[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 10:37, said:

However, Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan as it is a massive giveaway in the form of tax incentive (which have to be made up by less well-to-do taxpayers) to big developers, the same as the Trumpcare proposal is not about healthcare but about reducing the taxes on the wealthy that pay for portions of the Affordable Care Act.

I think everyone supports rebuilding infrastructure - few agree to a massive government giveaway to a few cronies, else we would move to Russia were real oligarchs are sold the country's natural resources for a tiny fraction of its real value.

Agreed.

[Winstonm]

As for the claims I've heard about James Comey's leak to the press, this clears up whether or not it was legal.

Quote

The precedents are clear: Disclosures like these are constitutionally protected.

[Winstonm]

I don't agree with all his conservative politics but I do think Lindsey Graham is forthright and I agree with him here:

Quote

The senator also called for former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, based on Comey’s testimony implying they were “playing politics” with federal investigations.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
“That needs to be in our committee,” Graham said. “Let me tell you this, to the American people. If the attorney general's office has become a political office, that's bad for us all. So, I want to get to the bottom of that, and it should be in Judiciary.”

I have no problem with Loretta Lynch being investigated for politicizing an investigation.

Neither, it seems, does Democrat Dianne Feinstein:

Quote

Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Sunday said Congress should look into former FBI Director James Comey’s revelation that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked him to downplay the nature of his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

I can't imagine any current Republican calling for an investigation of another Republican.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 10:37, said:

However, Trump's plan is not really an infrastructure plan as it is a massive giveaway in the form of tax incentive (which have to be made up by less well-to-do taxpayers) to big developers, the same as the Trumpcare proposal is not about healthcare but about reducing the taxes on the wealthy that pay for portions of the Affordable Care Act.

I think everyone supports rebuilding infrastructure - few agree to a massive government giveaway to a few cronies, else we would move to Russia were real oligarchs are sold the country's natural resources for a tiny fraction of its real value.

I agree, but what I am hinting at is this is not just a Trump problem. This has become a systemic government problem on both sides of the aisle. Trump is offering an infrastructure solution that is rife with cronyism for developers.

Bush approved the $700 billion bailouts to the Wall Street cronies and big banks (insurance companies) who were catalysts for the housing bubble. Obama continued the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to Wall Street and expanded entitlement programs inclusive of Obamacare and increased military spending.

Bush proposed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and made government even larger. He also catered to the cronyism of the military industrial complex with the unnecessary and extended war campaign in Iraq.

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-11, 13:24, said:

I agree, but what I am hinting at is this is not just a Trump problem. This has become a systemic government problem on both sides of the aisle. Trump is offering an infrastructure solution that is rife with cronyism for developers.

Bush approved the $700 billion bailouts to the Wall Street cronies and big banks (insurance companies) who were catalysts for the housing bubble. Obama continued the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to Wall Street and expanded entitlement programs inclusive of Obamacare and increased military spending.

Bush proposed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and made government even larger. He also catered to the cronyism of the military industrial complex with the unnecessary and extended war campaign in Iraq.

I could be wrong in my interpretation, but to me it seems like you combine two (or more) areas into a single concern. The right wingers all consider me progressive, but I am neither a fan of big or small government but of just enough government. I have to admit the definition of just enough is a variable, though.

The Wall Street bailout was intended to prevent a recurrence of the Great Depression - once Lehman Brothers foundered and the markets plunged in response and the capital markets froze, there was a huge risk for a calamity. I hate to admit it, but Bernanke might well have saved our bacon with his actions.

The problem is not now nor was it then the bailout - it was the situation that created the necessity of the bailout, i.e., allowing too big to fail institutions to arise and a dismantling of the protections of laws passed after the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent bank failings.

I agree that the military industrial complex has too much influence and too much money goes into it, but the attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11 was real and it is certainly reasonable for government to create an agency with a mission to prevent that type of attack from happening again. So to lump defense spending and the establishment of Homeland Security together and claim that shows an out-of-control government expansion is, I think, disingenuous.

The one point on which to me all libertarian arguments fail is that of power. Although in a theoretical world of make believe Reagan's idea that government should not be in the business of welfare and aid to the downtrodden because those were issues that churches and private charities were better suited to address, he neglected the obvious: only governments have the power to compel compliance. If it is in the best interests of society as well as the person affected to have a mentally ill homeless person forced into a psychiatric unit until such time that he can live unaided, no charity or church can compel that person's compliance, so the homeless ill become a problem for police and for jails.

At the same time, governments can become bloated and when there is a huge pile of tax money there are going to be people both in and out of the government willing to try to steal it - with crony capitalism or unnecessary wars and defense spending or simply waste and corruption.

The answer lies neither in the libertarian idea of ignoring social problems nor in the states' rightists' idea to minimize safety devices against the tyranny of a majority but in the proper and just use of a federal government with civilian oversight.

We have indeed met the enemy - and he is indeed us - every one of us who does not stay politically active.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 14:05, said:

....
The Wall Street bailout was intended to prevent a recurrence of the Great Depression - once Lehman Brothers foundered and the markets plunged in response and the capital markets froze, there was a huge risk for a calamity. I hate to admit it, but Bernanke might well have saved our bacon with his actions.

The problem is not now nor was it then the bailout - it was the situation that created the necessity of the bailout, i.e., allowing too big to fail institutions to arise and a dismantling of the protections of laws passed after the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent bank failings.
...
At the same time, governments can become bloated and when there is a huge pile of tax money there are going to be people both in and out of the government willing to try to steal it - with crony capitalism or unnecessary wars and defense spending or simply waste and corruption.

The answer lies neither in the libertarian idea of ignoring social problems nor the in the states' rightists' idea to minimize safety devices against the tyranny of a majority but in the proper and just use of a federal government with civilian oversight.

We have indeed met the enemy - and he is indeed us - every one of us who does not stay politically active.

Excellent high quality response; it should be in a well renowned political magazine!

I wanted to add the that the housing bubble crash is the result of a major confluence of factors. As you stated the gradual whittling away and eventual repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 is part of the problem. In addition, the Clinton administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight of the big hybrid banks created by the demise of the Glass-Stegall Act. This lack of strong oversight of the hybrid banks continued with the Bush administration up until the collapse in 2008. The hybrid banks became too big to fail and somehow avoided the wrath of the Antitrust division of the Department of Justice.

Also, the Clinton administration's firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial markets played a meaningful role in the crisis--for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives which were becoming increasingly prevalent despite internal warnings.

Finally, Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets failed us when they recommended in 2000 that OTC derivatives not be included as financial instruments falling within the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. They recommended deregulation of the OTC derivative market since it contained sophisticated parties who understood risk management and had legal remedies available in court should counterparties breach their contractual obligations.

https://www.federalr...00/20000210.htm ===> under OTC derivatives section, Greenspan was woefully incorrect on the destructive impact that OTC derivatives could have on the broader economy. He assumed that sophisticated parties would not fall prey to irrational exuberance. He was wrong; they did because they're human just like everyone else.

OTC derivatives include credit default swaps which led to the downfall of AIG Insurance and also included collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which caused many investment houses like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns to fail. CDO's became the engine that powered the mortgage supply chain for subprime mortgages and are credited with giving lenders greater incentive to make subprime loans leading up to the crisis in 2007-09. OTC's and CDO's needed to be in the purview of federal regulation instead of remaining unregulated.

Even Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan miscalculated the human condition and created a climate that contributed to the downfall of our economy!

[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-11, 19:27, said:

Excellent high quality response; it should be in a well renowned political magazine!

I wanted to add the that the housing bubble crash is the result of a major confluence of factors. As you stated the gradual whittling away and eventual repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 is part of the problem. In addition, the Clinton administration did not make an earnest attempt to maintain oversight of the big hybrid banks created by the demise of the Glass-Stegall Act. This lack of strong oversight of the hybrid banks continued with the Bush administration up until the collapse in 2008. The hybrid banks became too big to fail and somehow avoided the wrath of the Antitrust division of the Department of Justice.

Also, the Clinton administration's firm decision not to regulate other aspects of the financial markets played a meaningful role in the crisis--for example, the absence of regulations regarding over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives which were becoming increasingly prevalent despite internal warnings.

Finally, Alan Greenspan and Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets failed us when they recommended in 2000 that OTC derivatives not be included as financial instruments falling within the scope of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. They recommended deregulation of the OTC derivative market since it contained sophisticated parties who understood risk management and had legal remedies available in court should counterparties breach their contractual obligations.

https://www.federalr...00/20000210.htm ===> under OTC derivatives section, Greenspan was woefully incorrect on the destructive impact that OTC derivatives could have on the broader economy. He assumed that sophisticated parties would not fall prey to irrational exuberance. He was wrong; they did because they're human just like everyone else.

OTC derivatives include credit default swaps which led to the downfall of AIG Insurance and also included collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which caused many investment houses like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns to fail. CDO's became the engine that powered the mortgage supply chain for subprime mortgages and are credited with giving lenders greater incentive to make subprime loans leading up to the crisis in 2007-09. OTC's and CDO's needed to be in the purview of federal regulation instead of remaining unregulated.

Even Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan miscalculated the human condition and created a climate that contributed to the downfall of our economy!

There is much fault to go around from Reagan and Greenspan ignoring the regulatory role of the Federal Reserve over non-banks to Clinton's allowing of OTC derivatives to have no regulation or required transparency.

Or we could simply elect people who understand history and how it will repeat if we do the same things that did not work previously. There is a reason the Great Recession is called Great and it has to do with the mechanisms from 1920's that were reinvented in the 1980s on into the new century, brought about by Democrats and Republicans, that led previously to the Great Depression.

[Winstonm]

A critical read

Quote

Do we really think Russian-friendly parties, oligarchs and state-owned interests hire U.S. political consultants and pollsters and technology firms merely to run ad campaigns, rather than to learn how to use these things against us?

These tools and tactics in the information space work better against America than anywhere else because there are a lot of us, and because English is the language of the internet — and the amplification factor because of these things is staggering, especially when one of our presidential candidates was borrowing and repeating Russian narrative and disinformation. What possible claim could any sensible American politician make that these factors had no impact in the decisionmaking process of the American voter?

In fact, you can track the radical changes in the belief of certain narratives during the time period Comey identified as when the most intensive Kremlin-led activities were underway (beginning in summer 2015 through present day). During this time frame, Republican views on free trade agreements dropped 30 points, from roughly the same as Democrats to radically divergent (Democratic views remained relatively steady). Putin’s favorability rating increased, even while unfavorable views remained constant, fueled by a 20-point increase among Republicans and an 11-point increase among Independents. Between early 2016 and now, Republican views of whether media criticism can help keep political leaders in line — which for the previous five years was almost identical to Democratic views — dropped by 35 points.

Did it cause undecideds to change votes? Probably.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-11, 19:55, said:

There is much fault to go around from Reagan and Greenspan ignoring the regulatory role of the Federal Reserve over non-banks to Clinton's allowing of OTC derivatives to have no regulation or required transparency.

Or we could simply elect people who understand history and how it will repeat if we do the same things that did not work previously. There is a reason the Great Recession is called Great and it has to do with the mechanisms from 1920's that were reinvented in the 1980s on into the new century, brought about by Democrats and Republicans, that led previously to the Great Depression.

Agreed.

If history doesn't repeat itself, it at least rhymes.

Both political parties should recognize that the Financial CHOICE Act is another feeble attempt by Wall Street to create the same deregulatory environment that caused the housing collapse. The passing of this Act has the potential to wreck complete havoc in our financial markets again and should be getting highlighted media coverage.

We can not afford for Wall Street to blackmail Congress for taxpayer funded bailouts and hold our financial markets and economy hostage when they make highly speculative investments that implode. Wall Street has a bad habit of privatizing its profits but socializing its losses and this expensive form of corporate welfare must stop. We can not reward this kind of irrational exuberance and unbridled risk taking, and if we do, we deserve the monster we create.

[Trinidad]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-11, 13:24, said:

I agree, but what I am hinting at is this is not just a Trump problem. This has become a systemic government problem on both sides of the aisle. Trump is offering an infrastructure solution that is rife with cronyism for developers.

Bush approved the $700 billion bailouts to the Wall Street cronies and big banks (insurance companies) who were catalysts for the housing bubble. Obama continued the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to Wall Street and expanded entitlement programs inclusive of Obamacare and increased military spending.

Bush proposed for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and made government even larger. He also catered to the cronyism of the military industrial complex with the unnecessary and extended war campaign in Iraq.

Don't you think that there is a difference between spending money to solve a problem (if not a crisis) like Bush and Obama did and spending money simply to favor a couple of rich folks "because you can", like Trump wants to do?

Rik

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-11, 05:39, said:

Almost everyone was against the $4.8 billion loan to Russia EXCEPT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. Why?

And here again we run up against the rewriting of history to fit a conspiracy storyline, a popular pastime. You might consider going back and re-reading the links you yourself posted here:

Quote

To finance the Russian bailout, the United States agreed to lend the fund $2.1 billion.

Other countries making loans include Japan, Germany, France and Saudi Arabia.

The truth is that the developed world was almost universally behind the Yeltsin regime at that time. In retrospect it is perhaps politically expedient to distance oneself from that position but the West was at that time basically desperate to prop up a government seen as the most reformist since the creation of the USSR. Clinton's pushing for the loan to go through quickly was illustrative of the general feeling internationally. To try to link it to blackmail without any evidence whatsoever would be laughable if it was not such a sad example of the way conspiracy theorists think. And sadly this is not your first example of such thinking.

[Zelandakh]

Trinidad, on 2017-June-12, 02:51, said:

Don't you think that there is a difference between spending money to solve a problem (if not a crisis) like Bush and Obama did and spending money simply to favor a couple of rich folks "because you can", like Trump wants to do?

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 03:28, said:

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism.

Fair enough.

Please see http://www.sourcewat...nd_incompetence

The crowning achievement of cronyism in the Bush administration is Michael DeWayne Brown who joined the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as General Counsel in January 2001. He was the 1st person hired by Bush's long-time friend, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, who also managed Bush's election campaign in 2000. Allbaugh later named Brown his Acting Deputy Director in September 2001. Bush nominated Brown as Deputy Director of FEMA in March 2002 and nominated him for directorship in January 2003 after Allbaugh resigned.

Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest hurricane ever to hit the United States. Total fatalities were estimated at 1,833 and the subsequent flooding in August 2005 left millions homeless. FEMA's lethally inept response to Hurricane Katrina revealed just how little rescue and disaster recovery experience Bush's appointee had. It also revealed how little disaster recovery experience the top 3 leaders of FEMA had who were either Bush's 2000 campaign groupies or had ties to the White House advance operation.

As an example, President Bush learned about the 25,000 people trapped in the convention center not from his Director, who didn't know himself, but from a newswire story 24 hours after the trapped were pleading on almost every news channel! This type of cronyism is more expensive and destructive than Trump's scenario because people paid the ultimate cost with their lives.

Also, Senate Judiciary Committee members were saying that for the 1st time in memory, none of the most senior officials at the Department of Justice during Bush's Administration--Alberto R Gonzales, Timothy E. Flanigan, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., and Alice S. Fisher-- would have experience as a criminal prosecutor. This is after Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey resigned in August 2005 to pursue other interests in the private sector.

Review the link about Bush's cronyism and determine if we can accept this type of cronyism of hiring an unqualified friend of a friend in some of our nation's most critical departments and institutions.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-12, 06:22, said:

As an example, President Bush learned about the 25,000 people trapped in the convention center not from his Director, who didn't know himself, but from a newswire story 24 hours after the trapped were pleading on almost every news channel! This type of cronyism is more expensive and destructive than Trump's scenario because people paid the ultimate cost with their lives.

Before Katrina hit, the cost was also low. Trump has only been in power a short while - give time for a similar disaster to turn up before counting the cost.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 03:28, said:

If the government spends money that helps me it is solving a problem; if they spend money that helps someone else it is cronyism.

Wrong.

Spending money to help pelple who are doing fine is not not "solving a problem". It's not a problem that Trump's cronies don't have a third boat or vacation home.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2017-June-10, 21:33, said:

And that's not all: Scam alert: Trump's $1tn 'infrastructure plan' is a giveaway to the rich

Could someone explain the difference between giving developers $billons of tax breaks on infrastructure projects and actually paying the developers those billions? Revenue not received is essentially the same as money spent, isn't it? So paying $1b for a bridge to be rebuilt is the same as paying $100m and giving $900m in tax credits, it's just an accounting difference. How does the crony get any richer in the latter case than the other?

Is it because the government has less control over the projects? If we pay for the projects, the government can put out a bid for a contractor to rebuild a particular bridge. If it's tax breaks, we have to hope that some contractor decides that rebuilding that bridge is something they want to invest in, then we allow them to do it for 18 cents on the dollar with a tax subsidy.

But if the cronies don't find projects to work on, they're not going to get the tax breaks. So if the cronies get rich, don't we get infrastructure improvements? And don't the construction workers get jobs?

I'm sure I'm missing something, since I don't trust Trump at all. But it doesn't seem as nefarious as his tax plan (which was also just some talking points, no actual details) and Trumpcare (which takes away numerous benefits for people who can't afford healthcare, and gives tax breaks to those who can).

[PassedOut]

barmar, on 2017-June-12, 08:55, said:

Could someone explain the difference between giving developers $billons of tax breaks on infrastructure projects and actually paying the developers those billions? Revenue not received is essentially the same as money spent, isn't it? So paying $1b for a bridge to be rebuilt is the same as paying $100m and giving $900m in tax credits, it's just an accounting difference. How does the crony get any richer in the latter case than the other?

When the developer owns the bridge, the developer gets the tolls. When the government owns the bridge, the government gets the tolls.

Also, not all of the needed infrastructure improvements are profit opportunities.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 07:27, said:

Before Katrina hit, the cost was also low. Trump has only been in power a short while - give time for a similar disaster to turn up before counting the cost.

Duly noted, but I'm not understanding the logic here. President Bush took a calculated risk of hiring cronies for the top positions at FEMA. And yes, he perceived that cost as very low intially, but Bush knew exactly what he was doing. He was doing what other Presidents before him had done, but on a larger scale. He was rewarding those who either contributed heavily to his Presidential campaign or had helped him to attain the Presidency of the United States of America.

Unfortunately, Mother Nature had other plans for Louisiana. So a seemingly harmless "low-cost" type of cronyism became a bill due costing 1,833 American lives. Even if Bush honestly believed such consequences of cronyism weren't foreseeable, he has no excuse; he rolled the political dice and hit snake eyes. Honestly, I don't know how many lives were attributed to the federal government's untimely and woefully inadequate rescue response and how many can be attributed to the incompetence of the local and state government.

However, I do know that cronyism breeds corruption and incompetence, and both can be dangerous if not deadly.

An experienced leader of the most powerful nation should understand, appreciate, and abide by the veracity of this maxim .

Here are a few links that discuss the depth of Bush's cronyism. Take them with a grain of salt as most are from the left, but honestly Michael D. Brown and the Department of Justice are enough for me.

https://thinkprogres...er-2e1afb29e135 ===> progress website with listing of top 43 Bush appointees who seem to be cronies.
http://www.oldameric...co/cronyism.htm ===> liberal website, but the listing of cronies is interesting.
http://rawstory.com/...onies_0626.html ===> same issue of cronies through Senate recess appointments.

Agreed. Let's give President Trump some more time, and he too, will eventually roll snake eyes.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-June-12, 08:39, said:

Wrong.

Spending money to help pelple who are doing fine is not not "solving a problem". It's not a problem that Trump's cronies don't have a third boat or vacation home.

Dividing a nation's assets among a limited number of super rich and then allowing their businesses personal rights is oligarchy-in-the-making. By masking that intent in the flag of nationalism and by feigning ties to the majority religion the end result is theoligarchy, an oligarchy pretending to be a theocracy.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-12, 03:07, said:

And here again we run up against the rewriting of history to fit a conspiracy storyline, a popular pastime. You might consider going back and re-reading the links you yourself posted here:

The truth is that the developed world was almost universally behind the Yeltsin regime at that time. In retrospect it is perhaps politically expedient to distance oneself from that position but the West was at that time basically desperate to prop up a government seen as the most reformist since the creation of the USSR. Clinton's pushing for the loan to go through quickly was illustrative of the general feeling internationally. To try to link it to blackmail without any evidence whatsoever would be laughable if it was not such a sad example of the way conspiracy theorists think. And sadly this is not your first example of such thinking.

Please provide links showing that world leaders were supporting the billion $ IMF wires to financially imploding Russia circa mid 1998.

Let's step back and get the timeline right.

http://russianlaw.org/chron.htm

Of course, the Western world was supportive of Russia's transition from a command economy to a market based economy under Yeltsin, but that too came with caveats. Between the years of 1992 and 1996, the IMF loaned Russia $12.5 billion to help with this transition. Even though this $12.5 billion was not paid back, I am not questioning what happened to it--though it's possible the money was placed into the hands of offshore accounts and the Russian oligarch.

What I am asking about is the second loan tranche of $22 billion in mid-1998 which contained a $4.8 billion loan payment. Russia had not enacted significant budgetary reforms and the IMF top leaders were hesitant about loaning more money to Russia. Why? Because they IMF had not yet completed its due diligence and hadn't seen any significant good faith efforts from Russia to move toward a market economy. The IMF leaders didn't see the purpose of propping up the economy, especially when they aren't confident that the 1st loan tranche accomplished its intended purpose (i.e. to stabilize the Russian economy). Also, the Asian Economic Crisis in late 1997 began to affect Russia since Asia's demand for oil plummeted and thus the price of oil collapsed with adverse consequences for Russia’s balance of payments and government revenues.

Quote

The IMF’s advice [to Russia] in the first half of 1998 was to tighten monetary policy and introduce new fiscal measures to deal with the growing fiscal gap. The former worked in January, but the very high interest rates in May did not contain the loss of international reserves. While the authorities recognized the need for further fiscal measures, they were paralyzed by the unexpected dismissal on March 23 of Chernomyrdin as prime minister, and the delay until Sergei Kiriyenko was approved on April 24. With confidence not restored in financial markets after the May crisis, calls for more drastic measures were heard, including devaluation, refinancing of government debt to extend maturities, and a massive external loan. The IMF’s room for maneuver was narrowed by the announcement, by President Clinton’s office on May 31, that the United States endorsed additional financial support from the international financial institutions to promote stability and structural reforms. (bold mine) https://www.imf.org/...004/wp04155.pdf ===> page 22

(Why did Clinton's office announce this in the midst of Russia's potential economic disaster? Why would he adversely affect the bargaining strength of the IMF by making this announcement? This announcement reduces the chances that Russia will accept the devaluation of its ruble as a necessary step to stabilizing the market. Russia is on the ropes and Clinton mysteriously extends a life line before negotiations with Russia are completed. It's odd!)

During the months that followed until the crisis in August, the IMF was focused on attempting to strengthen Russia’s fiscal policy, knowing that the government was weak and could not deliver very much. The key event here was the approval on July 20 by the Executive Board of a major loan (US$4.8 billion) in support of a new package of fiscal and other measures, many of which would not take effect until January 1999. The aim of this loan was to provide Russia with additional reserves so that it could manage any short-term outflows, until such time as confidence in financial markets was restored. Unfortunately, after a temporary improvement in July, confidence continued to weaken in August and drastic measures, such as those announced on August 17, became inevitable.

I have already shown you at least two decent articles detailing that top IMF leaders were against the wires to Russia in July/August 1998 since the Russian parliament had NOT enacted any budgetary measures. Again the articles stated that the top IMF leaders felt pressured by the Clinton administration to make these wires and accelerate Russia's financial rescue package.

Do you think Clinton's position on the $4.8 billion wire was a popular one despite the articles showing otherwise? Doesn't prove he was blackmailed, but his behavior is quite odd and dubious in light of the circumstances.

Also the articles line up with the climate that Admiral Lyons was asserting. And the fact that the $4.8 billion just evaporated (embezzled) after being wired and the Russian economy still crumbled. . . just wow.

I look forward to seeing some articles supporting your representations.