https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Fridays-with-Nicole-Sandler.png625625emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2024-03-08 16:02:212024-03-08 16:02:21Fridays with Nicole Sandler
92replies
earlofhuntingdon says:
Judge Cannon schedules hearing for 10.00 am on March 14 for arguments on at least two, if not all, of Trump’s motions to dismiss. Cannon tells counsel to prepare for a full day of argument. That’s two days after the date Trump wanted a hearing, three weeks before Smith wanted it. Details scarce.
Smith’s team would be ready tomorrow if push came to shove. And she knows this, so this is a weird flex to rush the meeting.
Sussex Trafalgar says:
It’s not weird to rush the meeting if Judge Cannon’s intention is to grant all of the defendants Motions to Dismiss the case entirely.
Or, she can squeeze Smith in the March 14th meeting to settle the case to the benefit of the defendants.
Jack Smith’s recent filings describing the differences between Trump retaining docs and Biden, Clinton, Obama and Comey retaining docs after Judge Cannon held two in-camera ex-parte meetings with Trump attorneys shows Smith is concerned, perhaps desperate, that Judge Cannon will rule there is really no difference between these incidents of doc retentions.
Also based on recent filings by members of the Federalist Society, including a co-founder of the Society, it appears the Society has been “helping” Judge Cannon “better understand” this case from their perspective.
And rest assured, their perspective is to ensure that Trump, now the only Republican candidate for President, is not hurt nor hampered by this case or any other Federal cases.
And I wouldn’t count on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule against Judge Cannon this time if Smith files an appeal.
The 11th Circuit COA’s is also filled with like-minded members of the Federalist Society who want to ensure that their now only Republican candidate for President in eight months is not hampered by Federal cases against him.
And the Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court feel the same way.
xyxyxyxy says:
Under what circumstances would Smith settle the case?
earlofhuntingdon says:
None, or a plea deal where Trump voluntarily goes to federal prison, not fucking house arrest, for two years or more.
Scott_in_MI says:
“Jack Smith’s recent filings describing the differences between Trump retaining docs and Biden, Clinton, Obama and Comey retaining docs after Judge Cannon held two in-camera ex-parte meetings with Trump attorneys shows Smith is concerned, perhaps desperate, that Judge Cannon will rule there is really no difference between these incidents of doc retentions.”
I’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. Trump tried to argue that those situations are analogous to his; Smith’s filings methodically demolish those arguments. Reading “desperation” into those filings seems singularly unwarranted.
earlofhuntingdon says:
Initially, the only interpretation that matters is Judge Cannon’s. She may be reversed on appeal, but she’s been there before.
The important point from Trump’s perspective, which Cannon seems to feel is paramount, is that any argument over her decisions starts late enough that any appeal and response to it pushes Trump’s case beyond the November election and/or his resumption of office.
Peterr says:
Foot surgery is only the beginning, and you get good drugs through the procedure. It’s the therapy afterwards that makes the difference.
Keep it up with the therapy, and I’m glad to hear that things are moving the right direction!
Bad Boris says:
My better half is a long-time PT; my apologies in advance.
Peterr says:
The discussion of how the US election is viewed abroad, especially in Ireland, whet my appetite to hear more. I try to follow the UK reactions via The Guardian and the BBC, and the German reaction through Stern and Der Spiegel, but doing so from Kansas City is a bit removed.
SteveBev says:
1 congratulations on the significant milestone in your recovery from injury.
2 anticipatory congratulations for Ireland’s forthcoming victory in 6N v England today
3 And thank you for the cautionary note you sounded [~ 17: 25 in] re Biden calling out SCOTUS re Dobbs decision – it seemed bold in the moment but there may be unintended consequences because of the grievance driven natures of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in particular suggest they will react, so there is reason to question the wisdom of picking this fight and goading them.
Rayne says:
There’s a persistent problem with how the left calls out Dobbs, not limited to Biden alone. Roe was about privacy, and the fascist right-wing doesn’t believe individuals have a right to privacy, only corporations and property owners possess privacy rights.
Biden was correct in calling out the attacks on our freedoms but one of those fundamental freedoms which underpins others is privacy. I’ll give Clarence Thomas this much that he spelled it out succinctly in his Dobbs contribution: the fascists are going after Griswold (birth control), Loving (mixed race marriage), and Obergefell (same sex marriage). Griswold is most obviously about privacy but if Roe and Griswold were about marital privacy in reproductive health care, Loving and Obergefell are about privacy in marital decisions themselves.
The fascist right-wing is attacking privacy and marriage, as well as women and race — the freedom to simply be and personal autonomy.
SteveBev says:
Good points well made
BobBobCon says:
Lawrence v. Texas too, and Thomas voted against overturning Texas law.
It’s often characterized as legalizing gay sex, but the Texas law criminalized both straight and gay sex outside of narrow limits.
The GOP’s core, including people like Ken Paxton, is out to invade everyone’s private life and they want to blow up the right to privacy to do it.
LaMissy! says:
And Roe must be the floor, not the ceiling. Leave medical decisions to the patient, with input and advice from the medical experts. It’s how all other medical issues are decided. Restoring Roe means returning to a patchwork of access across the nation, with various permissions and hurdles; not good enough.
BRUCE F COLE says:
I’m in a constant state of almost terminal chagrin that the left isn’t calling the RW abortion argument for what it actually, underlyingly is: an outright religious edict.
The IVF ruling from AL is instructive in that regard: zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and early-developing fetsuses are all to be considered people for one reason only: because a religious precept declares they are. That precept is that when an egg is fertilized, their god imbues it with a soul, therefore it becomes at that point a person. No science, no room for disagreement as to terms or concepts, no consideration of female agency, just an outright religious edict.
Dobbs isn’t just about privacy; it’s primarily about a religious belief system modifying our laws so that we are constrained by that system of belief. You don’t get any more anti-1A than forcing 350 million people to follow rules conceived in outright religious terms by outright religious fanatics.
The same is true for birth control, miscegenation, and hetero-conformity. It’s all about Xian fundamentalists’ need to control the society they inhabit according to their precepts, the beliefs (or lack thereof) of the rest of us be damned. In fact, slavery itself was considered a biblically-inspired institution, until it wasn’t (by dint of the decimation of the South) and got supplanted by biblically-inspired segregation, white-domination, and miscegenation (see the link below for that).
If Biden wants to bring down the hammer on Dodds (as he indicated yesterday) this is the tack he needs to take: “I am an observant Catholic and I believe that God bestows a soul during conception, but I would never demand, nor should our legal system demand, that anyone in America is required to be subject to my beliefs for those of my Church. For me to do that would be un-American, and the Dobbs decision was deeply un-American for that very reason.”
BRUCE F COLE says:
Edit: Dobbs is, more accurately, the *enablement* of outright religious edicts *by the states*.
Bob Roundhead says:
The anti abortion argument is that of specific brands of Christianity. Many other believers do not agree. There is
also the uncomfortable text found in the Bible which not only condones abortion, but prescribes it. Put aside the “man owns his wife” subtext of Numbers 5;11-31, and it is clear that the God of the Old Testament is fine with abortion.
BRUCE F COLE says:
Indeed, and many Catholics don’t agree with it, just as they much more often don’t agree with their church concerning birth control.
I made up that quote for Joe to show that even a believer who agrees that their god confers a soul at conception can (and per the Constitution, should) clearly disagree that everyone must be bound by that belief.
As to the Numbers excerpt, trying to make that kind of argument with zealots is a fools errand. It’s the polemic equivalent of pushing a string.
Rayne says:
There’s a more sound legal case to make that only a child born is a citizen, and that before birth they are not entitled to the same rights as the mother. The word “born” appears twice in the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And 14th Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How a fetus which may not survive birth and is completely subordinate to the mother’s health has the same rights as the mother is beyond me. These fascists want to extend Equal Protection to a fetus while denying it to the mother.
bmaz says:
You would not know a “legal case”, nor an “equal protection” argument, if it bit you in the ass.
That is about what your “legal analysis” is worth. Remember when you shouted to some poor commenter that “self executing” was not a thing? Those were giddy times.
BRUCE F COLE says:
Those “citizens are born” arguments are strong, imo, but they’re more cerebral, i.e., not amenable to the kind of visceral understanding that the “disestablishmentarian” 1A arguments can produce.
The reason I put those words in Joe’s mouth is because his insertion of Dobbs into the SOTU address was considered by many to be risky with regards to angering the SCOTUS zealots (as Marcy and Nicole pointed out), and I’m assuming Biden knows that to be the case. I also assume, therefore, that he had a larger target in mind — of acceding in his second term to the court-expansion proposals he’s so far rejected. If that’s the case, then he needs a visceral argument to lay the groundwork for that in his campaign messaging, one that also nails down a valid constitutional argument against Dobbs.
Privacy and “born citizen” arguments are also key, but if he’s going to use Dobbs, as he should, to help propel him to a second term with an expanded court in the platform menu, he needs to show how that ruling was a threat to all Americans except for that minority whose religious beliefs it perversely “consecrated” into public law — while using the same argument to underpin a promise to make a historic court expansion to rectify that blatant desecration of the First Amendment.
Parsing is a key element of legal contention, but if we’re going to demolish Dobbs, we’ll have to do better that merely resuscitate Roe. Dobbs was the enabling of religious edicts across the country by state courts and legislatures, and thereby an unambiguous violation of the first clause of the Bill of Rights. If Biden wants to win big and then expand the court (as he seems to be signalling) the argument against Dobbs will be one of the keys, and expanding the court is the key itself for removing Dobbs.
His argument has to be broad enough to pit most of the country against the religious sects that want to impose their beliefs about when a person becomes a person on the rest of us. It has to also encompass privacy and constitutionally-conforming language as you point out.
But to change the composition of Congress enough to make expanding the Court a possibility (without which Dobbs won’t budge) his stump speeches about Dobbs need to be visceral, not cerebral — and yet still have legal integrity. I was encouraged by his raising of Dobbs in the SOTU, unlike others. It was a clear shot across Roberts’ bow.
He should also point out that our Supreme Court is the smallest in the world, and many regions of the country are poorly represented in it, and that women will be his priority in an expansion (which also ties into anti-Dobbs sentiment). Schumer will also have to be convinced to eliminate the filibuster, which probably won’t happen unless a blue wave is headed our way.
If he doesn’t make court expansion part of his campaign, his anti-Dobbs language isn’t sincere and that will backfire on him — and on us.
Rayne says:
If Democrats want court expansion to be part of the campaign, they have a method to assure that: participate in the Democratic Party at local level, ensure that expansion of SCOTUS is added to local and state party platform, and rolls up to the national party. There’s still time to push this.
BTW, watch the comment length. You’re over 500 words with this last one, could have paired it by 200 easily.
BRUCE F COLE says:
Sorry about the bulk verbage.
I agree that we have to push this from the local level on up. An out-front push by Biden in that direction, I’m suggesting, will grease the skids tremendously.
There is a non-religious argument to be made, not that I’m making it: that each zygote has a unique set of genes, never seen before, and we should honor its uniqueness. I can see a humanist uncomfortable with abortion falling back on that stance, but it’s thin gruel.
c-i-v-i-l says:
Those people likely don’t know enough developmental biology. Many blastocysts/embryos die prior to implantation due to genetic flaws; the cell divides once or a few times and then dies. Odds are that no one even knew that conception occurred.
Due to copy errors (in the replication of DNA that is necessary for the creation of new cells), by the time a person is born, their DNA is not 100% identical across all of the cells in their body; but I can’t imagine a humanist arguing that when a copy error occurs, creating DNA that’s genetically distinct from that of the zygote, the new cell’s genetic uniqueness should be honored in some way. (FWIW, the DNA of identical twins or triplets is initially identical, but they can often be genetically distinguished due to the proliferation of different copy errors in their bodies.)
Also, two blastocysts may merge, or cells in the mother’s body (perhaps remnant from earlier pregnancies) may merge with the blastocyst, forming genetic chimeras. Would a humanist honor that as one entity or two? Microchimerism also occurs in almost all pregnant people, when they absorb some cells from the embryo or fetus.
Unique DNA does not equal a person, so what is it that the humanist is honoring here?
Shadowalker says:
Re: Dobbs
That was an experienced politician explaining to a group of amateurs they screwed up. He almost thanked them for the low hanging fruit.
David Brooks says:
Well, that 6N prediction didn’t last well. Both games yesterday had astonishing endings. ITALY!!! And the much-dismissed England stand a shot at winning it all, although tbf Ireland is still odds-on favourite.
SteveBev says:
Indeed not
Ireland under performed yesterday. It is my fault for being over confident on their behalf
I was less surprised by Italy. Scotland once again only managed to perform for one half and a bit and paid the price for sleeping for most of the 2nd half.
David Brooks says:
Why the Ireland defense left Marcus Smith in the open in the 80th minute is beyond me. I’m happy to say. Perhaps they were too focused on not conceding a penalty.
[…] Many of you in this chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom.
(AUDIENCE: Booo —) My God, what freedom else would you take away?
Look, [in] its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court majority wrote the following — and with all due respect, Justices — “Women are not without electoral — electoral power” — excuse me — “electoral or political power.” You’re about to realize just how much you were right about that. (Applause.)
Clearly — (applause) — clearly, those bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade have no clue about the power of women. But they found out. When reproductive freedom was on the ballot, we won in 2022 and 2023.
And we’ll win again in 2024. (Applause.) If you — if you, the American people, send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again. (Applause.) Folks, America cannot go back. I am here to- — tonight to show what I believe is the way forward, because I know how far we’ve come. […]
Last night, Republicans and Democrats offered very different visions of the roles and rights of women in American society. […]
[She relates the Biden / SCOTUS section of the speech and then compares the GOP response]
Britt’s performance was the logical outcome of right-wing demonization of women’s rights advocates since the 1960s. That popular demonization began soon after women calling for “liberation” from the strict gender roles of the post–World War II years protested the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, New Jersey. [Lots more the relevant history here!] […]
[Biden] warned the country: “America cannot go back.”
Perfect timing for today’s celebration of International Women’s Day.
Badger Robert says:
Its surprising that the Republicans would pick this fight. Since Seneca Falla and Susan B. Anthony, the women have steadily been winning this fight. They could be some back pedaling, but I doubt the historical course will be reversed. But the R party has fully embraced losing causes now.
harpie says:
New and seemingly related to what appears to be my theme today:
A secret, men-only right-wing society with members in influential positions around the country is on a crusade: to recruit a Christian government that will form after the right achieves regime change in the United States, potentially via a “national divorce.” […]
[…] SACR and its members harp on the idea that America is in a fatal stage of rot, and that they are an oppressed people waiting to rise up on behalf of a silent majority.
The SACR website speaks to the deeply held grievance and sense of a lack of masculine purpose which animates the group. SACR exists, the website says, because “a man is no longer encouraged to fly to the stars,” because “those who rule today spit on such ambitions; they corrupt the sinews of America.”
“They have alienated men from family, community, and God. We counter and conquer this poison, rebuilding a society where a man can find genuine fulfilment, true to his nature and calling, rejoicing in virtue and vitality,” the website says, before offering a Google docs link where men can apply. […]
Without yet having read the article, I zeroed in on this section near the end because of the word “grievance” because Marcy speaks of Kavanaugh’s sense of grievance in the show.
Any of the Catholic men at SCOTUS would be welcomed as a member here.
[“male, a “trinitarian” Christian, heterosexual, an “un-hyphenated American”]
Marcy:
MW: Yeah, um I, and I don’t know that it’ll have the intended effect. Right, I mean, when you do that to, to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; and Kavanaugh especially is the kind of person who has always been driven by grievance, right? And he has led a bunch of people to believe that he was unfairly treated in his Supreme Court confirmation, which is ridiculous.
harpie says:
Just want to add that Clarence [Insurrectionist Spouse] THOMAS
is still sorely aggrieved about his own confirmation process.
ALITO and THOMAS did NOT attend SOTU.
harpie says:
Also, note the word “poison” referring to “those who rule today.”
earlofhuntingdon says:
Special-treatment-Kavanaugh thought his Supreme Court nomination hearings mistreated him? LOL.
From his perspective, they were beautifully stage managed, the GOP backed him to the hilt, and the FBI’s cursory investigation was a huge joke. Its remit was ridiculously narrow and whatever it dug up went to the White House, where it was buried. But Olympian gods are never satisfied with the adoration of mortals.
earlofhuntingdon says:
SACR’s members are all Howard Roark and John Galt wannabes. Each member must be independently wealthy, a white male Trinitarian Christian, and have thsome thspecial thskill, such as lawfare, entrepreneurship, cybersecurity, and so on.
It’s like an auxiliary or junior Bohemian Grove. Except than regarding themselves as the most powerful people American capitalism and society could throw up, its members have to be prepared to fight surreptitiously to create a new, constitutional [sic], independent America [sic]. They’re not playing a game, but they are playing with fire.
Savage Librarian says:
It seems that Steve Bannon’s “gladiator” school in Italy may be moving forward and now he says he will create some in the US to train future rightwing politicians. I wonder if we already have adequate schools to counteract them, or if someone should create some schools that will. Or at least beef up curriculums in existing schools.
RipNoLonger says:
Sounds like a demi-moderne version of the monasteries from whence rode the cavaliers of the crusades. A bunch of incels with no other employ other than to disrupt normal society.
They could just as well volunteer to join Elmo on one of his trips to Pluto.
earlofhuntingdon says:
Bannon’s Italian op sounds more like Operation Gladio to me.
As an aside, crusaders didn’t ride out from the monasteries. Many of them were younger sons of the nobility. In a world built on primogeniture, they had no hope of inheritance. So, they were left to pay for the status they hoped to keep by stealing it from others through warfare.
earlofhuntingdon says:
Kings and prelates were happy to seem them go, because it reduced the potential for their making trouble nearer home.
Swiss historian Daniele Ganser in his 2005 book, NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe,[47] accused Gladio of trying to influence policies through the means of false flag operations and a strategy of tension. Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d’état.[68] In NATO’s Secret Armies Ganser states that Gladio units closely cooperated with NATO and the CIA and that Gladio in Italy was responsible for terrorist attacks against its own civilian population.[87]
Seems right up Bannon’s alley.
earlofhuntingdon says:
If you’re interested, you might also read up on the 1978 demise of Italian prime minister, Aldo Moro, a scion of the center left. The official conclusion that his kidnapping and death were the work of a far left terrorist organization has been widely disputed.
Coincidentally, generally right wing foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have long interfered in Italian politics, owing to the popularity of its center left and communist parties. False flag ops are their specialty. They have interfered in French and British domestic politics for the same reason.
LaMissy! says:
Jessica Valenti is doing the really challenging work of keeping track of all the ways the radical religious fringe would drag women back into the Dark Ages. She keeps a lens on the personal experiences of actual people suffering the impact of the denial of reproductive autonomy, as well as the whack proposals that keep surfacing, almost as if pre-orchestrated.
So regarding Marcie’s quest to tie Britt’s kitchen speech into the Ireland vote to remove the “barefoot and pregnant” bit out of their constitution: Her dress was green!
canajan-eh_I says:
Sorry to break it to you but “Family and care amendments defeated with resounding no votes” – Irish Times. Paywalled but no doubt available on Reuters or The Guardian.
So Britt’s green “handmaid” dress was predictive! Kind of mind blowing, especially with those margins, in a country with a gay PM.
canajan-eh_I says:
I wouldn’t read too much into the result. From what I read, it was a symbolic change – not like the divorce, abortion and same-sex marriage referenda that made substantive changes. And being about symbols there were some who thought it went too far, others who thought it didn’t go far enough, and those who felt left out. The government handled it very poorly.
Sue Romano says:
Loved Joe taking on SCOTUS. The hating on AG Garland is especially strong by the True the Vote group…Cleta and Mike Lindell 2024 version of Stop the Steal. Maybe Joe and Merrick are aware of their ‘SCOTUS strategy’
Rayne says:
Some of the hating on AG Garland might actually be fed by an influence operation. Doesn’t take much FUD to set portions of the left off into an outrage cycle by feeding into their doubts about DOJ’s prosecution of Trump. Wonder how much of this is FUD doled out at the dead bird app?
bmaz says:
Golly, there might have been someone here saying that from the start. But, by all means, act like it was you.
Rayne says:
Point to the comments in which you said that. Point to the comments you’ve made about any influence operation for that matter.
I will not be holding my breath.
There are 103 comments out of +660,000 comments in which the phrase “influence operation/s” was used. Roughly 70% of them were made by me. Of the threads in which “influence operation/s” were discussed and you participated, you did not mention influence operations and instead advocated for unfettered free speech on social media platforms (see: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/24/negotiating-a-new-routine-in-the-time-of-pandemic/#comment-844533). That thread had absolutely nothing to do with AG Garland or the DOJ as it was before January 6, 2021.
CaptainCondorcet says:
As I’ve shared on another thread, I literally watched across the table as a very close and very progressive friend fell hard for iranian backed antisemitic misinformation and proceeded to share it out. They “made it right” when they realized, but yeah, easiest thing in the world to get the left to attack each other. See Katie “Rigged” Porter
Benji-am-Groot says:
Aaaannnddd – SNL cold open nailed it, but could have gone a bit further without being over the top?
Scarlett Johansson is a gem, and I am waiting for the christer eat-a-queer-fetus-for-jeesus brigade to do a new version of ‘I’m rubber & you’re glue…’ with some thin BS:
“Look – Scarlett Johansson wants to be Katie Britt!” Or some other weak sauce.
Snark rant over, and what with the “It’s like an auxiliary or junior Bohemian Grove” (H/T Earl of) cosplayers plus the whole Handmaid fad it could get serious this November. While the die-hard MAGAt’s might make up only 20-25% of the vote when you throw in the despicable politics from the pulpit these christers might be enough to help drag the Orange Florida Man across the finish line.
VOTE. Teach. Lead by example. Tell people about this site. This whole election could hinge on 20,000 folks in maybe 5 States, 100K people deciding the popular vote.
Oh, and if Joe prevails – after eliminating the filibuster let’s get started on eliminating the archaic, obsolete and senseless Electoral College.
You may now return to your local Snarky Rants, in progress.
JAFO_NAL says:
Next week I’m hoping there will be discussion (if not a separate thread) on the grift potential of the Trump/Chubb/Putin connections.
Rayne says:
Hoping someone with an AM Best membership can open data on Chubb and subsidiaries: https://ratingservices.ambest.com << type in "Chubb" in the Ratings Services field and enter, you'll see the entities in the holding company but can't go any deeper without a membership.
RipNoLonger says:
An interesting discussion on Democratic Underground with some feeling that Chubb would not engage in any underhanded activities on behalf of djt. Personally, I am doubtful that these big international finance companies are always squeaky clean. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218763277
earlofhuntingdon says:
Deliciously understated, but I thought the original post and comments at DU were definitely of the something’s rotten in Denmark opinion.
I will say that American corporations rarely engage in dirty tricks. They leave that to their offshore subsidiaries. But they do go to great lengths to achieve the same dirty ends with marginally legal deal structures.
Were Chubb the beneficiary of offshore aid, enticing it to issue appeal bonds for Trump, for example, the aid might nominally pass muster. Examples include giving Chubb new business; awarding it exclusive rights to insure and/or reinsure certain projects or industries; extending and upping the profit margins on old business; and regulating its competitors OUT of local markets.
Permutations abound. And little to none of those quid pro quos would need to be documented or see the light of day. The documentation would be limited to giving Chubb hard contract rights in that business.
Rayne says:
One thing to keep in mind is that the Chubb Ltd. holding company today is NOT the same business community member Yankee in TX first went to work for; Chubb was acquired by ACE Ltd., the same insurance holding company which got into serious hot water in 2004 for a bunch of fraud. The acquisition of Chubb eleven years later laundered ACE by putting the gloss of a more respected/less damaged reputation on the letterhead, since some other business deals may have had long-tail risks (ex. claims processing wrt DeepWater Horizon).
Having worked for a captive reinsurance company at a time when the firm integrated swaps into its business, I am wondering if the risk associated with Trump was a benefit in some way because it could change the profile of some reinsurance contract/s or swap/s which looked too good on the surface. But I didn’t underwrite this stuff, just did corporate governance support, am not certain how this would get sliced and diced.
Matt___B says:
Putting a name and face on the Chubb bond: Evan Greenberg
Chubb is behind Antiques Roadshow. “I would insure this for…”
Evan Greenberg the CEO is the son of the former CEO of AIG Maurice Greenberg.
Chubb developed the residential portions of the Weehawken waterfront after they were granted right of easement by Conrail. The commercial portion of the Weehawken waterfront was developed by Arthur Imperatore.
Rayne says:
When did Chubb develop that real estate? Was this before/after its acquisition by ACE Ltd. in 2004?
Chubb owned Roseland Development which in turned owned and published the only local Weehawken newspaper.
“In 1995, Roseland acquired $20 million of notes from Crossland Savings Bank and Chemical Bank, ultimately resulting in the foreclosure and acquisition of 100 acres, or one mile of waterfront land, on the Hudson River directly across from midtown Manhattan spanning the municipalities of West New York and Guttenberg. In 1997, Roseland acquired a 50% partnership interest in 100 adjacent acres in Weehawken and completed a master plan encompassing two miles along the Hudson River waterfront.”
bloopie2 says:
Did Conrail (or some other railroad) own that waterfront land? If so, who do we ‘fault’ for that? To contrast, I note that the city of Chicago owns all 16 miles (I think) of its shoreline on Lake Michigan.
bidrec-gap says:
“the property here was abandoned by the Erie Lackawanna and sold to Sea Land/Sea Train” which went bankrupt, and since it was the major business in Weehawken almost bankrupted Weehawken. Part of Weehawken is on the Hudson and part on the Palisades which are cliffs. In order to get to the waterfront part of Weehawken it was necessary to drive over Conrail tracks and they would not allow that which made it impossible to develop that part. Weehawken’s gentrification is fairly recent. It has nothing like Chicago’s political power.
bloopie2 says:
Interesting, thank you. Looking at the “terrain” view on Google Maps I can see the landforms distinctly.
bidrec-gap says:
Huge difference in humidity between the top of the Palisades and the river level.
xyxyxyxy says:
Things haven’t changed much over time.
Despite doing outstanding work for the people, sex is what’s pushing opposition to Fanni and off course brought down Spitzer.
Tarrforme says:
So now, Chubb is in bed with Putin and Trump? Perhaps we should wait for some serious evidence before tarnishing a companies reputation?
Yeah, I get it, Trumps sucks, but it’s kind of unfair to tie Russia to anyone even remotely associated with him.
bmaz says:
Naw, Chubb has been dickheads forever.
Tarrforme says:
Apparently, Russian dickheads to boot.
earlofhuntingdon says:
Dickheads at least since the acquisition by ACE, twenty years ago. But a good friend’s dad worked there for thirty years, and left in the 1990s, owing to its increasingly ruthless management. He said it wasn’t what he signed up for.
Rayne says:
We tend to forget what happened to the entire financial industry after Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999.
earlofhuntingdon says:
I think the change in management culture happened before repeal. What used to be fringe, bottom feeding behavior became the norm.
Rayne says:
The changing behavior may have driven the repeal through regulatory capture. Keep in mind when Rove recommended to Jack Welch that GE should buy NBC to influence tax policy; it didn’t end at tax policy.
Interesting points, but every one of them was already made on this site over the last several days. That includes the reference to the Rainforest Alliance’s 2022 article on Chubb’s exposure to Russian and other foreign fossil fuel business.
That business could allow Chubb to act as a conduit for aid to Trump, a service it could be indirectly compensated for by giving it more or more lucrative insurance business.
xyxyxyxy says:
Interesting reading “Canada faces a series of ‘crises’ that will test it in the coming years” https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-police-future-trends-1.7138046
Some of the report on the report:
“While the report says it covers geopolitical factors, references to geopolitical challenges appear to be among the passages redacted. Two pages of the report are entirely blank, with the exception of a picture of a globe.”
RipNoLonger says:
Interesting that the RCMP report was labeled “SECRET” even though a great deal of text was visible in the reading pane. Also, the link in the CBC News page which is supposed to go to the full PDF comes up with an XML “Access Denied” message. Think someone slipped up here.
earlofhuntingdon says:
Those two pages were on the ice with the polar bears, highlighting the problem Canada will have in defending its new, northern shoreline.
xyxyxyxy says:
It used to be that northern Canada was hard to defend because you could walk over over the permafrost from the Soviet Union to Canada. Which Canada found some Soviet military personnel and/or spies did.
So is it more difficult to defend seas with climate change or land and water covered year-round by ice decades ago?
earlofhuntingdon says:
Gosh, let me think about that.
A few loan walkers or a handful of vehicles crossing frozen terrain that’s about as smooth and even as the Appalachians, and often interrupted by fissures and open water?
Or ships loaded to the gunwales with arms, armaments, personnel, and supplies?
earlofhuntingdon says:
Lone walkers. Too much time spent on Trump’s money troubles.
Matt Foley says:
RICO Rapist was defaming Carroll again at his Saturday rally. Job security for Roberta Kaplan.
“History Is Watching” SCOTUS Lines Up Behind Trump’s Defensive Strategy 
Judge Cannon schedules hearing for 10.00 am on March 14 for arguments on at least two, if not all, of Trump’s motions to dismiss. Cannon tells counsel to prepare for a full day of argument. That’s two days after the date Trump wanted a hearing, three weeks before Smith wanted it. Details scarce.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-trump-docket-cannon-gives-trump-the-hearing-schedule-he-wants-in-showdown-to-dismiss-classified-documents-case/
Smith’s team would be ready tomorrow if push came to shove. And she knows this, so this is a weird flex to rush the meeting.
It’s not weird to rush the meeting if Judge Cannon’s intention is to grant all of the defendants Motions to Dismiss the case entirely.
Or, she can squeeze Smith in the March 14th meeting to settle the case to the benefit of the defendants.
Jack Smith’s recent filings describing the differences between Trump retaining docs and Biden, Clinton, Obama and Comey retaining docs after Judge Cannon held two in-camera ex-parte meetings with Trump attorneys shows Smith is concerned, perhaps desperate, that Judge Cannon will rule there is really no difference between these incidents of doc retentions.
Also based on recent filings by members of the Federalist Society, including a co-founder of the Society, it appears the Society has been “helping” Judge Cannon “better understand” this case from their perspective.
And rest assured, their perspective is to ensure that Trump, now the only Republican candidate for President, is not hurt nor hampered by this case or any other Federal cases.
And I wouldn’t count on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to rule against Judge Cannon this time if Smith files an appeal.
The 11th Circuit COA’s is also filled with like-minded members of the Federalist Society who want to ensure that their now only Republican candidate for President in eight months is not hampered by Federal cases against him.
And the Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court feel the same way.
Under what circumstances would Smith settle the case?
None, or a plea deal where Trump voluntarily goes to federal prison, not fucking house arrest, for two years or more.
“Jack Smith’s recent filings describing the differences between Trump retaining docs and Biden, Clinton, Obama and Comey retaining docs after Judge Cannon held two in-camera ex-parte meetings with Trump attorneys shows Smith is concerned, perhaps desperate, that Judge Cannon will rule there is really no difference between these incidents of doc retentions.”
I’d call that a radical interpretation of the text. Trump tried to argue that those situations are analogous to his; Smith’s filings methodically demolish those arguments. Reading “desperation” into those filings seems singularly unwarranted.
Initially, the only interpretation that matters is Judge Cannon’s. She may be reversed on appeal, but she’s been there before.
The important point from Trump’s perspective, which Cannon seems to feel is paramount, is that any argument over her decisions starts late enough that any appeal and response to it pushes Trump’s case beyond the November election and/or his resumption of office.
Foot surgery is only the beginning, and you get good drugs through the procedure. It’s the therapy afterwards that makes the difference.
Keep it up with the therapy, and I’m glad to hear that things are moving the right direction!
My better half is a long-time PT; my apologies in advance.
The discussion of how the US election is viewed abroad, especially in Ireland, whet my appetite to hear more. I try to follow the UK reactions via The Guardian and the BBC, and the German reaction through Stern and Der Spiegel, but doing so from Kansas City is a bit removed.
1 congratulations on the significant milestone in your recovery from injury.
2 anticipatory congratulations for Ireland’s forthcoming victory in 6N v England today
3 And thank you for the cautionary note you sounded [~ 17: 25 in] re Biden calling out SCOTUS re Dobbs decision – it seemed bold in the moment but there may be unintended consequences because of the grievance driven natures of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in particular suggest they will react, so there is reason to question the wisdom of picking this fight and goading them.
There’s a persistent problem with how the left calls out Dobbs, not limited to Biden alone. Roe was about privacy, and the fascist right-wing doesn’t believe individuals have a right to privacy, only corporations and property owners possess privacy rights.
Biden was correct in calling out the attacks on our freedoms but one of those fundamental freedoms which underpins others is privacy. I’ll give Clarence Thomas this much that he spelled it out succinctly in his Dobbs contribution: the fascists are going after Griswold (birth control), Loving (mixed race marriage), and Obergefell (same sex marriage). Griswold is most obviously about privacy but if Roe and Griswold were about marital privacy in reproductive health care, Loving and Obergefell are about privacy in marital decisions themselves.
The fascist right-wing is attacking privacy and marriage, as well as women and race — the freedom to simply be and personal autonomy.
Good points well made
Lawrence v. Texas too, and Thomas voted against overturning Texas law.
It’s often characterized as legalizing gay sex, but the Texas law criminalized both straight and gay sex outside of narrow limits.
The GOP’s core, including people like Ken Paxton, is out to invade everyone’s private life and they want to blow up the right to privacy to do it.
And Roe must be the floor, not the ceiling. Leave medical decisions to the patient, with input and advice from the medical experts. It’s how all other medical issues are decided. Restoring Roe means returning to a patchwork of access across the nation, with various permissions and hurdles; not good enough.
I’m in a constant state of almost terminal chagrin that the left isn’t calling the RW abortion argument for what it actually, underlyingly is: an outright religious edict.
The IVF ruling from AL is instructive in that regard: zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and early-developing fetsuses are all to be considered people for one reason only: because a religious precept declares they are. That precept is that when an egg is fertilized, their god imbues it with a soul, therefore it becomes at that point a person. No science, no room for disagreement as to terms or concepts, no consideration of female agency, just an outright religious edict.
Dobbs isn’t just about privacy; it’s primarily about a religious belief system modifying our laws so that we are constrained by that system of belief. You don’t get any more anti-1A than forcing 350 million people to follow rules conceived in outright religious terms by outright religious fanatics.
The same is true for birth control, miscegenation, and hetero-conformity. It’s all about Xian fundamentalists’ need to control the society they inhabit according to their precepts, the beliefs (or lack thereof) of the rest of us be damned. In fact, slavery itself was considered a biblically-inspired institution, until it wasn’t (by dint of the decimation of the South) and got supplanted by biblically-inspired segregation, white-domination, and miscegenation (see the link below for that).
And to make it worse, the Evangelicals have only adopted their current view on abortion since they decided that it was in their interests to ally with their former religious mortal enemies, the fundamentalist Catholics.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480
If Biden wants to bring down the hammer on Dodds (as he indicated yesterday) this is the tack he needs to take: “I am an observant Catholic and I believe that God bestows a soul during conception, but I would never demand, nor should our legal system demand, that anyone in America is required to be subject to my beliefs for those of my Church. For me to do that would be un-American, and the Dobbs decision was deeply un-American for that very reason.”
Edit: Dobbs is, more accurately, the *enablement* of outright religious edicts *by the states*.
The anti abortion argument is that of specific brands of Christianity. Many other believers do not agree. There is
also the uncomfortable text found in the Bible which not only condones abortion, but prescribes it. Put aside the “man owns his wife” subtext of Numbers 5;11-31, and it is clear that the God of the Old Testament is fine with abortion.
Indeed, and many Catholics don’t agree with it, just as they much more often don’t agree with their church concerning birth control.
I made up that quote for Joe to show that even a believer who agrees that their god confers a soul at conception can (and per the Constitution, should) clearly disagree that everyone must be bound by that belief.
As to the Numbers excerpt, trying to make that kind of argument with zealots is a fools errand. It’s the polemic equivalent of pushing a string.
There’s a more sound legal case to make that only a child born is a citizen, and that before birth they are not entitled to the same rights as the mother. The word “born” appears twice in the Constitution:
Article II, Section 1:
And 14th Amendment, Section 1:
How a fetus which may not survive birth and is completely subordinate to the mother’s health has the same rights as the mother is beyond me. These fascists want to extend Equal Protection to a fetus while denying it to the mother.
You would not know a “legal case”, nor an “equal protection” argument, if it bit you in the ass.
https://mstdn.social/@[email protected]/111876196817992602
That is about what your “legal analysis” is worth. Remember when you shouted to some poor commenter that “self executing” was not a thing? Those were giddy times.
Those “citizens are born” arguments are strong, imo, but they’re more cerebral, i.e., not amenable to the kind of visceral understanding that the “disestablishmentarian” 1A arguments can produce.
The reason I put those words in Joe’s mouth is because his insertion of Dobbs into the SOTU address was considered by many to be risky with regards to angering the SCOTUS zealots (as Marcy and Nicole pointed out), and I’m assuming Biden knows that to be the case. I also assume, therefore, that he had a larger target in mind — of acceding in his second term to the court-expansion proposals he’s so far rejected. If that’s the case, then he needs a visceral argument to lay the groundwork for that in his campaign messaging, one that also nails down a valid constitutional argument against Dobbs.
Privacy and “born citizen” arguments are also key, but if he’s going to use Dobbs, as he should, to help propel him to a second term with an expanded court in the platform menu, he needs to show how that ruling was a threat to all Americans except for that minority whose religious beliefs it perversely “consecrated” into public law — while using the same argument to underpin a promise to make a historic court expansion to rectify that blatant desecration of the First Amendment.
Parsing is a key element of legal contention, but if we’re going to demolish Dobbs, we’ll have to do better that merely resuscitate Roe. Dobbs was the enabling of religious edicts across the country by state courts and legislatures, and thereby an unambiguous violation of the first clause of the Bill of Rights. If Biden wants to win big and then expand the court (as he seems to be signalling) the argument against Dobbs will be one of the keys, and expanding the court is the key itself for removing Dobbs.
His argument has to be broad enough to pit most of the country against the religious sects that want to impose their beliefs about when a person becomes a person on the rest of us. It has to also encompass privacy and constitutionally-conforming language as you point out.
But to change the composition of Congress enough to make expanding the Court a possibility (without which Dobbs won’t budge) his stump speeches about Dobbs need to be visceral, not cerebral — and yet still have legal integrity. I was encouraged by his raising of Dobbs in the SOTU, unlike others. It was a clear shot across Roberts’ bow.
He should also point out that our Supreme Court is the smallest in the world, and many regions of the country are poorly represented in it, and that women will be his priority in an expansion (which also ties into anti-Dobbs sentiment). Schumer will also have to be convinced to eliminate the filibuster, which probably won’t happen unless a blue wave is headed our way.
If he doesn’t make court expansion part of his campaign, his anti-Dobbs language isn’t sincere and that will backfire on him — and on us.
If Democrats want court expansion to be part of the campaign, they have a method to assure that: participate in the Democratic Party at local level, ensure that expansion of SCOTUS is added to local and state party platform, and rolls up to the national party. There’s still time to push this.
BTW, watch the comment length. You’re over 500 words with this last one, could have paired it by 200 easily.
Sorry about the bulk verbage.
I agree that we have to push this from the local level on up. An out-front push by Biden in that direction, I’m suggesting, will grease the skids tremendously.
And here’s another good argument for raising the number of Justices, one that could bring another powerful cohort into that grassroots push, as Big Money has begun to try to toss the NLRB into the dumpster:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/26/anti-union-lawsuit-conservative-courts-musk-starbucks-trader-joes
There is a non-religious argument to be made, not that I’m making it: that each zygote has a unique set of genes, never seen before, and we should honor its uniqueness. I can see a humanist uncomfortable with abortion falling back on that stance, but it’s thin gruel.
Those people likely don’t know enough developmental biology. Many blastocysts/embryos die prior to implantation due to genetic flaws; the cell divides once or a few times and then dies. Odds are that no one even knew that conception occurred.
Due to copy errors (in the replication of DNA that is necessary for the creation of new cells), by the time a person is born, their DNA is not 100% identical across all of the cells in their body; but I can’t imagine a humanist arguing that when a copy error occurs, creating DNA that’s genetically distinct from that of the zygote, the new cell’s genetic uniqueness should be honored in some way. (FWIW, the DNA of identical twins or triplets is initially identical, but they can often be genetically distinguished due to the proliferation of different copy errors in their bodies.)
Also, two blastocysts may merge, or cells in the mother’s body (perhaps remnant from earlier pregnancies) may merge with the blastocyst, forming genetic chimeras. Would a humanist honor that as one entity or two? Microchimerism also occurs in almost all pregnant people, when they absorb some cells from the embryo or fetus.
Unique DNA does not equal a person, so what is it that the humanist is honoring here?
Re: Dobbs
That was an experienced politician explaining to a group of amateurs they screwed up. He almost thanked them for the low hanging fruit.
Well, that 6N prediction didn’t last well. Both games yesterday had astonishing endings. ITALY!!! And the much-dismissed England stand a shot at winning it all, although tbf Ireland is still odds-on favourite.
Indeed not
Ireland under performed yesterday. It is my fault for being over confident on their behalf
I was less surprised by Italy. Scotland once again only managed to perform for one half and a bit and paid the price for sleeping for most of the 2nd half.
Why the Ireland defense left Marcus Smith in the open in the 80th minute is beyond me. I’m happy to say. Perhaps they were too focused on not conceding a penalty.
This is a transcript [from the WH] of the Roe/Dobbs/SCOTUS section of BIDEN’s speech
[I haven’t checked the transcript, but from memory, it seems correct.]:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/03/08/remarks-by-president-biden-in-state-of-the-union-address-3/
Historian Heather Cox Richardson in yesterday’s installment of her “Letters From an American” series: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-8-2024
Its surprising that the Republicans would pick this fight. Since Seneca Falla and Susan B. Anthony, the women have steadily been winning this fight. They could be some back pedaling, but I doubt the historical course will be reversed. But the R party has fully embraced losing causes now.
New and seemingly related to what appears to be my theme today:
Inside A Secret Society Of Prominent Right-Wing Christian Men Prepping For A ‘National Divorce’ A trove of documents obtained by TPM reveal the society’s inner workings. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/inside-a-secret-society-of-prominent-right-wing-christian-men-prepping-for-a-national-divorce Josh Kovensky March 9, 2024 6:53 a.m.
Here’s their “Mission Statement – Internal” and then “Mission Statement – Public”
and then “Objectives”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Mission-Statement.png
TPM:
Without yet having read the article, I zeroed in on this section near the end because of the word “grievance” because Marcy speaks of Kavanaugh’s sense of grievance in the show.
Any of the Catholic men at SCOTUS would be welcomed as a member here.
[“male, a “trinitarian” Christian, heterosexual, an “un-hyphenated American”]
Marcy:
Just want to add that Clarence [Insurrectionist Spouse] THOMAS
is still sorely aggrieved about his own confirmation process.
ALITO and THOMAS did NOT attend SOTU.
Also, note the word “poison” referring to “those who rule today.”
Special-treatment-Kavanaugh thought his Supreme Court nomination hearings mistreated him? LOL.
From his perspective, they were beautifully stage managed, the GOP backed him to the hilt, and the FBI’s cursory investigation was a huge joke. Its remit was ridiculously narrow and whatever it dug up went to the White House, where it was buried. But Olympian gods are never satisfied with the adoration of mortals.
SACR’s members are all Howard Roark and John Galt wannabes. Each member must be independently wealthy, a white male Trinitarian Christian, and have thsome thspecial thskill, such as lawfare, entrepreneurship, cybersecurity, and so on.
It’s like an auxiliary or junior Bohemian Grove. Except than regarding themselves as the most powerful people American capitalism and society could throw up, its members have to be prepared to fight surreptitiously to create a new, constitutional [sic], independent America [sic]. They’re not playing a game, but they are playing with fire.
It seems that Steve Bannon’s “gladiator” school in Italy may be moving forward and now he says he will create some in the US to train future rightwing politicians. I wonder if we already have adequate schools to counteract them, or if someone should create some schools that will. Or at least beef up curriculums in existing schools.
Sounds like a demi-moderne version of the monasteries from whence rode the cavaliers of the crusades. A bunch of incels with no other employ other than to disrupt normal society.
They could just as well volunteer to join Elmo on one of his trips to Pluto.
Bannon’s Italian op sounds more like Operation Gladio to me.
As an aside, crusaders didn’t ride out from the monasteries. Many of them were younger sons of the nobility. In a world built on primogeniture, they had no hope of inheritance. So, they were left to pay for the status they hoped to keep by stealing it from others through warfare.
Kings and prelates were happy to seem them go, because it reduced the potential for their making trouble nearer home.
Fascinating note on Operation Gladio – thanks for the new info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio#Daniele_Ganser_and_criticism
Seems right up Bannon’s alley.
If you’re interested, you might also read up on the 1978 demise of Italian prime minister, Aldo Moro, a scion of the center left. The official conclusion that his kidnapping and death were the work of a far left terrorist organization has been widely disputed.
Coincidentally, generally right wing foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have long interfered in Italian politics, owing to the popularity of its center left and communist parties. False flag ops are their specialty. They have interfered in French and British domestic politics for the same reason.
Jessica Valenti is doing the really challenging work of keeping track of all the ways the radical religious fringe would drag women back into the Dark Ages. She keeps a lens on the personal experiences of actual people suffering the impact of the denial of reproductive autonomy, as well as the whack proposals that keep surfacing, almost as if pre-orchestrated.
https://jessica.substack.com/
I’m god-smacked by this.
Well played.
So regarding Marcie’s quest to tie Britt’s kitchen speech into the Ireland vote to remove the “barefoot and pregnant” bit out of their constitution: Her dress was green!
Sorry to break it to you but “Family and care amendments defeated with resounding no votes” – Irish Times. Paywalled but no doubt available on Reuters or The Guardian.
I encountered no paywall:
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/03/09/family-care-referendum-counts-live-updates-tallies-no-votes/
So Britt’s green “handmaid” dress was predictive! Kind of mind blowing, especially with those margins, in a country with a gay PM.
I wouldn’t read too much into the result. From what I read, it was a symbolic change – not like the divorce, abortion and same-sex marriage referenda that made substantive changes. And being about symbols there were some who thought it went too far, others who thought it didn’t go far enough, and those who felt left out. The government handled it very poorly.
Loved Joe taking on SCOTUS. The hating on AG Garland is especially strong by the True the Vote group…Cleta and Mike Lindell 2024 version of Stop the Steal. Maybe Joe and Merrick are aware of their ‘SCOTUS strategy’
Some of the hating on AG Garland might actually be fed by an influence operation. Doesn’t take much FUD to set portions of the left off into an outrage cycle by feeding into their doubts about DOJ’s prosecution of Trump. Wonder how much of this is FUD doled out at the dead bird app?
Golly, there might have been someone here saying that from the start. But, by all means, act like it was you.
Point to the comments in which you said that. Point to the comments you’ve made about any influence operation for that matter.
I will not be holding my breath.
There are 103 comments out of +660,000 comments in which the phrase “influence operation/s” was used. Roughly 70% of them were made by me. Of the threads in which “influence operation/s” were discussed and you participated, you did not mention influence operations and instead advocated for unfettered free speech on social media platforms (see: https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/05/24/negotiating-a-new-routine-in-the-time-of-pandemic/#comment-844533). That thread had absolutely nothing to do with AG Garland or the DOJ as it was before January 6, 2021.
As I’ve shared on another thread, I literally watched across the table as a very close and very progressive friend fell hard for iranian backed antisemitic misinformation and proceeded to share it out. They “made it right” when they realized, but yeah, easiest thing in the world to get the left to attack each other. See Katie “Rigged” Porter
Aaaannnddd – SNL cold open nailed it, but could have gone a bit further without being over the top?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCfLpuLdF8Q
Scarlett Johansson is a gem, and I am waiting for the christer eat-a-queer-fetus-for-jeesus brigade to do a new version of ‘I’m rubber & you’re glue…’ with some thin BS:
“Look – Scarlett Johansson wants to be Katie Britt!” Or some other weak sauce.
Snark rant over, and what with the “It’s like an auxiliary or junior Bohemian Grove” (H/T Earl of) cosplayers plus the whole Handmaid fad it could get serious this November. While the die-hard MAGAt’s might make up only 20-25% of the vote when you throw in the despicable politics from the pulpit these christers might be enough to help drag the Orange Florida Man across the finish line.
VOTE. Teach. Lead by example. Tell people about this site. This whole election could hinge on 20,000 folks in maybe 5 States, 100K people deciding the popular vote.
Oh, and if Joe prevails – after eliminating the filibuster let’s get started on eliminating the archaic, obsolete and senseless Electoral College.
You may now return to your local Snarky Rants, in progress.
Next week I’m hoping there will be discussion (if not a separate thread) on the grift potential of the Trump/Chubb/Putin connections.
Hoping someone with an AM Best membership can open data on Chubb and subsidiaries:
https://ratingservices.ambest.com << type in "Chubb" in the Ratings Services field and enter, you'll see the entities in the holding company but can't go any deeper without a membership.
An interesting discussion on Democratic Underground with some feeling that Chubb would not engage in any underhanded activities on behalf of djt. Personally, I am doubtful that these big international finance companies are always squeaky clean.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218763277
Deliciously understated, but I thought the original post and comments at DU were definitely of the something’s rotten in Denmark opinion.
I will say that American corporations rarely engage in dirty tricks. They leave that to their offshore subsidiaries. But they do go to great lengths to achieve the same dirty ends with marginally legal deal structures.
Were Chubb the beneficiary of offshore aid, enticing it to issue appeal bonds for Trump, for example, the aid might nominally pass muster. Examples include giving Chubb new business; awarding it exclusive rights to insure and/or reinsure certain projects or industries; extending and upping the profit margins on old business; and regulating its competitors OUT of local markets.
Permutations abound. And little to none of those quid pro quos would need to be documented or see the light of day. The documentation would be limited to giving Chubb hard contract rights in that business.
One thing to keep in mind is that the Chubb Ltd. holding company today is NOT the same business community member Yankee in TX first went to work for; Chubb was acquired by ACE Ltd., the same insurance holding company which got into serious hot water in 2004 for a bunch of fraud. The acquisition of Chubb eleven years later laundered ACE by putting the gloss of a more respected/less damaged reputation on the letterhead, since some other business deals may have had long-tail risks (ex. claims processing wrt DeepWater Horizon).
Having worked for a captive reinsurance company at a time when the firm integrated swaps into its business, I am wondering if the risk associated with Trump was a benefit in some way because it could change the profile of some reinsurance contract/s or swap/s which looked too good on the surface. But I didn’t underwrite this stuff, just did corporate governance support, am not certain how this would get sliced and diced.
Putting a name and face on the Chubb bond: Evan Greenberg
https://newrepublic.com/post/179692/idiot-back-trump-bond-e-jean-carroll-trial-evan-greenberg
Chubb is behind Antiques Roadshow. “I would insure this for…”
Evan Greenberg the CEO is the son of the former CEO of AIG Maurice Greenberg.
Chubb developed the residential portions of the Weehawken waterfront after they were granted right of easement by Conrail. The commercial portion of the Weehawken waterfront was developed by Arthur Imperatore.
When did Chubb develop that real estate? Was this before/after its acquisition by ACE Ltd. in 2004?
ADDER: Check this old article about the fraud in which Chubb’s acquirer ACE Ltd. was embroiled — you’ll find a few familiar names.
https://consumerwatchdog.org/uncategorized/us-insurance-scandals-effect-spreading/#!
Interesting article.
It was before.
Chubb owned Roseland Development which in turned owned and published the only local Weehawken newspaper.
“In 1995, Roseland acquired $20 million of notes from Crossland Savings Bank and Chemical Bank, ultimately resulting in the foreclosure and acquisition of 100 acres, or one mile of waterfront land, on the Hudson River directly across from midtown Manhattan spanning the municipalities of West New York and Guttenberg. In 1997, Roseland acquired a 50% partnership interest in 100 adjacent acres in Weehawken and completed a master plan encompassing two miles along the Hudson River waterfront.”
Did Conrail (or some other railroad) own that waterfront land? If so, who do we ‘fault’ for that? To contrast, I note that the city of Chicago owns all 16 miles (I think) of its shoreline on Lake Michigan.
“the property here was abandoned by the Erie Lackawanna and sold to Sea Land/Sea Train” which went bankrupt, and since it was the major business in Weehawken almost bankrupted Weehawken. Part of Weehawken is on the Hudson and part on the Palisades which are cliffs. In order to get to the waterfront part of Weehawken it was necessary to drive over Conrail tracks and they would not allow that which made it impossible to develop that part. Weehawken’s gentrification is fairly recent. It has nothing like Chicago’s political power.
Interesting, thank you. Looking at the “terrain” view on Google Maps I can see the landforms distinctly.
Huge difference in humidity between the top of the Palisades and the river level.
Things haven’t changed much over time.
Despite doing outstanding work for the people, sex is what’s pushing opposition to Fanni and off course brought down Spitzer.
So now, Chubb is in bed with Putin and Trump? Perhaps we should wait for some serious evidence before tarnishing a companies reputation?
Yeah, I get it, Trumps sucks, but it’s kind of unfair to tie Russia to anyone even remotely associated with him.
Naw, Chubb has been dickheads forever.
Apparently, Russian dickheads to boot.
Dickheads at least since the acquisition by ACE, twenty years ago. But a good friend’s dad worked there for thirty years, and left in the 1990s, owing to its increasingly ruthless management. He said it wasn’t what he signed up for.
We tend to forget what happened to the entire financial industry after Glass-Steagall repealed in 1999.
I think the change in management culture happened before repeal. What used to be fringe, bottom feeding behavior became the norm.
The changing behavior may have driven the repeal through regulatory capture. Keep in mind when Rove recommended to Jack Welch that GE should buy NBC to influence tax policy; it didn’t end at tax policy.
1986 GE acquires NBC
1989 NBC launches CNBC
1996 NBC launches MSNBC
I’m not sure if you’d consider this website serious but it does bring up some interesting points:
https://www.nationalmemo.com/trump-bond
Interesting points, but every one of them was already made on this site over the last several days. That includes the reference to the Rainforest Alliance’s 2022 article on Chubb’s exposure to Russian and other foreign fossil fuel business.
That business could allow Chubb to act as a conduit for aid to Trump, a service it could be indirectly compensated for by giving it more or more lucrative insurance business.
Interesting reading “Canada faces a series of ‘crises’ that will test it in the coming years”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-police-future-trends-1.7138046
Some of the report on the report:
“While the report says it covers geopolitical factors, references to geopolitical challenges appear to be among the passages redacted. Two pages of the report are entirely blank, with the exception of a picture of a globe.”
Interesting that the RCMP report was labeled “SECRET” even though a great deal of text was visible in the reading pane. Also, the link in the CBC News page which is supposed to go to the full PDF comes up with an XML “Access Denied” message. Think someone slipped up here.
Those two pages were on the ice with the polar bears, highlighting the problem Canada will have in defending its new, northern shoreline.
It used to be that northern Canada was hard to defend because you could walk over over the permafrost from the Soviet Union to Canada. Which Canada found some Soviet military personnel and/or spies did.
So is it more difficult to defend seas with climate change or land and water covered year-round by ice decades ago?
Gosh, let me think about that.
A few loan walkers or a handful of vehicles crossing frozen terrain that’s about as smooth and even as the Appalachians, and often interrupted by fissures and open water?
Or ships loaded to the gunwales with arms, armaments, personnel, and supplies?
Lone walkers. Too much time spent on Trump’s money troubles.
RICO Rapist was defaming Carroll again at his Saturday rally. Job security for Roberta Kaplan.