PG&E Would Be Bought And Converted To Public-Owned Utility Under California Mayor’s Plan
San Jose, California is proposing that PG&E should be bought and converted into the country’s largest customer-owned utility amid mass-blackouts and heightened tempers over their role in the state’s wildfires, according to the Wall Street Journal.
San Jose is the third largest city in California and PG&E’s largest customer.
According to the Journal, Mayor Sam Liccardo hopes in the coming weeks to convince other cities to join the buyout proposal, which would change the utility’s investor-owned status to a nonprofit electric-and-gas cooperative.
The buyout proposal amounts to a revolt by some of PG&E’s roughly 16 million customers as the company struggles to keep the lights on and provide basic services while preventing its aging electric equipment from sparking wildfires.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said in an interview that the time has come for the people dependent on PG&E for essential services to propose a new direction. A cooperative, he said, would create a utility better able to meet customers’ needs because it would be owned by customers—and answerable to them. –Wall Street Journal
In other words, Liccardo thinks a coalition of California officials can do it better.
“This is a crisis begging for a better solution than what PG&E customers see being considered today,” Liccardo told the Journal, saying of the recent Venezuela-tier power shut-offs, “I’ve seen better organized riots.”
Faced with more than $30 billion in wildfire-related liabilities, PG&E sought chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January. The will likely oppose the proposal as they explore how to emerge from bankruptcy, compensate fire victims, and modernize their infrastructure (for which they passed along a giant $2 billion rate hike to their customers last December).
California officials are running out of patience with PG&E after the company shut off power to roughly two million Californians in 34 counties earlier this month to ensure that its power lines, transformers and fuses didn’t ignite fires that could spread quickly amid warnings of high winds. PG&E warned Monday that winds could trigger another round of shut-offs for parts of 17 counties later this week.
PG&E may have accidentally galvanized support for the public buyout proposal last week when Chief Executive Bill Johnson told state regulators that the utility may need to rely on power shut-offs for up to 10 years. That is a horrifying prospect for public officials, who note that the blackouts affect public safety and the delivery of other basic services such as clean water. –Wall Street Journal
“We need to align the financial interest with the public interest,” said Liccardo, adding “We hope there will be recognition that this structure better addresses the public need and we’re looking to start the drumbeat to enable all of us to march together.”
When an economy turns from expansion to contraction there is an order of events. The first signs are an unexpected increase in inventories of unsold goods, both accompanied with and followed by business surveys indicating a general softening in demand. For monetarists, this is often confirmed by an inverting yield curve, which tells them that at the margin the short-term rates set by the central bank are becoming too high for business conditions.
That was the position for the US 10-year bond less the 2-year bond very briefly at the end of August, since when this measure, which is often taken to predict recessions, has turned mildly positive again. A generally negative sentiment, fueled mainly by the escalating tariff war between America and China, had earlier alerted investors to an international trade slowdown, expected to undermine the American economy in due course along with all the others. It stands to reason that backward-looking statistics have yet to reflect the global slowdown on the US economy, which is still buoyed up by consumer credit. The German economy, which is driven by production rather than consumption is perhaps a better guide and is already in recession.
After an initial hit, a small recovery in investor sentiment is understandable, with the negative outlook perhaps having got ahead of itself. But we must look beyond that. History shows the combination of a peak in the credit cycle and tariffs can be economically lethal. A brief return to a positive yield curve achieves little more than a sucker rally. It may be enough to put further monetary expansion on pause. But when that is over, and jobs begin to be threatened, there can be no doubt that central banks will ramp up the printing presses.
So reliant have markets become on monetary expansion that the default assumption is that an economy will always be rescued from recession by an easing of monetary policy, and furthermore that monetary inflation will prevent it from being any more than mild and short. We see this in the performance of stock market indices, which reflect perpetual optimism.
There is a further problem. Other than a rise in bankruptcies, unemployment and negative indications from business surveys, there may be no statistical evidence of a slump. The reason this is almost certainly the case is we are dealing with a combination of funny money and statistics which are simply not fit for measuring anything. The money and credit are backed by nothing, and when expanded by the banking system simply dilutes the quantity of existing money, which if continued is bound to end up impoverishing everyone with cash balances and whose wages and profits do not increase at least as fast as the surge in the quantity of money.
Indeed, the official purpose of the expansion of money and credit is to somehow persuade economic actors that things are better than they really are, and to stimulate those animal spirits. You’d think that with this policy now being continually in operation that people would have become aware of the dilution fraud. But as Keynes, the architect of it all said, not one man in a million understands money, and in this he has been proved right.
For five years, the ECB has applied negative interest rates on commercial bank reserves, and commercial banks have paid €21.4bn to it in deposit interest. Since it introduced negative interest rates, it has injected some €2.7 trillion of base money into the Eurozone economy, increasing M1, the narrower measure of the money quantity, by 61%. Almost all of it has supported the finances of Eurozone governments.
The effect on broader money, which includes bank credit, has been to increase M3 by 30%. Far from stimulation, this is daylight robbery perpetrated on everyone’s liquidity and cash deposits. It is a tax on the purchasing power of their wages.
The ECB is not alone. Since Lehman went under, the major central banks have collectively increased their balance sheets from $7 trillion to $19.4 trillion, an increase of 177%. Most of this monetary expansion has been to buy government bonds, providing a money-fountain for profligate governments. The purpose of money-printing is always to finance government spending, not to stimulate or ease conditions for the private sector: while some trusting souls in the system believe it is for the latter, that amounts to just a myth.
Due to the flood of new money the yields on government debt have been depressed, giving holders of this debt, principally the banks, a nice fat capital profit. But that is not the purpose of all this monetary largess: it is to make it ultra-cheap for governments to borrow yet more and to encourage banks to expand credit in their governments’ favour. Just listen to the central bankers now encouraging governments to take the opportunity to ease fiscal policy, extend their debts and borrow even more.
Central banks pretend all these benefits come at no cost to anyone. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion of money creation, and someone ultimately pays the price. But who pays for it all? Why, it is the wage-earner and saver and anyone else with deposits at the bank. They are also robbed of the compounding interest their pension funds would otherwise receive. These are the very people who, in a bizarre twist of macroeconomic logic, we are told benefit from having the prices of their everyday purchases continually increased.
Attempts to measure the supposed benefits of inflation on the general public are in turn dishonest, with the true rise in prices concealed in official calculations of price inflation. Suppressed evidence of rising prices is then applied to estimates of GDP to make them “real”. For the purpose of measuring the true condition of an economy these official statistics are taken as gospel by both the commentariat and investors.
We cannot know the accumulating economic cost of cycles of progressively greater monetary inflation, because all government statistics are based on the lie that money is a constant, when in fact it has become the greatest variable in everyone’s life. The transfer of wealth from all consumers through monetary debasement is an act of impoverishment, and to the extent it is not offset in other ways the economy as a whole suffers.
Today, President Trump offered comments about the Emoluments Clause. Here is a rough transcript of his remarks:
Other Presidents, if you look, other presidents were wealthy. Not huge wealth. George Washington was actually considered a very rich man at the time. But they ran their businesses. George Washington, they say George Washington had two desks. A presidential desk and a business desk. I don’t think you people with this phony Emoluments Clause. . . .
His jab at the “phony Emoluments Clause” has garnered the most attention. But his reference to the practices of President Washington is far more significant.
Over the past two years, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and I have written extensively about the practices of President Washington. We contend that the practices of our First President suggest that President Trump is not violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clause. The former provision does not apply to elected officials like the President, and the latter provision does not prohibit business transactions. We have also submitted many amicus briefs on this issue.
Here are some of our recent writings on this issue:
Today, President Trump offered comments about the Emoluments Clause. Here is a rough transcript of his remarks:
Other Presidents, if you look, other presidents were wealthy. Not huge wealth. George Washington was actually considered a very rich man at the time. But they ran their businesses. George Washington, they say George Washington had two desks. A presidential desk and a business desk. I don’t think you people with this phony Emoluments Clause. . . .
His jab at the “phony Emoluments Clause” has garnered the most attention. But his reference to the practices of President Washington is far more significant.
Over the past two years, Professor Seth Barrett Tillman and I have written extensively about the practices of President Washington. We contend that the practices of our First President suggest that President Trump is not violating the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clause. The former provision does not apply to elected officials like the President, and the latter provision does not prohibit business transactions. We have also submitted many amicus briefs on this issue.
Here are some of our recent writings on this issue:
China Millionaires Outnumber Rich Americans For First Time: Credit Suisse
As wealth inequalities soar across the world and a trade war rages on between the US and China, a stunning report by Credit Suisse says the number of millionaires in China has, for the first time, surpassed the number of wealthy Americans.
Credit Suisse published the new report in its annual Global Wealth Report on Monday, which is the most “comprehensive and up-to-date source of information on global household wealth. “
The Swiss bank’s report found 100 million Chinese were members of the global top 10% club versus 99 million Americans.
“Despite the trade tension between the US and China over the past 12 months, both countries have fared strongly in wealth creation, contributing USD 3.8tn and USD 1.9tn, respectively.
The number of millionaires has also risen globally by 1.1million to 46.8 million in 2019, collectively owning USD 158.3 trillion or 44% of the global total.
China and other emerging markets have contributed significantly to this growing contingent and show signs of progress and opportunity for investors,” stated Nannette Hechler-Fayd’herbe, global head of economics and research at Credit Suisse.
A seismic shift is underway, one where the number of wealthy American consumers, who powered the global economy for decades, is starting to fade.
The report offered some insight into the slump of wealthy Americans, as we tend to believe it could be due to demographics issues.
While US population growth hits an 80-year low, unleashing demographic stagnation, leading to a dismal economic recovery, China’s population isn’t expected to stop growing until 2030, indicating that the Asian economy will continue to be somewhat more robust for the next decade.
It’s likely that China’s upper-middle-class and wealthy families, currently has more millionaires than the US, will be a crucial driver for global consumption in the 2020s and beyond.
Anthony Shorrocks, a British development economist and author of the report, suggested that after the 2008 financial crisis, China replaced the US as the world’s global growth engine of wealth creation, which maybe explains why more millionaires are being produced in the country.
Shorrocks adds that the US has endured more than a decade, since the post-financial crisis, of creating wealth for its adult population.
However, there was little explanation behind the wealth creation in the US and why not enough millionaires were being produced. Perhaps, it could be due to some of the widest wealth inequality in history, where all the wealth gains are flowing to a very limited number of people — maybe not the case in China, where the wealth is being shared by more, hence, why more millionaires are being produced.
China and the world are entering a new era. The real driver of global growth will likely be upper-middle-class and affluent consumers from China. This new report adds credibility to the trend at play.
Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops who had been protecting the SDF(Syrian democratic forces) in the northeast of Syria, prompting Kurdish leadership and the Damascus governed to strike a deal allowing Syrian Arab Army to retake control of the border with Turkey after nearly six years.
With the US troops withdrawn numbering around 150 to 200 (out of the 2,000 to 3,000 illegally squatting in Syria), it is understood that Trump’s decision is for reasons other than those stated.
The primary impression Trump wishes to convey to his voters is that of keeping his electoral promises, including that of defeating ISIS in Syria, meaning that US troops can now come back home.
Although it is clear (at least to those not under the sway of the mainstream media) that ISIS has not been completely defeated and that the US never really fought against the Caliphate, the impression is nevertheless conveyed that the “Winner-in-Chief” has triumphed and is bringing home the boys.
Given that the deep state retains ultimate control of US foreign policy, Trump is allowed to do and say what he wants – provided it is only within the confines of his media playpen, safe in the knowledge that his motivations are purely electoral and not really aimed and upending the foreign-policy consensus of the US establishment.
If we look beyond Trump’s histrionics, we can see that the US deep state continues its illegal stay in Syria, with Trump in reality having no intention of opposing the military-industrial complex (indeed often appointing its members to serve in his administration), with these two parties finding a common point of agreement in the alleged threat posed by Iran.
US troops will only shift near Iraq, looking at disrupting any form of cooperation between Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran.
Trump’s Saudi and Israeli allies in the region have long been conspiring with the Pentagon to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That said, the possibility of war with Iran does not align well with Trump’s focus on securing a second term. In any such war, Israel and Saudi Arabia would bear the brunt of hostilities, making pointless their support for Trump. The price of oil would rise sharply, throwing the financial markets into chaos; and all this would conspire to ensure that Trump lost the 2020 election. Trump, therefore, has nothing to gain from war and will prefer dialogue and negotiation with the likes of North Korea, even if it does not bear much fruit.
Trump’s main problem lies in the long-term damage his actions and statements may do to the credibility of the US empire. The photo-op with Kim was criticized by many in mainstream media for giving credibility to a “dictator”. But the anger of the military and intelligence community really lay in leaving Washington with nowhere to go after Trump’s threats of annihilation only led to negotiations that did not go anywhere.
I have previously written about the effectiveness of Pyongyang’s nuclear and conventional deterrence, something well known to US policy makers, making them careful to avoid exposing themselves too much such that Pyongyang calls their bluff, thereby revealing to the world that Washington’s bark is worse than its bite. To avoid such an embarrassing situation, Obama and his predecessors were always careful to refuse to meet with the North Korean leader.
The United States bases much of its military strength on the display of power, advertising its theoretical ability to annihilate anyone anywhere. By North Korea calling its bluff and revealing that the most powerful country in the world cannot in actual fact attack it, the projected image of American invincibility is thus punctured.
Similarly, when Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from the northeast of Syria (quickly downsized by the Pentagon), and above all gave the green light to Turkey to occupy the area vacated, the political establishment and mainstream media swung into action to dissuade Trump from communicating to the world that America does not stick with its allies. Even Fox News, now siding with the Democrats, started giving wide coverage to Trump’s impeachment story, inviting in the process an angry Twitter response from Trump.
Trump is of course more than aware that a complete US withdrawal from Syria would go against the interests of Riyadh and Tel Aviv, those who actually have an influence on him.
Turkey’s aspirations to occupy the northeast Syria are part of Erdogan’s strategy to improve negotiating positions with Damascus and Moscow with regard to the jihadists in Idlib. Erdogan hopes to be able to annex Syrian territory and fill them with the jihadists and their families who lost the war in Syria and who otherwise pose the security risk of invading Turkey from Idlib. Erdogan seems to have come to some kind of understanding with the US, which has hitherto been the protector of the SDF.
Erdogan and Trump didn’t seem to consider the possibility of the SDF and Damascus finding common ground, but this is exactly what happened.
The Syrian Arab Army is now in the North East of the country, protecting its borders against an invading army. Russia and Iran will try and convince Erdogan to downplay the operation in exchange for some sort of arrangement regarding Idlib. The Syrian government in the near future should be able to take back the rich oil fields, boosting its economy.
Turkey and the US have have for years armed and financed terrorism in the region, as have Qatar and Saudi Arabia (in spite of their ideological differences). Even the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were involved in the destabilization of Syria.
All this chaos is ultimately supervised and directed by the United States, which has for years been coordinating in the region color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and proxy wars. Any other interpretation of events would be disingenuous and untruthful.
The withdrawal of US troops from Syria simply reinforces Damascus’s position as the only legitimate authority in Syria, undermines confidence of European allies in the US, and emphasizes the consistency of Moscow’s actions, which has always been opposed to Washington’s chaotic actions in the region.
Amidst this generalized chaos and confusion, Russia, Iran and Syria are trying to put the house back in order again, which includes the international system where sovereign states are respected.
The unipolarists have been suffering pronounced setbacks of late. The expensive air-defense systems of the United States were shown by the Houthis in the last month to be rather ineffectual; Saudi troops soon after this suffered a humiliating defeat in the south of their own country; Washington saw its high-tech drone shot down by Iran; and numerous European and Middle Eastern allies have lost faith in the US, as they watch factions fighting with each other over control for US foreign policy
The US is the victim of a unipolar world order onto which it desperately hangs without any thought of letting go, even as the rest of the world inexorably moves towards a multipolar world order, one that becomes ever more difficult to subdue with every waking day.
Our interview is with Alex Joel, former Chief of the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Alex is now at the American University law school’s Tech, Law, and Security Program. We share stories about the difficulties of government startups and how the ODNI carved out a role for itself in the Intelligence Community (hint: It involved good lawyering). We dive pretty deep on recent FISA court opinions and the changes they have forced in FBI procedures. In the course of that discussion, I posit that every “reform” of intelligence dreamed up by Congress in the last decade has turned out to be a self-licking compliance trap, and I take back some of my praise for the DNI’s lawyering.
In the News Roundup, we’re inundated by serious new reports of cyberattacks. Dave Aitel admits that the hacking group he envies most is Turla, which was recently discovered to have totally pwned the entire attack infrastructure of an Iranian government team. Dave notes that Avast has succumbed to a second far-reaching intrusion into its network, reminiscent of the last attack, which led to the company sending out a compromised CCleaner application. We may never know whether Avast got the intruder out, Dave suggests, but his hat is off to the company’s PR team. In still more pwnage news, Dave praises two new detailed reports from security companies: FireEye’s report on APT41’s combination of espionage and cybercrime and Crowdstrike’s report on amazingly successful Chinese efforts to steal aircraft intellectual property. And one more: Cyber Command has leaked the bare minimum of information to show that Iran’s strike against Saudi oil facilities did not go unpunished. Dave and I both take our hats off to Iran’s PR team, which responded to the vague leak by claiming that Cyber Command “must have dreamt it.”
In other news, Gus Hurwitz breaks down a recent Ninth Circuit decision construing the Section 230 immunity that Congress has given to companies that filter content on the Internet. Remarkably, two judges thought that the immunity for preventing access to “objectionable” content would allow a company to filter out its competitor’s products. It’s easy to see how competition might be objectionable to the company, but harder to see why Congress would have shared that view. Luckily, the two judges who got it wrong were a district court judge and the Ninth Circuit dissenter. But the close call shows how broadly the “objectionable” immunity sweeps. Which raises the question why US trade agreements should broaden the immunity and turn it into international law that can’t be amended easily, or at all. That was a point of rare bipartisan agreement at a recent House hearing. But there’s no sign yet that Congress is going to reject the trade deals that do this. Gus and I also touch on the latest flaps over social media content monitoring.
Poor Equifax: Just when they were hoping the worst had passed, the plaintiff’s bar doxxed even more embarrassing security failings. Dave offers this cold comfort: All the mistakes that embarrased Equifax could be found in pretty much any network in the country. More cold than comfort, Dave!
And, finally, we close with This Week in Puerile Jokes: All inspired, of course, by the UK Government’s decision to drop its plan to require ID to watch sex videos online.
As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32wk9CS
via IFTTT
Shiller: Recession’s “Not Right Around The Corner” Thanks To Trump-Inspired Consumption
“Consumers are hanging in there,” says Nobel-prize winning economist Robert Shiller, who believes a recession may be years away due to a bullish Trump effect in the market.
Speaking on CNBC’s “Trading Nation” on Friday, the Yale professor said Trump is creating an environment that’s conducive to strong consumer spending, and it’s a major force that should hold off a recession.
“Consumers are hanging in there. You might wonder why that would be at this time so late into the cycle. This is the longest expansion ever.”
“Now, you can say the expansion was partly [President Barack] Obama… But lingering on this long needs an explanation.”
Specifically, Shiller told CNBC that he believes that Americans are still opening their wallets wide based on what President Trump exemplifies: Consumption.
“I think that [strong spending] has to do with the inspiration for many people provided by our motivational speaker president who models luxurious living.”
Finally, Shiller concludes that the next recession may not hit for another three years, and it could be mild.
“Let’s not make the mistake of assuming it’s right around the corner,” Shiller said.
“If the economy is strong, which is what he built is case on, ‘make America great again,’ he has a good chance of getting re-elected.”
But, before the markets can take-off, Shiller stresses President Trump needs to get past the impeachment inquiry.
“If he survives that, he might contribute for some time in boosting the market,” said Shiller.
“We’re maybe in the Trump era, and I think that Donald Trump by inspiration had an effect on the market – not just tax cutting.”
He sees this as the biggest threat to his optimistic forecast.
Our interview is with Alex Joel, former Chief of the Office of Civil Liberties, Privacy, and Transparency at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Alex is now at the American University law school’s Tech, Law, and Security Program. We share stories about the difficulties of government startups and how the ODNI carved out a role for itself in the Intelligence Community (hint: It involved good lawyering). We dive pretty deep on recent FISA court opinions and the changes they have forced in FBI procedures. In the course of that discussion, I posit that every “reform” of intelligence dreamed up by Congress in the last decade has turned out to be a self-licking compliance trap, and I take back some of my praise for the DNI’s lawyering.
In the News Roundup, we’re inundated by serious new reports of cyberattacks. Dave Aitel admits that the hacking group he envies most is Turla, which was recently discovered to have totally pwned the entire attack infrastructure of an Iranian government team. Dave notes that Avast has succumbed to a second far-reaching intrusion into its network, reminiscent of the last attack, which led to the company sending out a compromised CCleaner application. We may never know whether Avast got the intruder out, Dave suggests, but his hat is off to the company’s PR team. In still more pwnage news, Dave praises two new detailed reports from security companies: FireEye’s report on APT41’s combination of espionage and cybercrime and Crowdstrike’s report on amazingly successful Chinese efforts to steal aircraft intellectual property. And one more: Cyber Command has leaked the bare minimum of information to show that Iran’s strike against Saudi oil facilities did not go unpunished. Dave and I both take our hats off to Iran’s PR team, which responded to the vague leak by claiming that Cyber Command “must have dreamt it.”
In other news, Gus Hurwitz breaks down a recent Ninth Circuit decision construing the Section 230 immunity that Congress has given to companies that filter content on the Internet. Remarkably, two judges thought that the immunity for preventing access to “objectionable” content would allow a company to filter out its competitor’s products. It’s easy to see how competition might be objectionable to the company, but harder to see why Congress would have shared that view. Luckily, the two judges who got it wrong were a district court judge and the Ninth Circuit dissenter. But the close call shows how broadly the “objectionable” immunity sweeps. Which raises the question why US trade agreements should broaden the immunity and turn it into international law that can’t be amended easily, or at all. That was a point of rare bipartisan agreement at a recent House hearing. But there’s no sign yet that Congress is going to reject the trade deals that do this. Gus and I also touch on the latest flaps over social media content monitoring.
Poor Equifax: Just when they were hoping the worst had passed, the plaintiff’s bar doxxed even more embarrassing security failings. Dave offers this cold comfort: All the mistakes that embarrased Equifax could be found in pretty much any network in the country. More cold than comfort, Dave!
And, finally, we close with This Week in Puerile Jokes: All inspired, of course, by the UK Government’s decision to drop its plan to require ID to watch sex videos online.
As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!
The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32wk9CS
via IFTTT
There’s a video clip circulating on Twitter right now that simply has to be seen to be believed, in which a gaggle of MSNBC pundits are seen furiously agreeing with each other that Tulsi Gabbard has incriminated herself by pushing back against Hillary Clinton’s obnoxious claim that she is a Russian asset.
I refuse to spend any portion of my life researching the name of whatever MSNBC show this was or the panelists it features, but here’s a quick breakdown for posterity:
“One thing that was interesting about Tulsi Gabbard’s response, I mean she went after Hillary Clinton, she was strong, she said she wasn’t gonna run as a third party candidate — she never denied being a Russian asset,” said a panelist MSNBC identifies as Kimberly Atkins. “That was the one aspect that was missing from her response, which, you know, you would think that would be within the first line or two. It was not there.”
“When Hillary Clinton says there’s a Russian asset and doesn’t say anybody’s name and Tulsi Gabbard goes ‘How dare you call me a Russian asset?’,” added some talking beanbag chair identified by MSNBC as Jonathan Allen.
“Wait, so Kimberly’s right, she didn’t say she was a Russian asset,” interjected another super excited panelist, possibly the show’s host but who cares.
“To your point, Hillary Clinton didn’t name names, but there’s Congresswoman Gabbard going ‘Me! Me, me! Me!’”
Now, to be clear, all of these panelists are knowingly lying when they suggest that Clinton may not have been talking about Gabbard. Literally everyone knew that Hillary Clinton was talking about Gabbard from the moment news broke about her libelous comments, which, as Gabbard pointed out in a recent interview, was evidenced by the fact that all the news headlines about those comments featured Gabbard’s name. Clinton referred, using female pronouns, to a Democratic primary candidate who is a “favorite of the Russians”; nobody in the world thought she was talking about Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris or Amy Klobuchar, because those candidates have never been smeared as Russian assets, only Gabbard has. The self-evident fact that Clinton was referring to Gabbard was then quickly confirmed by a Clinton aide.
“Hillary Clinton did not mention Tulsi Gabbard by name, but an aide confirms that’s that who she was talking about when she made this stunning claim that the Russians had already hit on a way to meddle in the 2020 election…,” @nancycordes reports https://t.co/debniGhJPQpic.twitter.com/2HHsJwhZsT
The panelists are also lying when they claim that Gabbard has not denied being a Russian asset; obviously if you call something a “smear” as Gabbard has consistently been doing you are saying that it is false. But that should not matter. Claiming that an evidence-free conspiratorial McCarthyite smear is true because the target of that smear did not prostrate themselves sufficiently to deny it is disgusting and shameful in and of itself.
The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If an extraordinary claim is made with no evidence at all, the party making that claim should be promptly shamed and dismissed.
One of the most infuriating things about the Russia hysteria which has polluted western political discourse is the way people keep getting away with side-mouthed insinuations and innuendo, saying things without directly saying them so that when someone responds to what they’re saying they can go “What! Why I never said that, but my my, it’s very interesting that you think I did?” Hillary Clinton knew very well that everyone would understand who she was talking about, but the fact that the target of her smear responded directly is being spun by her flying monkeys as something weird and suspicious instead of something perfectly normal and appropriate.
As much as I speak out against violence and aggression, on a personal level I find passive aggressiveness to be far more obnoxious than just confronting someone head-on. The appropriate response to someone making cowardly indirect accusations is to directly confront them and call out what they’re really saying and describe what they’re really doing, as Tulsi Gabbard did.
So let’s say directly what the MSNBC panelists above tried to get away with saying indirectly: MSNBC aired a segment in which panelists falsely claimed that Tulsi Gabbard incriminated herself as a Russian asset by responding to Hillary Clinton’s smear job. They lied, and they will get away with lying, because billionaire-controlled media like MSNBC is designed to manufacture consent for the status quo upon which the empires of billionaires like Brian L Roberts (whose parent company Comcast controls NBC) are built. Call the propagandists what they are, and shame these passive aggressive Red Scare tactics for the brain poison that it is.
