Variety Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton to Return to Los Angeles for Fundraisers
On Tuesday, Clinton will attend an early evening event at the home of entrepreneur Sean Parker and his wife Alexandra, a musician, according to an invite. Tickets start at $2,700 per person.
Bloomberg Sheryl Sandberg Wants to See Hillary Clinton in the White House
Ho-hum. That was all well known in real time. And very much approved of by Hillary supporters/advocates.
Meanwhile, those same Hillary supporters were aiming to take a scalp. And on that one they succeeded.
US House Representative Mike Honda is a good guy if one values dedicated public officials that try hard to favor “the people” over all the corporate and military special interests. He had a tough race in 2014 and barely held off his challenger. But they came back even harder against him in 2016.
…
Honda already has the backing of the California Democratic Party and more than a third of the California congressional delegation, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). His campaign has been funded largely by retirees and union and corporate PACsKhanna’s donors, on the other hand, comprise a who’s who of Silicon Valley executives, including Sandberg, Pichai and former Facebook president Sean Parker. Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, ker. Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, a self-described libertarian who addressed the Republican National Convention last month in endorsing Trump, is also a Khanna supporter, a fact the Honda campaign happily seized upon. Khanna, whose parents emigrated from India, has also had success fundraising within the district’s sizable Indian American community.
…
Putting some dollar figures on that money, from Open Secrets as of 10/19/16
Honda: raised $2,753,470 and spent $2,388,677
Khanna: raised $3,484,384 and spent $3,303,700
In addition to that Californias for Innovation raised and spent $498,153, all for the benefit of Khanna.
Here are the 2016 primary election numbers. Guaranteed that Khanna or blank got every one of those GOP votes in the general election.
CA SOS -general election results:
Honda 39.8% — 64,704 votes
Khanna 60.2% — 97,826 votes
Given a choice between a real Democrat and a fake Democrat, Republicans go with the fake Democrat every time. Pathetic that a goodly chunk of Democrats also prefers a fake Democrat.
Marie…
I think that we are going to need to find a phrase to describe the current pack of mainstream Dem fools, hustlers and liars that is more accurate than “fake Democrat,” because to be a well-functioning mainstream Democrat of almost any kind is to be a “fake Democrat ” at least as opposed to the “real Democrats” as I believe you mean the term…true progressives/liberals coming out of the FDR tradition.
I further believe that the chances of the current mainstream Democratic party ever again being a “liberal” party are slim to none. The power of the media…which will probably rebound from its current loss of favor in about 4 news cycles or less due the the narco-addictive effect of mainstream media on the minds of a large majority of the U.S. population and the power of huge multinational money…will see to that. The Dems will prop up some hapless “liberal” figurehead(s) to deflect the public wrath and then go right back behind the Deep State Wizard Curtain and continue cooperating in the fix efforts, just as they have done for the past many decades.
Since LBJ, if you ask me.
So it goes.
It’s new party or bust as far as I am concerned, and if I had to bet on the relatively short-term outcome…say 8 years… I’d bet on bust.
Sorry, but there it is.
Later…
AG
Agree that our language is a few decades behind the corporate and anti-liberal/progressive takeover of the DP. I’m not even comfortable using the word progressive because it inherently implies that all pre-existing public policies were wanting. That’s how Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton sold junking solid existing New Deal/Fair Deal policies. How could any progressive possibly object to something called the “Commodity Futures Modernization Act?” Well, unless they plowed through the thousand pages or so of it.
California’s current election system enables stalking horse candidacies to ensure establishment victory. Case in point.
The other thing to notice is how ethnic politics plays out in multicultural states.
Overall and so far and surprising me, the top two has been better than the previous R and D general election choice. Glitches like this one occur, but so too in the past Republicans did win the odd district with D+5.
This glitch can be directly laid at the feet of the local Democratic Party for allowing Khanna to get away with a pretense of being a Democrat. Guess they didn’t care because it doesn’t change the D number in the CA House delegation and protects their access to big money, tech donors.
As I mentioned last June, CD-25 had the potential to flip from R to D with the right D candidate. That would have been the candidate that supported Bernie. But D party folks stepped in heavily to prevent that, and as I projected the primary #2 would go on to lose.
>>California’s current election system enables stalking horse candidacies to ensure establishment victory
i’m no fan of the jungle primary but not sure I quite see your point.
>>The other thing to notice is how ethnic politics plays out in multicultural states.
From my POV that’s the story of the rest of my life (per the 2010 census my tract is 53% asian).
The ethnic politics of the bay area and CA overall is very interesting, not to say difficult, and will only become more so. This is a big win for Indo-americans, but OTOH Honda has always been a strong voice for the entire under-represented Asian-american population.
Statewide I’ve thought for years the right Mexican-american candidate could take the place over, but he/she hasn’t shown up yet.
The Guardian — Gwen Ifill, PBS Newshour anchor and veteran journalist, dies aged 61
If was difficult not to like and respect Ifill even as I always had the sense that she could be much better than she or her employer allowed her to be. At age 61, she didn’t get those extra years most of us count on having.
Assange `finally afforded opportunity’ to give statement to Sweden, complains of `irregularities’
Nothing at all suspicious about the timing of an interview that was delayed by Swedish authorities for six years. Seems easier to read than the timing of the release of the Tehran embassy hostages.
You mean after the US elections?
It has been in the works for some time. As I recall it, last it was the defenders that post-poned.
Six years in the works. We can’t know, because it didn’t happen, if the interview would have taken place on Monday had Hillary won. If I were Assange, the timing would reinforce the suspicion that it had all along been dangerous to go to Sweden for the interview while Obama was President.
A year and a half ago, the Swedish prosecutor gave up her previous position that interviewing Assange in the Embassy is pointless.
A year ago:
Julian Assange: Sweden and Ecuador reach agreement for Wikileaks founder to be questioned over rape allegation | The Independent
This summer:
Sweden asks to meet Julian Assange inside Ecuador embassy | Media | The Guardian
So now the interview has taken place, and the investigation can formally be closed, and charges pressed. He has all this time been remanded in absentia pending trial in Sweden, based on the rest of the evidence. Seeking remand usually means the prosecutor has confidence in the evidence, so she is unlikely not to press charges.
Assange has had a number of explanations for why he has not returned to Sweden, the most pressing – risk of being handed over to the US – has nothing to do with the formal end of the investigation. So I expect him to stay at the embassy.
In effect, nothing changes.
Will have to agree to disagree on this one. I find it very curious that the Swedish prosecutor only relented on the location of the interview after five years and just as the US presidential cycle was by then in full swing. And then slow-walked the process for another year and which just coincidentally was after the presidential election in which the current US administration legacy candidate, who also used Wikileaks and Assange as boogie-men in her campaign and suggested that Assange should be droned, lost.
Perhaps the outcome of the US election had no more to do with the timing of the interview with Assange than the timing of the release of US hostages in Iran in 1981. The absolute truth in both cases will never be known, but since the revelation of the Iran-Contra deal, it’s been damn hard not to see that the timing of the release of the hostages was mere happenstance.
My point is that if not now, it would still have happened soon.
The prosecutor really relented last summer after being critisised on it by the Swedish Supreme court in (IIRC) the appeal of the remand in absentia prologation. Then there needed to be a treaty with Ecuador, which took six months (not bad by treaty standards). Then the defense wanted to get the investigation so far before agreeing to have Assange questioned, that was denied and took most of spring with appeals. Then there was a formal request this summer and some back and forth between the prosecutor and Ecuador on who would ask questions etc.
The prosecutor, the Assange defense team and Ecuador could have taken a political consideration in placing it after the election, but the date must have been set before.
My larger point is that it will not matter. The hearing has been played up by Assange and his defense team as one of those points where Sweden follows a more continental form then Britain, he hasn’t even been heard! But it is not actually important in and of itself, it is only a step towards the court proceedings which will not begin unless Assange surrenders himself. Which he won’t do. His Swedish lawyer even said so, on fears of being arrested for jumping bail by Britain and extradited to the US.
So unless the prosecutor will suddenly decide to drop the case and look like a fool, nothing will happen. Assange will stay at the Embassy, Sweden will wan’t him extradited, etc.
In one way, this will prove the prosecutor’s position that interviewing him in England was pointless all along.
I could be wrong but wasn’t the whole point of the interview to assess whether the case could/should be prosecuted at all? Why would the prosecutor look foolish if concluding from the interview that it should end now?
I probably don’t appreciate enough that in Sweden interviewing a suspect is a precondition for filing charges and isn’t like a courtesy offer (usually fraught with danger for a suspect because it’s often an official means to entrapment) as in the US. But Assange did appear in Sweden and was interviewed after the complaint was filed and a prosecutor closed the file. Then with no new evidence and no additional or new complaints it became an international scandal. hmm.
It is a precondition for filing charges, but the accused has the right to remain silent. And just as in the US, remaining silent is the best strategy.
He hasn’t been interviewed by police and prosecutors so far.
The 2010 timeline was:
20th of August, on call prosecutor (in the middle of the night iirc) files initial charges of rape, arrest warrant is issued.
21st of August, a more senior prosecutor takes over the case.
25th of August, the more senior prosecutor drops the charges and cancels the arrest warrant.
The victims counsel appeals dropping the charges, chief prosecutor Ny re-opens case on Septmeber 1st.
Here stories differ, prosecutor claims Assange was sought but not found, Assange claims he made himself availble.
Anyway, 27th of September, Assange is arrested in absentia. So, from that point of time it is perfectly clear that the Swedish police wants to get hold of him. He has likely already left the country for a lecture in Germany, and then he continues to Britain.
18th of November, the prosecutor files for having Assange remanded in absentia. Essentially, because he has not been found and interviewed during the investigation, the prosecutor has done the rest and now claims that remanding him, interviewing him and proceeding to trial is all that remains. So, at this point, the prosecutor is acting like they in all probability have a case regardless of what Assange will claim in the interview. The court agrees, and the ruling stands in appeal. Once the appeals process has been concluded, the European Arrest Warrant is issued and the case moves to London.
So, if there is something Assange can say now that makes the prosecutor drop the case – I’m innocent! – he probably shouldn’t have been remanded in absentia in November 2010. Or at least that is how I understand it (not a lawyer, though I read lawyer discussions online). And while not interviewing in London was understandable in 2010 as he was expected to be handed over soon anyway, that it has taken this long indicates a stubborn prosecutor. So she is unlikely to change her mind.
My own position is that no outsider can reasonably know what went down, and rape cases are better (even if far from perfect) tried in a court of law then in the court of public opinion. I think Assange should have followed the advice of for example Birgitta Jonsdottir (Wikileaks activist, Icelandic MP (Pirate)) and stepped down from Wikileaks while the case was tried.
Ever since August 2010 there has been a lot of bullshit thrown at the two women that reported him (CIA agents!), at the rape law (this isn’t rape!) and at the small differences between justice systems (Sweden has for example no bail, and not a jury system but judges, assisting judges and nämndemän, you can be remanded in absentia even if charges hasn’t been filed etc).
Assange has a point in that he can’t trust any US-allied state not to deport him to some black site, considering what happened during the Bush years. I get that he throws anything in the way of what he sees as a conspiracy against him, perhaps I would do the same if I were in his shoes. But that doesn’t make his claims true, just desperate. Doesn’t prove him guilty for that matter.
As far as police and prosecutors all I think I can say is that they have handled it much faster and spent more time on it then a run of the mill complaint. And the courts has handled his appeals faster then run of the mill cases also. That happens with all celebrity cases, so it alone is far from evidence of conspiracy.
I stand technically corrected but you excluded this completely from your timeline: The Guardian December 2010
Assange later left Sweden and there was no official investigation, etc. underway that would have prevented or sought to prevent him from leaving.
I only note that a six plus year long (and probably longer) international criminal issue has been made out of an mutual agreement between two people to engage in casual sexual intercourse and one of the parties later filed a complaint that the other party hadn’t abided by a condition in the agreement. That’s it. An international brouhaha over a disagreement by the two parties about their sexual encounter. No drugs or alcohol or violence or threats of violence involved or even alleged to have been involved. Even if he’d been charged and found guilty of violating a statute in Sweden (and not common under laws in most or perhaps any other western state), his maximum sentence would have been what? A fine? Locked up for a couple weeks or a couple of months?
This is like making a mountain out of a minuscule anthill. And this much effort for this long a period of time would never have gone into chasing any man not desperately wanted by a government with the power to make use of it.
Missed that one, thanks.
Ok, on 25th of August the prosecutor drops the rape charge and the arrest warrant but maintains molestation charge(s) that Assange is questioned for on 30th of August.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange questioned by police | Media | The Guardian
And those charges has passed the statue of limitations now.
But there are two women who filed complaints, and the rape charge comes from the other woman. Which was re-opened on 1st of September. So this is why he has been questioned, but not on the rape charge.
Punishment for rape is two to six years in prison. Considering that the prosecutors disagreed on wheter the actions as reported met the legal status of rape, I would guess two years (if convicted). Time in remand is deducted, and you get out after two-thirds unless you really mess up, so if he had remained in Sweden he would if convicted been free in early 2012. And Swedish prisons are about the same as the Norwegian prisons Michael Moore visisted once. (Unless he had been sent to a CIA black site.)
I honestly hoped he would skip of to South America (or anywhere outside the EU really) when it became obvious that the legal strategy in Britain was bonkers (far as I understood it was an attempt at over-turning the European Arrest Warrant system). The charge would remain on the books, but the case would drop from the headlines.
…so if he had remained in Sweden…
Why would he have remained in Sweden when he wasn’t scheduled to do so? His next stop was England and he had no idea that he would get trapped there. If he had, he would have hightailed it out of Sweden to somewhere out of reach of Sweden, the EU, and US.
Ordinary Americans don’t even recognize that they can’t label an Australian as a traitor.
thanks for covering my district Marie. sorry to see Mike go.
in addition to the reported cash advantage, Khanna also had the newspaper loud and strong behind him, not just an endorsement but multiple columns. I don’t know how much this matters any more.
Thank you for your addition from the local scene. Local media tends to trail the local big name/money endorsements/donations. And act as if rejecting an experienced, competent, and honest incumbent in favor of a newbie beholden to corp interests is worthy of serious thought on the part of media opinion makers.
I covered this because it exemplifies so very much of what’s wrong with the Democratic Party and how they operate. Zero principles and ethics on be representatives of the people when large dollar donations are flashed in front of them. What did HRC/DNC care about a lowly Rep that their filthy money donors were going to take out?
Hillary’s aides had a bit of bubly Tuesday morning on the plane
Why wait to have Champagne at an evening event when you can have on the plane before the votes are counted?
Suggestion — when providing a link to a NYTimes article, identify it as such to let others decide if they want to use one of their monthly free reads on this one.
Hillary and her team likely never had a moment of doubt that they would beat Trump. That, a Trump or Cruz nominee, was part of the plan from before she formally began her campaign. Well, by hook and crook she goes down in history as first woman nominee by a major party. Her legacy will also include that with every single formal advantage that any candidate and nominee could possibly ever hope to have, she lost to the worst ever nominee.
Nice that they got to enjoy a celebration a bit early. Better a premature celebration than none at all.
Sorry about the unexplained Times link. (Although I usually check what a link is to before I click on it, although I haven’t figured out how to do that on my tablet.) I wondered why I recently couldn’t read a Times story.
Anyway, here’s how the quote I gave continues, so people don’t have to follow the link. It’s interesting in itself.
Wow — you taught me something new. Never noticed before that I could check the source link before clicking on it. Thank you for that. I’ll still keep identifying NYTimes and WaPo links in the text of my diaries and comments because it seems like a respectful practice.
As I clicked on your link, went ahead and read the full article. I’m not buying the “erroneous data” argument, but the comment did reveal (inadvertently?) that they were aware of a high number of undecideds going into the final days of the campaign. By that point they didn’t have any option other than continuing to run with their negative campaign. Presumably to capture more voters disgusted by Trump. That tactic does generally favor the candidate that is better able to slime the opponent. However, it did come back to bite her in the butt a few times when she did it against Bernie.
wrt the “FBI bombshell,” what the speaker left out is that someone(s) on her team knew that Weiner’s laptop had been seized by the NYPD/FBI in late Sept. And I’m not buying that Abedin didn’t know that a trove of HRC emails were on it and that she withheld that information from HRC. As we saw in the PodestaFiles, many on her team complained that HRC often withheld information from them and I’m guessing that’s what she did in this instance. Relying on the slow speed of the investigation combined with the lack of warrant authority to inspect anything other than Wiener’s files for nothing public to come of this until after the election. Poor judgment and Hillary doesn’t do what if contingency planning.
What I mean by that last point, “what if” somehow, someone leaked the existence of HRC emails on the laptop before the election or an official in a position of authority on the investigation made the email existence known? If, as Comey’s last letter said, there was nothing other than copies of the emails that she and Abedin had previously turned over, they should have been prepared to run immediately with that. Had a plausible story as to why Abedin had made the copy and why she would have overlooked copies when she turned in all her originals. Publicly laughed about their lack of tech skills, assuring the public that there was nothing in the copies that hadn’t already been seen, and understanding why Comey felt it necessary to inform the committee because he and the FBI had no way of knowing that nothing but copies of what they already were on that laptop. Add that if Comey had asked her, she could have told him that it’s nothing but copies.
Hillary did try to say that in a stumbling around sort of way that sounded disingenuous and not confident that it was true and that perception was enhanced by the all out attacks on Comey. There was nothing in her team’s response to suggest that they weren’t caught completely off-guard and flat-footed and weakly making it up on the fly. That again flows right into one of her well-known inclinations to hide stuff. If that unfairly tipped undecided voters into Trump’s column, then she has nobody but herself to blame.
However, it really can’t be known if that was the deciding factor for tens of thousands of voters. But it does differ from the past public response when Hillary has claimed to be unfairly attacked which generally elicited empathy for her.
I agree that it doesn’t make sense to blame Comey, because if she hadn’t been sloppy and followed the rules, there would be nothing for Comey to investigate.
As for Comey sending the first letter to Congress being understandable, I agree, but that was such a grave thing for him to do 11 days before the election that I simply can’t see that as a decision he made on his personal conscience or ass-covering, and not something that he cleared with the “deep state”. Call me prone to conspiracy theorizing, but I simply couldn’t help immediately reading Comey sending that letter as a signal from the deep state that it had lost confidence in Hillary.
And I think a case can be made that it would have been irresponsible for Comey not to ask around with the powers that be whether it was all right for him to send that letter. I mean, if Trump was as dangerous as the Clinton campaign made him out to be, Comey potentially did grave damage to the US by sending that letter, because it could throw the election to Trump.
Given how narrow the margins were in usually blue states that went to Trump, I believe it is possible that Hillary would have won if Comey had not sent his letter. But of course there’s no way of knowing that it actually did give Trump the final push he needed.
Hillary always blames someone else for her own failures, so in this case, at least she blamed the director of the FBI and instead of the Russians.
Which reminds me: what might have made the damage from Comey’s letter stick was Hillary’s attacking Comey. I’m not the only one who thought that was a major mistake. That attack of Hillary on Comey just confirmed the impression that Hillary feels that she is above the law. And we have had quite enough presidents who have felt that way.
We will never know definitely whether Comey would have changed the election results, especially with so many close states. However, exit polls do not indicate a large effect. Looking at the “when did you decide presidential vote” question, we get (for H-T):
44-46 last few days
38-50 last week
37-51 Oct
Comey’s announcement was 11 days before the election and would have been reflected in the last week numbers; yet, she did 1% better last week than in Oct. Hillary’s earlier numbers were much better, so she lost it in October for whatever reasons.
Incidentally, the other major event – Trump’s tape bragging about grabbing women – was in early October. I’m guessing Hillary’s higher numbers in the last few days were truly undecided but just couldnt see themselves voting for somebody like Trump.
On anecdotal evidence only (comments on c99) some #NeverHillary Democrats and ex-Democrats decided to vote the lesser Evil instead of Green because they feared Trump. It was easier for them to say NO when they thought she would win anyway.
Like the celebrities “with HER” that vowed to move out of the country if Trump won that have decided not to move after all?
In 2000 at a company retreat, a co-worker from a field office and I bugged out of the cocktail hours to watch the first Gore v. Bush debate. Both of us recognized that the visuals hurt Gore even as there was no competition on the content. At the end C said, “Let’s vow to leave this country if Bush wins.” My response was “and just where are we going to go? We’re monolingual and employed as specialists in a specialty line of business and small industry that barely exists outside of the US?”
By the age of eighteen, everyone should have learned not to make idle threats. I can’t know what I would have done if I lived in a swing state because I don’t live in one. Thus, I don’t criticize those that had to make that call for themselves. As there was always the possibility that something could surface before election day that could force me into “HER” column, I kept my powder dry and merely acknowledged that it was highly unlikely that I could or would vote for her and my choice was between blank and Stein, neither of which were appealing options.
That’s why I don’t vote early or absentee unless it really seems that I might not make it to the polls.
I wonder why though. All my candidates either failed miserably or won by the same 65%+-1 in my district (obviously heavily (D))
Agree that she handled the first Comey letter poorly, but as the numbers that sny posted below, she fared more in October before the letter.
Dragging out a string of women accusing Trump of sexual harassment in the final leg of the campaign doesn’t look like a smart move.
Since we’re on the subject of why Hillary lost, I just ran across this:
Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trump’s triumph
I would correct that and say there were two men. The second was Obama, with his Obamacare and its markets of insurance providers, which is pure neoliberal fantasy.
Monbiot has got their number. Another strong essay from him.
Lefties have got a HUGE job to get Dems to look in the mirror. The ones who see politics as blood sport only in the abstract are very numerous.
The paragraph in between is the narrative:
Third way = an incoherent mashup. A smidgen of new winners compared to what the GOP traditionally delivers and a lot more losers.
Hillary’s military aides had more celebrstory moments. On the occasion of major F15 sales to KSA …
https:/theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present
and the Foundation flourished.
Note the date of that report. This email was in a batch released by the State Dept. So, all those carping that the DNCFiles and PodestaFiles were stolen and therefore, those making use of the content are rats can’t make the same claim wrt to this one. Hillary supporters ignore these sort of revelations about her official acts and then label those that don’t ignore her record as hillary-haters.
Why can’t one be both?