Sunday, November 30, 2014

Excessive "Asset Forfeitures" might be Loretta Lynch's Achille's Heel

Recent articles in  the Wall Street Journal and Forbes Magazine highlight how as U.S. Attorney, Loretta Lynch seized assets of citizens subject to investigation, but not guilty of any crimes

Also, a specific set of such forfeitures carried out by Lynch's office might well have been in violation of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.


Similar questionable asset forfeitures by the Brooklyn DA's Office were not moved upon by Lynch, as U.S. Attorney over Brooklyn

Not only her own office's apparently record-breaking seizures of civil assets, but a failure to properly scrutinize apparent violations by other local prosecutors in Lynch's jurisdiction could prove troublesome at Senate hearings

According to a recent  Wall Street Journal editorial, "Prosecutors have taken a yen to civil forfeiture laws, which they’ve used to shore up state and municipal budgets with sums from confiscated private property. One happy joiner is Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, whose U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York has been an enthusiastic grabber of private assets.  ***   Prosecutors love the practice because it allows them to seize cash and property before the target is charged with a crime. [Originally i]ntended to be used against drug dealers and their ill-gotten gains, the law has become an all-purpose cash machine for police departments and prosecutors who often make forfeiture calls based not on the suspected crime or the perpetrator but on the desirability of the available goods to be seized...." (See ""Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot - Someone should ask the AG nominee about the Hirsch brothers" WSJ REVIEW & OUTLOOK, 11/21/14, Wall Street Journal []).

The Wall Street Journal went on to say that Loretta Lynch’s U.S. Attorney's Office runs a major forfeiture operation that, according to the Justice Department, brought in more than $113 million in civil actions from 123 cases between 2011 and 2013.  The WSJ specifically mentioned the plight of  Jeffrey, Richard and Mitch Hirsch, three brothers in Long Island.

The Hirsch brothers run a small business that deals in small amounts of cash, a fact that the government surely noticed, since they were never charged with a crime. But more than two years after the government grabbed the hundreds of thousands of dollars, none of it has been returned. According to the Institute for Justice, which is representing the family in a lawsuit, the government has also denied the Hirsches a prompt hearing on the forfeiture, putting it in violation of the 2000 Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act.

The Forbes magazine folks also picked up on the story.  According to Forbes, "...if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.  ***   Charge someone with a crime and the burden of proving guilt is on the government, but confiscate property under civil asset forfeiture and the government keeps the spoils unless the owner is able to prove his innocence. That is not the way our system of justice is supposed to work.  ***   Was this just a mistake, perhaps? Evidently not, because Lynch’s office has not seen fit to even file the required notice that it has taken the Hirsch’s money. Now that those inveterate opponents of government overreach, the Institute for Justice, has filed a case to force the government’s hand (a case with the strange name In the Matter of the Seizure of $446,651.11) the brothers might get their money back. Eventually...." (See ""Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem" by George  Leef, 11/25/2014,  Forbes/  []).

Asset forfeiture is a trend across the country. Furthermore, under a program known as equitable sharing, state and local law enforcement agencies also get a piece of the federal civil forfeiture action. Between 2003 and 2011, annual payments from that program rose to $450 million from $218 million, according to the Government Accountability Office.


The following moderated anonymous comment was published  on November 13, 2014 in the thread following my November 12, 2014 post, "Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. — Part 2." In significant part, the moderated anonymous comment said the following:   "...   In the EDNY, Loretta Lynch has been one of the biggest proponents of civil asset forfeiture wherin the government can legally seize the property of its citizens. It is frought with many problems. I think Lynch has claimed over 900 million in seized assets. There is no reason at all to think this is not legitimate according to the federal statutes presently in place. One of the things the Money Laundering Bureau under Hynes never wanted to do was to participate in what is called the "federal adoption" of assets. In this way the D.A.'s office would share any funds they seized with the EDNY. The Manhattan D.A.'s office does this all the time with the SDNY. The folks in Money laundering [...] wanted to keep it in the office so as to reap the benefits of secrecy. It is one of the reasons we never ever reported tax crimes to the NY Tax Commission which we were obligated to do. If we reported to the Commission then [the office] had to share in the "take". By not reporting, we were able to shake down the defendants for more funds - preferable cash. It was done frequently and with much financial success. These are financial crimes allegedly committed during Hynes tenure that Loretta Lynchs' office knows about. It is surprising that she has not more vigorously gone after Hynes on this. Other malfeasance was brought to her office's attention such as allegations of mismanaged property throughout Brooklyn and coerceing law enforcement to lie and sign false affidavits under oath. Perhaps these are small ethical matters for the EDNY. But the larger issues of theft of public money seems to be something that she should be going after with vigor...."


Both the Wall Street Journal and Forbes seem to agree that when the Senate holds confirmation hearings on Lynch's nomination to be Obama's second U.S. Attorney General, an important  question would be  ---  what, if anything, she might do as Attorney General to protect the  American people from being trampled by rampaging law enforcement officials engaged in high handed activities, including but not limited to civil asset forfeiture by prosecutors.

Friday, November 28, 2014

EXTRA, EXTRA --- "There's no business like show business..." for Hynes-Thompson carry-over Brooklyn ADA Nicolazzi

In a stunning act of [over-reaching perhaps] Fox News legal analyst, and controversial Brooklyn ADA holdover, Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi might be getting her own new show

The ADA who prosecuted the Mark Fisher Murder Case, and arguably got a conviction of John Giuca by underhanded means, while letting a couple of guilty characters get away, is trying to find her own escape hatch on TV.  ---  Or maybe she's just trying to seek fame and fortune outside the Brooklyn DA's Office in the aptly, but ironically, named "Did He Do It ?"

According to a nifty little piece of digging by one of my better BSI's on the Brooklyn DA's Office stuff, Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi will be starring in a new show called "Did He Do It?" for Investigation Discovery. The production company is a mostly British outfit, Britespark Films;  and if things go as planned, the show premiers in April.


"Finished Production ***  DID HE DO IT?  ***  FOR INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY, 6 X 60'  ***   A dynamic new true crime drama documentary series that puts the accused center stage. At the top of each episode we introduce one murder victim - and one prime suspect.  ***   Presented by duelling lawyers – for the Defence, Darren Kavinosky, named one of California's top 100 trial lawyers; for the Prosecution, Brooklyn DA Anna Sigga Nicolazzi, who has never lost a homicide case – we tell the story of the twisting murder investigation and trial, asking viewers, just like with a jury, to decide Did He Do It? Profiling six captivating cases, viewers are kept guessing until the final few minutes.  ***   Series Producers: Kim Flitcroft & Ben Fox " (See  Brightspark Films Web Page / Our Work []).

I wonder what the chances are that "Did He Do It ?" might actually dramatize the whole process around the Mark Fisher case ?  I'm sure that some other Hollywood insiders will be looking closely at that one.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

Was the Ferguson "Stand down" of National Guardsman a mid-American version of the "Stand Down" in Benghazi

Missouri's Lieutenant Governor  says that there is nothing else that explains the inaction of Missouri Governor over deploying the Missouri National Guard other than White House interference ---  White House confirms close contact by Obama's top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, and Missouri Governor on night of riots in Ferguson

Democrat Governor Nixon gives evasive and defensive non-answers to questions about the delay of deploying the National Guard in  Ferguson  ---  Following the GOP Benghazi playbook, Missouri' s Republican Lieutenant Governor wants to put questions to Governor Nixon under oath

White House coordinating response to "demonstrations" across the country

Republicans getting ready to question whether Democrats in office at any level can't protect us from foreign or domestic threats

"Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a Republican, is demanding that the state’s Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon offer a public explanation as to why he told the National Guard which he had previously mobilized to stand down in Ferguson, Missouri, on Monday night as the city burned in riots...." (See  "EXCLUSIVE–MO LT. GOV: OFFICIALS MUST EXPLAIN 'UNDER OATH' WHY NATIONAL GUARD STOOD BY AS FERGUSON BURNED" by Matthew Boyle, 11/25/14, Breitbart News  []).  Soon after the events in Ferguson showed  that there was a non-presence of police and National Guardsmen  in  many areas, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of right wing media were all over the story of Washington pulling the strings to allow the riots to proceed and the rioters to run rampant for hours (See for example "DID OBAMA HALT NATIONAL GUARD IN FERGUSON? --  Rush Limbaugh: 'Somebody wanted this to happen' " by Joe Kovacs, 11/26/14, World Net Daily []).

According to reports, on Tuesday morning, Kinder told anchor Martha MacCallum of Fox News that the Missouri Governor, Jay Nixon, kept the National Guard in check as Ferguson burned at the hands of rioters.  Then Kinder questioned whether Governor Nxon did so in coordination with top officials from the Obama White House and /or the Holder Justice Department.

According to Breitbart News, "[a]t a Tuesday press conference in response to a question from Breitbart News’ Kerry Picket, Nixon said that Kinder’s questions were 'false and absurd' and that 'politics has nothing to do with what anyone up here is doing.'..."

When the  Lieutenant Governor was asked why he suspects it was the Obama administration that told Governor Nixon to have the National Guard stand down, he said: “there’s nothing else that explains this.”  He ten called for hearing to question Governor Nixon and other officials under oath about all of it.


President Obama's senior advisor Valerie Jarrett had been in close contact with Missouri Governor Jay Nixon as the chaotic situation unfolded while the National Guard stood by. According to the White House, Jarrett spoke with Nixon the first night of the protests as well as the morning after.  Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed  that  “Valerie [Jarrett] spoke to Governor Nixon both last night and this morning, and has been briefing the President on an ongoing basis since last night....  And in each of those conversations with Governor Nixon, Valerie has pledged to stay in close coordination with the Governor in making sure that he’s getting the support he needs from the federal government....” ( See "CONFIRMED: VALERIE JARRETT KEEPING IN TOUCH WITH GOV. NIXON DURING FERGUSON FIASCO" by Charlie Spiering, 11/26/14, Breitbart News []).

That report  noted  that "Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder also spoke with civil rights leaders the first night of the protests, continuing their close coordination as the grand jury decision approached." And it was also revealed that but revealed that White House staff spoke with mayors across the country to coordinate a proper response to demonstrations across  the country.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

In a stunning act of non-professionlism, NBC's Brian Williams stated to the nation that the Ferguson Grand Jury ‘Failed To Come Up With Charges’ Against Darren Wilson

NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams opened his special prime-time interruption of normal broadcasting by declaring "The grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri has failed to come up with an indictment for the police officer in the shooting of the unarmed black teenager Michael Brown."

Williams couldn't have done more damage  if handed a full gasoline can to one of the black rioters in Ferguson, Missouri

"...   Unlike ABC and CBS, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams failed to mention any of the actual facts of the case or legal rationale for the grand jury’s decision when he expressed his dissatisfaction with the case’s outcome.  ***  During NBC’s coverage, Brian Williams ignored all of the actual details of the case and even suggested that despite the violence in Ferguson “the bottom line is, this grand jury sitting 25 days, failed to come up with charges after 70 hours and 60 witnesses in all....”  (See "Brian Williams Laments Ferguson Grand Jury ‘Failed To Come Up With Charges’ Against Darren Wilson" by Jeffrey Meyer, 11/25/14,  MRC- Newsbusters []; see also  []).

All three major networks cut into regular programming  to announce the result of the Ferguson Grand Jury's deliberations, however neither CBS nor ABC were as slanted in their presentation as NBC and Williams.

The completely non-professional, non-objective and incendiary remarks by Williams  couldn't have been more intentionally destructive of good law and order than if he handed out molotov cocktails to the rioters in Ferguson, Missouri.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Style point: This blog will be using the term "Skelosism" as defined by NT2

See Definition Below

Research ongoing for term "Goldenism"

Skelosism (SKEL-oh-cis-m)  ***  Noun   ***  In ordinary usage:  1.  Refers to the tendency of politician to interpret election results in an overly optimistic way;  2.  Any specific comment of a politician following an election that is emblematic of a failure to accurately interpret election results;  3.  A general failure to learn from mistakes of the past.   ***   Synonyms: stubbornness, short-sightedness, delusion.  ***   Ex: “In his speech, the party leader warned that skelosism could result in a loss of the majority and permanent minority status.”   ***  Derivation: Named for a minor Greek-American politician in the late 20th century and early 21st century who repeatedly won a political majority due to ineptitude of his opponents but then lost the majority due to his tendency to see the election as validation of personal political views not held by the majority of voters ( See "On Etymology" 11/19/14,  NT2:  Nec Temere, Nec Timide [])  (compare:  "Goldenism" --  still being researched).

Friday, November 21, 2014

First Democrat to make formal move into the 2016 race for the White House is former Virginia Senator James Webb

Some might see this as jockeying for a VP slot, rather than a direct shot at Hillary

Flow of money will probably be the test of Webb's staying power

According to a report picked-up on the AP, "... Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb has formed an exploratory committee to consider a Democratic presidential campaign in 2016. ***  It's the first official step in what could be a challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton if she seeks the White House again.  ***   Webb announced a website for his exploratory committee in a message posted from his Twitter account late Wednesday. He says many Americans believe the U.S. is 'at a serious crossroads' and the solutions 'are not simply political, but those of leadership.'..." (See "Jim Webb forms exploratory committee for White House"  11-20-14, WUSA-9 []).

Not long ago when Jim Webb first mentioned a possible run for the White House, at least one longtime Democrat commentator said,  "Democrats uneasy about a Hillary coronation may have help on the way from former Virginia Senator James Webb...  , who[has given speeches that sound like they are from]  a populist perspective, slightly right of center where Webb, a former Republican, is most at home and often straddles the two parties....  [Also in the recent past] Webb served up a scathing critique of the administration’s foreign policy, calling it 'a tangled mess of what can only be called situational ethics.' He said there hasn’t been a clear statement of principles since the end of the Cold War, and 'not surprisingly the American people have become more cynical about their leadership in both parties.'...    [But he also] warned against getting entangled on the ground in the “ongoing nightmare” that is Syria...."  (See "Wait a Minute, Clinton Coronators—Here Comes Jim Webb" by Eleanor Clift, 9/26/14, The Daily Beast []).  Clift also noted that "For Webb, there is an opening for someone with a strong military background and no real ties to the Obama administration that would constrain him from an unvarnished assessment of the Democratic Party’s policies and performance. The author of 11 books, Webb’s new memoir, I Heard My Country Calling, may have stoked the fires of his political ambition once again..."

For Webb. money is very much the key to unlock any showing by him in 2014.  "Dr. Bob Roberts, political science professor at James Madison University, said in order for Webb to even make it to the primaries, he must use the exploratory committee to see if he can raise enough money from leaders in his own party to run a campaign....  'Will the money people view him as an option? If he doesn't get money, he's dead. This is simply the ability to say will some people out there, maybe some PAC's, maybe some of these independent groups, who are really opposed to Hillary, would they give him money as a way to stall her. That's what it comes down to,' said Roberts...." (See "Jim Webb Eyeing Possible Presidential Run" 11/20/14, WHSV []).

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

A little more about Loretta Lynch found in NY Times article about Al Sharpton

Did the New York Times quietly connect Attorney General Designate Loretta Lynch to Al Sharpton for a reason ?

Timing by the Times  —  Given the fact that Loretta Lynch Hearings are upcoming, or soon will be; isn't it time for everybody to look into Al Sharpton’s relationship to Loretta Lynch before those hearings begin    that should include GOP Senators and their investigators too, shouldn't it ?

Doesn’t anybody have a problem with somebody like Al Sharpton, who, if nothing else, is among the country’s top 1% of tax dodgers, sitting-in with the President on decisions involving the selection of the nation’s top prosecutor ?

The New York Times has done a lengthy and detailed retrospective on Al Sharpton, whose influence at the White House in Washington and at City Hall in New York City has never been higher (See “As Sharpton Rose, So Did His Unpaid Taxes” by Russ Buettnernov, 11-18-14, NY Times
[]). Woven through this entire Times article are various indicators of Al Sharpton’s growing political influence, together with a rundown of his continuing financial problems, his history of certain legal problems, and a specific focus on the tax problems arising from Sharpton's tangled finances. However, it should be noted that there also was an item buried inside that article that mentioned Mr. Sharpton's connection to Loretta Lynch and his possible involvement in Lynch's nomination for Attorney General.

NY Times Connects Tax Dodger Sharpton to the selection of Loretta Lynch for AG

Almost in the middle of the piece by Russ Buettnernov was this.  “...He [Sharpton] was among a small group at the White House when Mr. Obama announced his nomination of Loretta E. Lynch, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to become the next attorney general. This is very important information coming from the Times; because so far, the few media outlets other than the New York Times, which have suggested that Sharpton had been influential in the selection of Ms. Lynch to be the U.S. Attorney General, are of a conservative or more extreme right-wing bent  ( See “Did Al Sharpton Just Pick The Next Attorney General?” by Patrick Howley, 11/7/14, Daily Caller []); see also “AG Pick Puts Spotlight on Sharpton as White House ‘Insider’” by Jack Kenny, The New American []).

Why is a Top One-Percenter of Tax Cheats picking the next Attorney General ?

Doesn’t anybody have a problem with somebody like Al Sharpton, who, if nothing else, is among the country’s top 1% of tax dodgers, sitting-in with the President on decisions involving the selection of the nation’s top prosecutor ?

One has to wonder why there has been so little media interest in the likes of Al Sharpton and his influences on the President, Mayor deBlasio and now the prospective Attorney General of the United States. Maybe, it's because Al Sharpton's hosting gig on MSNBC makes him part of the media and it's a good ole boy thing.

Much more needs to be done and said about Sharpton in due course, but for now the Sharpton-Lynch nexus needs to be looked into ASAP.

The Media, AND the Senate Judiciary Committee and its staff investigators need to be on top of the Sharpton-Lynch -- Sharpton-Lynch THING

Loretta Lynch isn't in or of the media, her background is very much in the legal communities associated with big time banking and civil rights. so shouldn't the the various tentacles of of the media be fully entwined with the same Sharpton-Lynch connection(s) from the perspective of fully looking into the background of the next Attorney General of the UNited States ?  And even if the press and other media don't see fit to look into the Sharpton-Lynch stuff; certainly, the Senate Judiciary Committee and its investigators should do so before the hearings on  the Loretta Lynch nomination begin; that's so they will be able to ask her the right questions about her relationship to Sharpton once it does.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Marty Golden, Mike Long and Jerry Kassar VICTORIOUS — But, ARE THEY INVINCIBLE ?

[Edited and changed at about 5:50 PM on 11/17/14 ( see note below)]

EXCLUSIVE  —  Some Brooklyn GOP insiders say Chairman Craig Eaton to bow out or not run for re-election 

Eaton, Ferraro, Regina-Potter, Hayon, Berardelli and Gallo, all enter the 2014 post-elections looking like Michael Corleone would have looked coming out of the loo at Louie’s in the Bronx if there was no gun in there  

With the 2014 Elections in the rear view mirror, it is clear that the incumbents in Brooklyn (with some overlap into Staten Island) had big wins regardless of party title, affiliation and/or endorsement. A few Republicans and their Conservative Party supporters benefited from national trends and unexpectedly weak Democrat Party opposition. As the title of this post states, Marty Golden, Mike Long and Jerry Kassar were big victors coming out of the 2014 election cycle. The numbers for Congressman Grimm and State Senator Golden were far more impressive than almost anybody thought and/or said they would be. Clearly, people like Jerry Kassar and Mike Long look like they were a big part of that; and they are being given a lot of credit for that result.

Needless to say, it would be expected that a newly energized “Republicans for Change” faction, or virtually the same people under a different rubric or banner, would be emerging in the 2014 post-election and Holiday Season with an eye set on the 2015 organizational election cycle. It might eventuate that whoever it is that might try to take over the Brooklyn GOP, their path will be somewhat easier than in the past, because there will be no Craig Eaton or his palace guard to block the way.

Success in the battle just past would be indicative and apropos of the title, "Victorious."  The prospect of generally favorable outcomes in future battles would be one of the indicators of the hallmark, "Invincible."   Looking at it today, it sure seems like both terms do describe the Bay Ridge Republican-Conservative team of Golden, Long and Kassar.


The section of this post entitled, "The Craig Eaton era is over," which appeared at this location, has been removed, because several reliable sources, including one of my sources for the material that did appear herein, have contacted me and challenged the accuracy of the material contained in the section.  

I will do a further investigation and research into these matters. That will include possibly an interview with Mr. Eaton, concerning the matters that did appear at this location earlier today.  This note will be edited in due course to reflect such research, or to refer to any future post that might reflect the results of such investigation and research. 


*** .... *** .... *** ....

Into a perceived vacuum


Several of the groups that supported Craig Eaton in the past are scrambling to cobble together an anti-Eaton - stop-Golden faction. However, one member wanted me to understand that the Gregory Davidzon supported leaders ( largely the 45th and 46th A.D.s) have asserted that their current agenda is primarily to the end Eaton leadership-of and dominance-in the Brooklyn Republican Party, and that attaining such an objective would yield the strongest caucus of delegates at the 2015 Republican County Convention. Regardless of how that coalition characterizes it, there is agreement by the anti-Eaton - stop-Golden faction that Arnaldo Ferraro would continue as Vice Chairman, and that his role and title will be augmented at or shortly after the next convention.


Some Brooklyn GOP insiders say Golden likely to takeover the Brooklyn GOP in 2015  —  Impact of Chairman Eaton's supporters and new anti-Eaton - anti-Golden caucus not known


In spite of the future plans of the current GOP Chairman Craig Eaton, several Brooklyn insiders have opined to me that State Senator Martin Golden is likely again to consolidate his hold on the Brooklyn GOP by either naming or becoming the Chairman of the Brooklyn Republican Party in 2015. Most of those insiders describe this as sort of a “Back to the Future” scenario, because it will be an obvious revisit of the 2007 substitution of Chairman Eaton for Hy Singer.

What remains to be seen is whether the Eaton faction has a workable plan to maintain control of the Republican Party that can survive the 2015 reorganization process; and/or whether any newly formed anti-Eaton - anti-Golden coalition has its own impact going into and coming out of the organizational election cycle in 2015.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Observations by Democrats and others like them show that they aren’t just poor benighted souls... They complain about their bellyache; and then, they want to put some more lime in the coconut and drink it all up

Democrats think the way they do in the light of day; and they intend to fix things with more of the same stuff that crashed and burned in 2014

Even after they’ve gotten their clocks cleaned, Dem-libs have to say to themselves,  “We were right all along” and “We just didn’t let people know all the good we do and how good we are”

Most of the time Kip’s “Bay Ridge Journal” giving us the view from her block is refreshing in it’s honesty and straight forward presentation of the more liberal political view of things in Bay Ridge. Today’s post about the Bay Ridge Dems’ debrief of the mugging that they took at the hands of Marty Golden, Mike Grimm (who broke them all in half like they were “boys” ?), Mike Long, Jerry Kassar, John Quaglione, Ray Riley and the rest of the vast national right wing conspiracy was no exception (See “Bay Ridge Democrats Compile a List of Suspects” by Kip, 11/14/14, Bay Ridge Journal Blog []).

Panel helps Bay Ridge Dems figure things out at post-election meeting

This will give you a flavor of how Kip reported on a recent meeting of the Bay Ridge Dems:

“... Bay Ridge Democrats and an invited panel of political experts mulled the causes of the midterm rout on November 4 that saw Conservative Republican incumbents Marty Golden and Michael Grimm re-elected and Republicans seizing control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress and the New York State Senate....

“Michael McMahon....  blamed record low voter turnout, gerrymandered districts, and the fact that older, more dedicated voters, who tend to be Republican, vote in midterm elections, while younger voters show up for presidential elections, as the root causes of the Republican bloodbath...

“Gotham Gazette Executive Director Ben Max saw Democrats, both locally and nationally, being out-messaged and out-maneuvered by Republicans...

“Capital New York's Azi Paybarah commented on the unfortunate disconnect between... Recchia's campaign ... and the DCCC, spinning in its own separate, uncoordinated orbit...

“Alison Hirsh, Political Director for 32BJ SEIU, lamented Recchia's loss... which she blamed on a campaign that failed to highlight Recchia's real strengths and accomplishments [in] Coney Island....

“James Kemmerer [the Democrat nominee against State Senator Marty Golden], said he was taken aback by the depth of voter frustration and rage he encountered as he knocked on doors in the district ...  Voters, he said, are so preoccupied with their own misery, and what they see as the broader failures of American politics, that they have little patience for local races....

The Democrats’ view of their road back from 2014 

According to Kip, the Bay Ridge Dems’ “expert panel” believe that Democrats need to come out of the closet and boldly assert their progressive values. They gave as an example Massachusetts  Senator Elizabeth Warren, as demonstrating the kind of political forthrightness and clarity that Democrats should embody going forward.  And, even though the Bay Ridge Dems’ speakers saw no easy fix for the flaws exposed by the midterm election results, there was a “consensus” among the Bay Ridge Democrats at the meeting that Democrats nationally, have to do a better job of asserting and messaging progressive values, and bringing policy discussions into the political process. At the same time continuing to engage in the nuts and bolts of registering, educating, and turning out voters, particularly younger voters.

Harry Nilsson's "Coconut" [and lime]

I’m sorry, but to this conservative Republican all of what Kip described in the piece on her blog about "...Suspects..." for 2014 really sounds  like the kind of analysis, diagnosis, medicine and cure described by Harry Nilsson in his song “Coconut”:    

Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
His sister had another one, she paid it for a lime
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank them both up
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank them both up
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank them both up

She put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up
And said, Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take
I say, doctor, to relieve this bellyache?
I say, doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take
I say, doctor, to relieve this bellyache?

Now let me get this straight
You put the lime in the coconut, you drank them both up
You put the lime in the coconut, you drank them both up
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank them both up

Put the lime in the coconut, you called your doctor, woke him up
And said, Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take
I said, Doctor, to relieve this bellyache?
I said, Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take
I said, Doctor, to relieve this bellyache?

You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning....

Thursday, November 13, 2014


Governmental Nuclear Options  —  The President’s Emerging and Emergent Threat of Illegal Immigration “Reform”  —   The Counter-force Threat  —   Congressional Removal of the President AND the Vice President


The new leadership of both Houses of the Republican-controlled Congress need to place Impeachment of the President on the table ASAP  —   Even before the President attempts to act illegally on Immigration  —   The Congress needs to signal that the entire next session will be fully invested in Impeachment Proceedings ahead of all other matters

The Republican-dominated Congress needs to discuss its authority to utilize Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution to simultaneously remove the President and Vice President of the United States under various circumstances

It should be axiomatic that any unilateral move by President Obama to legalize any of the illegal invaders of the United States would be deemed a “high crime and misdemeanor” by a majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.  In such an event, an interim Impeachment Committee should be named in the “lame duck” session of the House to do preliminary work on charges, in order that the new House will be able to hit the deck running on those matters. In addition, the “lame duck” House should issue its own Declaration(s) and Order(s) to all Federal Agencies that the President’s unlawful and Impeachable actions and orders are a “Null and Void” usurpation of Congressional authority.

Simultaneous to any Impeachment proceedings, Pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution of the United States the Congress should act to immediately remove the President and Vice President, and to declare that neither the Twenty-fifth Amendment nor any other amendment to the Constitution has application to the circumstance of the simultaneous removal of the President and the Vice President. Furthermore, the two Republican-dominated Houses of Congress needs to name and announce what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the "Disability by Impeachment" of President Obama has been be removed, or a new President shall be elected.

Under the circumstance of President Obama’s incapacity due to Impeachment by the House, Vice President Joseph Biden simultaneously needs to be removed, because of his medical history of sever brain damage due to trauma and brain surgery, resulting in repeated instances of public neurological breakdowns manifest by verbal and other anomalies.

Upon such actions by the Republican-controlled  Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of all Executive Agencies need to be notified of the name of the new Executive Officer of the United States. Any officer or member of the armed services or other Federal Agencies not acceding to the new chain of command under the new Executive Officer named pursuant to  Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution should be removed forthwith.

Upon removal of the President and Vice President pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, normal impeachment proceedings can be completed in due course.

Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. — Part 2

Right wing attacks on Obama’s selection of Loretta Lynch after recommendation by Al Sharpton will not be effective in stopping her from becoming Attorney General of the United States

The Daily News’ recent admonition of Loretta Lynch for her failure to pursue former Brooklyn DA Hynes over the years and recently might prove more useful as ammunition against her confirmation

Not long ago a Daily News Editorial cut their praise of U.S. Attorney Lynch off at only “One Cheer” —  for not going after Hynes while he was still the Brooklyn DA  —   Now,  it looks like she’s again, or is that still, not going after him, after she had announced that she would

The routinely expected rightist attacks on President Obama’s choice to be Attorney General of the United States focus on things like the supposed selection of Loretta Lynch was made by MSNBC host and National Action Network operator Al Sharpton ( See “Did Al Sharpton Just Pick The Next Attorney General?”
By Patrick Howley, 11/7/14, Daily Caller
[]; picked-up in the John Birch Society’s “New American” ( “AG Pick Puts Spotlight on Sharpton as White House ‘Insider’ ” by  Jack Kenny, New American []); for being a doctrinaire radical supporter of Obama’s program, such as open immigration (See “Immigration Threatens Loretta Lynch’s Confirmation” by Steven Dennis, 11/8/14, Roll Call []);  and/or unalterably opposed to certain Republicans initiatives like Voter ID Laws, making Lynch "... just as dangerous as Holder to American justice and electoral integrity...." (See “Loretta Lynch Attacks Voter ID Laws in Video” by   Drew MacKenzie, 11/10/14, Newsmax []).

Those and similar arguments might be convincing and even satisfying to many conservative Republicans, however they are not likely to convince a majority of U.S. Senators that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as the AG of the USA. Something more subtle, thoughtful, and ultimately persuasive needs to be considered  —   something that is actually tied to Loretta Lynch’s performance as a U.S. Attorney. Some of that can be gleaned by a retrospective examination of the Daily News coverage and editorial commentary about Loretta Lynch.

Look to the Daily News, which looks like it is generally supportive of the Loretta Lynch nomination for AG of the USA.  

In “...Part 1” of this series of posts about President Obama’s recent selection for U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, I presented three views of the Lynch nomination to AG, one from the NY Times, another from the New York Observer, and the third from the Staten Island Advance ( See my 11/8/14 post “Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. —  Part 1” below on this blog).  By way of quick comparison, I want you to take a look at three Daily News features about Ms. Lynch.

To this observer, the New York Daily News was quite reserved in its initial coverage of the President’s announcement of Brooklyn, New York’s Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General of the United States. Not only were the insights evenhanded, the News’ writers  circumscribed all of the encomiums and upbeat presentations about her nomination to AG with the ominous caveat  —   “[If she] is approved by the Senate.”  This strongly suggested that the Obama nomination and/or nominee might be in some way PROBLEMATIC. Then when President Obama nominated Ms. Lynch to be the next Attorney General of the United States,  the Daily News Editors did what appeared to be a “volte face” for their paper  —  And they lavished praise on their new-found local crush on the national scene, Ms. Lynch  —  All as if Loretta Lynch’s nomination were completely NOT PROBLEMATIC  IN ANY WAY.

Three recent views of Loretta Lynch from the Daily News

The first article is from last Saturday, it was a short, unembellished and to the point article   — in it, the President said a little of  this about Loretta Lynch; and then Loretta Lynch said some of that in response to the President and the public (See “Brooklyn’s Loretta Lynch formally introduced as Attorney General nominee by President Obama –  The President called top Brooklyn federal prosecutor Lynch ‘tough, fair and independent.’ ” by Larry McShane, 11/8/14, NY Daily News []). Just a few of the President’s remarks were quoted in the article by Larry McShane, it started with this: “It’s pretty hard to be more qualified for this role than Loretta....  She’s not about the flash, she’s about the substance....”; continued with this: “Loretta’s spent her life fighting for fair and equal justice....  I can think of no better public servant to be our next attorney general....”; and the News article ended with this quote by the President: “Loretta might be the only lawyer in America who battles mobsters and drug lords and terrorists and still has the reputation for being a people person.” McShane’s report of Ms. Lynch’s remarks was equally succinct; and McShane’s other observations were kept to a minimum as well.

Another earlier News article about the nomination of Loretta Lynch by President Obama was done by a troika of News writers last Friday after the first word that the U.S. Attorney for Eastern District of New York would be the President’s nominee for AG (See “Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be named Obama's top choice for new Attorney General –  Lynch, 55, would become the nation’s first black female attorney general if approved by the Senate” by Dan Friedman, Eli Rosenberg & Larry McShane, 11/7/14, NY Daily News []). That article was almost unique in that it reported the following as a  negative sounding item about the nomination, placing it prominently among the generally effusive and laudatory comments by others: “Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, took a small shot at Lynch’s resume in congratulating the nominee. ***   ‘U.S. attorneys are rarely elevated directly to this position, so I look forward to learning more about her,’ the Republican said....”  Other papers and media characterized Grassley’s remarks in a more positive light, but the News drove its point home with it’s sub-headline “Lynch, 55, would become the nation’s first black female attorney general if approved by the Senate....”  That line, “...if approved by the Senate...”, sticks out like a clunker; and that did not seem to be in any way accidental.
That’s one of the reasons why the Daily News editorial boards’s shout out to and about Loretta Lynch came as such a surprise (See “Doing New York proud  –  Loretta Lynch will be a great attorney general,” Daily News Editorial, 11/8/14, NY Daily News []). According to the News’ editors, “Brooklyn-based federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is President Obama’s pick for the next attorney general of the United States. ***   She is an excellent and historic choice. ***  Lynch has built a stellar legal career in private practice and government service — including leading the successful prosecution of the Abner Louima police brutality case. ***
She has served with distinction in two stints as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York — first under Bill Clinton, and now under Obama  —  putting away more than her share of terrorists, thugs and corrupt politicians. ***  The fact that she has twice won Senate confirmation by acclamation  —  and, unlike outgoing AG Eric Holder, has no personal connection to an unpopular President  —  should smooth Lynch’s path to the nation’s top law enforcement job....”

The News’ editorial’s praise of Obama’s nominee was so unequivocal and complete, that the final line in the editorial thumped like a  Paukenschlag at the end of a movement in a symphony perhaps signaling a change of key for the theme from a major to a minor  —   “If confirmed, Lynch would head to Washington with New York’s best wishes. Our loss would be the country’s gain.”   —   Again, the whole comment was pregnant with the reservation, “... IF CONFIRMED...”; a concept that subtly re-cast the whole editorial into a subjunctive contra-factual conditional fantasy of sorts.

Prior Daily News Editorial  —  Admonishing Lynch  —  Upon  Opening Joint Investigation of DA Hynes 

A clue to what might be nagging at the Daily News’ editors in their very recent near-endorsement of Loretta Lynch can be found in another opinion piece that they did not so very long ago. In August 2014, when a joint investigation of former Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes appeared to have gotten off the ground, at long last; the Daily News’ editors gave  “Two cheers... for Eastern District U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch” for opening a criminal investigation of  Hynes after many, many years of obvious wrong-doing. However, the New’s editors took back one of those cheers, because Lynch only began to look into Hynes after he lost his re-election bid for a seventh term in 2013 (See "Hynes catch-up -  Wide and deep probe needed for rogue DA" by Editorial Board, 8/18/14, NY Daily News []).

The News’ editors then laid out twelve years worth of wrongful deeds of the former Brooklyn District Attorney that needed to be looked into Loretta Lynch, as the U.S. Attorney covering Brooklyn. Mostly the Daily News editors showed how Hynes’ abuse of his office had violated so many people’s Civil and Constitutional Rights, and other more venal pursuits.

The News’ editors concluded by saying “The bottom line, as we wrote this year in “The shameful DA,” is that “the misuse of money and potential criminal liability” that Lynch is reportedly looking into “is the least of Hynes’ crimes.” The editors of the Daily News closed by saying that they would see soon enough if U.S. Attorney Lynch had done a proper investigation into former DA Hynes  —  with particular emphasis on all the matters raised by the New York Daily News editors over the years that Mr. Hynes was Brooklyn DA - AND-  Ms. Lynch was the U.S. Attorney.

How can the Daily News’ editors  say in November 2014 that “Loretta Lynch will be a great attorney general,” and then say “She is an excellent and historic choice”; when so far, she appears to have dropped the ball on something the News’ editors had said was so important just a few months before in August ?  Clearly, the Daily News would not want everybody to forget that Loretta Lynch looks like she again dropped the ball on Hynes; just like she did over and over and over again for many, many years before.

Brooklyn Republicans, and readers of this blog in particular, have to get the word out to Senator Chuck Grassley and others in the U.S. Senate that, as U.S. Attorney for those of us in Brooklyn, Loretta Lynch’s record is not nearly as good as everybody says   —   AND SPECIFICALLY MENTION HOW SHE HAS WALKED OUT ON HER PART OF A JOINT INVESTIGATION OF THE FORMER BROOKLYN DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH SHE OPENED WITH SUCH FANFARE JUST IN THIS PAST SUMMER OF 2014.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

LATE NEWS — VERY LATE NEWS — State Senator Marty Golden has won re-election to the New York State Senate in a walk over Kemmerer ( Or should that be “in a walk-over over Kemmerer” ?)

Jamie Kemmerer celebrates his “beginning” loss at the first stop on  “Michael Grimm’s Famous Bay Ridge Wine Bar Crawl”

Both Kemmerer and Golden thank DEMOCRATS  —   HMMMMM !

Golden or somebody like him said, “We are now the party in charge in Albany....”  —   HMMMM !

This post is like too many of my term papers back in college — a week late and not quite sure what it all meant....  Actually, I was waiting for Jerry Kassar’s column so I could do a riff on that, but he is obviously even more dilatory than I am (maybe, it’s because he had more to celebrate at Pippin’s last week). I gave the election results, now I want to talk about the parties, and what was said about the Parties and other stuff.

So I guess I’ll have to stick with the almost week-old  basic coverage in the Home Reporter (See “State Senator Marty Golden secures his seat, trumps Kemmerer” by Meaghan McGolderick, with reporting contributed by Heather Chin, 11/5/14, Home Reporter/ Spectator []).

Speaking of the “Republicans” –  maybe

According to the Home Reporter - Spectator reporters, “Republican State Senator Marty Golden celebrated a two-to-one victory over his Democratic challenger, James Kemmerer on Election Night with friends, family, constituents and colleagues at the Ridge’s Pippin’s Pub near 97th Street and Third Avenue....”  I got a personal report from one of the attendees, the party was kept small and on the DL for a few reasons (more about that later).

According to Meaghan and/or  Heather, the “unofficial election results, at final count Golden had received 22,598 votes (69 percent) and Kemmerer, 10,152 (31 percent).”

Here’s a little of what State Senator Marty is supposed to have said,  “I want to thank you all because without you, we couldn’t have done this....  [The Republicans]* had an overwhelming sweep across the district and it’s because of each and every person in this room....  I want to thank the Democrats in this room that went out there and made their support for me known....“[The Republican Party]* swept the district tonight [ thanking those closest to him, his family – wife, Colleen and sons, Patrick and Michael – and his staff – Jerry Kassar, Ray Riley and John Quaglione, among others, for] making this win happen.”


* Note on the Golden quote above: Obviously State Senator Golden’s own quotes were somewhat more colorful, descriptive, and perhaps even problematic, than the Home Reporter’s editorial insertions of “The Republicans” and “The Republican Party”  —   I wonder what those specific words and thoughts could have been ?

The Home Reporter noted that Golden then specifically thanked the New Era Democrats, who were hailed as one of the first groups to endorse him formally in the 2014 election cycle.

Speaking of the Democrats !

Still going by what the fine young women writing for the Home Reporter had to say, “On the other side of the Ridge at the Owl’s Head Wine Bar** (479 74th Street), [Jamie] Kemmerer thanked volunteers, family and neighbors and beyond during his concession speech, vowing that ‘this is just the beginning’ because ‘We have a lot of work to do in this part of Brooklyn and in our own party. I intend to do that work with [everyone here].’... ”

**Note on the Owl’s Head Wine Bar: Yes, that is the Bay Ridge establishment whose bathroom was made part of the news by Congressman Michael Grimm in late September 2013.  This incident was covered in my October 15, 2013 post “Is Congressman Michael Grimm embroiled in another scandal ? This one looks something like what sunk Congressman Vito Fossella...” below on this blog.  For those who have forgotten, it was at that Bay Ridge off-5th-Avenue bistro where Congressman Grimm and another sweet young thing needed to take a 15-17 minute break together in the powder room.

Speaking of the “party in charge in Albany” ? ? ?  –  !  !  !

The Home Reporter coverage ended with this: “Golden’s win was  part of the GOP’s successful effort to take back the State Senate, where a power-sharing arrangement had persisted for the past two years between Republicans and the Independent Democratic Conference. ‘We are now the party in charge in Albany.’...”   Now, that is a truly provocative quote  —   Does anybody know who said it ?  And, equally important, to what political party were they referring ?

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. — Part 1

The New York Times is unequivocal  —   “Loretta Lynch, Federal Prosecutor, Will Be Nominated for Attorney General”

Agreeing with the Times’ view, the New York Observer notes that  “ ... Ms. Lynch might be an easier sell to Republicans than some of Mr. Obama’s other options...”

Two different views of “Fairness” exposed in early debate about Loretta Lynch’s fitness for the Office of Attorney General of the United States  —   Brooklyn DA Kenneth Thompson’s and Brooklyn and Staten Island Congressman Michael Grimm’s

Was politics too often involved in the way Loretta Lynch conducted investigations and decided on prosecutions as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District ?

By the time most of you read this post, the U.S. Attorney for Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island  and Long Island will have been rolled-out as the nation’s Attorney General Designate. On Friday, the New York Times  reported that “President Obama will nominate Loretta E. Lynch, the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, to be the next attorney general, reaching outside his inner circle to fill a key post, the White House said Friday....   Mr. Obama will announce her selection at a ceremony Saturday in the Roosevelt Room. He will be joined by Ms. Lynch and Eric H. Holder Jr., the current attorney general, who has announced his plans to step down....” ( See “Loretta Lynch, Federal Prosecutor, Will Be Nominated for Attorney General” by Julie Hirschfield Davis & Matt Appuzzunov, 11/7/14, NY Times []).

According to the Times, by choosing Ms. Lynch, the president passed over many possible appointees with whom he had closer ties.  It was presumed that those potential candidates would have provoked a strong Republican opposition to any one of them that received the nomination. Those on that short list included Thomas E. Perez, the Secretary of Labor; Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the U.S. Solicitor General; and Kathryn Ruemmler,  former White House Counsel ( Ms. Ruemmler took herself out of the running last month rather than risk the messy confirmation fight that her nomination might precipitate ). Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who twice recommended Ms. Lynch to the White House as a United States attorney, called for her “swift confirmation” and several key Republican Senators have promised quick consideration of the appointment.

Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson hits sour note with his early suggestion that U.S. Senate hearings might not result in a “fair process” for Loretta Lynch

Many of the people tied into the legal establishment in the Eastern District of New York, including the Kings County District Attorney, have sung the praises of Loretta Lynch. However, something that DA Kenneth Thompson said hit a bit of a sour note.  According to the New York Observer, Brooklyn DA Thompson said this: “If anything, she has already been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and she should be confirmed easily this time, if it’s a fair process....”  ( See “Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson: Loretta Lynch Would Be ‘Simply Superb’ Attorney General” by Jillian Jorgensen, 11/7/14, NY Observer [][Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook]). These words of DA Thompson show both sides of the coin of prejudice  —   inferring that two earlier Senate approvals of Ms. Lynch for the lower spot of U.S. Attorney for the EDNY should make their third approval for Lynch as Attorney General automatic, and his implication that the Senate could vote down or delay Lynch’s nomination as AG only if “it’s [not] a fair process.”

NY Observer ties issue of “fairness” to Loretta Lynch’s problematic handling of U.S. Congressman Michael Grimm’s Case  —   Will U.S. Senators do the same ?

The same New York Observer article that quoted the Brooklyn District Attorney tied that quote to questions of Loretta Lynch’s professional and prosecutorial fairness raised by Congressman Michael Grimm. According to Jillian Jorgensen writing in the Observer yesterday,  “At least one person, however, has called Ms. Lynch’s fairness into question: Congressman Michael Grimm, whom she hit with a 20-count indictment on tax and mail fraud. Mr. Grimm’s office has asked the court to toss out the charges, arguing he is the victim of a ‘selective and vindictive’ prosecution. Mr. Grimm, who cruised to re-election Tuesday, has repeatedly called his 13-point victory a ‘referendum’ on Ms. Lynch and the Eastern District [prosecution].”

Interestingly, if the NY Observer’s report of his remarks are accurate, Brooklyn DA Thompson, attempted to rebut the Congressman’s position, with remarks that might have been both factually wrong and ethically questionable (a full and exact quote by Kenneth Thompson is not available at this time).

Another Problem Raised by Congressman Grimm’s Legal Counsel Concerning Loretta Lynch’s Nomination as U.S. Attorney General   —   Were Political Aspirations of Prosecutors Behind the Grimm Prosecution and Indictment ?

According to a late report in the Staten Island Advance, “ [Grimm’s] attorney, Palm Beach-based lawyer Stuart N. Kaplan, said with Lynch leaving, the trial could possibly take another route. ***  He said he is "disturbed and quite concerned" that Ms. Lynch is leaving her post because it means she has been having conversations about it for a while and in doing so, being a political player, which he said presents a conflict of interest. ***   If Grimm wasn't a congressman "this case certainly wouldn't have gotten to the point where it's at," and might have been settled before trial, Kaplan said. ***   He said the case against the congressman has "more to do with politics" that it does Grimm being "a tax cheat." ***   Kaplan is hoping a new prosecutor may be interested in discussing avoiding a trial, something he said Ms. Lynch opposed. ***   The lawyer said it's unsettling that people with political aspirations have been involved in the case. First Todd Kaminsky, a former assistant U.S. attorney, was part of the investigation that led to Grimm's indictment. ***   The Democrat left to run for Assembly on Long Island. He won the seat on Tuesday. ***   Now, Ms. Lynch is leaving to serve in a political role in the cabinet of a Democratic president and Kaplan said it would be nice to have a new U.S. attorney to look at the case with a fresh perspective and be "someone without political aspirations." ***   A spokesperson for Ms. Lynch did not return a request for comment....” ( See “Rep. Michael Grimm's attorney 'disturbed' by prosecutor Loretta Lynch leaving office for White House post” by Rachel Shapiro, 11/7/14, SI Advance/ []).

These were just a few of the issues making President Obama’s selection of Loretta Lynch a problem that the U.S. Senate needs to fully investigate before consenting to her appointment as Attorney General

The US. Senate needs to do its job and fully vet the United States Attorney for the Eastern District Loretta Lynch one more time before letting her step up to her newly proposed position as Attorney General of the United States. From just the three articles mentioned above in this post, it should be clear that contrary to what the White House and the current Democratic leadership in the Senate would want you to believe, her nomination is neither simple nor without controversy. Hopefully the inquiry will be complete and bipartisan; but if it needs be a partisan fight in the Lame Duck session, then let it be.

There will be a follow-up to this post ASAP, when more research on Loretta Lynch’s record as U.S. Attorney has been completed. There are several items of particular interest to those involved with the Brooklyn GOP and general interest to others who follow this this blog that have yet to be discussed.

Please be on the look-out for  —   "Why Loretta Lynch is the wrong choice by President Obama to be Attorney General of the U.S. - Part 2"   —   coming soon to a computer screen near you.

Friday, November 7, 2014

Finally, finally... F-I-N-A-L-L-Y ! ! ! Some recognition from a Saint Saviour’s girl — In this case, I think it's from "Christine Sisto"

After having two sisters and two daughters go to that school, and even helping to chaperone a dance there a mere forty-four years ago —  at long last, if not respect, at least some recognition even if it’s months late

TODAY  —   Christine Sisto finally responded to my June 30th post “The Curious case of Christine Sisto” and my July 3rd comment about her “... boyfriend” 

National Review’s Brooklyn (and Staten Island) beat writer Christine Sisto goes waaaay out of her way to try to "correct the record" on a few things

Hmmm! Let me start by sayin’ how than’ful I am to get this level of recognition from anybody  ’at went to Saint Saviours H.S.   I got lots a ole contacts down ‘ere in ’at ole Park Slope Catholic girls high school, I think I even got one there now.   —    I been letchin’ an’ waitin’ after girls from down there fer years, an’ you don’t gotta like Billy Joel to know what I’m talkin’ about (btw, NOT my sisters ’n’daughters,  o’ course, I’m no Hillbilly ferm Pennsyltucky, Arkauisiana or East-West Tenneginia, you know).  But, enough a dat stuff, hmmm.

So I guess you get it,  any sort of recognition, even if it’s a little snarky and belated is still very much appreciated by an old coot (or is it loon) like me. That’s why when I saw that good old CS responded to my stuff  —  well, it was almost crescendo obligato, if you know what I mean.

I know, I know, “Galewyn, cut to the chase...”

Earlier today, Christine Sisto ( I hope it’s not some cheap knockoff internet impersonator...) did a responding comment about MY July 3rd comment about HER “boyfriend.” After reprinting virtually the whole comment, CS wrote this:
“...What the hell is this rant even about? I have no idea what Young Frankenstein thing you're even talking about as I never did theater ever and I'm pretty sure SSHS never did Young Frankenstein, unless there's someone else that goes there/went there with the same name as me. And the boyfriend mentioned in both articles is the same person. And as to your accusation that I'm pushing some agenda by this article, my editor told me to write this particular piece, so you can put your mind at ease. ***  This is what I get for googling myself.”

I know, it really isn’t the highest praise; I get that. However, it is thoughtful, and I think it shows a little bit of passion. Maybe, it’s not the passion that “boyfriend,” William, Will, Liam gets, but it’s not nothing either. Also, everybody needs to note that this is less than three days after that big Tuesday night extravaganza where all the Grimm-sters breathed their collective sigh of relief, for now. So it looks to me that my blog is just a little less important to Christine Sisto than the re-election of her boyfriend's boss, Michael Grimm and the rest of the 2014 Mid-term elections, where Republicans won across the nation. Hey, I'll take that...

Just for Christine S.

There’s just two more things  —  just for CS: First, don’t feel bad about googling yourself, most people do it because it’s pleasurable or just to relief the tension of the day. It doesn’t mean you are a bad person; and as Lena Dunham might say, “Don’t feel guilty about that, even if you do it seven times in a row.”  Second, even if you might have written the line for him to use on television, I don’t want Grimm or any of his guys coming over here and threatening to “...Break [me] in half like a boy...” just because you or he or anybody else didn’t like this post.

About the New Brooklyn DA’s even newer “Hate Crimes” Unit — A case that suggests a terrible injustice might be perpetrated against a sad soul — All because of somebody's agenda and to make some political points

Prosecutors say Brian Boshell terrorized a noted activist of the Arab American Association of New York and her assistant, chasing them across a couple of blocks of Bay Ridge, hurling slurs and a garbage can, and telling them he wanted to lop off their heads and threatening them with a “weapon”

Alleged Perp left the area before police were on scene and refused to act  on  the alleged victims' complaints  —  Borough Commanders then order investigation by NYPD as a "Hate Crime  —  Brooklyn DA throws the "Hate Crime" book at a local sad and troubled soul in the "... Brian Boshell" case

Here’s what one report of the incident said, “I am going to cut your heads off like your people did to us,” he allegedly shouted at association director Linda Sarsour and a co-worker, according to a criminal complaint. ***  The alleged attack came just one day after the terrorist organization calling itself the Islamic State released a video depicting the beheading of an American journalist in the Middle East....” (See “Crazed vagrant threatens to behead Arab community leader” by Max Jaeger. 9/9/14, Brooklyn Daily/ Courier Life []).   Well that seems fairly straightforward, right ?   Not so fast....  There is something else to it; or to put it in a slightly more critical way, maybe there is LESS HERE THAN MEETS THE EYE !

Max Jaeger in the Brooklyn Daily went on to say this:  “Sarsour saw the man — whom she knew from the neighborhood but had never spoken with — sleeping outside her Fifth Avenue office at noon. She instructed a co-worker to call the police to have them move Boshell, she said. Then moments later, when she and deputy director Kayla Santosuosso left the office for a meeting, the man reportedly sprang up and launched into his tirade, according to Sarsour....”

The need to be suspicious of these charges

All of this took place only a day or two after a beheading by ISIS was on TV. Now, what if I told you that the police didn’t arrive for more than 45 minutes after the first calls from the alleged victims, and that there was no mention of “hate crimes” or attempted assaults in the first 911 calls to police; and the supposed “hate crimes” occurred  between the time this Linda Sarsour called the police to have a sleeping drunk removed and when the police finally did arrive ?  Then, what if I told you that the first police to respond saw no reason to investigate further, because nobody was hurt and the alleged perpetrator was no longer on the scene.  Also a while later,  that after the complaining political activist had a meeting with people from City Hall, NYPD Borough Commanders ordered Brian Boshell to be hunted down and arrested, and the Brooklyn DA’s new Hate Crimes Unit decided to charge Boshell with a raft of so-called hate crimes ?

I don’t know what happened between Boshell, and Sarsour and Santosuosso on September 3, 2014  —   But I do know that Linda Sarsour had turned it into a national news story appearing on many media outlets within a few days  —   And given the political climate, this does fit the common agendas of Mayor Bill De Blasio, Brooklyn D.A. Kenneth Thompson, the new Brooklyn “Hate Crimes” A.D.A.  and both of the alleged “victims” Linda Sarsour and Kayla Santosuosso.

All of the important events happened immediately before and shortly after noon on September 3rd 2014, somewhere between 68th Street and Ovington Avenue along Fifth Avenue in Bay Ridge Brooklyn.  Brian Boshell was arrested elsewhere in Bay Ridge almost five hours later (some reports indicate it was in the evening of September 3rd). However, some local observers have suggested, and  I think it was very possible, that the very willful Ms. Linda Sarsour and others might have attempted some form of “self help”in removing a sleeping drunk from in front of their premises before the police arrived. (Whether Boshell had been waken up with some degree of roughness and responded in a disoriented and possibly hostile manner it remains to be seen whether that might be established as a fact supported by evidence).

So far, what is all of the “evidence” in this case ?   —   Some might say that it is only being based on the complaints of Ms. Sarsour and Ms. Santosuosso  —   however, in reality even that is not yet evidence, as such, even if the complaints have been sworn to by the alleged victims of the crimes/ hate crimes.  Nonetheless, as a result mostly of what happened  AFTER THE INCIDENT, and completely out of his presence, Brian Boshell, the well-known Bay Ridge neighborhood drunk, has been charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, adding up to sixteen(16) counts, most of which are being characterized as “hate crimes,” which calls for stiffer penalties. The reality is that this man of about fifty years of age (50 y/o/a) is facing the possibility of spending the rest of his life in jail.

Only the PEOPLE OF NEW YORK, in whose name this case is being prosecuted, can stop what looks like a serious prosecutorial overreach

The good people, of Bay Ridge Brooklyn and elsewhere, need to stay on top of this case to see to it that Brian Boshell is not railroaded by Brooklyn D.A. Kenneth Thompson and his new “Hate Crimes” boss,  Marc Fliedner, who is also Mr. Thompson's civil rights bureau chief. The case: People of New York v. Brian Boshell [Kings Co. # 07426-2014] is  next scheduled to be heard in the Brooklyn Supreme Court, Criminal Term on 11/12/14 –  Part 19R.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Look at this quote: “Few things changed with this election.... Not many changed, ultimately...” — Who said it? — And, what were they talking about ?

If you said, “President Barack Hussein Obama; and the GOP taking over the U.S. Senate....”   Bahhhn !  You lose  —   No, it was Mayor Bill de Blasio, and he was talking about the failed Democrat-WFP attempt to take over the NYS Senate.

“Mayor Bill de Blasio wanted to be front and center in this year’s battle for the New York State Senate. ***  Just not like this.”  —   NY TIMES

Some might even argue that the open and notorious attempt by Mayor de B. and his left wing lunatic fringe allies to take over the state senate facilitated the State Senate Republicans’ defense of their turf; and even enabled them to gain enough seats to regain complete control in GOPers hands. 

According to a Wednesday report in the New York Time “Mr. de Blasio woke up on Wednesday confronting a stark new political reality. The Republicans he had devoted considerable resources to defeating this fall will now fully control the State Senate. And their victories were fueled in large part by ads tying Democratic opponents to someone who represents the epitome of big-city liberalism: the mayor of New York....” (See “De Blasio Deflects Blame for Losses in New York Senate Races” by Michael M.Grynbaum, 11/5/14, NY Times/ NY Region []).

Mr. Grynbaum went on to say in his piece that “The outcome weakened Mr. de Blasio’s hand in Albany and could curtail the scope of his first-term agenda. Lacking the partnership of the Senate, the mayor’s plan to restore New York City’s authority over its rent-control laws is likely a nonstarter. And his efforts to expand rights for immigrants and raise the city’s minimum wage could face significant opposition....”

When he was asked if his involvement in the attempt to capture the NYS Senate had backfired, de Blasio calmly responded,  “I just don’t buy it....  I don’t think that’s how politics works....” He then added that he did not think that ads aimed at upstate voters, which depicted him as a liberal boogeyman, had any effect on the outcome.  Instead, he said,  “I think it’s about the issues the candidates choose. I think it is about the vision they put forward, and I think it is about how they reach people at the grass roots.”

The mayor then went on to praise the collection of labor unions, liberal donors and political operatives, some of which had been handpicked by him out of  his own successful mayoral campaign operation.  He referred to it as the team that had tried to win the state senate for the Democrats, and said it was unlike anything he’d seen in the last quarter century. Nonetheless, on election night, his “team” came up decidedly short. In virtually every state senate swing district, the Democratic candidate lost, despite hundreds of thousands of dollars raised by the mayor and his supporters, along with a full gamut of operatives that contributed to the total effort.

In shrugging it all off, Mayor de Blasio looked quite presidential.  That is, of course, if you think shrugging off responsibility for failure is presidential, because Barack Obama does it so well and so often.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Local Republicans ride a wave to victory on a night when the bigger story was the national trend and the National GOP’s takeover of the U.S. Senate

Grimm wins re-election in a race whose 12.5% margin of victory was much more than might have been expected  ---  given all the problems that he had

Golden has big personal victory,  as the Republicans look like they will again have a majority in the NYS Senate

Nicole Malliotakis scores big in Brooklyn and Staten Island

There were only a hand full of elections in Brooklyn where  Republican candidates stood any chance of winning. To be expected, only three Republicans running in Brooklyn came away with victories. They were Michael Grimm, Marty Golden and Nicole Malliotakis.

11th C.D. Result

The unofficial results in the New York 11th Congressional with 100.00% of the EDs reporting were decisive: Republican-Conservative Michael Grimm received 56,221 votes, or 55.35% of the votes cast for that office; Democrat-WFP Domenic Recchia trailed with 42,786, which was 42.13% of the total; and Green Party Candidate Henry Bardel obtained 2,558 votes, which was 2.52% of the vote.

22nd S.D. Result 

Republican-Conservative-Ind incumbent State Senator Martin Golden cruised to an easy victory over Democrat-WFP candidate James T. Kemmerer, got 29.22 % of the vote, for a total of 10,152; compared to Marty Golden’s total of 22,598 votes and 65.05 %.  Golden’s big win was made all the more satisfying for his folks, because he probably will be going back to Albany as part of a new Republican State Senate majority, after the GOP took back three seats from Democrat freshman State Senators.


There were only two competitive Assembly  races that were completely located within Brooklyn’s boundaries, both resulted in GOP losses.  However in a third district that included both Brooklyn and Staten Island EDs, the Republican candidate achieved a lopsided victory.

45th A.D. Result

In the 45th Assembly District, Democrat-WFP-Ind candidate Steven Cymbrowitz won re-election garnering 6,208  votes or 51.63%  to overcome the strange challenge by the nominal Republican candidate Ben Akselrod, a Democrat who obtained the GOP line in an Opportunity to Ballot Write-in Primary. Mr. Akselrod  received  40.16% or 4,829 votes which, was the highest percentage obtained on the Republican line by any candidate running in Brooklyn. Although only by a small margin, Democrat Ben Akselrod obtained the highest percentage of the  vote for any candidate running on the GOP line in any assembly race wholly within Brooklyn. Doubtless, Akselrod would have had a higher number of votes, but for the last minute letter of the Russ Gallo, a well recognized GOP community activists and Republican Party Executive Member. It definitely makes one wonder, "What might have been...."  --- no matter which side you're on.

46th A.D. Result

In the 46th Assembly District, candidate Alec Brook-Krasny who was running on the Democrat-WFP-Ind parties, handily won re-election. He received  8,512  votes or 53.14 %  to Republican-Conservative candidate Stamatis Lilikakis’ total of 6,089 votes or 38.02 %of the votes cast. Some might have hoped that Mr. Lilikakis would obtain higher percentage and vote total, but he did no better than most Republicans that have to campaign in South-western Brooklyn.

64th A.D. Result 

In the most one-sided race favoring a Republican running in Brooklyn, Democrat and WFP candidate Marybeth Melendez lost with 25.91 % percent of the vote,  getting 5,213 votes; compared to Republican-Conservative and Independence Party candidate Nicole Malliotakis, whose 14,339 votes came up to a whopping  71.26 %.  Even though most of Ms. Malliotakis’ votes came out of the Staten Island portion of her Assembly District, she did a very creditable job in Brooklyn too.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

THE BROOKLYN GOP RACE TO LOOK AT: Lilikakis versus Brook-Krasny in the 46th A.D.

With Republican-Conservatives Grimm and Golden cruising to re-election, interest swings down to the only NYS Assembly race in Brooklyn where there was significant fund raising and resources expended

Whither the Lilikakis Campaign after the $$$ was spent and there were endorsements by Golden, Storobin  and the LaGuardia Club leadership ?


The Problems with the “Steve for New York” Lilikakis Campaign

Some observers have criticized the campaign of Stamatis (Steve for NY) Lilikakis, because so much of its budgeted expenditures went directly into the pockets of people like Ryan Girdusky,  Peter Cipriano and Karen Fischer. Actually there seemed to be much more in the way robo-calls and ground-game for the 2014 GOP primary than in the last days before Election Day 2014.

One long-time Brooklyn GOP operative noted that the most recent mailer for Lilikakis didn’t say anything meaningful about  what the candidate stood for, or what he specifically intended to do for the 46th Assembly District.  Also most of the photographs that appear all over the Lilikakis controlled media make him look overweight, out-of-control and often leaning over or against things  —  few of them were visually appealing in any way.

One Picture and Caption was worth A Thousand Words

The real problem with the Lilikakis campaign is that it seems to have been created and functions to benefit others, and not the candidate, Stamatis Lilikakis  —   most especially, it seems to  benefit Marty Golden (maybe that was its purpose all along).

One needs to go no further than looking at the “symbiotic relationship” the Lilikakis Campaign has with the campaign to re-elect State Senator Marty Golden. With only one day to go, the ratio of Golden robo-calls, live calls and mailings, compared to those for Lilikakis, is somewhere between four- and eight-to-one (4- & 8-1). Looking at lawn signs and posters in store windows, the ratio of Golden to Lalikakis stuff is worse than that, it is immeasurably off the charts. And of course, there is the “shared” campaign headquarters for Golden and Lilkakis....  It’s tucked into a far corner of Bay Ridge, but since it mostly does phone work, it could be located almost anywhere.

And what about the picture and caption that’s supposed to be worth a thousand words ?  —  One of first pictures posted on the official Lilikakis Campaign page showed the candidate and three other politicos  —   the caption was entitled: “The winning ticket for Brooklyn and the State of New York” it mentions only  ONE NAME - “Marty Golden”  —   Who were the others not-named in the picture, Rob Astorino, Nicole Malliotakis and Stamatis Lilikakis (kind of an odd editorial choice for the Lilikakis Campaign).

Temporary realignments won’t deliver permanent results

The ongoing fight for control of the GOP leadership in the 46th A.D. created an intractable problem for any “non-aligned candidate” running there; the candidate’s aligning with anyone involved in the 46th fight for control causes the others involved in the 46th fight to split off from his effort. The endorsement of Assembly Candidate by the LaGuardia Club was discussed on this blog a month ago, shortly after it happened (See my 10/514 post “‘All Republicans for Stamatis Lilikakis’ Comes to Life ...  aims right at somebody, as yet unknown ... not Democrat Alec Brook-Krasny” below on this blog). Lilikakis started off aligned with the Golden faction and ran against the LaGuardia Club’s candidate, Lucretia Regina-Potter; so how does anybody think that the brokered deal for the LG Club’s endorsement will work out  —   regardless of any consideration from Lilikakis or on his behalf to the LaGuardia leadership.

Ultimately, the endorsement by the LaGuardia Club leadership now falls into more or less  the same category as Steve Lilikakis’ other alliances. However, it is perhaps a little less egregious than the rest, because so little should be expected to come from it. Everybody knows that going forward, the interests of the LaGuardia Club will necessarily conflict with the plans and prerogatives of Golden’s “Republicans for Change” crowd, both vis a vis the GOP leadership countywide and within the borders of the 46th A.D. In any case, the boost to the LaGuardia Club of its alliance will not sit well with the Seergy Club and its prime mover Clorinda Annarrumo. So it remains to be seen if the LG Club endorsement turns out to be a net benefit or detriment.

 This is from “The official Facebook page for Stamatis Lilikakis. Candidate for the 46th Assembly Seat in New York”:
 “Thank You to former Republican Assemblyman and Founder/Chairman of the Fiorello LaGuardia Republican Org. Dr. Ferraro and 46th AD Republican District Leader Lucrecia Regina-Potter for their endorsement tonight. It is the first time in 30 yrs we have a United Republican Party in our district behind one Assembly Candidate. Its an honor to be that candidate and i look forward to working with a united Republican Party.”[The accompanying photo of Lilikakis, Ferraro and Regina-Potter was demonstrative of the lack of a warm embrace of the candidate by this faction of the GOP].

It remains to be seen what work will be done and how many votes will be delivered from/by this Republican “organization.”

What to look for on Election Day and thereafter

Here is one of Steve Lilikakis’ last comments before the election “I want to take a minute to thank everyone who has volunteered during this election. Thank you so much for all your support, i am truly humbled by the love you have all shown me. As a first time Candidate we weren't suppose to win the Primary... We Won. We're not suppose to win tomorrow but all the indicators say We Will Win!!! Now we have less than 36 hrs to work hard and find out what the result will be. If your available today or tomorrow please come down to the office at 9712 3rd Ave and help us finish the campaign strong. Thank You again for all your support” (See Facebook–

Don't focus on this or that erroneous detail, just think about what Stamatis Lilikakis is thinking right now, after all that was said and done along the way by and for the "Steve for New York" campaign.

Whether he knows it or not, Lilikakis will not win, but it will be interesting to see how good or badly he does, ED by ED from one end of the district to the other. Those results will make a good road map for the 2015 fight in the 46th AD, but it will also help Mr. Lilikakis understand what happened to him in 2014 --- especially when compared to Golden and Grimm. Maybe, Lilikakis already gets it.  But, whether he gets it now or not, eventually he will --- just like so many GOP candidates before him got it after their elections.

Sunday, November 2, 2014




Everybody that cares about the social-political-governmental-medical-scientific response to the growing world-wide Ebola threat needs to read an AP article that has been picked up by ABC News and the Republican oriented blog Newsmax.

Here’s how the article kicks-off: “Top medical experts studying the spread of Ebola say the public should expect more cases to emerge in the United States by year's end as infected people arrive here from West Africa, including American doctors and nurses returning from the hot zone and people fleeing from the deadly disease. ***   But how many cases?  ***   No one knows for sure how many infections will emerge in the U.S. or anywhere else, but scientists have made educated guesses based on data models that weigh hundreds of variables, including daily new infections in West Africa, airline traffic worldwide and transmission possibilities....” (See “Scientists Try to Predict Number of US Ebola Cases” by Martha Mendoza/ AP National Writer, 11/1/14, ABC News []; similar to article:  “How Many More US Ebola Cases? Predictions Vary Widely” source the AP, 11/2/14, Newsmax []).

That AP report said. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prefers not to focus on a particular number. But spokeswoman Barbara Reynolds said Ebola will not be a widespread threat as some outside the agency have warned. ***  ‘We're talking about clusters in some places but not outbreaks,’ she said. ***  The CDC is using modeling tools to work on projections in West Africa, but ‘there isn't enough data available in the U.S. to make it worthwhile to go through the exercise.’ ***   University of Texas integrative biology professor Lauren Ancel Meyers said there are inherent inconsistencies in forecasting ‘because the course of action we're taking today will impact what happens in the future.’...”

Quoted in the AP article is Northeastern University professor Alessandro Vespignani, who projected between one case - his most likely scenario - and a slim chance of as many as eight new cases in the U.S. though the end of November (other “experts” have a range between two [2] and over a hundred [100+] new Ebola cases in the U.S. by the end of the year).  However, one of Professor Vespignani’s  worst scenarios involves Ebola spreading unchecked across international borders outside of the United States. “‘My worry is that the epidemic might spill into other countries in Africa or the Middle East, and then India or China. That could be a totally different story for everybody," Vespignani said. ***  Dr. Ashish Jha, a Harvard University professor and director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said he's not worried about a handful of new cases in the U.S. His greatest worry is if the disease goes from West Africa to India. ***   ‘If the infection starts spreading in Delhi or Mumbai, what are we going to do?’..."

When it comes to Ebola, stricter or looser quarantines or travel restrictions probably will make a difference for most Americans, who are now alive and healthy, both in the short and longer run. Contrary to anybody’s assertions in support-of or opposition-to such quarantines and/or travel restrictions, medical-scientific statistical predictive tools are not the best methodologies  to arrive at decisions on those matters on behalf of Americans, who are now alive and healthy.