Yup. Comey’s a Goner.
President Obama briefly addressed the FBI’s reopened investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices for the first time, saying in an interview posted Wednesday that the agency does not “operate on innuendo” and emphasizing that there is no evidence that the Democratic presidential nominee had violated the law.
“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, and we don’t operate on incomplete information, and we don’t operate on leaks,” Obama said in the interview with NowThis News, which was filmed Tuesday. “We operate based on concrete decisions that are made. When this was investigated thoroughly last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations, was she had made some mistakes but that there wasn’t anything there that was prosecutable.”
— Obama on FBI: ‘We don’t operate on innuendo’, David Nakamura, Washington Post, today at 11:46 a.m.
I’m sooo glad that President Obama reads Angry Bear.
Now, Mr. Obama, please read this post of mine. And this one of mine. Because you may be the only one who make these points and make them heard, before any more days of early voting go by.
And btw, although I certainly have some issues with Hillary Clinton but unequivocally supported her all along once she won the nomination, the intensity of my support is greater right now than at any earlier point.
I cannot–cannot–overstate the depth of my anger toward Comey.
Assuming Hillary wins, the one good thing about Comey giving us the final scare may be (maybe not) to convince the progressive elite that they have to do one thing for the lower paid whites (AND BLACKS): reconstitute American labor union density.
Here is an email I sent to
Opps, (I,ll never figure out how that happens). Here is an email I sent to WSJ columnist Eric Morath today:
Maybe we should worry less about setting a minimum wage for low skilled jobs — or at least put the min wage on the back burner. Let’s re-constitute labor union density instead — along with centralized bargaining (the latter — a common contract with all employers for like work — standard feature in grown-up economies). Nobody can argue with a price set by free market bargaining.
No more everybody monitoring fractional localities (Seattle, Chicago) as the min climbs gradually (ever so gradually) towards a few dollars more than LBJ’s 1968 min — 48 years and double per capita income later!
Collective bargaining sets labor’s price by the maximum the consumer is willing to pay — not by the minimum the most helpless employee will work for.
I’m thinking most of today’s $400 low skilled jobs (typical supermarket contracts, pre-Walmart me thinks) could pay more like $800. $600 for fast food maybe, with 33% labor costs; $1000 for Walmart maybe, with 7% labor costs.
Is the money there — as a block-composition question — the money has to be there somewhere before we go any farther. In 1968 the fed min was $11 — at half today’s output per person. Today 45% of the workforce earns less than $15 an hour (so much for EITC as any big answer at 1/2 of 1% of income shift). 54% of the workforce takes 70% of income share. 1% takes 20% — up from 10% a couple of generations ago.
Simple (cab driver) economics: tax 10% of that 20% share to cover taxes of the 54% — who in turn will have the money to cover the higher prices that will shift 10% more share to the bottom 45% (I’m betting the 54% would up to keep the 45% coming to work every day w or w/o any help). Back to the 60s. However you do it the money is there — somewhere.
We now have white ghettos to compliment out black ghettos:
Strangers in Their Own Land, Arlie Russell Hochschild
Hillbilly Elegy, J. D. Vance
All blamed on:
When Work Disappears, William Julius Wilson
Look; 15 years ago manufacturing was 6% of employment — now down to 4% (and disappearing?). When I was born (1944) farm work was 25% — down to 2%. The real problem is that low skilled work cannot command the price it could command in the free market — WITHOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.
I lost my job to immigration. Chicago taxi driving paid $800 — now $400; now that it has been “in-sourced’ all over the world. Native drivers wont work for that. Ditto for low skilled work and especially fast food work in Chicago the latter “in-sourced” almost exclusively to India and Mexico.
Wage set by collective bargaining would level the hiring field: native and foreign born paid according to the value of the output to the consumer. (Taxi driving wage may not be directly subject to bargaining — but reconstituted union density would be a different world where government sets the price.)
These stats suggest that the beginning and end of Chicago’s shoot-em-ups mess is economic:
According to the CDC for 2015:
There were 32,000 gun deaths in 2015
60% are suicide – 19,200
3% are accidents – 960
4% are justified – 1,280
33% are homicides – 10,560
80% of the homicides are gang related – 8,448
Chicago DNA: recent weekend, 40 out of 52 Chicagoans shot over a recent weekend had 672 arrests between them.
100,000 out of my guesstimate 200,000 gang-age, minority males are in street gangs.
Of course, I would suggest that’s labor market economic.
Dennis, I don’t think the government can install the union changes you advocate.
Bev, I doubt that Obama will fire Comey. Hillary almost can’t.
I’m not sure what you mean. The government sets up the union certifying elections in the first place.
Only problem is it is inherently an advocacy set-up and the employer side has no deterrent at all to breaking every law. The closest protection the process gets is re-instating organizers who are fired years later — only to have them fired again in most cases within the year for “something else.” Don’t expect labor’s friends in Congress to be able to do anything about this anytime soon — ya know, like punishing union busting as a felony (like any lesser form of market manipulation).
Put simply, states can add to labor market protections (California does so extensively) but cannot subtract, just like with the minimum wage.
Given the massive warping of our society for lack of collective bargaining — I liken 6% union density in private business to blood pressure of 20 over 10, which starves every healthy process — I don’t know what progressive states are waiting for: WA, OR, CA, NV, MN, IL, NY, MD, ETC?
At the federal level I would like to see eventually the NLRB able to mandate a certification election with a finding of blocking the process.
Even winning an election is no guarantee of a contract — with zero available enforcement. I was in SF 15 years ago and there was a union demonstration outside the Marriott on 4th street. All day they would chant “Marriott Hotel you’re no good; sign the contract like you should” — “San Francisco should beware; Marriott Hotel is unfair.”
Lot of good it did them.
There is so little federal enforcement machinery that I think insisting that states cannot set up their own certification process is a violation of First Amendment right to associate commercially.
The state can undoubtedly make union busting a felony. What the STATE — at first glance — cannot seem to do is mandate a FEDERAL certification election. But — I think — insisting on federal preemption when the federal process is barren and purely a placebo of a process (witness 6% union density — crazily lower than any other modern labor market) in effect deprives employees of any opportunity to organize.
Ergo, states should be able to ignore preemption of nothingness — and set up their own labor union election (or card check or whatever) certification process.
But that’s me. Good luck when labor is virtually barred from even the rudiments in the vast majority of our labor market — and our culture is totally blind to see.
To get back on topic: we know from polls that Bernie would be trouncing Donald mercilessly. They don’t support him because they are racist, homophobic gun lovers or (God forbid) religious. They support the D’ump (a contraction) because he sounds like he is going to get their world back for them — sound like. The only way to get their world back is to take it back themselves through their labor organizations.
THAT WOULD SELL (in case elections is all we actually care about). Come to think of it Bernie was barren on unions too. What a blind country.
Might help if we secured the borders and enforced the laws against hiring illegal workers
Dennis, as you obviously know “criminalizing union busting” is easier said than done. Any such statute has to set out specific acts it is prohibiting. Plus there is the issue of preemption by the federal statutes. maybe what you mean is a more friendly NLRB.
Then there are the “right to work” states established by state legislatures. To deal with that it is necessary to control state legislatures. In states like mine (Illinois) where the laws are generally labor friendly, our working people lose traction due to off shoring and independent contracting. And it’s not just off shoring; it’s also interstate competition so that the management friendly states lure away many businesses from labor friendly states, a process going back at least to the migration of the mills from the northeast to the south.
I doubt that Bernie would be faring significantly better than Hillary but we’ll never know because Bernie, in the primary, did not get subjected to the Republican attack machine which would, in my opinion, have been far nastier than Hillary’s. Besides, it is irrelevant now.
I don’t know what it would take to get the unions more effective recruiting but I think whatever it is will have to come out of the workers themselves.
“…the intensity of my support is greater right now than at any earlier point.”
Obviously your support grows every time she does stupid sh*t so I suppose you will be a member of the Clinton inner circle when she finally gets impeached in 2019.
Assuming that I’m right about states being able to add protections to organizers (just not subtract), my hope would be “clear and hold”: get rebuilding union density started — just let people organize if they want to without running a gauntlet like in sane countries — in progressive states and let the culture spread as the common sense of it is seen from next door.
Only hope if the D’ump (a contraction) makes it.
I think the only hope is for a federal minimum wage that is a living wage (includes lifetime health insurance and reasonable retirement).
the problem with the union solution is that as long as there is “surplus labor” the unions can’t get traction.
the solution to surplus labor starts with paying labor a fair (living) wage. (i don’t think the economists would agree with me). and then adding unemployment insurance to my “living wage.”
if there are not enough jobs to go around, then some form of unemployment insurance gives people the room to use their off work time to better their lives.. or just take their turn with the jobs available.
the difference between “automation” and “outsourcing” is that automation should provide more room for “leisure”… certainly one of the goals of making money. but outsourcing just transfers the jobs and .
income to low wage workers in other countries.
thing is, there is “enough” money in the economy to support this. it is very likely the “rich” would have to give up some of their “wealth” but i don’t think they would even notice it if it wasn’t taken from them abruptly and announced as “redistirbution” or “paying their fair share.”
there is a psychology in these things. wages aren’t low because “that’s all it’s worth,” they are low because of the power distribution and the fact that as long as there are people essentially starving, you can always find someone willing to work for less. when business seriously need workers with more skills, it will find a way to train them… not send them off to some god forsaken college to get a “degree” ticket to stand in line for a job.
i am not married to any of this, and i admit it is a bit incoherent… but these things need to be thought through if there is to be any hope of a real solution.
thanks for keeping us informed re Comey. i don’t know what will turn out to be the truth of the matter… we may never know. but your version looks from here a good deal more plausible than, say, Warren’s.
Comey is so tarnished that he will probably be gone or resign after the election, BUT THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is whether HRC is fit to be President. Latest leaks indicate there is an imminent indictment coming re: Clinton Foundation activities.
More than that it is now reported that there is a 99% chance that the infamous independent Clinton “server” was hacked by at least 5 different foreign governments.
But all we are getting from the Clinton followers is she did not do …. Ooh look over there SSHHIINNEE ! Lets discuss SSHHIINNEE.
It’s been fascinating watch the wheels come off for Hillary, again.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For almost a decade we had a poster citing totally inept “experts” on one subject. That poster and his “experts” were of course completely and totally wrong. So much so that he disappeared and was not heard from again on that topic. Now we have the same poster citing totally inept “experts” on another subject, and claiming he is right.
You’d think he’d check his sources this time, but nah:
” If you weren’t concerned about what’s going on at the FBI before, you probably should be now.
Media Matters published a helpful overview, noting Schweizer’s record as a controversial Republican activist.
Schweizer has a disreputable history of reporting marked by errors and retractions, with numerous reporters excoriating him for facts that “do not check out,” sources that “do not exist,” and a basic failure to practice “Journalism 101.” Clinton Cash is similarly a trainwreck of bogus research that included more than 20 errors, fabrications, and distortions, according to a Media Matters review. On the campaign trail, Trump has pushed conspiracy theories from the book, leading reporters to note that the book has been “discredited” and features “lies” and claims that “fell apart under scrutiny.”
Schweizer is also the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), a right-wing group that purports to investigate “government corruption.”
Schweizer’s group was led in part by Steve Bannon, the chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Bannon also helped create a movie version of the book.
For much of the American mainstream, “Clinton Cash” was a partisan polemic that was better left ignored. For some at the FBI, it served as an inspiration for an actual investigation.
It appears the bureau has some work to do to get its house in order.”
Course, we do have anonymous leaks from(supposed) FBI agents to add into the mix in addition to the insane spencerish imbeciles that are named. But until there are names attached, no responsible person would repeat them, and certainly should not let them influence their thinking. Then again, the poster is really good at stating his goal and then trying to figure out how to get to it from where reality actually is.
There is a civil case claiming Donald Trump raped a 13 year old girl. Because of the simple fact that all of the accusers and witnesses are anonymous, the media and responsible people have refused to comment on the matter and/or speculate on the results.
Only wish more than half the country were as responsible.