Democracy Now Interview with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks on DNC emails - the interview the media does not want you to read.

.

EXCLUSIVE: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange on Releasing DNC Emails That Ousted Debbie Wasserman Schultz

July 25, 2016

Guests

Julian Assange

founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

This is viewer supported news

Donate

WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange joins us from London about their release of nearly 20,000 emails revealing how the Democratic Party favored Hillary Clinton and worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders. This comes as the Democratic National Convention is opening today in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, amid massive party turmoil. The DNC chair, Florida Congressmember Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has resigned following the leak. The emails also reveal a close relationship between mainstream media outlets and the DNC.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Democratic National Convention is opening today in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, amid massive party turmoil. Democratic National Committee chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has resigned following the release of nearly 20,000 emails revealing how the Democratic Party favored Hillary Clinton and worked behind the scenes to discredit and defeat Bernie Sanders. The emails were released Friday by WikiLeaks.

In one email, DNC Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall suggested someone ask Sanders about his religion ahead of the Kentucky and West Virginia contests. Brad Marshall wrote, quote, "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," unquote. In another email, Debbie Wasserman Schultz calls Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver a, quote, "Damn liar."

AMY GOODMAN: A third email shows National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach writing, quote, "Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess," unquote. Multiple emails show the DNC complaining about MSNBC coverage of the party and of Communications Director Luis Miranda once writing, quote, "F***ing Joe claiming the system is rigged, party against him, we need to complain to their producer," unquote, referring to Joe Scarborough. Other emails suggest the DNC was gathering information on Sanders’ events and that a super PAC was paying people to counter Sanders supporters online.

On Sunday, Bernie Sanders reacted to the emails during an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I told you a long time ago that the—that the DNC was not running a fair operation, that they were supporting Secretary Clinton. So what I suggested to be true six months ago turns out, in fact, to be true. I’m not shocked, but I am disappointed. ... What I also said many months ago is that, for a variety of reasons, Debbie Wasserman Schultz should not be chair of the DNC. And I think these emails reiterate that reason why she should not be chair. I think she should resign, period. And I think we need a new chair who is going to lead us in a very different direction.

AMY GOODMAN: WikiLeaks has not revealed the source of the leaked emails, although in June a hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility for the hacking into the DNC’s computer network. On Sunday, however, Clinton’s campaign manager claimed the emails were leaked, quote, "by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump," unquote.

We go now to London for an exclusive interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy for more than four years. He was granted political asylum by Ecuador, but he fears if he attempts to go to Ecuador, if he attempts to step foot outside the Ecuadorean Embassy, that he will be arrested by British police and ultimately extradited to the United States to face, well, it’s believed, possibly treason charges for the documents WikiLeaks has released.

Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about this email—these emails, these 20,000 emails you have released?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, it’s quite remarkable what has happened the last few days. I think this is a quite a classical release, showing the benefit of producing pristine data sets, presenting them before the public, where there’s equal access to all journalists and to interested members of the public to mine through them and have them in a citable form where they can then be used to prop up certain criticisms or political arguments. Often it’s the case that we have to do a lot of exploration and marketing of the material we publish ourselves to get a big political impact for it. But in this case, we knew, because of the pending DNC, because of the degree of interest in the U.S. election, we didn’t need to establish partnerships with The New York Times or The Washington Post. In fact, that might be counterproductive, because they are partisans of one group or another. Rather, we took the data set, analyzed it, verified it, made it in a presentable, searchable form, presented it for all journalists and the public to mine. And that’s exactly what has happened.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Julian, your reaction to the announced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz shortly after the release of these emails?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, I mean, that’s interesting. We have seen that with a lot of other publications. I guess there’s a question: What does that mean for the U.S. Democratic Party? It is important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress.

So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC, at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, it’s very interesting, because Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine appeared together, as Mike Pence and Donald Trump did the week before, on 60 Minutes. And Hillary Clinton distanced herself from all these emails and the DNC, saying, "These people didn’t work for me." And yet immediately upon the forced resignation of Deborah Wasserman Schultz, she said she’s a good friend, and immediately hired her. But, Julian, I was wondering if you can say, from your point of view, what do you think are the most significant emails that have been released, that you have released?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, actually, I think the most significant ones haven’t been reported on, although The Washington Post late last night and McClatchy did a first initial stab at it. And this is the spreadsheets that we released covering the financial affairs of the DNC. Those are very rich documents. There’s one spreadsheet called "Spreadsheet of All Things," and it includes all the major U.S.—all the major DNC donors, where the donations were brought in, who they are, identifiers, the total amounts they’ve donated, how much at a noted or particular event, whether that event was being pushed by the president or by someone else. That effectively maps out the influence structure in the United States for the Democratic Party, but more broadly, because the—with few exceptions, billionaires in the United States make sure they donate to both parties. That’s going to provide a scaffold for future investigative journalism about influence within the United States, in general.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Julian, on that issue, clearly, a lot of the emails talk about the actual amounts of money that were being offered to donors for the opportunity to—I mean, asked of donors for the opportunity to sit at different events next to President Obama, especially, the use of President Obama as a fundraiser. Now, most people in the political world will consider this business as usual, but the actual mechanics of how this operates and the degree to which the DNC coordinates with the president, his marketability, is—I don’t think has ever been revealed in this detail. Would you agree?

JULIAN ASSANGE: That’s right. And it’s not just that the president holds fundraisers. That’s nothing new. But rather, what you get for each donation of a particular sort. There’s even a phrase used in one of the emails of, quote, "pay to play." So, yeah, I think it’s extremely interesting. There’s emails back and forth also between the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. So, you see quite elaborate structures of money being funneled to state Democratic Party officers and then teleported back, seemingly to get up certain stats, maybe to evade certain campaign funding restrictions.

In relation to what has become the most significant political discussion as a result of the publication, which is that the DNC higher-ups, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, were clearly against Bernie Sanders and trying to subvert his campaign in a whole raft of ways, that’s true. That’s the—the atmosphere that is revealed by hundreds of emails is that it’s perfectly acceptable to produce trenchant internal criticisms of Bernie Sanders and discuss ways to undermine his campaign. So, whether that’s calling up the president of MSNBC—Debbie Wasserman Schultz called the president of MSNBC to haul Morning Joe into line, which it subsequently has done. I noticed this morning, Morning Joe actually discussed it themselves, trying to shore up their own presentation of, you know, a TV program that can’t be pushed around. But, in fact, they did not mention the call to the president. That was something that is still unspeakable. And it was a 180-degree flip in that coverage.

And you see other, you know, quite naked conspiracies against Bernie Sanders. While there’s been some discussion, for example, about—that there was a plan to use—to expose Bernie Sanders as an atheist, as opposed to being a religious Jew, and to use that against him in the South to undermine his support there. There was an instruction by the head of communications, Luis Miranda, to take an anti-Bernie Sanders story, that had appeared in the press, and spread that around without attribution, not leaving their fingerprints on it. And that was an instruction made to staff. So, it wasn’t just, you know, a plan that may or may not have been carried out. This was an instruction that was pushed to DNC staff to covertly get out into the media anti-Bernie Sanders stories. Another thing that—

AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Hillary—

JULIAN ASSANGE: Another aspect that is—

AMY GOODMAN: On Sunday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, cited experts saying that the DNC emails were leaked by the Russians in an attempt to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Mook was speaking to CNN. This is what he said.

ROBBY MOOK: What’s disturbing to us is that we—experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that they are—the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump. I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve our convention here. We also saw last week at the Republican convention that Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian. And we saw him talking about how NATO shouldn’t intervene to defend—necessarily should intervene to defend our Eastern European allies if they’re attacked by Russia. So, I think when you put all this together, it’s a disturbing picture.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Robby Mook citing experts saying the DNC emails were leaked by the Russians. You were the one who released these 20,000 emails, Julian Assange. Where did you get them?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, what’s not in that clip there by Robby is that, just afterwards, he was asked by Jake Tapper, "Who are these experts? Can you name them?" The answer was no, a refusal to name the experts. But we have seen one of the experts, so-called experts, that the Democratic Party is trying to base its incredible conspiracy theory on about WikiLeaks. And that is this—what we jokingly refer to as the NSA dick pic guy. He’s a former National Security Agency agent who started to produce conspiracy theories about us in 2013, when we were involved in the Edward Snowden rescue, as a means to try and undermine the Snowden publications, subsequently embroiled in some amateur pornography scandal. That’s why they don’t want to name their experts, because they are people like this.

In relation to sourcing, I can say some things. A, we never reveal our sources, obviously. That’s what we pride ourselves on. And we won’t in this case, either. But no one knows who our source is. It’s simply speculation. It’s, I think, interesting and acceptable to speculate who our sources are. But if we’re talking about the DNC, there’s lots of consultants that have access, lots of programmers. And the DNC has been hacked dozens and dozens of times. Even according to its own reports, it had been hacked extensively over the last few years. And the dates of the emails that we published are significantly after all, or all but one—it’s not clear—of the hacking allegations that the DNC says have occurred.

---

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Obamaville May 25 - Hillary and her Emails - Where do we go from here?

.

Are government officials lying about the Clinton email controversy?

For the first time since the Hillary email affair broke last year a government official appointed by President Barack Obama, the Inspector General of the State Department, has confirmed Clinton violated the rules of the government by refusing to turn over emails when she left office, and by maintaining her own private server independent of the secured government system.

How convenient that the President is in Japan when the report was released today.

Immediately after the release, the Hillary defenders took to the airways to attempt to mitigate the impact on her already swollen unfavorable and non-trustworthy poll numbers.  Sadly, the mouthpieces continue to say anything to divert attention from the truth.  I wonder if proven wrong by an upcoming FBI report if they will resign from office for lying to the public.

The attempted cover up of what took place on that server could be the lead story of the 2016 election and has the potential of overshadowing whatever Donald Trump has and will accomplish during the long and painful campaign.

The sharp intensity of the Clinton surrogates attack on the Inspector General's report was breathtaking and is a good clue as to whether her server outcome is going to be bad or good.  The determined effort by the surrogates to say Hillary was doing nothing more than previous Secretaries of State like those of Bush and Bill Clinton, was a clever tactic but has little to do with what Hillary did.

Each presidential administration issues their own rules and regulations guiding appointees like Clinton on how to handle emails.  The Obama administration, to their credit, had far more detailed rules than previous administrations.  According to Obama's Inspector General for the State Department, Hillary broke the rules.

Also according to the IG report, she knowingly violated the rules by never seeking approval for a private email server from the State Department, or the White House, a serious charge since she has repeatedly denied violating any rules.  The fact Hillary and her staff refused to meet with the Inspector General during the investigation, while all previous Secretaries of State did meet with the IG, is highly suspicious.

Far more ominous was another related news story that broke today about the Romanian hacker recently extradited to the USA at the request of the FBI, who did a plea bargain with the FBI and pleaded guilty of hacking the private emails of several top ranking government officials.

Among the claims of this convicted hacker was his admitted hacking into Secretary Clinton's private email server.  Could that be why they extradited him?  Was it ironic or just a coincidence both stories broke today?

As stunning as today's revelations may be, they could pale in comparison to the FBI investigation still underway.  As far as we can tell, the FBI still must interview the Romanian hacker and Secretary Clinton before they issue findings.  Unlike the Inspector General report, the FBI investigation can lead to criminal charges.

Here are potential major actions that could result from the ongoing FBI investigation.

• Indictments of Clinton staff members for jeopardizing national security.

• Confirmation that foreign entities hacked Clinton's server.

• Confirmation that classified national security memos were hacked.

• Proof of a deliberate effort by Clinton staff to keep the server from government oversight.

• Proof that classified memos were deliberately transferred from the classified server to the private Clinton server.

• Proof that the same server was used for Clinton Foundation activity with foreign entities or State Department waivers.

 

Now before the liberals of the nation start popping pain relievers just thinking of the consequences of any one or all of these potential outcomes, let it be said NONE of them suggest, imply, or otherwise say Hillary Clinton is guilty of anything as President Obama so aptly put it as reported in the liberal friendly The New York Times.

--------------------------------------

Obama Says Hillary Clinton Wouldn’t Intentionally Endanger U.S. With Emails

By MICHAEL D. SHEARAPRIL 10, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country.

---------------------------------------

Ever the clever lawyer, he specifically said "Intentionally" which suggests there might have been "unintentional" endangering of the country.  Of course, he failed to mention the national security of the nation is compromised no matter whether it was intentional or unintentional.

Now, the extreme outcome of this investigation may be:

• She lied to authorities by failing to disclose or get approval for her private system.

• She compromised national security

• There were blatant conflicts of interest when the Clinton Foundation sought waivers from the State Department to accept money (millions of dollars) from foreign nations on "restricted" lists and she granted the waivers.

If any of these come true suffice it to say her campaign may well be over.  There are those of us who long held the belief the only reason Bernie Sanders remained in the campaign when the outcome was never in doubt was because he thought one of these potential results from the FBI investigation would give him the nomination.

However, because the FBI has just entered a plea agreement with the Romanian hacker who claimed to have hacked her emails, much investigation work remains.  In addition, the FBI has not called Hillary in to testify yet but has indicated it will happen.

There is a good reason to delay the FBI results until after the Democratic National Convention in sixty days. As it now stands, Hillary will be declared the nominee at the convention, as there is no hope Bernie can overcome her Super Delegate stockpile.

If the FBI releases their report before that moment, it could derail her presidential bid and Bernie would most likely be the nominee by finishing second.

However, if she wins the nomination at the convention and then a devastating FBI report comes out forcing her to withdraw as the nominee, what happens?

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have rules in their bylaws governing how to fill the vacancy. The Party Chair calls a meeting of the National Committee, and the Committee members at the meeting vote to fill the vacancy on the ticket. A candidate must receive a majority of the votes to win the party's nod.

There are 447 members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) including 75 at-large members nominated by the Chairman (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz) and approved by the full DNC.  The DNC is composed of the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party Committee and over 200 members elected by Democrats in all 50 states and the territories.

The DNC is the epitome of the political party establishment and only two people rank higher than Debbie Wasserman Schultz, President Barack Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden.

Now think of the consequences if Hillary resigns from the ticket after winning the nomination, and remember there is nothing normal about this 2016 election process, so anything is possible.

Since it is after the convention, it matters not that Bernie Sanders finished second.  The matter of selecting a replacement candidate for president falls into the hands of the Democratic establishment.

Barack Obama will have the most to say about the replacement, and his loyal second in command Joe Biden is the most likely choice to replace Clinton.  Why Biden, because the whole world knows a socialist like Bernie can never win election in America, nor will he ever get the chance.

Once Hillary gets the nomination, his hope is gone because the establishment will not pick someone who spent the last year bashing them.  Besides, many Democrats regretted that Joe Biden passed up his chance to get in the race and believe if Hillary stumbled, then Biden would be the nominee.

Call it fate, call it coincidental, call it Divine Providence, Joe Biden would finally get his chance to be president and he did not even have to run in the primary.  Biden may be the only Democrat capable of battling Trump head-to-head.

Besides, who better to defend the Obama legacy than Obama's right hand man in building it?

Sorry Bernie, you are out.

As Lewis Carroll so aptly put it in Alice in Wonderland, "Nothing is as it seems."

.

Dark Clouds in the Horizon for polarizing Democrats as Obama and Clinton becoming toxic

.

Of course, the national liberal media will never tell you the truth, but the American public will.  No matter how hard the media try to convince you Obama is popular and Clinton is a sure bet history will demonstrate how wrong the pundits are at predicting elections.

Yesterday in Kentucky, where Democrats take for granted they will win the governor's races thanks to the old Clinton and Obama factor, polls the weekend before the election were a full fifteen percentage points wrong!  A couple of days before the election the polls showed the Democrat candidate winning by five points.  He lost by 10 points, a fifteen percent swing.

Worse than that, the GOP candidate was not even backed by the Republican party until the very last minute and he opposed gay marriage and backed the County Clerk in Kentucky who refused to grant licenses to gay couples and went to jail for her belief.

Analysts came to the late realization that things had changed.  When they asked Democrats why they did not bring Bill and Hillary Clinton in to campaign for their candidate they reminded the media that Bill and Hillary campaigned the previous election.

In 2014, they went to Kentucky and campaigned for Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic candidate thought to be able to beat Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.  In spite of polls showing a tight race Grimes was walloped by McConnell by fifteen percent.

As for Obama, there are more and more disenfranchised Democrats who realize they were taken  for granted by Obama and he never delivered on the vast majority of his 2008 campaign promises.  While Democrats think constituent groups like Blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics are foolish enough to vote for Democrats no matter how little the president helps their causes, the straight party voting seems to be fading into the history books.

Duh, people actually have principles and among their principles is do not lie to the people or take ethnic and religious blocks for granted.  There are Democrats who actually vote for the person based on qualifications, not what Obama or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, National Democratic Party Chairman, tell them to do.

As a result, the Republicans crushed the Democrats in 2014, and now the GOP won both governor races in 2015.  Why is it the old politicians in Washington, their political advisors, and the liberal media remain lost in a fog.

No matter how many lies Democratic public interest groups, (PIG groups), put on the Internet and are shared by mindless people blindly passing on the lies, Americans, even Democrats, can see through the lies and are voting against the professional politicians.

Ironically, the Republican pundits who would normally join in the lying game with their Democrat counterparts with attack ads have been silent.  This is yet another indication that the people have matured far faster than the politicians, pundits, and press.

Republican voters have made it clear they want to throw the career politicians out as well and that process is now in full swing with the succession of forty-five year old Paul Ryan as the new Speaker of the House.  Add to that the fact over fifty percent of GOP voters favor outsiders for president and a lot of professional politicians better start thinking of new careers.

However, as Kentucky just proved, this is not just a GOP attitude, Democrats and Independents helped throw out the Democrat control of the governorship.

The Democrats will never nominate Bernie Sanders, while Hillary Clinton, the face of the Democrats, is not trusted by the majority of people.  Every time Obama's screaming demon mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes on television to praise all Obama has done for us, more Democrat voters seem to slip out of her control.

Mark my word, with the disintegrating legacy of Obama the chances of a Democrat keeping the presidency are no greater than in 2008 when no Republican could win after the Bush presidency.  Since Obama was the beneficiary back then, I guess political party success is like a revolving door, you can lose the office as fast as you won it.

. 

GOP control of Congress - how are they doing, compared to Democrats?

.

As Trump continues to confound GOP bosses - what have the GOP leaders done to show the voters How They will fix things with Control of Congress?

Last November the voters of America gave the Republicans a resounding victory and Obama a deafening defeat when control of the House and Senate fell into GOP hands for the first time since the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Just over halfway into their first year in control of both Houses of Congress, a situation last seen when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during the first two years of the Obama presidency, what is the result?

Nothing if one looked at the press stories.  Nothing if one listened to Obama, but then he blames the Republicans for everything all the time.  If you listen to Hillary Clinton she says they have been ruthlessly investigating her and Bill and the Foundation as part of their ongoing paranoia and hatred of the Clintons.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz says the Republicans continue to block everything Obama tries to do which of course ignores the few times the president and congress have agreed on anything.

Curiously, no Republican candidate seems to be praising the leadership of the GOP, nor the Speaker of the House John Boehner or Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell for all they have done since taking over the Capitol.

Perhaps the fact Trump can give honest and candid assessments of everyone mired in the political establishment of our nation's capitol, whether Democrat, Republican or news media, is what makes him so popular.

As the people seem to be saying with their support of Trump, maybe it is time to thrown them all out.

.

Who really won the election? Republicans, Democrats, Obama, or Undocumented.

.

First, I think the term undocumented is pathetic.  I cannot think of any descriptive word worse than the cursed terms Democrat, Republican, or Congress, except undocumented worker.  Maybe we should say the "underground" since they are part of the underground economy in America.

So far, the underground are the only winners in the election as they forced the president's hand after his six years of broken promises.  In terms of numerical impact, the GOP were big winners and the Democrats big losers.  Contrary to press reports, that is pretty much what happens every midterm election, the party holding the presidency loses and the minority party wins.

Still, my instinct tells me neither the Republicans nor the Democrats won because it was the Independents, the forgotten Americans, who brought the GOP to power.  There was no interest in the election by Democrats, and enough by Republicans to assure that only about 25% of all eligible voters actually voted.  So I guess that makes apathy the big winner.

I watched the returns even though long ago I had predicted a GOP tidal wave, and was stunned when I kept hearing how state after state saw major reductions in voting by both Democrats and Republicans, but up to a 40% increase in Independent voting.

Other obvious losers were Harry Reid, the war on women nonsense, the Kill the Koch Brothers campaign, liberal media, peaceniks, big brother advocates, and Democratic National Committee leader U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Obama's handpicked propaganda mouthpiece.

Winners were much harder to find but did include those wanting bigger and better wars, the arms industry, bankers, Wall Street, oil dudes, rich people, and the many GOP candidates for president in 2016.

One group that always wins come election time is the news media who benefited from $3 billion dollars being pumped into the political campaigns.  If congress had the guts to ban paid political commercials for everyone and made the network television, cable, and radio outlets give all candidates free commercials, very few I might add, the media would finally lose out on the big bucks but until then the newest groups of fat cats are the media.

As for the short term future, it does not matter if the Democrats and Republicans get along because in the end there is little difference between the way they govern.  We can only hope the country survives long enough for the growing Independents to throw them all out of office.

Once congress is forced to adopt an Ethics Law that actually works bureaucrats and politicians will be lined up awaiting criminal indictments.

Tax reform is needed, both personal and corporate, but trusting those to fix it that now have us $17.5 trillion in debt while the private sector and stock market have record profits seems a little counter-productive.

Maybe the key to the future is to remember the past and as the founding father of America seemed to realized, perhaps a few prayers to God might help.

.