugn his character and draw attention away from policy.

And now I wish we had a thread about Supply Side Necronomics. Zombie banks would be mentioned. And no, I haven't had anything to drink.

Apparently someone(s) or another have done an excellent job at preventing any genuine discussion of policy throughout basically the entire campaign.

The point was that while I'm not sure that Trump is criminally guilty in the specific legal environment of the present day and politica l reality, that his general character is known. Who would want a president that treats women like a piece of meat?

If Comey thought he must send a letter for legal reasons it is a fully clean call. If he felt it was to get ahead of leaks, rebellion, that would be bad.

Regardless, his first letter was mild and the real problem was a media system that exploded it into a 50% chance of the end of the world.


If Zuckerberg should to better, maybe Cowen too.

No, aspects of business and industry are in good shape. The political order and the legal system are hopeless, academe is hopeless, social relations in the domestic sphere are hopeless, the churches are hopeless, urban planning is a disaster (and we make wildly excessive use of debt finance).

@Art, realizing we're mortal beings is hard. One way an individual may deal with fear of death is believing the world will end: "haha, I'm not dying alone...we're all dying."That's why it's common to listen older people why everything is wrong with the world.

But we're still here after countless old people have said everything is hopeless. It's hopeless for the ones dying, not for the "the world".

Betwixt and between your armchair psychoanlaysis, it might occur to you that people of a certain age were palpably present when the institutions just named operated better and practices were more defensible.

And yet, every generation gets to your age and declares everything hopelessly in decline. And then they die and their kids do it a few decades later. And all the while the world gets better overall on almost every metric. But keep typing, these pixels are here just for fun anyway.

As I get older and start to have a little tug in the 'everything is going to hell' direction I've come to realize why that happens. It's not that things are worse per se, but they are unquestionably DIFFERENT. We are all products of our time, and what seems normal and good for us changes with later generations. For example, I am not on Facebook and I don't see why anyone would waste time there revealing banal things about themselves and reading them about others. But the generation younger than mine thinks I'm insane, and as time goes on the virtual world will keep absorbing the 'real'. To me this looks 'worse' because it's not how I do things, but it's just different. My parents thought MY group was too virtual too with our video games and TV instead of playing stickball til dusk at the sandlot.

Kings, you have been unusually plausible today. You are still wrong.

At least half of Facebook is about sharing funny/interesting memes with other people. The personal news is the better half though.
At it's best, Facebook is a very quick way of letting other people - distant friends relatives and acquaintances - what's going on with you, and that you are remembering them. The correct way to use it is rarely, and only when something significant happens or, on occasion, when you find something very original and want to share.

The American democracy is a farce meant to disguise the rule of an oligarchy.

Zeitgeist has definitely taken hold of young and aspiring economists. Are they culture warrior wannabes or just not very good at picking topics to research and write about? I recall the rather mundane topic I picked for my master of laws thesis (the tax consequences of contributing property to a partnership). I picked the topic because partnership tax wasn't covered all that well in the curriculum (there was one course in partnership tax as compared to four courses covering subchapter C corporations). This was in the dark ages before the publication of McKee, Nelson & Whitmire (the partnership tax treatise) and before LLCs were much in use (because the IRS treated them as C corporations). I suppose it was fortuitous on my part since LLCs (i.e., partnerships for tax purposes) eventually became the preferred choice for business organizations. In any case, my faculty adviser sent my thesis to the law review, which published the thing, confirming me as the go-to guy in the (large) law firm that recruited me. Maybe these papers on (what appear to be) dubious topics by young and aspiring economists will turn out to be as fortuitous as mine, as jailing defeated politicians will become as common-place as LLCs/partnerships.

U.S. Attorneys and federal judges are commonly distributed per the endorsements of local congressmen of the President's party. Part of Jimmy Carter's trouble with Congress was that he would not subcontract these decisions to them. Crooked labor meatheads are crooked labor meatheads. It's just that some of them skate because they have connections to the U.S. Attorney's patron. Pretty appalling, but then the court system is much of the time. (Libertarians only care about drug dealers, of course).

It is not a priori obviously TRUE that it will cut both ways, but it is a priori LIKELY that it will cut both ways.

Is it credible to believe that a system where this holds for labour, where there is generally a lesser concentration of dollars, does not experience this to a greater degree among those where higher concentrations of $$ can be found?

How much more difficult would it be to re-run the study for those who often sit on the other table from unions? (And the answer to this question should help with solving that grand puzzle of whether such events are more or less common among those who represent the production factor considered generally synonymous with money - capital).

It is truly astonishing to read what passed for fact based opinion here. I suppose in a facist system Clinton would go to jail and maybe that is what some of you really wish for, but here we have some semblance of justice where people are jailed based on actions that meet all the definition of a crime. Absent that there is no crime committed. Thankfully most voters realized that and accept the findings of no crime.

Mishandling classified data is, in fact, a crime. People have gone to prison for it.

Only if there is intent!! You might wish otherwise but it is clear

Actually, Comey wrote 'intent' into the statute for convenience. It's not there.


1. What is "intent"? Clinton didn't set up her own private email server by accident. She intended to do it. Clinton didn't direct her aides to email classified material to her by accident. She intended to do it.

2. "Mishandling" data means that the material was handled in a way that did not maintain property security. Nobody charged with "mishandling" data is being charged because they "intended" to allow classified data to leak. That would be espionage, not "mishandling". "Mishandling" means you didn't follow proper security procedures. Clinton did that. She did it intentionally.

Hazel - you have a case of wishful thinking substituting your wishes for the law - no amount of vitriol changes the basic facts. I wonder how many cases on this law you have tried? I'm sorry you are so irate that it obscures your judgement but I suspect it clouds your judgement on most political issues

Hazel, think of 'intent' as the difference between an 'honest' mistake and criminal intent. If someone has a thumb drive with classified material on it and leaves it in their car for a 10 minutes while they go shopping, they mishandled classified information. But it's not criminal.

Clinton is shady. She's a politician of the first order. But she's competent and will be a normal, middling level technocratic president facing massive gridlock. We'll be fine, and better off than if she had lost.

Uppp there's msgkings back to form.

If someone has a thumb drive with classified material on it and leaves it in their car for a 10 minutes while they go shopping, they mishandled classified information. But it’s not criminal.

Yes, it is criminal if they are not supposed to keep classified material on thumb drives in the first place. Classified material does not end up on thumb drives or private servers unintentionally.

Mr. Hurley: 18 United States Code section 1924(a) provides:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

The intent that is involved here is the intent to retain documents at an unauthorized location. From what little I know about the matter, that intent is easily inferred from Ms. Clinton's conduct.

A few email conversations on your personal email account that happen to mention work topics does not constitute mishandling classified data.

Ms. Clinton's "personal email account" was her ONLY email account. She did not have, and did not use, a State Department email. She exclusively used ONLY her own private server for ALL communications, including ALL work related correspondence.

"most voters realized that and accept the findings of no crime"

This seems like a category mistake. Prosecuting someone for a crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt as the system is designed to let 9 guilty people go free to avoid convicting 1 innocent person. Voters, however, do not want to elect 9 corrupt presidents to avoid the risk of not electing 1 non-corrupt president. In deciding whether to recommend prosecution, Comey was asking whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the reasonable doubt standard. Voters use the fitness-for-president standard and have decided, or at least 67% have decided, that Clinton is indeed untrustworthy.

Granted, that 67% untrustworthiness rating is based on Clinton's lifelong record of dishonesty and unethical conduct, not just this one case. That's why complaints that too much attention has been paid to Clinton's "emails" are also some sort of fallacy. Voters care about her character, honesty, and ethical misconduct, not "her emails".

A three decade long media attack campaign against her might possibly maybe somehow or another have had an effect on public perceptions regarding the matter.

That having been said, some legitimate issues are raised, and I thoroughly look forward to seeing how the media responsible for making a brand new special focus out of age old problems, and most especially going to town on any future Republican candidate, appointee, etc., who does anything remotely similar to what happen in the cases of the email and Benghazi situations.

Betting markets anyone? I'll give you a ten to one that Fox wouldn't top even 1% of the level of coverage (you'll have to add up time over quite a long period of time, because they've been beating that horse for quite some time now) for a Republican known to have used communications systems which introduced vulnerabilities with regard to potentially classified information that some third party might send to them.

Three decades? That's almost long enough for a right wing conspiracy to become vast, Nathan!

Thor, you should be ashamed of yourself. Everyone knows that conspiracies are factually impossible and that only mentally ill people ever get such crazed notions into their heads.

I observe that no one is debating the proposed 10 to 1 odds for even 1% of the level of coverage by Fox of a Republican doing the same thing.

BC: sure she's untrustworthy, but name a politician that has gotten as far as she has that is trustworthy? Politics is the opposite of pure truth telling.

And we don't even have to compare her to her opponent.

To completely remove partisan political bias, we can compare Clinton's corruption to that of other Democratic presidential nominees for historical perspective:
Clinton vs. Obama: Clinton more corrupt
Clinton vs. Kerry: Clinton more corrupt
Clinton vs. Gore: Clinton more corrupt (although Gore had some problems --- "no controlling legal authority" --- nowhere near as many as Clinton)
Clinton vs. Clinton: ok, I agree, these two are the same
Clinton vs. Dukakis: Clinton more corrupt
Clinton vs. Mondale: Clinton more corrupt
Clinton vs. Carter: Clinton more corrupt
Now, compare Clinton to contemporary prominent Democrats: Obama, Biden, Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, Deval Patrick, Booker,....Clinton less trustworthy than all.

So, Clinton is in the bottom x% of her own peer group in trustworthiness for any non-zero x. Then, the question is, "How dishonest must a politician be to be unfit for the Presidency?" If the standard excludes the lowest ranked person in honesty, then the conclusion is that there is no amount of dishonesty that makes one unfit to be President, which doesn't seem right.

(None of this implies, of course, that Trump is fit for office. We can similarly compare him to all of his Republican peers.)

We may be splitting hairs here, between 'corrupt' and 'untrustworthy'. I think you are right, she's shadier than the others on your list. But are we sure that she actually tells untruths more often than those others? When all those guys were running the Reps were quite happy to smear each of them as corrupt too. Pretty similar to the Dems going way too far demonizing Romney.

'Fact Based' == 'Not Convicted Yet'.

I get it. She skates due to power and influence, hence did no wrong.

The Magna Carta was a bad idea. How can one change the world and impose social justice ( and get quite wealthy for one's efforts ) while the peons are demanding that one be accountable to the laws that are written for them?

No she escaped punishment because her actions don't fit the definition of a crime under the law. Wishing differently does not change the law

You're a fool or a fraud.

Nuh uh! YOU are!

Is this what your life has become - making rubbish comments all day, or is there some gang of Chinese or Russian Trump fans generating Art Deco comments 24/7.

Just think of all the letters to the editor he used to write before the internet....

Fact based? This related. Can you process it? Apply it to this situation?


"here we have some semblance of justice"

Justice involves the concepts of legality, truth and most important, morality, a quality that's currently in little evidence. While legalisms are arcane constructs that can only be interpreted by the secular priests of the legal profession and truth itself is often difficult to determine, even the illiterate and unwashed are aware of the difference between right and wrong. Sadly, in a secular society morality is of no import.

"If politicians can control criminal investigations of influential groups and use them to undermine political opponents and protect supporters, it subverts these systems." What a tease: surely we all expected the paper to go on to discuss the Prez using the IRS to harass opponents.

So the union guys need their politician to win to stay out of jail.

That makes perfect sense.

There were about five notable unions which were largely controlled by criminal gangs a generation ago. I think it's down to 1 or 2 now. Of course, you still get self-dealing and embezzlement, which you find from time to time in trust-invested enterprises.

Funny how when the study is about union guys that the conclusions which can be drawn are about union guys.

Do you suppose there are any other categories of people who similar conclusions might be drawn about? Say ... maybe even ones who often sit at tables with union guys? I wouldn't even want to mutter their name, for fear that someone might draw some conclusions that I'm anti-something or other.

New York City developers, who often sit down with the unions there? Yes, they're extremely corrupt and should not be trusted with power.

An interesting element of the current election to watch is the Democratic party constituency that has chosen this moment to stage a transit strike in Philadelphia. Will the union bosses suspend the strike for tomorrow ?

They will if they read MR...

What's interesting about that? Are there only two or three polling places in Philly? Do the Prius mobile suburbanites plan on taking public transportation to the polls? Will this make the inner city Philly voters cancel their vote excursion? Or maybe their outrage will result in a Trump landslide.

It will be thrilling to see replication studies across the spectrum. What's the right-leaning equivalent of union bosses? Gunsmiths? Property owners? Country clubs?

Corporate executives would be the obvious one. But they have the shortcut of paying out shareholder money to atone for their crimes instead of facing personal responsibility for what they do.

No, they're not. Corporation executives tend to be Democrats (media enterprises, tech, casino banking) or to regard politicians as fungible. Partisan Democrats offer a mess of hoo ha about Koch Industries, but their are scores of incorporated donors who shovel more money at candidates.

I don't get your political spectrum analysis. Business interests are no longer business interests for the fact of which political camp some of them sit in?

And, moreover, this may be a figment of the imagination. I think corporate executives who support Democrats are more willing to say so because the Republican brand is highly toxic basically anywhere on the planet outside of the USA.

Housing developers.

Clinton was a Secretary of State and thinks that all the "classified information", i.e., whatever could possibly be construed as classified across those 30,000 messages, should be completely released to the public to judge for themselves.

I trust the person who trusts my judgement more than the person who wants to pass judgement while hiding the possibility of that judgment being informed.

OR, she's bullshitting because she knows that State isn't going to publicly release all the classified information in her emails.

Maybe. Hopefully we'll see if it was a bluff if she is elected. Imagine that the president themselves couldn't clarify such a matter in such a way!

I'm sure she will find a reason why the emails can't be released after all.

Maybe the real problem was that Clinton wanted an actually secure communication, and took her next best guess at how to obtain such a thing after crossing the secret service off the list.

Why should we expect access to every word spoken by the known faces and complete secrecy for the unknown faces?

If the State Department's security policies weren't up to her standards she should have been doing something about that when she was Secretary of State.

They told her only the president gets what she wanted (one phone for everything). They wouldn't do it for her. So she did it for herself.

That pretty much sums it up, yeah.

What she wanted was to conceal documents in order to thwart FOIA requests. She didn't care about security. This isn't that challenging, Nathan.

Fortunately her email was stock full of stuff that would have been very embarrassing under FOIA requests.

Oh, except that's not what they found.

Theory: maybe she didn't want the spy service reading her private mail.

Because it's so hard to keep your personal business separate from your work.

Comments for this post are closed