National Pi Day

by Dave

π Day

Ok.  The day has come and gone.   If there were any big celebrations of pi, I wasn’t invited.   An approximation of pi is 3.14 so March 14 was selected  to celebrate this mathematical constant.  However,  in other countries,  dates are written dd-mm-yy,  so this doesn’t translate well.  Conceivably, one could celebrate the 314th day of the year,  a remarkably terrible idea since November to December period is already extremely crowded with Black Friday, Cyber Monday, turkey sales, and not to mention Christmas, Hanukkah  and Thanksgiving.   Plus, it opens the floodgates to celebrate every mathematical constant less than 365.

William Jones, a self taught mathematician,  is given credit for inventing pi in 1706 (see link below).   Pi is an irrational number, which does not mean it goes crazy when someone forgets to take out the garbage or feed the cat.  It is irrational because it can not be expressed with a finite number of digits or in a  series of repeated digits.

The idea of eating a pie, with a line drawn across it, representing the diameter of the circle on March 14 seems reasonable.  Also, yesterday there were promotions on pizza, obviously attracting neurotic mathematicians, engineers and scientists and their ilk, but really to  no one else.  There is already a National Pie Day and National Pizza Day.  And as  astute mathematicians have  noted:  π≠pie.  Believe me, they are inflexible on this point, and will not be adding any recipes to math books.  I still think some aberrant philistine could do it,   with a book entitled  “π and Pies: Great mathematical equations and recipes”  just to fill the obvious  void.

National Pie Day was created by Charlie Papazian, an American of Armenian descent (as I am).  It  is celebrated on January 23, which happens to be Charlie’s birthday.  He is trained as nuclear engineer, but for the last 40 years, has promoted home brewing through tapes and books.  He is the founder of the Association of Brewers and the Great American Beer festival.   Home brewing got a big head start from Jimmy Carter who signed into law in 1978, the right of every American to brew his own beer.   Charlie Papazian looks like an immensely happy guy:

He is quoted as saying:  “Buy a man a beer and he wastes an hour.  Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime.”

I was going to add a truly great recipe for Key Lime pie (aka, KL- π), but I’ll save it for Charlie’s birthday (Jan 23).

I have already said more than enough.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Updates Terrible Pi Jokes:

Pie > π because you can eat pie.

See others, equally dumb:

http://www.newsweek.com/pi-day-2018-math-jokes-841544

 

Links:

http://www.fox13news.com/consumer/national-pi-day-2018-delicious-deals-and-freebies

William Jones and his circle, the man that invented Pi

Charlie Papazian (Wikipedia)

Pi Day

 

 

Getting closer to center

by Dave

Republicans, Democrats and Uncommitted.  I  agree with a lot of the Democratic party’s goals, but not all of them.   Seems like there was a lot of talk of bring down the US deficit prior to the election, by cutting spending.   There’s been a lot of talk, but the debt ceiling will have to be bumped up again.

I guess what I like most is a unity between Republicans and Democrats.   Or at least I am still hoping on the issue of gun violence, there can be at least a few Democrats joining with Republicans.

Immigration reform ought to be a bipartisan issue also, but perhaps I’m dreaming.

Free trade has been a Republican idea for a long time.   I generally like trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific  Pact, which seemed to help balance out China’s aggressive deal making in the region.   Threats of tariffs are being used as bargaining chips – I think this will fail, because other leaders have to reciprocate or look weak to their electorate.

I don’t like it when Donald Trump calls Democrats “obstructionists” – this does represent about half the country.  I am hoping he is replaced with someone more closer to the center who will never resort to name calling.

I want a president which will restore the Environmental Protection Agency instead of bring in someone to wreck it.  I still consider the protection of the environment a bipartisan issue.   Perhaps, this is another one that left port a long time ago.

I’m sadden by what has happen to television  in terms of reporting the news.   I read a lot and enjoy mainstream media, like the New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.  They are doing journalism the old fashion way, by putting knowledgeable journalists on the front lines.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Doug and Kris Tompkins and their incredible contribution

by Dave

This is a picture of Patagonia Park in Chile.   It is a 10 million acre wilderness park.  The Chilean government owned approximately 8 million acres and the Tomkins owned approximately 2 million acres.  Two million acres – I thought there had to be an error.   Two million acres is equal to  3125 square miles, or viewed as a square piece of land 55 miles on a side.  The land is not all contiguous, but nevertheless, it is an amazingly large area of preserved wilderness.

The idea of starting small but thinking big, is personified in Doug and Kris Tompkins.  Doug Tompkins is not longer with us, but his contribution lives on and will continue to inspire others.  In January 2018,  I read how Kris Tompkins had donated 2 million acres of land in Patagonia, Chile to the Chilean government so they could continue to preserve their heritage.

The first line of Douglas Tompkin’s brief biography in Wikipedia say a lot:

“Douglas Rainsford Tompkins (March 20, 1943 – December 8, 2015) was an American conservationist, outdoorsman, philanthropist, filmmaker, agriculturalist, and businessman who assembled and preserved the land which became the largest gift of private land to government in South America.”

Doug’s incredible life came to a tragic end, dying of hyperthermia on a  kayak trip in 2015, the gift was made by his wife Kristine.

This is a northern California story.   Somehow, there’s a greater feel up there for environmental causes, or what can be done, in a big way, to help our planet.  It makes sense that is why the Sierra Club and many other groups have headquarters in northern California.  Other places have mountains, seashore and scenic views, but everything is so close in northern California.  However,  it isn’t really what’s there, but how you become a part of it.

This is a story which begins at  the epicenter of the 60’s culture, San Francisco.  Susie Russell picked him up Doug as he was hitch hiking in Reno  and in 1964 they were married.    They had attended the same high school, but had not known each other then.  Susie and Jane Tise began a clothing business called “Plain Jane” which ultimately became the brands, North Face and Espirit.  Fast forward a couple of decades, and both Doug and Susie Tompkins were millionaires. In 1986, Espirit had sales of over 800 million dollars.Doug and Susie divorced in 1989.   Both remarried, and continued their philanthropic environmental activism.  Susie Tompkin Buell strongly supported climate change initiatives, the media matters organization and progressive political organizations.

This is the story of  three incredible individuals (Doug and Kris Tompkins and Susie Buell) who became rich because of their talents and hard work, and then  gave so much back to us.  It’s truly inspiring.  It is now up to the Chilean government to maintain their gift from the Tompkins for future generations.

Please see the links below.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Links:

Chile Adds 10 Million Acres of Parkland in Historic First

Susie Tompkins Buell

Douglas Tompkins

Kris Tompkins

 

No one is above the law – Maybe!

by Dave

We live in a free country.  Anyone can sue anyone.  An astonishing number of frivolous claims are made all the time.  I don’t know if the lawsuit by Stormy Daniels has one iota of merit, and I’m certainly not going there.  But Time magazine and others have raised the issue if a president can be sued in civil court.   Trump came to power with a lot of legal actions pending against him.   Can he be dragged into court while president?  The short answer is – it depends on the  case.  And it is a real uphill legal battle if you’re suing a billionaire president.

There exists “Presidential Immunity”  which is based on the separation of  the judicial and executive branches.   Theoretically,  if there was an open door to frivolous  lawsuits against the president,  the president could be so bogged down with having to respond to them, he could not perform his duties.  It would make the executive branch subordinate to the judicial branch, contrary to the separate and equal branches of government per our constitution.

If there is one individual who was responsible for breaking down this wall of presidential  immunity, it was Paula Jones,  or more specifically Paula Jones legal team.   The initial sexual harassment case began when Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas.  Paula Jones claimed that in 1991, Clinton propositioned her and exposed himself in the Governor’s mansion.   She filed in 1994, and the judge dismissed this case, on the basis that a sitting president can not be sued while in office.   Her case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and now is considered a landmark case.   The Supreme Court sided with Paula Jones and allowed her sexual harassment case to proceed in court.  Ultimately, the case was dismissed in a summary judgment for  lack of merit.   The decision was appealed and ultimately settled for $850,000. Paula Jones lawyers got $650,000 and she got $200,000.   Clinton through his lawyers has always maintain his innocence.   The Jones case led to the Monica Lewinsky case, and the impeachment of President Clinton, which failed during the Senate  trial phase.

If any of the many litigants are able to get their day in civil  court against President Trump,  they will be citing the Supreme Court landmark case, Clinton v. Jones which gives them the right to sue the president for actions prior to becoming president.   See Wikipedia link.   There are a lot of ironies to all this.  Clinton could have paid Jones, the $700,000 she was asking for in 1994.  Also, if Bill Clinton had settled out of court with Jones, the case would not have ended up in the Supreme Court, and future Presidents could still be claiming immunity.   It was Clinton who appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, after the appellate court ruled against him.

Paula Jones was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, yet she must now be re-thinking her allegiance in light of all the denials by Trump.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Wikipedia: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The Trump accuser who refuses to go away (Summer Zervos Case)

Clinton v. Jones (Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

The Keystone XL Pipeline

by Dave

“The Keystone Pipeline was dead. And the Dakota Access Pipeline was in even in worse shape because they built it but they weren’t allowed to hook it up,” Trump said, referencing two of the most disputed pipeline projects in the country. ” And in my first week, I approved both. It’s 42,000 jobs. The Dakota is already open and Keystone is starting; it’s actually already started. And that was done in the first week—got it approved.”

Trump said this in November 2017 when he visited Japan.  Only problem is that it’s not true.  Keystone XL pipeline isn’t starting.   The Dakota pipeline was completed before Trump took office.  It was only a problem at one of the terminal points.

The reasons for the Keystone XL delays are many, some ironically as a result of White House “pro-energy” policies.   TransCanada Corporation (symbol TRC) wanted to bring the heavy oil from Alberta’s oil sands to the refineries in Oklahoma and Houston and Port Arthur by pipeline.   The little known fact, is Obama approved many of the vital links of the pipeline,  so oil was flowing from Alberta, Canada to the refineries, before Trump was elected.   This was accomplished through completion of the Keystone pipeline Phases 1, 2, 3a and 3b.   The big controversy was on Phase 4, the Keystone to Steele City leg, shown in green.    The pipeline isn’t just about getting oil from Canada to the US.  It is also adds to the pipeline capacity to ship US oil from oil producing areas, to refineries.  Cushing, Oklahoma has a large storage capacity, so this link  (Phase 3b) was pushed when oil prices were dropping, so they could store more oil, to avoid shutting in wells or halting ongoing development.

 

So,  don’t think Obama was “anti-pipeline” construction since the major links of Keystone were completed during his administration.  It was the Phase 4 expansion as shown in green, that  caused so much controversy.  From 2008 to 2015, there were a number of approvals, but the final State Department approval was delayed as alternative routes were being examined through Nebraska, to avoid potential aquifer contamination.  Wikipedia has done an excellent job of summarizing these contentious 7 years of delays.   Ultimately, President Obama decided not to approve Phase 4,  on the grounds that expanding import of a “dirtier oil” with approximately 14% higher carbon emissions,  “would have undercut [the United States’] global leadership on climate change.”  So, it was a matter of how other countries might perceive this approval, and be less inclined to cut their own carbon emissions.  (See Wikipedia discussion)  Obama also downplayed the impact of the pipeline decision, as he stated,  “for years, the Keystone pipeline has occupied what I, frankly, consider an overinflated role in our political discourse. It became a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter. And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.”

Trump could not immediately reverse Obama’s decision.    He issued an Executive Memorandum to expedite a new  review of the pipeline on January 24, 2017, four days after taking office. A clip from the signing ceremony is provided in the links below.  At that day,  TransCanada stock was about $48 on January 24, 2017.  (see note at bottom).

On March 24, 2017 the State Department issued a Presidential Permit to begin construction (see State Department link).   This wasn’t enough.  It had to be approved by Nebraska regulators, which  occurred on November 20, 2017.   The approved route was not the one that TransCanada wanted.

It is likely in 2018,  on the tenth anniversary of the initial application ,  all issues on the pipeline will come full circle, with new rounds of economic uncertainty and legal problems.   The cost of steel products, needed for the pipeline is going up, due to Trump’s tariffs.   The oil price seems pretty steady at $60 to $62/bbl,  instead of EIA forecast of $80/bbl several years ago.   The heavy oil from Canada sells at a lower price than the sweet Bakken and Permian  crude, from fracked wells.  The Dakota pipeline, which Trump wants to take credit for, doesn’t help the Keystone XL prospects.  So, it is difficult to know if TransCanada will still want to build the pipeline given the soft oil prices and increases in steel.

Finally, legal problems are mounting.  The National Defense Resource  Council (NDRC) has challenged the State Department’s approval in March 2017, saying it was based on old economic evaluations (2014).  They are seeking State Department documents related to the decision.   The Trump administration has provided some documents, but NDRC claims they were only a selected few of the documents they requested.  The rest is considered “privileged information”,  but the government must back their claim  with a “privilege log” – all this could come to a head soon in March.   See link from NDRC.

The pipeline is likely neither a great economic boost nor an terrible threat to global warming as Obama stated.   He recognized that without the pipeline, the heavy oil from Canada could come to the US.   In the end,  if TransCanada can’t find partners, and commitments from refiners, they may decide the pipeline expansion just isn’t worth it.  At least, at today’s oil prices.  TransCanada trades today at $44.00/shr down from $56.00 when Trump signed the Executive Memorandum in January 2017.

Stay tuned,

Dave

— Note:  Original post stated $56.00 but this was today’s price in Canadian dollars.  Stock price  was  $47.71 at the close in New York on Jan 23, 2017.

Links:

Note:  I admit I grossly simplified the story.  I had to!  See links below which do a much better job with all issues.

Wikipedia: Keystone Pipeline

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/trump-to-advance-keystone-dakota-pipelines-with-executive-order-on-tuesday-nbc.html

March 24, 2017 State Department

Nebraska Allows Keystone XL Pipeline, but Picks a Different Path

NDRC Keystone XL Update

CNBC: Steel tariffs won’t help Trump achieve his goal of ‘American energy dominance,’ oil industry warns

 

The Antidote to Trump

by Dave

Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA,  is systematically weakening the EPA.  We have pulled out of the Paris Climate Change Accords, the Clean Water Rule has been suspended,  and the Clean Power Act is being repealed.   Large areas are being opened to mining and oil exploration with minimal review of potential environmental damage. The EPA budget will be reduced by 31% and 25% of the staff will be fired.

It is a tactic to please the right wing, conservative base of Trump’s administration.  The  harm is increased global warming with more extreme weather conditions, causing loss of lives and destruction of homes.   Global warming does not cause hurricanes, but it can make them more frequent and more intense as a result of warming seas.  Long term effects will be decline in the more fragile ecosystems, in  Florida and the Chesapeake Bay, with profound effects.

While Scott Pruitt is doing everything he can to make the EPA less effective,  Mike Mulvaney is going to extreme measures at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, to make the agency ineffective in defending the consumer – just the opposite of what it was set up to do.   I reported that after Equifax security was breached and information on 146 million Americans was stolen,  Mulvaney is not issuing subpoenas for information.  I’ve reported on the atrocious action in allowing Insurance Bi-Weekly to get back in business (not requesting bond equal to their judgement while it was being appealed).

There is a long list of what Trump is doing wrong.  I happen to like Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, but Trump is always undercutting him, and cutting back on the “soft power” of the US,  by diminishing our role in the UN and not filling diplomatic posts.   I think Jeff Sessions is honest and forthright, not allowing the Mueller investigation to become political.    Trump has criticized Sessions for recusing himself from the Mueller investigation, calling him weak.

At this point, the antidote to this, is to elect Democrats to the Senate and House of Representatives in the Fall to help  repair the damage.  There are very few Republicans with a strong environmental record.  We need responsible government and a president that truly believes in a progressive agenda.   I don’t know who I’ll vote for in the next presidential election, but it won’t be for Trump.  The BS coming from Fox News and other conservative outlets is strong, but people can see their way past this stuff.

The best antidote for what is going on in Washington, is an active and informed electorate.  It’s called critical thinking and taking action primarily at the ballot box.

Stay tuned,

Dave

It’s not about puddles, but keeping our water clean

by Dave

 

“If you had a puddle in your land, (the EPA) called it a lake for the purposes of environmentals.”  Donald Trump,  CPAC, February 23, 2018.  I’m sure he meant environmentalists.  CPAC is the Conservative Political Action Conference.    This claim is  absurd.

I had also wanted to call this dirty water and dirty politics.  It is the collusion of polluters mainly in agricultural states, who allow runoff from farms into streams and wetlands and conservatives within the Republican party.

Scott Pruitt has suspended enforcement of the Clean Water Rule, as enacted in 2015 as of January 31, 2018.   Another words, he made it more difficult for the EPA to do its job – to ensure the US water bodies are free from pollutants and maintain  thriving ecosystems.   He did not abolish the rule, because this requires a formal process.  He will just ignore the rule.

The Clean Water rule was not easy to enact.  It clarified what is meant by the “nation’s water bodies.”  Per the EPA site during the Obama administration:

“Science shows us the most important waters to protect. In developing the Clean Water Rule, the EPA and U.S. Army Corp of Engineers utilized the latest science, including a report summarizing more than 1,200 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies which showed that small streams and wetlands play an important role in the health of larger downstream waterways like rivers and lakes.”

 

 

The web address as shown above is no longer active.      See EPA archive website: Why clean water rules matter?

The website address is archive.epa.gov

The following is from Wikipedia:

“The rule ensures that Clean Water Act (CWA) programs are more precisely defined and intends to save time and avoid costs and confusion in future implementation of the act. The rule intends to make it is easier to predict what action(s) will be taken by the EPA and what processes companies and other stakeholders may have to undergo for projects and permitting. There are no direct changes to the law under the Clean Water Rule. After analysis, the EPA and Department of the Army found that higher instance of water coverage would produce a 2:1 ratio of benefits to costs in implementation after the final rule. Implementation of the rule will discern any implications for environmental justice communities, though it is clear that “meaningful involvement from minority, low-income, and indigenous populations, as well as other stakeholders, has been a cornerstone of development of the final rule.”

 Specific details that have been clarified by the rule as outlined below.
  • Defines more clearly the tributaries and adjacent waters that are under federal jurisdiction and explains how they are covered

A tributary, or upstream water, must show physical features of flowing water – a bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark – to warrant protection. The rule provides protection for headwaters that have these features and have a significant connection to downstream waters. Adjacent waters are defined by three qualifying circumstances established by the rule. These can include wetlands, ponds, impoundments, and lakes which can impact the chemical, biological or physical integrity of neighboring waters.

  • Carries over existing exclusions from the Clean Water Act

All existing exclusions from longstanding agency practices are officially established for the first time. Waters used in normal agricultural, ranching, or silvicultural activities, as well as certain defined ditches, prior converted cropland, and waste treatment systems continue to be excluded.

  • Reduces categories of waters which are subject to case-by-case analysis

Before the rule, almost any water could be put through an analysis that remained case-specific, even if it would not be covered under CWA. The rule limits use of case-specific analysis by providing certainty and clarity of protected vs non-protected water. Ultimately the rule saves time and avoids further evaluation and the need to take the case to court.

  • Protects US “regional water treasures”

Specific watersheds have been shown to impact downstream water health.  The rule protects Texas coastal prairie wetlands, Carolina and Delmarva bays, western vernal pools in California, pocosins, and other prairie potholes, when impacting downstream waterways.

This is not the way to make America Great Again.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

EDF Blog on EPA’s Suspension will set a dangerous precedent

EPA Under Obama:  Clean Water Rule: Streams and Wetlands Matter

Wikipedia: Clean Water Act (1972)

Clean Water Rule

 

 

 

South Africa’s turn to experience global warming

by Dave

 

“Is it [global warming] an existential threat? Is it something that is unsustainable, or what kind of effect or harm is this going to have? I mean, we know that humans have most flourished during times of what? Warming trends,” Pruitt said. “I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100? In the year 2018? I mean it’s fairly arrogant for us to think that we know exactly what it should be in 2100.”

Scientific predictions are inexact and subject to constant correction.  Pruitt’s attacks on climate change  and other environmental problems are  always to find some weaknesses in scientific studies, exaggerate their effects and then attack anyone who might accept these conclusions as either stupid or arrogant. He spent most of last year identifying why global warming might not be occurring and now seems to be saying that it might be a good thing.

Climate change helps create extreme weather events.   It is never a simple case of cause and effect.  It is more that climate change is a significant contributing factor to catastrophic weather events, like the hurricane Maria that destroyed large parts of Dominica and Puerto Rico and the hurricane Irma that caused destruction on both sides of Florida.   Studies indicated that the  sea water in the Gulf of Mexico was warmer than normal and helped these hurricanes to grow in size and strength.

Climate change is worldwide.   Now it’s Cape Town in South Africa’s turn.  Cape Town is experiencing a “one in 1,000  year” drought.  Scientists believe climate change has contributed to this drought.   Also, increases in population and inadequate funding of other water sources, such as desalination plants, contributed to the crisis.  Americans use about 80 to 100 gallons per day.   In Cape Town, this is a crime.  Water usage as of Feb 1, 2018 is limited to 50 liters, or about 12 gallons per day –   not enough for cooking, showers and toilet flushes.  They don’t know exactly  when the supply of water will go to zero, but it’s real soon.  It was May 11, 2018.  Now it’s July 9.  On Day Zero, peoples’ taps will no longer supply water.  People will stand in line with water containers for hours at designated locations.

Name 3 places Scott Pruitt is unlikely to visit:  Cape Town,  Florida and Puerto Rico.  I could name a dozen more.     The evidence of global warming are everywhere.  Ski resorts in Italy and Switzerland are opening later in the winter and closing earlier.  They increasingly depend on artificial snow making machines.  Islands in the South Pacific are getting smaller as water levels rise.  Residents are abandoning their homes.  Same thing is happening in northern Alaska as the ice melts.

It’s bad and getting worse.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Wikipedia:  Scott Pruitt

Foundation for Climate Change Orientation

South Africa’s drought-stricken Cape Town pushes back ‘Day Zero’ to July 9

 

The bare chested Tonga man

by Dave

Go Pita,  Go Pita.

His full name is Pita Taufatofua.  He caused quite a stir as the as the flag bearer of the country of Tonga in the Parade of Nations at opening ceremony in the Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.  He is a martial arts expert. He was eliminated in the first round of taekwondo at the Olympics.     He was the first athlete from Tonga to compete in the Olympics in taekwondo. Fans were ecstatic to learn he qualified to be in the Olympics in Korea.  He did not disappoint, as once again, he came bare chested and well oiled as Tongo’s flag bearer.    It isn’t easy to qualify for the Olympics, but Pita did it twice, in two very different sports- taekwondo and cross country skiing.  He finished 114th place out of 119th skiers – accomplishing his goal of not finishing last.  I might add, even if he had finished last, his fans would still be there, because he is the only athlete from Tongo to qualify for the winter Olympics.   He just seems a real happy guy.

So, Go Pita Go.

 

Wikipedia: Pita Taufatofua

Wikipedia:  Tongo  (Pita now lives in Australia, but grew up in Tongo)

Stay tuned,

Dave

Russian meddling in the US Elections

by Dave

Russia meddled in the United States 2016 elections.  This is no longer speculation.  Indictments from a grand jury have been handed down indictments on 13 Russian nationals.  I assume none will be extradited to the US for trial.   I have no idea if  trials in absentia are possible. Already, there has been a response from one indicted Russian, that these charges are absurd and that 13 Russians could hardly change the results of an election.  The indictments do not conclude the meddling changed election results.

There was an impact; it just can’t be assessed.     It was a small group of professionals who came here to influence our election, likely supported by a larger dedicated group in Russia.  I don’t know how many more Russians were involved within the US, who the Justice Department could not indite because they just don’t have sufficient evidence.  The Russians came here with cash to spend and I suspect most of it went to help Donald Trump.  Moreover, whatever their operatives were spending on the ground here, their Russian counterparts were likely spending much more on planning and directing as dirty a campaign as possible against Hillary Clinton.   Mueller does not need to identify the full extent of the Russian meddling to get indictments, just that significant expenditures were made.  A cool million probably satisfies this threshold.

The question which should be asked, is why Russia thought they could pull this off and sway the election in favor of Donald Trump?   I think you have to look at how few people really determine the outcome of a Presidential election.   Hillary Clinton lost Florida by 112,911 votes.  If she had won Florida, she would have a total of 256 electoral votes.  At that point, winning one or two  “swing states” would have put her over the top (270 electoral votes).   Clinton lost Pennsylvania by 44,262 votes, and  20 electoral votes she needed to secure victory.

How to influence the election in 2016 was obvious to Russians or anyone else following the US elections.  Florida was #1 swing state.  Northern Florida was predominately Republican and the more people who voted in the north, the better Trump’s chances of winning.   Dressing up a  woman in prison suit with a sign “Crooked Hillary” to get the media’s attention was perfect.  If the electorate only knew!

This is Mueller’s show.   No one really knows where his investigation is going, and his team as kept things pretty buttoned up, as they should be.   My take is Russia did a whole lot more, including working with Trump’s team before the election to get dirt on Hillary, through the email hacks.  We shall see.

Stay tuned,

Dave

News Junkies

by Dave

There are health junkies, sports junkies, car junkies and news junkies.   Last Sunday, I happen to stumble upon a Porsche show, with models going back to the late 1950’s.   It was phenomenal.  These were car junkies.

News and sports junkies have something in common.  They know the history of players.  They can do a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking.  Example:  “What an idiot,  the wide end receiver was wide open and he decides to run with the ball.  I could have done 10X better.”

This is the case of FBI agents Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, whose idle conversations on the news of the day and office politics has been blown way out of proportions by the right wing news media.   They were sharing their common interest in politics.   They thought their conversations were private.   They said mean things about both Democrats and Republicans.  This was part of an extra-marital affair.   The affair ended and so did Strzok assignment to Mueller’s team.

Initially, Peter Strzok was the agent in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton’s email.   It meant working nights and weekends, reviewing reams of emails.   I think the text messages to Lisa Page, a lawyer with the FBI, were at times an emotional release to the pressures of work.   The conclusions of the Wall Street Journal are:

Texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump. Rather, a broader look shows an unvarnished and complex picture of the lives of an FBI agent and lawyer who found themselves at the center of highly charged probes.

Further the WSJ article states:

They logged long hours and frequently worked on weekends. They seemed dedicated to their jobs but didn’t hesitate to chastise or criticize many others beyond Mr. Trump, including their colleagues and each other. In deeply personal office chatter, they come across as intense, ambitious and unsure of their standing in the bureau.

The short text messages were understandable.  They were real busy.  After the email investigation concluded,  Peter Strzok was assigned to Mueller’s Russian investigation team for two months, before the text messages were discovered.  He was reassigned to work as the  head of Human Resources for the FBI.

Peter Strzod also suggested a change in Comey’s memo on Clinton’s email investigation, indicating that she was “extremely careless”  instead of “grossly negligent” to avoid a misrepresentation that her actions fit the legal definition of the crime of “grosss negligence”  as Secretary of State.    So, this was a change to clarify Comey’s statement.

If there was any inappropriate done  in Peter Strzok  work  either in the email or the Russian investigation, it would be in the text messages to his confidant.  All there is a lot of office chatter after very long hours at the office.

The take away message is,  your right to privacy changes dramatically once you pass through the office doors of your work.   The Fox news commentator’s obsession with FBI conspiracy theories  and misrepresentation is for rating purposes only.   I hope the best for these two FBI agents.   Time to move on.   You can call the entire Patriot’s team  f**king  idiots, and no one will come after you.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

Inside the FBI Life of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as Told in Their Text Messages

 

 

 

 

Born free – CFPB and Equifax

by Dave

Mike Mulvaney is protecting consumers, by not letting their hard earned money go to government.   Specifically, the agency he runs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is actually anti-consumer.   The average citizen can’t sue Wells Fargo for setting up phony accounts, or Equifax which was hacked and potentially data on 140 million Americans was stolen.  I’ve reported how he reversed course and did not require Nationwide Biweekly Administration to post bond while appealing the 8 million dollars against them.   It really says to this company,  at your level, crime actually does pay.

How bad was the Equifax breach?  According to the company:

The credit reporting company announced in September that the personal information of 145.5 million consumers had been compromised in a data breach. It originally said that the information accessed included names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and — in some cases — driver’s license numbers and credit card numbers. It also said some consumers’ credit card numbers were among the information exposed, as well as the personal information from thousands of dispute documents.

It doesn’t sound like it could get any worse, but it just did.  Add to the list of stolen data, email addresses and tax identification numbers as revealed by the Senate Banking Committee.   Tax identification numbers are used by foreigners to pay income tax.   The breach now goes beyond US citizens, and has to be addressed at the federal level.

CFPB can not comment on an active investigation,  but there has been enough leaks to know that CFPB is doing very little (Huffington Post article):

Three sources say, though, Mulvaney, the new CFPB chief, has not ordered subpoenas against Equifax or sought sworn testimony from executives, routine steps when launching a full-scale probe. Meanwhile, the CFPB has shelved plans for on-the-ground tests of how Equifax protects data, an idea backed by Cordray.

Further, the Huffington Post reports:

The CFPB also recently rebuffed bank regulators at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency when they offered to help with on-site exams of credit bureaus, said two sources familiar with the matter.

A lot of Americans are going to be subject to identity theft as a result of the security breach.   I am a victim and there is this horrible feeling of helplessness, as I suddenly found 20 false charges totaling $4500 on one credit card.   I take Mulvaney’s inaction quite personally.

Lending discrimination is against the law, but again nobody has the resources to challenge the large inter-state lending institutions.  CFPB has lost its enforcement powers.

I think the bureau can only be restored (Make America Great Again) by a change in administration.  Unfortunately, this will have to wait another three years.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Links:

ZNet:  Equifax says more private data was stolen in 2017 breach than first revealed   (AP reporting)

Huffington Post: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Reportedly Scales Back Probe Of Equifax

Trump administration strips consumer watchdog office of enforcement powers in lending discrimination cases

What comes next?

by Dave

Trump’s Feb 3 tweet is a piece of science fiction:

“This memo totally vindicates “Trump” in probe the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!”

The Nunes memo really says nothing about the Russian investigation headed by Robert Mueller.  The Republican party has continued to insist that Carter Page was a minor volunteer in the campaign, something like the guy in the back of the room and totally unimportant. But the wiretap FISA warrant was generating results, or it would not have been renewed 3 times.  Each renewal was presented in front of a different FISA judge.  Different FBI and DOJ officials signed off on these applications.   Trump knows this.  The House Intelligence Committee knows this.  And this is likely what is in the Democrat’s response.  And the Democrat response likely concludes that nothing improper was done.  In contrast to Trump’s tweet, the real parties that should be vindicated are the leaders of the FBI and DOJ.

The contents of the Trump dossier were never revealed by the media during the campaign.  The bottom line is the media showed great restraint by not publishing this story.  It was given to the media a couple months before the election and there was no way to collaborate the statements made in the dossier.  So, the “liberal media” should also be vindicated.

But the great disrupter  Trump has his dirt.   The fact that Nunes memo is based on inaccurate, misleading and omitted  information doesn’t bother him one iota.  Everything about his career, says honesty isn’t part of the winning hand.   It’s poker and bluffing your way through is just as good when things get hot.  Honest and gently – No.  Dishonest and loud wins.

Next steps.  He doesn’t care about  Democrat’s rebuttal so he wants Nunes  to bury that memo.  He would like Rosenstein to resign, but that won’t work because he has Session’s support.  So,  Trump sits there with this dirt, that has been publicly discredited  by just about everyone who has experience with FISA warrants, and the FBI, and thinks maybe I can get away with firing Rosenstein and ending the Mueller investigation.

He would like to see more of the “dump Rosenstein” ads on TV.  The Tea Party Patriots has a limited budgets to the Washington, DC area.   Fox News is doing their part in attacking the Mueller investigation.

This ultimately comes down to how apathetic and poorly informed are the American people.  Nunes memo  is a dangerous pretext, but more over, it is a dangerous president with a pretext to politicize the FBI and DOJ.

Stay tuned,

Dave

House Intelligence Committee

by Dave

This is a committee with a majority of Republicans who will do anything they can to avoid a real investigation of the Russian inference in the 2016 election.   Instead, they will pursue construction of a false narrative based on carefully chosen information,     arranged creatively  to disparage the  Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.

This is the Republican counter attack on the real events which took place during our national elections, in which the Russian government and operatives in the US,  secretly tried to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.   There are many reasons the Russians  did not want Hillary Clinton to win, but in general it was her hard stance against Russian expansion.   It was clear she would work through the UN and other organizations to sanction Russia.

This committee serves a second purpose, which at the moment is vital to President Trump.    With the false narrative,  the committee has constructed an excuse to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.   Trump needs to do this in order to fire Robert Mueller.   This is the plan to avoid an obstruction of justice charge against the President.  Trump doesn’t know what Mueller has, but he doesn’t want to take chances.   Trump has said repeatedly he plays to win.

The cleverly constructed narrative  falls perfectly into Trump’s defense, which he has said often, that whatever the Republicans did wrong in the elections was nothing compared to the Democrats.  Representatives Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy excel at creative writing but fail in the honesty department.

The “path of least resistance” is a law of physics that applies to inanimate objects.  This path for Sessions,  Rosenstein and Wray is out the door, but I am real glad they are staying put.

This blog is a separate page and I will link it to a series of commentaries in the future.  The story was too big to keep it as one of my posts.

Stay tuned,

Dave

Nunes Memo

by Dave

The Honorable Adam Schiff
Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Declassified by order of the President
February 2, 2018

January 18, 2018

To: HPSCI Majority Members
From: HPSCI Majority Staff
Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

Purpose

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.

Investigation Update

On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a US citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA, the application had to be first certified by the Director or Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division.

The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. 1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications on behalf of DOJ.

Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the ISC are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the government to the highest standard — particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent on the government’s production to the court of all material and relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.

a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.

b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. Law firm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of — and paid by — the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in British court filings that he met with Yahoo News — and several other outlets – in September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed.”

a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations — an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn. Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with Yahoo and other outlets in September — before the Page application was submitted to the FISC in October — but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those contacts.

b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source handling — maintaining confidentiality — and demonstrated that Steele had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” This clear evidence of Steele’s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in official FBI files – but not reflected in any of the Page FISA applications.

a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was — according to his June 2017 testimony – “salacious and unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, Whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.