HomeUncategorizedOpen Threads 6.14-16

Leave a Reply

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
19 Comment threads
20 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
LieparDestinla58wi63wi63Benny Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death

The Lever’s video on Biden’s Medicare Premium Hike



Karen Bass has taken the lead in the LA mayoral race (41-38). The late arriving vote has been very progressive.

Meanwhile in Adam Schiff’s district 😎😎😎

Drag queen Maebe A. Girl substantially solidified her hold on the 2nd spot with tonight’s LA Co. vote dump. Plus it’s a lockout for us.

So no matter how far to the left of Schiff she is , she can’t spoil a Democrat from winning the seat. (From her website, she’s very progressive). If she can successfully convince voters that she’s actually a serious candidate, the vote results in Nov. will be very interesting.
ADAM B. SCHIFF (D) 78,402 62.22%
G “MAEBE A. GIRL” PUDLO (D) 14,532 11.53%
RONDA KENNEDY (R) 11,352 9.01%



Not a great showing by Vilela.


Titus coasts to general election in new-look 1st District: Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., won the Democratic primary in Nevada’s 1st District, easily defeating progressive challenger Amy Vilela. Titus was ahead with 84 percent to 16 percent with an estimated 70 percent of the vote counted.

Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death
Aint Supposed to Die A Natural Death



I am sorry Vilela didn’t prevail. Bernie’s endorsement came rather late and I suspect voters had already made up their minds.


I saw an article that a lot of mail ins were already sent in so that was a yuge factor, Hopefully Vilela tries again -next election.


I think this was Vilela’s third go. She was one of the first tpw candidates and we have communicated on twitter, but she’s never really been able to ‘create a presence’ for lack of better words. Her story of fighting for m4a due to her daughter’s death is quite righteous, but she must expand beyond just this. And engage in less twitter drama.


Education Department Won’t Hold For-Profit College Executives Personally Accountable

Earlier this month, the federal government canceled all loans made for students attending the defunct, predatory for-profit education chain Corinthian Colleges, at a cost of close to $6 billion. While restitution for fraud victims was welcomed, many were disappointed to see no accountability for the individuals responsible for perpetrating the fraud. This is a perennial lament in the field of white-collar crime, where accountability has been lacking for decades.

Indeed, the CEO of Corinthian, Jack Massimino, had to pay a grand total of $80,000 to settle a Securities and Exchange Commission case about the college; his chief financial officer had to pay just $20,000. That adds up to just a smidgen of the more than half a million loans Corinthian lured students into to pursue valueless diplomas. Massimino made millions of dollars while serving as Corinthian’s CEO.

Could the government force the controlling officers of for-profit colleges to be personally liable for the fraud they commit? A prominent borrowers’ group and some congressional leaders say yes, but they have met with resistance from the Department of Education. In an exchange of letters late last year and this spring, undersecretary of education James Kvaal claimed that the agency had to get the signatures of owners and controllers of for-profit colleges on official documents in order to hold them liable.

Advocates disagree, but also find this to be a fascinating claim from Kvaal, because in fact the signatures of leading for-profit CEOs—including, it appears, Corinthian’s ex-CEO Massimino—are already on those documents.

At issue is what to do when a for-profit college files for bankruptcy or shutters its operations after defrauding students, leaving the Education Department on the hook for student loan discharges. That financial risk is part of why critics have said that the agency should move quickly to close down predatory colleges on the front end, rather than suffer having to pay the bills afterward.

The department can force colleges suspected of fraud to engage in “heightened risk monitoring” or even file a letter of credit that would get paid in the event of closure. But the amounts of that financial guarantee are usually too low to cover all the losses in the event of a full closure, as was the case with Corinthian.

Student Defense, a borrower advocacy group, laid out the authorities the Education Department has in an October 2020 paper that made clear the department’s authority to hold actual people responsible for the for-profits’ misdeeds. After a series of oversight hearings and testimony of the department’s inspector general in 1992, amendments to the Higher Education Act “may require … the assumption of personal liability” for various financial losses by members of the board of directors, CEO, other executive officer, or individual with at least 25 percent ownership interest (known as the “Institutional Control Group”).

There are a number of these directives within the Higher Education Act amendments of 1992. As Dan Zibel of Student Defense wrote in the Washington Monthly in 2020, “These changes were made with companies like Corinthian in mind.” Yet to date, they have not been used to force personal liability on any members of the Institutional Control Group at a for-profit college.

The message sent is that top for-profit college executives will be able to earn and keep massive sums from schemes that damage students, and the Education Department will pick up the check in the aftermath.

Last August, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, cited the 1992 amendments in a letter and asked the Education Department why they haven’t gone after directors and officers for financial restitution, specifically mentioning Corinthian and several other shuttered for-profits. While short of criminal liability, the forced disgorgement could at least provide some measure of deterrent for the serial activities of for-profit executives.

But on March 31, Undersecretary Kvaal replied to Scott. He agreed that school owners “should be held liable for the wrongdoing or closure of their institutions,” and explained that the department had taken steps to ensure that. Specifically, in March the Education Department required entities with “substantial control” over for-profits to co-sign the “Program Participation Agreement” (PPA), which lays out the college’s conditions for access to federal student aid programs. This was explicitly intended to disincentivize executives from engaging in fraud, because it put them at risk of financial liability. Kvaal noted that the department denied certification for student loan programs to one for-profit because the owner refused to sign the PPA.

Referring to for-profit colleges that already closed down, however, Kvaal wrote, “Unfortunately, the Department did not require the owners of those institutions to assume responsibility for losses by co-signing the PPAs of the institutions. As a result, there is no clear path to collect liabilities from entities or individuals associated with the shuttered institutions.” Bloomberg first reported on this exchange.

Advocates who spoke with the Prospect do not agree, though, that a signature on the PPA is required for the Education Department to seek personal liability. As long as the directors and officers have recognized institutional control of the college, they are fair game, these advocates claim. “The Department says that it’s serious about accountability, but their choice to let these individuals off the hook is baffling,” Dan Zibel, chief counsel at Student Defense and a former Education Department attorney, told Politico.

Even the head of the for-profit college industry’s leading trade group, former member of Congress Jason Altmire, admitted to NPR, “In any case that involves substantial fraud or the owner withdrawing capital before a closure … they absolutely should be subject to [personal liability]. That is the reason that authority exists.”

But say for the sake of argument that you accept Kvaal’s interpretation. There still appear to be multiple instances where for-profit executives signed PPAs.

For example, in a lawsuit filed in 2012 against Corinthian Colleges and two of its former CEOs, David Moore and Jack Massimino, Corinthian’s attorneys state plainly that both Moore and Massimino “signed some Program Participation Agreements” on the college’s behalf. Under Kvaal’s standard, that would appear to make Massimino and Moore eligible for personal liability.

Another example is even more clear-cut. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Brent Richardson, former CEO of Dream Center Education Holdings, and Shelly Murphy, the chief officer for compliance, signed multiple different PPAs in 2017. Dream Center controlled Argosy University, South University, and the Art Institutes, all for-profit colleges that were accused of committing fraud against students and subsequently closed.

In July 2020, the House Education and Labor Committee detailed the extent to which the Dream Center “defrauded students” by claiming to be accredited after losing accreditation, as well as how Trump’s Education Department, then under Betsy DeVos, continued to give the institution access to federal student aid funding. The resulting implosion of the Dream Center network cost at least $600 million. Scott’s initial letter cited Dream Center as well as Corinthian on the subject of personal liability.

These two instances of co-signatures on PPAs make clear that, even under the Education Department’s narrow reading of the statutes on personal liability, it would have a way to go after top executives at both Corinthian and Dream Center. While Kvaal may be intimating that PPAs must be configured differently to explicitly state that signers are financially liable, Student Defense argues that “the Department need not change these agreements to impose personal liability on those with ‘substantial control.’”

The Education Department made a distinction between executives signing as a representative of the institution and signing in their personal capacity. But the signatures in the Dream Center case come under the heading “the owners of the institution agree to be jointly and severally liable for the performance by the institution of its obligations under the agreement.” The Prospect has not seen the Corinthian documents directly. The agency did express a commitment to pursue accountability on past performance requirements if the law allowed it, but their statements thus far do not inspire confidence.

The overall message sent is that top for-profit college executives will be able to earn and keep massive sums from schemes that damage students, and the Education Department will pick up the check in the aftermath, even if they have incontrovertible evidence that these executives were personally liable under the statute.

Moving forward, the Education Department says it is reconstituting an Office of Enforcement to investigate and take action against for-profit wrongdoing. It has sent bulletins on instances of misconduct, in one case involving military veterans and service members. It is strengthening the gainful employment rule, to force for-profits to show that they are placing students in their chosen fields as a condition of access to financial aid, and the borrower defense rule, to better ensure that defrauded students can receive restitution.

But it’s hard to get too excited about these measures, when the department has neglected the evidence at its fingertips to hold individual for-profit college executives accountable.



A USA Today Network/Suffolk University poll in Pennsylvania released this week suggests a clear U.S. Senate frontrunner — with a tighter race for governor.

According to the Suffolk University Political Research Center, Democrat John Fetterman holds a 9-point lead over Republican Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania’s closely watched U.S. Senate race. The two are seeking to fill the seat being vacated by Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey.

In the state’s gubernatorial race, Democrat Josh Shapiro has a 4-point advantage over Republican Doug Mastriano, which is within the poll’s plus or minus 4.4-percentage-point margin of error. Green Party candidate Christina “PK” DiGiulio and Libertarian Party candidate Matt Hackenburg are polling at just 1% each.

The early leads for Fetterman and Shapiro come despite a Republican surge that’s reduced Democrats’ registration lead from 8 percentage points to 4 percentage points since 2018 in the state.

Fetterman and Shapiro also seem to be bucking the headwinds of a poor economy and disapproval of President Joe Biden. More than 44% of poll respondents said economic conditions in Pennsylvania are poor, while 36% said they are fair and just 16% said they are good.



Shocking that they admitted that


Poll: Half of Americans now predict U.S. may ‘cease to be a democracy’ someday

Andrew Romano West Coast Correspondent

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that most Democrats (55%) and Republicans (53%) now believe it is “likely” that America will “cease to be a democracy in the future” — a stunning expression of bipartisan despair about the direction of the country.

Half of all Americans (49%) express the same sentiment when independents and those who do not declare any political affiliation are factored in, while just a quarter (25%) consider the end of U.S. democracy unlikely and another quarter (25%) say they’re unsure.

At the same time, however, a large number of Americans seem indifferent to the high-profile hearings by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — an effort to get to the bottom of one of the most dramatic assaults on the democratic process in U.S. history.

I dont fine this “stunning” at all. We have a corrupt political 1 party system that kow-tows to every whim the rich want. We had a coup d’etat that 148 congresscritters supported. And now were waiting to see if the DOJ will do its job and charge Cult -45 or not. If not that should put a final nail in the coffin as it were as in this country as long as your rich you can do anything your heart desires and get away with it -only us little people will face justice. It was a nice run; our experiment in democracy but voter apathy and low info voters didnt want to keep it. I doubt i’ll be around to see how our new crapate fascist govt works out over the long haul. Climate change will raid thier game if they continue to sit on their asses.



The Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, whose first of six televised hearings began last Thursday, is spectacle replacing politics. There is nothing substantially new in the accusations. The committee lacks prosecutorial power. No charges have been filed by Attorney General Merrick Garland against former President Donald Trump and none are expected.

The choreographed hearings, like the two impeachment trials of Trump, will have no effect on Trump voters, other than to make them feel persecuted, especially with more than 860 people already charged (including 306 guilty pleas) for their role in storming the Capitol. The committee echoes back to Trump opponents what they already believe. It is designed to present inaction as action and substitute role-playing for politics. It perpetuates, as Guy Debord writes, our “empire of modern passivity.”

The committee, which most Republicans boycotted, hired James Goldston, a documentary producer and former president of ABC News, to turn the hearings into engaging television with slick packaging and an array of pithy sound bites.

The result is, and was meant to be, politics as reality television, a media diversion that will change nothing in the dismal American landscape. What should have been a serious bipartisan inquiry into an array of constitutional violations by the Trump administration has been turned into a prime-time campaign commercial for a Democratic Party running on fumes. The epistemology of television is complete. So is its artifice.

The two established wings of the oligarchy, the old Republican Party represented by politicians such as Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the committee, and the Bush family, are now united with the Democratic Party elite into one ruling political entity.



There’s a new sheriff in town.

Two, actually.

And in stunning upsets, both high-ranking female law enforcement officers look like they have beaten the longtime incumbents in Alameda County and San Mateo County, respectively, likely becoming the first two Latina sheriffs in California.

Both are 20-plus year veterans of their departments. Both were outspent. Both are relatively unknown. Both are daughters of immigrants. And both are also promising more progressive platforms.

Though not all the votes are counted, Yesenia Sanchez declared victory against Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern, who has held his post since 2006. She currently has nearly 53% of the vote, canceling the need for a runoff in November.

“The voters of Alameda County have spoken: they yearn for a sheriff who will bring reform, transparency, and accountability to the office,” Sanchez told KTVU on Wednesday. “I hear these calls loud and clear. As the next sheriff of Alameda County, I know that I’ve been entrusted with an enormous duty, and I will make our county proud.”

Further south, Christina Corpus beat San Mateo County Sheriff Carlos Bolanos, removing him from his post of six years, with more than 55% of the vote.

Both of their wins challenge a national narrative that the pursuit of police reform is dead, especially after San Francisco’s uber-liberal District Attorney Chesa Boudin was recalled on June 7.

It turns out that voters embraced change elsewhere, rejecting the status quo in other parts of the state.

“Voters are impatient with the status quo,” San Jose State political science professor Melinda Jackson said. “They’re willing to try something new. We can’t assume voters are done with a progressive model.”

Though the women have announced their wins; the registrars of both counties have not yet completed counting votes. As of Monday night, Alameda County had 82,000 ballots left to tally and San Mateo County had 44,000.

Still, the election looks like its swaying in favor of the two Latinas. And also of note in Monterey County, Tina Nieto, a Latina police chief, had more than 48% of the vote, leading over jail captain Joe Moses, who currently has just over 28% of the vote. Because neither candidate has received more than 50%, there will be a runoff in November.



The campaign manager for Dan Sanchez, the Democrat who lost the special election for Texas’s 34th Congressional District, ripped Democratic leadership for the outcome in the heavily Latino district. 

Sanchez lost to Republican Mayra Flores, who was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. at 6 years old. The district is 85 percent Hispanic and voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 by 21.5 percent and for President Biden by 4.2 percent in 2020. 

The DCCC, DNC, and other associated national committees have failed at their single purpose of existence: winning elections,” Collin Steele, Sanchez’s campaign manager, said in a statement, referring to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee. “The loss in TX34 was a complete and total abdication of duty.”

“We gave up a reliably Democratic Congressional seat for no reason at all; we deserve to know why,” Steele added. 

Democrats decided not to match Republicans’ spending in the race for the seat while expecting to easily win it back in November, when Flores will face Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D), who is moving from the neighboring 15th District to run in the 34th but opted not to leave his current seat to compete in the special election. If she loses, Flores will be in Congress for just about six months.

I hope the DCCC learns their lesson with this before it happens across the country,” Gonzalez said, Politico reported. 

“They have just forgotten about the brown people on the border,” Gonzalez added. “And that’s basically what it is. I’m not going to try to sugarcoat it anymore. They are taking Latinos in South Texas for granted.”

Too busy fighting Cisneros/funding Cuellar.

Theres a lawyer at the firm I work at who worked for Pence when he was governor. Very nice guy despite our differences in politics, we were talking about the Cuellar campaign and the recount, etc etc. At some point I mentioned how dems would rather lose in a general than let a progressive win a primary, and the idea had never occured to him. This is another example.of backing the ‘dem they know’ and potentially losing a seat, instead of letting in new new b