Rebekah Mercer- heard of her?

1. 68

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   Here is a very interesting piece. Now for those who 'do not read' the links I provide I respectfully tell those nonreaders to go away and ignore this thread. Nonreaders who opine out of ignorance is unwelcome.
   
   Now for those who enjoy reading and writing  - which is what hubpages is really all about IMHO then check out this interesting article.  It read like a Hollywood script - only better because it may be true.
   
   I'm not posting as a believer or a hater, I  had this forwarded to me by a friend and would like to share with a wider audience.
   
   The wider story is the USSC decision of Citizens United where 'money is speech'. The old saying of 'Money talks and bullshit walks' seem to have  morphed into 'Money make bullshit talk'.  Do you agree after reading the following link:
   
   http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/mercers/
   
   Who is Rebekah Mercer and why does she have so much behind the scenes power? Money IMHO is the reason why. The true reason I believe that democracy is forever lost due to unlimited political money.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A less sensationalist but just as alarming piece:
      
      http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/m … tephen-ba/
      
      This is what tax cuts for the wealthy mean in the US. You give extremists more power.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         thanks for the link.
         
         Is there any way to undo Citizens United USSC decision through Congress ?-  I see no way out while the bloody swine refuse to leave the trough.
         
         The fight against Citizens United is not via the USSC, or D.C. but state by state rules.
         
         "Although the Court’s most recent rulings assert that the only legitimate basis for restricting campaign spending is curtailing bribery—what the Court calls “quid pro quo corruption”—a number of scholars are persuasively pressing a broader understanding of the state’s interests. For example, Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham, has shown that the Constitution’s framers expressed an active desire to fight corruption, a category they understood to include, beyond mere bribery, the undue influence of wealth on politics." - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ed/471504/
         
         "Donald Trump has made money in politics one of the biggest targets of his campaign – and an emblem of his outsider status.
         
         He has called superPACs "horrible" and insists the separation between candidates and the independent groups backing them is a charade. Trump says he supports campaign finance reform, though a specific plan is not available on his website.
         
         When he launched his campaign in June, Trump promised supporters that he would inoculate himself from the influence of donors. "I don't need anybody's money. I'm using my own money. I'm not using the lobbyists. I'm not using donors. I don't care. I'm really rich," Trump said.
         
         He regularly tells crowds, "I don't want your money. I want your vote," as he did in Pendleton, S.C., on Wednesday." - http://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/466668949 … t-can-they
         
         Trump lied or empty promise?
         
         Donald Trump hired David Bossie, ex-president of Citizens United, as his deputy campaign manager.
         "A friend of mine for many years," Trump said, "Solid. Smart. Loves politics, knows how to win."
         - http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/t … ted-227662
         
         Between 2011 and 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to monitor a Russian money-laundering ring that was operating out of unit 63A in Trump Tower, reported ABC News. Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov was the target.
         
         There's a word for someone who colludes with a foreign power to subvert democracy and overthrow political norms
         
         http://www.salon.com/2016/12/22/is-dona … isloyalty/
         
         President-elect Donald Trump is a traitor. As suggested by John Shattuck, a Harvard university professor, in the Boston Globe, Trump’s actions may approach the legal definition of treason as defined by U.S. federal law.
         
         Members of the Republican Party who knew about Russia’s efforts to interfere with the presidential election and chose to suppress or block such information, for fear of hurting their candidate’s chances, are also traitors.
         
         18 U.S.C. § 2381) ...shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
         

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You might want to include the rest of that definition of treason, particularly as it denies that Trump should be labeled that way: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...
            
            That's kind of important, it seems - far more so than just listing the penalty, for that penalty cannot be assessed unless the accused is actually guilty of "levies war against them", "adheres to the enemy" or "giving them <enemy> aid and comfort".  As he has done none of those, or even come close enough to reasonably spin his actions into what they aren't, the penalty is kind of moot.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Hang on a bit Wilderness, I am sure it won't take long before efforts to affect our elections will be defined as levying war against us. Or that having any type of dealings with such an entity will determined to be giving them <enemy> aid and comfort.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  While such efforts may be defined as war in the future (ain't political spin wonderful?), I rather doubt that we will shut off all communication with Russia or any other country.  We'll even continue to talk in the middle of a shooting war!

                  replyreport
            2. 68

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               </enemy>
               
               it denies that Trump should be labeled that way: - I have NFI what that means by 'it' and why would the constitution mention 'Trump' specifically - unless your purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.
               
               If the Obama administration did in fact tap his phone, before the tap could occur, it’s highly likely Trump committed a very serious crime, including treason.
               
               Therefore Trump with his wiretapping tweet confirmed he was and still is a traitor. He did it to himself that precipitated the calls for investigation and or future  impeachment.
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Where did you come up with that  crap ?      If Obama tapped Trump  , he deserved it ?  Seriously ?   If Obama tapped Trump it was purely and  politically motivated to support Hilary !

                  replyreport
                  1. 68

                     ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     And how do you know it was done "purely and politically motivated"?
                     And riddle me this, how was this done?
                     How come you're so omnipotent to the motivations?
                     Do you know something the rest of doesn't know?
                     Then back up your BS or admit your are pulling 'alternative facts' from the Netherlands

                     replyreport
                     1. 76

                        Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Ohh come on now, the war between Obama & Trump has been going on for almost a decade now.  I doubt there is anyone Obama openly shows more disdain for than Trump.
                        
                        http://nypost.com/2016/06/15/obamas-tan … eadership/
                        
                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … 8319ca51eb
                        
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etMco7ECPr4
                        
                        I don't think the junior Senator turned President is beyond using the powers of the Presidency to do a little snooping on Trump, in hopes of bringing down his election bid, and ensuring Hillary got in to ensure his legacy and continue on his good work, do you?

                        replyreport
               2. 93

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Let me understand this better:
                  
                  You will make the assumption that Obama tapped Trump for security reasons, and you will do it without any supporting evidence whatsoever.
                  
                  And because Trump tweeted that he was tapped, it fits the definition of "traitor", but without stating which of the three possibilities make it so.
                  
                  I don't think I'm quite ready to agree with this - the reasoning is far too convoluted (and dependent on unsupported opinion to boot) for me to follow.  The assumed premise has exactly zero to do with the conclusion; there is no connection at all that I can see.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Why not?  This is exactly what is fed by MSNBC and CNN to their watchers every day&night.
                     
                     Just last night my wife & I took the time to switch from MSNBC (Maddow & then some other show) and Fox News. 
                     
                     While watching Fox news we learned about the attack in London, the Rape in a High School of a 14 year old by illegals, various for and against positions on the upcoming Obamacare repeal, and the least amount of time was spent on reporting about the spying on Trump & Associates.
                     
                     While watching Maddow, over the course of 45 minutes where we switched from her, and back to her, three times... her entire focus was on Trump's ties to Russia... how some guy falling out of a building in Russia was part of some deep cover up going on, that had something to do with who knows what... nothing but 'this suggests' and 'it could be possible' and exactly NOTHING that proves any ties to Russia, at all, 45 minutes at least where her entire focus was rambling on in circles, making no connections to anything, just alluding to the fact that some people (IE - Pelosi, Schumer) have suggested that there may be something there...
                     
                     That's how it goes... doesn't matter if you have evidence, proof, facts... this is propaganda... repeat something long enough and eventually it becomes the truth... at least for those idiots that tune into MSNBC and CNN and buy into this dribble regularly.
                     
                     This is all incredibly rich, since there is far more proof that Hillary had 'business' deals with Russia, and Podesta had such deals as well, we have proof of all that... its ignored... because reality doesn't matter, truth doesn't matter, the goal is to destroy Trump, and they don't care if the whole world goes down in flames in the process.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        You are comparing a news with political commentary. Its apples and oranges.

                        replyreport
         2. 60

            Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            A question about this one section of your post
            
            Between 2011 and 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to monitor a Russian money-laundering ring that was operating out of unit 63A in Trump Tower, reported ABC News. Alimzhan Tokhtakhunov was the target.
            
            There's a word for someone who colludes with a foreign power to subvert democracy and overthrow political norms 
            
            I assume Trump Tower has units for lease. If Trump Tower leases an office to someone are they somehow complicit in any wrong doing done by that person?  If so, I would think we'd be bringing apartment complex owners up on charges for anything their tenants might do.

            replyreport
            1. 68

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Uh, they already do that sir, it's called civil  forfeiture on the landlord for when a tenant is arrestedfor drugs - before indictment or conviction.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  All landlords? Seriously, ma'am? I think that applies to landlords who knowingly allow drug traffic on their property. I could be wrong, ma'am but I doubt it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     If a landlord rents to a person that deals drugs out of their rental property, or makes drugs, the landlord may face one or more of the following kinds of practical and legal problems:
                     
                     The landlord may face fines stemming from various federal, state, city or local laws that are designed to prevent landlords from having criminal activity take place in their rental properties.
                     
                     Any person that is injured or otherwise bothered by drug dealers in a landlord's rental properties may sue the landlord, claiming that the rental property has become a public nuisance or poses a danger to the community.
                     
                     The police or other law enforcement officers may try to impose criminal liability on the landlord if the landlord KNOWINGLY allowed drug dealing or drug making on the rental property.
                     
                     The government may seize the landlord's rental property and other assets, in extreme cases.
                     
                     But those are for drugs, not sure if racketeering falls under the same category, or has similar extremes of imposition on a landlord.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        I would think 'may' is the important word to notice in those things you listed. No landlord would be held liable without knowingly allowing the illegal activity. Otherwise there would be a whole lot fewer landlords.

                        replyreport
                        1. 93

                           wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Had a neighbor that rented out to someone that cooked meth in the house.  An absentee landlord who was in the are only very rarely.
                           
                           They caught the dealer and the landlord ended up bidding in the auction to purchase his own house back from the (FBI, I think) - something he certainly had never planned on.  We'll never know, of course, but I doubt that he had the faintest idea what was going on in that house.
                           
                           The dealer had also put several drums of chemicals on the property of his immediate neighbor - a good friend of mine.  He ended up paying thousands and thousands to have the drums, and dirt in the area, removed and carted to a hazardous material landfill two states away.

                           replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I have read quite a bit about her. She and her father were part of the Koch brothers network until they broke away to do it on their own. Breitbart is one of their projects.
      
      He is a multi billionaire. She spends the money to buy elections and laws that benefit their extremist Libertarian beliefs. Thank Citizens United.

      replyreport