RedSpawn

Oh, https://www2.gwu.edu/~ieresgwu/assets/docs/demokratizatsiya%20archive/06-04_sokolov.pdf . This is a 06/04/98 speech from Veniamin Sokolov who is the Russian auditor of the Account Chamber of the Russian Federation, which is the only constitutional control body independent of the president and the government of the Russian Federation. He is like an Inspector General and made this speech while visiting America. Yes, the IMF should sent $4.8 billion to Russia in July 1998 when Russia's own Inspector General is saying -- FRAUD & CORRUPTION ALERT on 06/04/98? The Inspector General of Russia is saying the internal control structure is rife with price manipulations and violations of law and provides examples on page 5-6. Fair enough, we can return our regular programming back to Trump. However, before you call something conspiracy theory, you should make sure that what Clinton did even makes sense in light of the circumstances and with this much information even from Russia's own Auditor-----something is fishy!

I have shown you three different articles showing that the Clinton administration was going against the grain on this $4.8 billion IMF loan. One of the articles was a working paper from the IMF! Clinton made a statement at the end of May 31, 1998 that undermined the IMF's ability to force Russia to devalue its ruble as part of the economic plan to stabilize Russia's market. He promised economic support despite Russia's intransigence on embracing tight monetary policies. It's odd! I am suggesting that Clinton's timing and support for the $4.8 billion wire to a failing Russia should be reviewed ESPECIALLY after the IMF loans of $12.5 billion between 1992-96 haven't been paid back AND Russia's parliament has not approved any significant budgetary changes in light of the Asian economic contagion. It makes no economic sense to send a $4.8 billion wire to the Titanic if the ship has already hit the iceberg and the Russian leaders are not embracing tight monetary policy to stem the damage. Russia was already in meltdown mode: Russian debt was rising from 1991-1998. Please see http://www.colorado.edu/econ/courses/roper/reserve-readings/http:__www.cnie.org_nle_econ-72.html%23n_2_ .Russia's debt rose from $96.8 billion in 1991 to $147.1 billion in 1998! Thus, the Russian government was knowingly running budget deficits to finance operations. Asian Economic Crisis reduced oil to $8 a barrel in late 1997 and destroyed Russia's revenue stream to finance government operations. There was a large amount of capital outflow from Russia due to market instability and panic. Upon helping with the re-election of Yeltsin, the powerful Russian oligarch reduced their tax payments. It was no coincidence that nearly all the main enterprises with tax arrears at the end of 1996 were oil or gas companies. See https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 21. The Russian government did not want to embrace tight monetary policy for the long-term ==> resisting devaluing the Ruble to alleviate market pressures. The Russian economy was shrinking ===> productivity was declining especially since the Russian government did not diversify its revenue stream. Also, workers who weren't paid on time (or at all) typically reduced their productivity as a sign of protest. Also unemployment in Russia was rising due to the capital outflow and flight. There were rumors and obvious signs of fiscal mismanagement where the IMF did not institute a commensurate amount of supervision in light of Russia's deteriorating economy. You think it makes sense to send money to Russia with all of the above-mentioned bullets occurring? How the heck can a lowly Patrick Buchanan read the tea leaves properly? See http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-let-russia-default-310 ===> He says let Russia default on the IMF debt and stop sending them taxpayer funded money on 06/09/1998. See http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/30/opinion/op-17927 ===> On August 30, 1998 after the implosion, Buchanan says, "I told you so!" and suggests criminal behavior at the IMF (or elsewhere). Don't worry, it's obvious you are going to defend the Clinton administration's position on the $4.8 billion wire in 1998 when it makes absolutely no sense and goes against the top IMF officials goals at the time. Cue that sexy a$$ saxophone solo please. I guess the IMF should also be surprised when that $4.8 billion was embezzled in short order?

Please provide links showing that world leaders were supporting the billion $ IMF wires to financially imploding Russia circa mid 1998. Let's step back and get the timeline right. http://russianlaw.org/chron.htm Of course, the Western world was supportive of Russia's transition from a command economy to a market based economy under Yeltsin, but that too came with caveats. Between the years of 1992 and 1996, the IMF loaned Russia $12.5 billion to help with this transition. Even though this $12.5 billion was not paid back, I am not questioning what happened to it--though it's possible the money was placed into the hands of offshore accounts and the Russian oligarch. What I am asking about is the second loan tranche of $22 billion in mid-1998 which contained a $4.8 billion loan payment. Russia had not enacted significant budgetary reforms and the IMF top leaders were hesitant about loaning more money to Russia. Why? Because they IMF had not yet completed its due diligence and hadn't seen any significant good faith efforts from Russia to move toward a market economy. The IMF leaders didn't see the purpose of propping up the economy, especially when they aren't confident that the 1st loan tranche accomplished its intended purpose (i.e. to stabilize the Russian economy). Also, the Asian Economic Crisis in late 1997 began to affect Russia since Asia's demand for oil plummeted and thus the price of oil collapsed with adverse consequences for Russia’s balance of payments and government revenues. I have already shown you at least two decent articles detailing that top IMF leaders were against the wires to Russia in July/August 1998 since the Russian parliament had NOT enacted any budgetary measures. Again the articles stated that the top IMF leaders felt pressured by the Clinton administration to make these wires and accelerate Russia's financial rescue package. Do you think Clinton's position on the $4.8 billion wire was a popular one despite the articles showing otherwise? Doesn't prove he was blackmailed, but his behavior is quite odd and dubious in light of the circumstances. Also the articles line up with the climate that Admiral Lyons was asserting. And the fact that the $4.8 billion just evaporated (embezzled) after being wired and the Russian economy still crumbled. . . just wow. I look forward to seeing some articles supporting your representations.

Duly noted, but I'm not understanding the logic here. President Bush took a calculated risk of hiring cronies for the top positions at FEMA. And yes, he perceived that cost as very low intially, but Bush knew exactly what he was doing. He was doing what other Presidents before him had done, but on a larger scale. He was rewarding those who either contributed heavily to his Presidential campaign or had helped him to attain the Presidency of the United States of America. Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other plans for Louisiana. So a seemingly harmless "low-cost" type of cronyism became a bill due costing 1,833 American lives. Even if Bush honestly believed such consequences of cronyism weren't foreseeable, he has no excuse; he rolled the political dice and hit snake eyes. Honestly, I don't know how many lives were attributed to the federal government's untimely and woefully inadequate rescue response and how many can be attributed to the incompetence of the local and state government. However, I do know that cronyism breeds corruption and incompetence, and both can be dangerous if not deadly. An experienced leader of the most powerful nation should understand, appreciate, and abide by the veracity of this maxim . Here are a few links that discuss the depth of Bush's cronyism. Take them with a grain of salt as most are from the left, but honestly Michael D. Brown and the Department of Justice are enough for me. https://thinkprogress.org/the-top-43-appointees-who-helped-make-bush-the-worst-president-ever-2e1afb29e135 ===> progress website with listing of top 43 Bush appointees who seem to be cronies. http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bushco/cronyism.htm ===> liberal website, but the listing of cronies is interesting. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kerry_Bush_prefers_paying_off_cronies_0626.html ===> same issue of cronies through Senate recess appointments. Agreed. Let's give President Trump some more time, and he too, will eventually roll snake eyes.

Fair enough. Please see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bush_administration_cronyism_and_incompetence The crowning achievement of cronyism in the Bush administration is Michael DeWayne Brown who joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as General Counsel in January 2001. He was the 1st person hired by Bush's long-time friend, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, who also managed Bush's election campaign in 2000. Allbaugh later named Brown his Acting Deputy Director in September 2001. Bush nominated Brown as Deputy Director of FEMA in March 2002 and nominated him for directorship in January 2003 after Allbaugh resigned. Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest hurricane ever to hit the United States. Total fatalities were estimated at 1,833 and the subsequent flooding in August 2005 left millions homeless. FEMA's lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed just how little rescue and disaster recovery experience Bush's appointee had. It also revealed how little disaster recovery experience the top 3 leaders of FEMA had who were either Bush's 2000 campaign groupies or had ties to the White House advance operation. As an example, President Bush learned about the 25,000 people trapped in the convention center not from his Director, who didn't know himself, but from a newswire story 24 hours after the trapped were pleading on almost every news channel! This type of cronyism is more expensive and destructive than Trump's scenario because people paid the ultimate cost with their lives. Also, Senate Judiciary Committee members were saying that for the 1st time in memory, none of the most senior officials at the Department of Justice during Bush's Administration--Alberto R Gonzales, Timothy E. Flanigan, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., and Alice S. Fisher-- would have experience as a criminal prosecutor. This is after Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey resigned in August 2005 to pursue other interests in the private sector. Review the link about Bush's cronyism and determine if we can accept this type of cronyism of hiring an unqualified friend of a friend in some of our nation's most critical departments and institutions.

Agreed. If history doesn't repeat itself, it at least rhymes. Both political parties should recognize that the Financial CHOICE Act is another feeble attempt by Wall Street to create the same deregulatory environment that caused the housing collapse. The passing of this Act has the potential to wreck complete havoc in our financial markets again and should be getting highlighted media coverage. We can not afford for Wall Street to blackmail Congress for taxpayer funded bailouts and hold our financial markets and economy hostage when they make highly speculative investments that implode. Wall Street has a bad habit of privatizing its profits but socializing its losses and this expensive form of corporate welfare must stop. We can not reward this kind of irrational exuberance and unbridled risk taking, and if we do, we deserve the monster we create.

Excellent high quality response; it should be in a well renowned political magazine! I wanted to add the that the housing bubble crash is the result of a major confluence of factors. As you stated the gradual whittling away and eventual repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 is part of the problem. In addition, the Clinton administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight of the big hybrid banks created by the demise of the Glass-Stegall Act. This lack of strong oversight of the hybrid banks continued with the Bush administration up until the collapse in 2008. The hybrid banks became too big to fail and somehow avoided the wrath of the Antitrust division of the Department of Justice. Also, the Clinton administration's firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial markets played a meaningful role in the crisis--for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives which were becoming increasingly prevalent despite internal warnings. Finally, Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets failed us when they recommended in 2000 that OTC derivatives not be included as financial instruments falling within the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. They recommended deregulation of the OTC derivative market since it contained sophisticated parties who understood risk management and had legal remedies available in court should counterparties breach their contractual obligations. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2000/20000210.htm ===> under OTC derivatives section, Greenspan was woefully incorrect on the destructive impact that OTC derivatives could have on the broader economy. He assumed that sophisticated parties would not fall prey to irrational exuberance. He was wrong; they did because they're human just like everyone else. OTC derivatives include credit default swaps which led to the downfall of AIG Insurance and also included collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which caused many investment houses like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns to fail. CDO's became the engine that powered the mortgage supply chain for subprime mortgages and are credited with giving lenders greater incentive to make subprime loans leading up to the crisis in 2007-09. OTC's and CDO's needed to be in the purview of federal regulation instead of remaining unregulated. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan miscalculated the human condition and created a climate that contributed to the downfall of our economy!

I agree, but what I am hinting at is this is not just a Trump problem. This has become a systemic government problem on both sides of the aisle. Trump is offering an infrastructure solution that is rife with cronyism for developers. Bush approved the $700 billion bailouts to the Wall Street cronies and big banks (insurance companies) who were catalysts for the housing bubble. Obama continued the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to Wall Street and expanded entitlement programs inclusive of Obamacare and increased military spending. Bush proposed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and made government even larger. He also catered to the cronyism of the military industrial complex with the unnecessary and extended war campaign in Iraq.

So what's the problem? If both a Democratic and Republican President increased the federal public debt by $13.8 TRILLION between 2001 and 2016 for unnecessary wars; out of control military spending; increased homeland security and surveillance; INTEREST EXPENSE ON THE PUBLIC DEBT; Wall Street bailouts; and mandatory entitlement spending, then spending $3.6 trillion for infrastructure should be a cake walk. We have money (debt) for wars, bailouts, and expanded government, but don't have money to repair decaying infrastructure? We need to privatize infrastructure to pay for it? That's very interesting accounting logic. How did these Presidents find an extra $13+ trillion to spend on their budget priorities. The only way to increase the federal debt is to spend money we don't even have! There is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics.

First, for you to even think that I was suggesting that Clinton or the U.S. Treasury made a direct $4.8 billion payment is laughable. However, the United States' weight and authority in the IMF is significant especially since we are the major provider of its funds. Thus, the President has the ability to "pressure" and throw his weight around during key IMF decisions. Almost everyone was against the $4.8 billion loan to Russia EXCEPT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Why? Most politicians and world leaders knew the Russian Titanic was already sinking. They knew it was a waste of time to send $4.8 billion to Russia with the ruble imploding and the Russian financial markets in meltdown mode. The top IMF officials had logic, reason, and common sense and were against the loan, especially since Russia had not shown good faith and had failed to enact any budgetary changes. Further, the article states the top IMF officials felt pressured by the Clinton administration to accelerate the rescue plan and make a $4.8 billion loan to Russia. Again, why? I have shown you that the $4.8 billion was embezzled upon receipt in Russia on the eve of 08/17/98. This comes as no surprise since it made no sense to give a sinking ship money when it had already hit the iceberg! It just shows you how financially desperate Russia was a month before the meltdown, even with Yeltsin at the helm. It also shows this payment, which originated from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was a "loan" with no genuine likelihood of repayment. It also shows how silly the Clinton administration's position was on this matter when that $4.8 billion evaporated in short order and Russia's economy still collapsed. The IMF was worse off for listening to a compromised Former President who can't provide a compelling reason to "go against the majority position" and make this type of "golden parachute loan" to Russia. The accelerated IMF loan with no genuine likelihood of repayment became a nice gift. I don't expect you to agree with Lyons or me. However, Former President Clinton's unpopular position on this $4.8 billion IMF loan to sinking, status quo Russia is VERY suspicious and odd in the midst of his Lewinsky legal troubles. It doesn't take a street degree to figure that out. I guess we shall give him a hall pass since he has that disarming smile, wit, and seductive charisma. Cue the saxophone solo please.

The Financial CHOICE Act (banking deregulation) passed the House on 06/08/2017 during all of the Comey hearings. I am pretty sure it got lost in the kabuki theater. Very convenient timing. We shall see how the bill fares in the Senate. http://www.westword.com/marijuana/financial-choice-act-passes-without-marijuana-banking-amendment-9140179

Sorry, I missed all of your response. It seems that you don't believe that a $4.8 billion loan tranche was made to Russia in July 1998. Keep in mind that Former President Clinton vehemently denied the affair allegations on 01/26/98. I have provided a time line of the scandal from CNN if you want to review. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-07-21/news/1998202031_1_imf-officials-loans-to-russia-billion-in-loans ===> $4.8 billion loan to Russia in July 1998. Please see 1st quote below. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-07-14/news/9807140121_1_john-odling-smee-russia-imf ===> Also mentions $4.8 billion loan to Russia and discusses "pressure" from Clinton administration to execute transaction. http://samvak.tripod.com/pp157.html ====> The $4.8 billion the IMF sent is alleged to have disappeared and didn't prop up the Russian economy as expected. http://money.cnn.com/1998/09/01/markets/imf/ ===> WOW! The IMF will not release another $4.3 billion loan tranche to Russia in 09/1998 since the initial $4.8 billion disappeared and didn't work as expected. The parliament had not enacted budgetary measures to turn the economy around. Date of article 09/01/98. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/ ===> Overall timeline on Lewinsky affair The Baltimore Sun discusses the $4.8 billion loan that the International Monetary Fund made to Russia. What is very interesting to note is that the 182-country organization of the IMF is apprehensive about making the $4.8 billion loan to Russia but it "was welcomed by the Clinton administration." And why did the IMF feel pressured by the Clinton administration to make this large loan to Russia? Hmmmm. This doesn't prove outright, but it makes one wonder why did the Clinton Administration pressure the IMF to make this loan package as Former Admiral James “Ace” Lyons suggested? What motivation(s) would Former President Clinton have to pressure the IMF to make this huge loan to Russia while its economy was failing and its ruble currency was imploding? Was Russia financially desperate enough to potentially blackmail him? Does this scenario give any credence to the scenario that Lyons outlined? https://broom02.revolvy.com/topic/1998%20Russian%20financial%20crisis ===> Says $5 billion in IMF loans went POOF! gone.

Agreed. This gets back to the Fairness Doctrine which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has fully expunged from our laws. This is what happens when a media-industrial-complex lobbies the FCC for laws that do not obligate it to serve the public interest. The lack of coverage of important world news is not Trump's fault, but a result of moneyed corporate interests who want to provide a cheap, irrelevant good [celebrity news] as a substitute for real news which tends to have higher production costs. Once again, it's all about profit and very rarely about serving "we, the people".

Agreed. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), The Federal Trade Commission, and the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice have been asleep at the wheel for way-too-long. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html ===> In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote. (The language implementing it was NOT removed, however). http://www.politico.com/story/2011/08/fcc-finally-kills-off-fairness-doctrine-061851 ===> In 2011, the FCC removed any and all language of the Fairness Doctrine and effectively erased it from existence. Really? Why? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/uncategorized/are-we-better-off-without-the-fairness-doctrine/ ===> Relates to quote below. We are in some sad times, when profit trumps the public interest. (No pun intended)

This leads to my earlier post where I said that the nomination process to the Presidency is fundamentally flawed, broken, and/or rigged. Constituents on both side of the aisle are beginning to realize this. Debbie Wesserman Schultz, Former Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), created a very limited debate schedule that favored the Hillary campaign and reduced Bernie Sanders' chances for a surge in the polls. Schultz' staff sent emails in which they brainstormed ways to undermine Bernie's campaign. Donna Brazile, Former Vice Chairwoman of the DNC, funnelled questions to Hillary's campaign in advance of two CNN debates. The DNC had its thumb on the scales all along which effectively destroyed the integrity of the nomination process and made Hillary's win questionable. Has the DNC even conducted a postmortem to ensure this chicanery never happens again? The media industrial complex also abrogated its responsibility to the public by refusing to give "equal" coverage to all 17 Republican candidates and by failing to conduct a deeper political analysis of their campaign platforms. Instead, the media focused on Trump since he was a ratings magnet and was notorious for making headline catching comments. Thus, Trump sucked up almost all of the media oxygen in the campaign season and left the audience with a distorted, yet unreliable view of the Presidential candidate field. The Presidential campaign season should resemble an intellectual marketplace where the best political candidates present compelling solutions to policy problems in their platforms. Instead, it became a poorly produced reality TV show with little substance, dubious characters, heightened political drama, and forced outcomes.

Too late, AG Jeff Sessions is already putting his foot in his mouth now, and in a way that is somewhat similar to his storied past (30 years ago). http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/opinions/sessions-comments-on-hawaii-hirono/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/22/my-testimony-about-jeff-sessionss-racist-remarks-kept-him-from-becoming-a-judge/?utm_term=.a5bc70a0f829 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/10/read-the-letter-coretta-scott-king-wrote-opposing-sessions-1986-federal-nomination/?utm_term=.6b93a869e92c#comments

I don't think the hacking of Al Jazeera was 3rd party but I was being sarcastic and saying allegedly to cover my bases. This is not getting much traction in the US as the Comedy hearings, oops I mean the Comey hearings are taking center stage. Freudian slip there...

Must be....we have ANOTHER hack at a Qatari news agency ... Al-Jazeera...so let's add that to that long list of hacks I made yesterday. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/08/hackers-target-al-jazeera-as-qatar-crisis-deepens And with respect to whom is hacking Al-Jazeera....there is too much plausible deniability between Russia and UAE and Saudi Arabia. Something doesn't seem right. This is way too coordinated for a "diplomatic" attack. The Middle East Gulf parties block air, land, and sea ports for Qatar. Then just by coincidence an alleged 3rd party coincidentally tries to hack the news broadcaster who can keep the world posted on the latest developments of this crisis? Come on!

Agreed. However, the problem is the rule of law appears to apply less and less the higher the defendant is on the federal tax bracket. :unsure:

The American Experiment is Failing https://medium.com/@peterhuntwelch/the-american-experiment-is-failing-eab7bdd327d7 It's a 10 minute read, but a very good read.

Someone suggested that Trump needs to go because he is a piece of slime and a liar. I just presented Exhibit A--a Former President who committed a series of slimy acts in the White House and lied under oath and to the American people about it, yet he remained in office. But to be fair, that's a different kind of lying and a different kind of slimy, right? Darn that seductive charisma.

I draw the parallels so people can see that they let their biases mitigate (color) their overall evaluation of people. It appears unfathomable almost conspiratorial that a compromised Former President may surrender to blackmail offers to maintain a closely guarded secret about his sexual peccadilloes. But fear, shame, and a strong desire to keep appearances can make us do a crazy number of unimaginable things. So yes Trump is a liar as well. He just doesn't have that charisma, wit, disarming smile, handsome sense or humor, or an uncanny ability to play a saxophone that makes him appear more authentic, relatable, and forgivable.

Duly noted, but with an impressive 36 year military career in the Navy, I am willing to give him some latitude and discretion. He is definitely within conservative circles but if has intelligence to share, I welcome it. Here are all of his op-ed pieces (he is very prolific): See http://lionllc.com/op-ed-s.html

Honestly, I am not the one defending a Former President who went on camera and lied to the nation unapologetically about a trifling tryst. He then told us in a grand jury hearing that the term "sexual relations" includes sexual intercourse but does not include the act of f311atio! Oh really? And to add insult to injury, he gets a yellow backhoe and digs an even deeper hole for himself and suggests that the truth depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Seriously? We got our own Humpty Dumpty creating his own reality and lexicon under oath, mind you, and that doesn't disturb you? I guess we should just dismiss his compelling need to hide this affair and assume that it can't be exploited by others for political gain? I don't care about his sexual exploits in the White House. However, his alarming display of character afterwards and the unnecessary cover-up makes him a liability and breaches the public's faith in the integrity of the Office he assumes. He is compromised, biases be damned.

Did you even click the links and cue the video at 18:55? Should I just dismiss a retired 4 star Navy Admiral and former Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and Deputy Chief of U.S. Naval Operations willing to go ON RECORD? His military background is too strong and impressive to cavalierly dismiss as a "disgruntled leader". There is no conspiracy, but there is a compromised President who is willing to boldly lie to his wife, his sitting Vice President, and the nation about a silly dalliance with a White House intern. And why is he is willing to risk so much political capital just to keep this tryst out of the public domain? That is a very fair question.