Call It A Comeback
The Trib comes out against the death penalty
The evidence of mistakes, the evidence of arbitrary decisions, the sobering knowledge that government can’t provide certainty that the innocent will not be put to death–all that prompts this call for an end to capital punishment. It is time to stop killing in the people’s name.
The odd part is that the last line could have been used in discussing Negroponte in the previous post.
Given the Bush administration’s assertion that anyone who aids a terrorist group should be prosecuted as severely as the terrorists themselves, $25 million seems a light penalty.
But it didn’t buy the company out of trouble. Colombia’s top prosecutor says he wants to extradite the executives who reviewed and approved the payments.
The U.S. will have a hard time arguing with that request. Colombia is our strongest ally in South America, and hundreds of alleged Colombian drug traffickers have been extradited to the United States since President Alvaro Uribe took office in 2002. Atty. Gen. Mario Iguaran has aggressively prosecuted Colombian citizens and companies for dealing with the guerrillas or the paramilitaries. Eight former members of Congress, all allies of Uribe, are in jail for colluding with the militias.
Whether it was acting to protect its people or its profits, Chiquita’s actions, detailed in court records, reveal an appalling lack of respect for life and law. Executives continued making payments to the terrorists even though company lawyers repeatedly advised them to stop. The payments were disguised in the company’s books, and in later years were made in cash. Even after the board of directors voted to approach the Justice Department about the payments, some executives resisted. “Just let them sue us, come after us,” they told their lawyers.
They are shocked, shocked I tell you that an American company had a relationship with a right wing terrorist group in Latin America.
Let’s see–there’s this guy named John Negroponte who helped start many of those right wing terrorist groups who is now Deputy Secretary of State.
The only good line is here:
“When you pay a group like this,” Iguaran said, “you are conscious of what they are doing.”
Just as Negroponte was.
One of the advantages the union candidates have is that the run-offs are going to be even lower turnout than the general and the unions are going to have the best turnout operation going. That mean Joe Moore should be safe, but it also means union backed challengers taking 5 seats as is the prediction in the piece isn’t unrealistic.
Right after the initial election I suggested that 2 races were sure pick-ups for the unions and that 2 were toss-ups. One was 15 which is actually an open seat. Meaning I predicted the potential for 3 pick-ups being Tillman 3, Coleman 16, and Brookins 21, but Brookins isn’t one of the five. Haithcock 2 and Matlak 32. Matlak and his opponent split union support so it’s a different case. To me, Brookins may yet be vulnerable as well meaning there are 5 targets that may yet be taken down depending upon turnout.
And, of course, there is no turnout counterweight since the Machine is not sending people out given the current legal situation. If the unions do take out a total of 6 to 7 alderman, not only will they have built a modern machine, but they would have implemented it in a very short time creating a lot of heartburn amongst the party regulars who will have to listen to them or face more challenges.
How often does this happen in Springfield
And the funny thing is that most of the people saying nice things about the guy aren’t just staff. Hynes and L Madigan have very good reputations as well as being fairly modest and hard workers, but Alexi had a special target on him after being backed by Obama and then a bunch of small revelations about his bank, but he’s doing an exceptionally good job of being open and thoughtful. Obama’s endorsement is starting to make sense.
This is going to be a huge story as the sub prime market is falling apart nationally.
OBAMA URGES BERNANKE, PAULSON TO FIGHT FORECLOSURES,
HOLD HOMEOWNERSHIP SUMMIT
WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Barack Obama today sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson urging them to immediately convene a homeownership preservation summit with key stakeholders to fight foreclosures driven by growth in the subprime mortgage market.
The text of the letter is below:
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.
Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody’s interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.
The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators’ Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:
· What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.
· How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.
· How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.
· How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.
· How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.
· How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.
Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by.
McCain releases a bunch of Illinois endorsements:
LLINOIS STATE LEADERS SUPPORTING SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator Pam Althoff
Senator Dan Cronin
Senator Kirk Dillard
Senator John Jones
Senator Dave Luechtefeld
Senator John Millner
Senator Dale Risinger
Senator Dan Rutherford
Senator Frank Watson
Representative Dan Brady
Representative Rich Brauer
Representative Mike Fortner
Representative Paul Froehlich
Representative Sid Mathias
Representative Mike McAuliffe
Representative Jim Meyer
Representative Rosemary Mulligan
Representative JoAnn D. Osmond
Representative Raymond Poe
Representative Randy Ramey
Representative Jim Sacia
Representative Jil Tracy
Representative Jim Watson
“It’s a major concession from the President’s initial offer to Congress, which was that they go fuck themselves.”
When the Daily Show is doing the job of the major news organizations. Not universally true as you can watch this hysterical exchange between Tony Snow and Harry Smith. Smith at the end is priceless.
The Daily Show Bit.
Yeah, any sense of reasonableness goes out the window when they start saying this garbage:
The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability. So what we’ve said is we’re going to reach out to you – we’ll give you every communication between the White House, the Justice Department, the Congress, anybody on the outside, any kind of communication that would indicate any kind of activity outside, and at the same time, we’ll make available to you any of the officiels you want to talk to …knowing full well that anything they said is still subject to legal scrutiny, and the members of Congress know that.
In 1792, the House conducted a major investigation by appointing a committee
to inquire into the heavy military losses suffered by the troops of Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair to Indian tribes. The committee was empowered “to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” According to the account of Thomas Jefferson, President Washington convened his Cabinet to consider the House request. The Cabinet considered and agreed,first, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public: consequently were to exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor the House had a right to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move the House to address the President.
The Cabinet concluded that “there was not a paper which might not be properly
produced.” The House committee examined papers furnished by the executive
branch, listened to explanations from department heads and other witnesses, and received a written statement from General St. Clair. The general principle of executive privilege had been established because the President could refuse papers “the disclosure of which would injure the public.” The injury had to be to the public, not to the President or his associates.
This administration has consistently flaunted the law and conflated its interest with the nations.
As the principle has stood, communication between Gonzalez and the President is probably covered under executive privilege, but none of the discussions between subordinates.
Typically this has been a tension not between parties, but between branches. How perverted the system has become over the last 6 years is exemplified by the notion this is a partisan issue. The damage to the Republic is great when the executive assumes he is the sovereign and not a portion of the sovereign.
…But this presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that “the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.”…The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts…. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense. …The [evidentiary] privileges are designed to protect weighty and legitimate competing interests… [and] are not lightly created nor expansively construed for they are in derogation of the search for truth.
Rich points out Fitzgerald is indicting Al Sanchez of the Hispanic Democratic Organization (everyone remember to type this out–it’s rather mysterious as just HDO to readers who aren’t familar) (HDO) and Streets and Sanitation Department Commissioner to Daley.
The key to me is that Sanchez isn’t a Bridgeport pal and as such may not have the same loyalty to the Mayor that Sorich had. If a case can break against Daley, and I’m still not betting it will, this is the way to do it.
Watergate has been used to append gate to all sorts of scandals, but I tend to think that a plan to essentially undermine the checks and balances of the United States government would then be used to modify fairly serious scandals and not, some guy made a web video and is marginally tied to some campaign. Apparently Hotline on Call disagrees
Reserve the circumstances of de Vellis-gate just a bit. Let’s say an employee at a major Bush vendor or a major Clinton vendor was caught engineering a stunt like this. The presumption of innocence would be gone. The press would treat the matter as it were a real scandal.
US Attorneygate works, especially given the lame executive privilege claim is about as ludicrous as Nixon’s when he tried to invoke it–though to be fair, nearly all President’s try and push the issue and few have any merit. Bush and Nixon have just taken the argument to the extreme. Let’s save the ‘gates’ for serious scandals.
And, ummm…Swift Boat Vets for the Truth wasn’t the same situation? And how many press outlets pointed out just how close to the Bush campaign the SBVT’s were?
ArchPundit