448 Comments

Can someone please get around to sentencing Steve Bannon already?

Expand full comment

Kathy, even better, the DOJ needs to arrest and indict Bannon for more than mere contempt of Congress.

Also, it is hard to believe Bolsonaro is not simply following Trump's playbook, then figuring that hiding out in lawless Florida will protect him from the application of Brazilian law. So far it appears to be working. And what sort of US visa does Bolsonaro have anyway? When will it expire? Who decides what to do with unwanted former wannabe dictators?

I find it embarrassing that he is allowed to stay in the USA as a private citizen. Surely Biden will allow him to be extradited when the time comes, no?

Expand full comment

David,

We welcomed the Shah of Iran here in 1979. A truly bloodthirsty dictator.

That guy made Bolsonaro look like Santa Clause.

We also installed that beast in Iran in 1953 and then supported him while he killed and tortured the Iranian people.

So, don't be surprised. (about Bolonaro or the fact that we have, in the past, supported dictators who masqueraded as terrorists against their own people).

Of course, when Iranians protested the Shah's arrival in the US after he was flown here, and they took over the US embassy??

Not a single US news outlet explained WHY the Iranians were protesting the USA and burning the US flag. (Because they had wanted to arrest and kill the Shah).

Rather, all outlets demonized the Iranians as if their assault on the embassy was huge afront to America.

But? The Iranians were justified in what they were doing. We, here, were just duped.

Expand full comment

Mike, all you say is pretty much true, but the Shah was a pro-American dictator, while Bolsonaro was legally elected and has seemed to be the Brazilian version of Trump in almost every respect. Iran was a major oil producer in an area of interest very much on the frontline of the Cold War. Brazil is not and has not been on most Americans' radar too much, while we do worry about the Iranian nukes that may or may not exist, but certainly could.

It is difficult to argue now -- after many years of the Mullahs in control -- that Iran is either better off now than it was under the Shah or more democratic. Brazil, on the other hand, is a (young) democracy with a long history of periodic military dictatorships. Lula is a leftist democrat trying to run an enormous still-developing nation with huge problems that -- while they affect all of us -- are still just under most folks radar. But I assume Biden is not afraid of Lula, sees him as a fellow democrat and much better friend of the US than Bolsonaro could ever be.

In a nutshell, the two situations are and always have been a bit difficult to compare. The US made its bed when we supported the Shah's rise to power through the assassination of the Iranian prime minister who was no one's puppet, and we had to lie in it -- or thought we did --when Khomeini took over.

You are right that our MSM hardly covered itself with glory in its reporting on the US hostage situation in Iran or on why Iranians so detested the Shah. I would argue our MSM is not covering itself with glory these days, either.

Expand full comment

Thanks to you both for fhe sketch of history that I lived through, but did not pay attention to. Dr Richardson isn't the only teacher in this community. I really appreciate it.

Expand full comment

Still Learning, technically Bolsonaro is in Orlando Florida on A-1 Visa per Reuters. The US can simply cancel his Visa. But, better to extradite Bolsanaro & his CPAC-Star Son per the Brazil-US Extradition Treaty negotiated in the 1960's.

Expand full comment

Bryan, that's a bit over my head, but I do wonder if there will be an extradition at all. Or a cancellation of his visa. So many moving parts. So much I don't know. Thanks for helping me out.

Expand full comment

Would anybody be surprised if Bolsonaro SR and JR had a private audience with their role model (tfg) who is still at large after being identified as the J6 mob inciter?!

Expand full comment

You are absolutely correct. We have many good "teachers" in this community.

Expand full comment

Me too! Sad to say I will be 80 in July! It is never too late to learn! Thank you all!

Expand full comment

No, the good news is that you'll be 80 and still around to share a lot of experience with us youngsters who are still in our early 70s.

Expand full comment

Sharon, You.Go.Girl!Thank you, for taking the leap with your campaign.You are an inspiration!

Expand full comment

I used to believe that the media was a noble entity, that their task was honorable and that journalism carried a vow of selfless pursuit of the truth, with an obligation to explaining what was happening in the world AND why

I also used to believe in the Supreme Court, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy

Expand full comment

I'd rather have "the press" than not have it, and the same goes for the First Amendment, but when it comes to "honorable" and "selfless pursuit of the truth," we *can't* forget that the major media outlets are all corporate entities and dependent on advertising too. They aren't "free" in any sense of the word.

It drives me crazy that even now, more than four decades after the Reagan (Counter-)revolution got started, so many USians don't realize how feeble or non-existent are the checks on corporate / economic power. And as soon as anyone tries to rein them in, they're predictably (as HCR has noted more than once) accused of being socialists. I've long since been ready to paraphrase Patrick Henry: "If this be socialism, make the most of it."

Expand full comment

I like "USians." Calling ourselves American leaves out many other countries which are also "American."

Expand full comment

The sad thing is, money buys decisions; always. Business requires return on investment. News is not delivered via charity

Deep Throat; “Follow the Money”

Expand full comment

The Shah was by no means perfect but I would suggest that those who detested him in part detested him for letting women get educations and work. My stepfather interviewed him while he was dying of cancer in the US.

Expand full comment

David I agree that the Shah, first installed in about 1941 to replace his pro-Nazi daddy, morphed into becoming a Persian pariah especially after he was floating on oil.

While the CIA claims credit for reinstalling the Shah in 1953 after the Mossadaq brouhaha (British Petroleum), in fact the ‘CIA coup’ fizzled, while the Shah cowered in Rome. At CIA headquarters, what began as a victory celebration turned to despair and then to surprise. My recollection is that General Zahedi on his own initiative was responsible for the coup.

1n 1975 I believe that former CIA director Richard Helms went to Teheran as ambassador. I was personally responsible for rating the credit of international bonds, including sovereign issues.

Merrill Lynch came with a proposed $1 billion Iranian bond(back when $1 billion was eye popping). Because of the post-1973 oil crisis, Iran had a balance of trade surplus of about $18 billion. I had been following Iran closely [I had already advised my corporate honchos not to establish a separate Dun & Bradstreet company there.]

I immediately told Merrill that if it sought to issue this bond, I would rate it below investment grade [making it unsalable]. For me the issue was political risk [check Egyptian Khedive Ismail in the 1860s/1870s].

Later the Shah fled—I believe first to Egypt and then to Mexico. He was dying of cancer. There was a discussion whether to permit him into America for dying days cancer treatment. I believe that Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller, and others argued in favor of this ‘humanitarian’ gesture to a once-fine American ally.

What could possibly go wrong?

Incidentally, earlier the Shah, faced with a troublesome Khomeni religious radical, chose to expel him. Once in Paris’s, Khomeni had an international megaphone.

Expand full comment

Thanks Keith.

My knowledge of the Shah and the hostage crisis and I guess a lot of other historical stuff I enjoy thinking and talking about comes principally from a lifetime reading the Washington Post, New York Times, The Atlantic, The New Yorker and a bunch of books and attending a couple of college courses and watching/listening to Walter Concrete and Huntley/Brinkley and having friends and family who tended to be well-read politics junkies and liked to yak until the cows came home. I'll bet you had plenty of similar things going on in your life, too, and probably still do.

I always look closely at your LFAA comments, as I expect to learn something new, and I am never disappointed.

Expand full comment

David I loved your reference to “David Concrete” [Cronkite]. A book on the ten worst journalist stories focuses on the myth that President Johnson said ‘When Cronkite said (after a post-Tet visit to Vietnam) that we were in a stalemate, this indicates that we had lost American support.’

There is no evidence that Johnson ever viewed this Cronkite broadcast. Indeed, it became part of mythology in a David Haberstram book. In late February SecDef McNamara left and Clark Clifford replaced him. Clifford asked the Pentagon what was our policy to win in Vietnam and found none. General Westmoreland was asking for another 200,000 troops.

Also, Gallup polls reflected a sharp downturn in American support for Vietnam. Personally, after my Congo ‘exploits,’ I was twice invited (March 1965 and then in 1967) to join him in Saigon. I twice refused. It was clear from my years in Egypt the difference between ‘communism’ and nationalism. In Congo I encountered Army folks who urged me to support ‘strategic hamlets’ there. Nonsense.

From my personal experience and from reading Robert Shaplen’s and Bernard Fall’s books there was ‘no light at the end of the tunnel.

About the time of the Cronkite post-Tet broadcast, Johnson was still giving his forceful stay-the-course in Vietnam speeches. His poor performance in the NH presidential poll together with Clark Clifford’s assessment doves tailed with his Wise Men’ confab in which these folks reversed their previous support for a go-for-broke Vietnam policy. By the end of March Johnson made the personal decision not to run for re-election.

Thus, the ‘Cronkite story’ was clearly a myth.

P. S. In October, 1964 State Under Secretary George Ball wrote a penetrating 75-page legal brief on Vietnam alternatives. He concluded that there was no ‘winning’ strategy. This report was closely held by five people.

Sam Adams was my CIA current intelligence counterpart. He was excellent! Then he moved to do Viet Cong order of battle. The more he dug the more he could prove that the military was underestimating the Viet Cong forces by at least 200,000 [which would render McNamara’s kill ratio analysis meaningless.] Westmoreland sought to block Sam’s assessments. Within CIA Sam found that the CIA director refused him permission to circulate his assessments outside of CIA.

Ultimately Sam was obliged to reign (in 1966?).A book ultimately was published on his professional experiences. So much for McNamara’s ‘clinical analysis.’ When McNamara gave a talk in Canada, he seemed to be experiencing a psychological crisis. He had been Johnson’s ‘bright boy.’ Ultimately he was permitted to resign and go to the World Bank.

I found McNamara’s subsequent ‘apologia’ unconvincing.

Expand full comment

Keith, I, too, thought McNamara's 'apologia' was unconvincing. His statements of mea culpa seemed too little, too late, too desperate--desperate to try and clean up his image or salvage something positive for his posterity.

As an aside:

By your comments above, I'm reminded again of your vast and long-term experience in international relations and trade. I'd love to ask your opinion about assorted high-ranking figures. For example, General David Shoup, Commandant of the Marine Corps (appointed by Eisenhower and retained by Kennedy as an advisor) in the early 1960s when the Vietnam conflict became public. He refused to send Marines to Vietnam (in 1963, I believe) saying the war was wrong as it was for the purpose of exploiting the Vietnamese people. I believe Johnson silenced him, perhaps by forcing his resignation. I see Shoup as a very heroic figure, committed to honesty, integrity, the Marine Corps, and the U.S. Do you have any inside info on him or personal expperiences with him?

Expand full comment

Walter Concrete--LOL!!

Expand full comment

Very valuable historical data Keith, thank you. I believe the 1953 covert action(s) was a joint US & UK intelligence operation headquartered at the operational level in Cypress.

Expand full comment

Bryan Thanks. The Brits pushed for the over throw of nationalist Mossadaq as a result of nationalization of British oil holdings. Kermit Roosevelt was CIA’a point man. I got to know personally one of the spooks who had been involved in this 1953 operation.

There have been reams published on this. I recall an extensive article in Foreign Affairs some years ago.

Perhaps you remember the first ‘CIA success’ in electioneering. Postwar Italy was in shambles with massive food shortages that provided opportunities to Communists. This became CIA’s first major ‘dirty tricks’ operation, with truckloads of cash going to Christian Democrats.

In retrospect, most credit for the Christian Democrat electoral victory should go to the Catholic Church in heavily Catholic Italy. A number of Communists were excommunicated. There was a major effort to get Italian immigrants in America to write their families back in Italy. CIA may claim some credit for this.

Expand full comment

On the 1953 Operation, George Washington University has published over 30 intelligence documents years ago that provides precise details on many but not all events.

As to the timeline & operations in Italy, CIA operations in the post-WW II, post-OSS era, in JAPAN both in creating & funding the Japanese Liberal Party may have been first large operation as the OSS was involved in freezing & seizing Chinese assets to funnel to other operations in the Asia-Pacific 'theater'.

Expand full comment

We love democracy as long as it’s OUR kind of democracy. It was our CIA that deposed democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and installed Shah. Today we and Israel pay the price for that decision.

Expand full comment

The anti-Communist obsession screwed a lot of things up. Indochina for one thing. Chile for another. Even now U.S. law enforcement is having a hard time realizing that the most serious threats don't come from leftists or Black radicals or dark-skinned people with Arabic names but from homegrown white right-wingers and neo-fascists. (Yeah, I can guess what part of the problem is here. Probably you can too.)

Expand full comment

Mike S, agreed that both were violent dictators. One key difference is that where the US administration supported the Shah, our current administration recognizes Brazil’s legally-elected leaders, Bolsonaro and now Lula. It is our former president who still recognizes and coordinates with Bolsonaro., and more to the point, prefers dictatorship.

Expand full comment

Iran replaced a secular dictator with a theocratic dictatorship.

Expand full comment

Yes, and we helped replace a brutal dictator in Iraq. For what? ISIS, Taliban?

I traveled thru “our” Shah’s Iran in 1975 and altho his picture was everywhere, and our F-4 fighter planes were on the tarmac in the Tehran airport, we could feel the resentment around us and it was the most oppressive Muslim nation we went thru. It was so nice to finally get into Afghanistan. But, that too is now ancient history, isn’t it.

Expand full comment

"Lot of water under the bridge and other stuff too."

Expand full comment

"We also installed that beast [the Shah] in Iran in 1953 and then supported him while he killed and tortured the Iranian people."

Yes, and of equal or more significance, we (the CIA/USA) overthrew a Democracy to put the Shah in power. For all our boasting of supporting democratic nations, if we don't like the leadership which was elected in full democratic style, then the U.S. smashes them and puts a dependable fascist in control.

Take, for example, the case of Chile in 1973 when Pres. Nixon and SoS Kissinger coerced and sponsored the Chilean military under Gen. Pinochet to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Pres. Salvador Allende. Allende was a physician and ran his campaign on the promise of a quart of milk a day for children under 6 years of age. Allende had seen the ravages of brain damage in poor children who had no nutrients in their food. He was a popular, democratically-elected President who stuck to his campaign promises. Nixon/Kissinger didn't like that Allende was a declared socialist. Nixon and Kissinger not only destroyed a democracy, but further politicized the Chilean military which had traditionally been apolitical. We've done this in other countries, too.

As an aside, I wonder if Iran was the first democratic nation that we've overthrown? And, how can we promote democracy in the world when we overthrow democratic nations whose agendas the U.S. doesn't like?

Expand full comment

You might check out the history of Hawaii. Hawaii was taken over by the US because businessmen saw economic opportunities. . .for themselves, not the Hawaiians. Follow the money.

Expand full comment

Well, he's probably ok as long as he brought enough cash for our banks to launder. Plus some for Trump and the GOP.

Expand full comment

Well, David, Biden did nothing about MBS, who was widely seen as the murderer of the Saudi-American journalist Khashoggi. I found THAT sickening too. Oh, Lord. Here’s the citation in Wikipedia:

“On 18 November 2022, the Biden administration provided a legal opinion that Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman holds immunity over his alleged role in the assassination of Khashoggi. The federal judge deciding a lawsuit had invited the administration's opinion.”

Expand full comment

Elisabeth, I agree totally. It was sickening. But I assume Biden has so much on his plate these days he does not see much use in going after MBS. It would be morally correct, but politically and economically hazardous, easily portrayed as foolish.

Biden has never been one to upset the apple cart. In fact, he has been trying to keep it rolling on a pretty narrow, winding, bumpy path. If he can get Trump et al into court and into prison, it is likely the GOP will break into at least two camps and suffer major losses in 2024. Then maybe our relations with the Saudis would be ready for an overhaul.

Expand full comment

David Our petroleum relationship with Saudi Arabia goes back to when FDR met the Saudi king on a destroyer during WW II. I do not fault President Biden for his ‘hand bump’ with killer Mohamed bin Salman. {American presidents have been obliged to deal with scummy folks such as Mao, Stalin, and, more recently, Xi]. We have backed out of supporting the Saudis in Yemen. And there is the Iranian imbroglio.

Humanitarian is a variable issue in American strategic relationships. In Helsinki in 1975 President Ford was able to slip this into the agreement. This eventually contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. Often such is not the case [China, North Korea, and elsewhere.]

Expand full comment

Where did you purchase your crystal ball? I would like to buy one.

Expand full comment

Jack On occasion gut instincts can be more prescient than analysis. We’ll see years later.

Expand full comment

No crystal ball. Just guessing.

Expand full comment

But you're guessing in the right direction. My guess is that we are going to end up with three parties nationally. 1. Democrats (40%), 2. Tradititonal Republicans (30%) and an amalgam of Movement Conservative Republicans, Freedom Caucus members, and Libertarians (30%). Unfortunately, at my age, I will not be around to see the result.

Expand full comment

The Abraham Accords are much more important to both Biden and Israel

Expand full comment

Politics, especially worldwide is a dirty, ugly game. Only those with ironclad constitutions can stomach the underlying stench. Resign yourselves to the facts, as revolting as letting MBS off the hook for Kashoggi’s murder, here does not mean there won’t be other opportunities to deal with him. Hello, UN? Are you there?

As pointed out here, people are upset with this development and are now wary of Biden?

At the time, that was the administration’s strategy, a concession for increased oil production offsetting Russia’s pressure to decrease oil production and increase prices. It obviously didn’t work. We walked away with MBS’s thumb in our eye.

It was a calculated attempt to reduce stress on the economy’s inflation and provide relief from higher energy costs. We suffered through and were back on an even keel as far as gasoline prices are concerned. Green energy looks pretty good.

Expand full comment

Elisabeth, I couldn't agree more. This alone has given me a reality check on Biden. For me, it moved the ticker from Pro Biden to reserve.

Expand full comment

He's still way better than Trump who would have given MBS a state dinner.

Expand full comment

Low bar…really low

Expand full comment

Global Diplomacy is, by nature, transactional

Any negotiation that doesn’t leave both parties with something they wanted is a bad deal

Expecting nobility from a President for every example of issues involving global human rights is of course one’s prerogative; however not practical in a world where The President is not an all powerful Dictator controlling other countries

He must pick how he uses his limited resources and influence

Expand full comment

Yes, but we must not forget the Khashoggi murder. MBS is still a young man. There will come a day...

Expand full comment

I don’t think anyone is forgetting it at all, but I believe ( regarding issues I can not know about) that Biden isn’t going to spend global capital on taking a stand at this point in time

We have no idea what conversations occur with our allies

Expand full comment

I believe it's rather arrogant to believe our form of justice exists in a part of the world where it never has. MBS had to make a public example of those who did not support him--look what he did to his own family.

One must never forget Khashoggi knew exactly who the type of people were he had no reason at all to believe he was safe from, and aware how close ME relationships are between nations, and just walked into the embassy. I was gobsmacked an internationalist journalist with years of living/reporting in the ME thought his press credentials, or even entering the embassy publicly, would protect him. Did he believe the US would go to war if he was "disappeared"?

Expand full comment

Elisabeth As someone who, on occasion, has faced rock-and-hard- place professional alternatives, I lack patience for some Monday morning quarterbacks. I believe that Henry Kissinger once said that some of these-least-worst-decisions are 50-50 choices. Hold your nose and do it.

Expand full comment

Kissenger’s book “Diplomacy” was a long hard slog through the intricacies of global politics through the ages. Eye opening regardless of one’s political leanings

Ironically, I bought it at a garage sale for .50 cents. Hardcover!!!

Expand full comment

Dave Kissinger was chair of Eisenhower Fellowships with which I've been associated since its creation in 1953. Watching him in action I experienced world-class ego and arrogance. On balance, I'm not an admirer.

Expand full comment

Sickening as Biden's response to MBS was, nothing tops Kushner's and Trumps's

Expand full comment

Do NOT use Wikipedia as a source. In reviewing a number of their articles, I have found them increasingly being used for propaganda and lazy research. A not very important but illustrative example: Aaron Burr's second wife did NOT employ Alexander Hamilton's second son as the solicitor in their divorce. It's worse. She made a crooked deal with him to do a paper buy of her holdings until the divorce was over, retrieved them, and then tried to stiff her actual attorney (Wilson). Also increasingly seeing articles twisted to mislead readers and sometimes defame people they are about, despite Wikipedia's living person's policy. Citing Wikipedia is no longer a sign of accurate information.

Expand full comment

Wikipedia has been deemed an unreliable source in college/university papers since the 90s.

Expand full comment

I am pretty sure that the reason for this is that if we opened the door to suits like this, many of our own would be subject to them. Like, oh, GW Bush, certainly Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and many others. This is not to say I agree with the choice, but I believe it is the why of it.

Expand full comment

Let's explore Biden and MBS further please.

MbS immune from prosecution for Khashoggi murder: US judiciary

The royal decree to assume the premiership in KSA was instrumental in saving the crown prince from facing criminal charges in the US federal court

By

News Desk

- November 18 2022

https://thecradle.co/Article/News/18509#:~:text=3%20DAYS%20AGO-,MbS%20immune%20from%20prosecution%20for%20Khashoggi%20murder%3A%20US%20judiciary,-The%20royal%20decree

Expand full comment

The DOJ needs to be doing a LOT of things. The perceived indecisiveness and weakness of Garland's "justice" is very disturbing. (I say "perceived", because some suggest that Garland is merely being deliberate; methodical.)

Expand full comment

As a knee-jerk optimist I, too, hope his slowness is just deliberate and methodical, not weak or indecisive. But time will run out pretty soon.

I do not want these lowlifes escaping to luxurious confinement in North Korea or Belarus or Eritrea or even Saudi Arabia. No, their future homes should be in the Big House south of Canyon City.

Expand full comment

Garland has come under heavy criticism for what appears to be a slow-walk; or, timidity / fear over doing the right thing. He often projects a "deer-in-the-headlights" look. Those "lowlifes" you mention might not bode so well in those "resorts" you have cited. 😂

Expand full comment

I will remain up in the air on Garland until he makes his decision and in spite of the fact that I want to shake him and say, “Get on with it already, man!” I did, however, find this article in “Politico” very illuminating and well worth the read (regardless of whichever side one falls):

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/15/merrick-garland-donald-trump-00066769

Expand full comment

Thanks Alexis. Good article.

Expand full comment

Garland sure waited a long time; then didn't even have as much material as the January 6th Committee.

Expand full comment

One has to wonder if he went to Mar A Lago...

Expand full comment

and if he was invited, and how much he was paid to organize an insurrection that -- on video -- seems identical to ours exactly 2 years earlier. Fascists in cahoots.

Expand full comment

And Bolsonaro can take that phony Santos--or whatever his name is--with him when he leaves.

Expand full comment

Sentenced to 4 months and $6,500 fine, it's on appeal.

Expand full comment

Ugh! Someone should have kept him in for the sake of the world - like Grima Wormtongue, his words are poison.

Expand full comment

Great comparison.

Expand full comment

Much lower sentence & Much lower fine than sought, issued by Trump-appointed Judge Nichols; And BEFORE the stay pending appeal was Nichols' gift of a nice delay in sentencing as well - with Stevie out of jail making trouble until then.

Here's Market Watch Headline/Subheader and URL (also in NY Post)

Steve Bannon’s four-month prison sentence temporarily stayed by district-court judge

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steve-bannon-four-month-prison-sentence-temporarily-stayed-by-district-court-judge-11667914379

Former Trump campaign and White House strategist can remain free as he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress, says Trump-appointed judge

Expand full comment

Think about the Federalist Society's influence on the judges picked by Trump.

Expand full comment

This is a HUGE problem! I have been following Senator Whitehouse on this and the influence of dark money in general on our courts. It is extremely problematic.

Expand full comment

Agree!

(also - you clearly have good taste - Sen Whitehouse is WONDERFUL)

Expand full comment

Yes he is. I've also been following him re dark money behind the SCOTUS.

Expand full comment

Whitehouse is a true statesman

Expand full comment

iKR?

There's an article up somewhere about all those much-more lenient sentences by those guys on Insurrection matters as well as this Contempt matter.

Nichols is one among many.

On the civil side, Trump appointee Trevor McFadden personally held up Congress's Trump Tax Return case for over 2 years (!)--letting Trump's hacks litigate a simple statutory matter whose salient term was that Treasury "SHALL" provide returns requested (sigh).

I do enjoy reading well-written filings. (retired atty here) LawFare posted the Bannon Sentencing Memo by DOJ; rereading it reminded me why I was not only POd at Nichols' 3+ month delay to Oct 31 sentencing after Bannon's 7-22 conviction- leaving him free to spew more Coup-friendly poison - but also why Nichols' bare speeding-ticket-level FINE, despite DOJ's ask -was also SO insulting:

"For his sustained bad faith contempt of Congress, the defendant should be ... fined 200,000, based on his insistence on paying the maximum fine rather than cooperate with the probation offices routine, presentencing financial investigation"

-- Nichols read that, and issued a fine of - what - under $5k or so.

Grrrrr.

If interested - here's Lawfare w DOJ's fiing

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-issues-sentencing-recommendation-bannon

Expand full comment

We can thank the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo directly for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Berrett. Trump himself wouldn't have had a clue who is qualified for those SCOTUS seats.

Expand full comment

And not many would have any idea ------> which is what makes the Federalist Society so valuable to lawmakers. Too bad there isn't a less biased alternative out there to provide a counter-weight. .

Expand full comment

The Catholic Connection

Expand full comment

“influence” kryst they picked them and installed them - worthless trump and mcconnell stood by and clapped like the trained seals they are

Expand full comment

The Biden Administration is doing a lot to install more judges to balance the judiciary.

Expand full comment

I understand and appreciate that - but - SCOTUS can’t be cleaned out for decades

Expand full comment

Amen! And the four members of Congress whose names were turned over to the DOJ by the Jan. 6 committee.

Expand full comment

My thoughts too plus Miller!

Expand full comment

That doggone Steve Bannon is a silly goose!

Expand full comment

He’s a frigging terrorist. Goose, my ass!

Expand full comment

Why insult geese? At least geese do have some redeeming qualities, whereas Bannon is a waste of oxygen.

Expand full comment

A valid point.

Expand full comment

“Silly goose”. ????? WTF

Expand full comment

I think there’s a missing “/s”.

Expand full comment

Or putting in a long-term coma?

Expand full comment

Here's hoping that Lula will be as successful in his first two years as President Biden has been. Programs that substantially improve a nation and the lives of its people are the best antidote to the lawlessness, chaos, and lies of right-wing extremists.

Expand full comment

I applaud him for his commitment to stop deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest, but Lula is going to encounter some very stiff resistance from vested interests who will stop at nothing to protect their "right" to rape and plunder for profit. He's going to need all the outside support he can get.

Expand full comment

I don’t know what countries will step up to help. How many companies in the USA have their tentacles into the beef industry?

Expand full comment

But… the evil lurks and pounces

Expand full comment

Living well is the best revenge - George Herbert.

Just get on with governing, Lula.

Expand full comment

How telling the silence of McCarthy and McConnell is. How can they condemn what just happened in Brazil without acknowledging the significance of what happened in this country a year ago?

Expand full comment

Agreed, but the House Republican'ts are so preoccupied with themselves and their new sense of power that anything that happens elsewhere holds no interest for them.

Expand full comment

Oh, but it does. It is confirmation that their efforts to spread their tripe has taken hold. When I first heard that Bannon was in Europe and S America, my blood ran cold. It still is.

Expand full comment