Tale Of 3 Purities... Plus Comrade Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson-- feh!

Three purity-related positions of Democratic establishment’s supporters:

• Loud labelling of Lefties for "purity"
• Louder and very purist labelling of Israeli policies’ critics as "anti-Semitic" and "dis-qualifying"
• Much less-loud hostility towards critics of donor cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Lefties are justifiably annoyed by the (1) vs. (2) contrast, but the (2) vs. (3) contrast is very revealing.

What else do we know?

The cash flow, which is dependent on (3), is fundamental to most participants’ careers and status. In contrast, coddling of ever-more belligerent Israeli government policies flies in the face of these data points:

• A majority of Jewish-Americans (although not of Jewish-American big donors) disagree with Israel’s more-extreme policies, although a majority of that majority is cautious in publicizing much of their disagreements.
• Much of the establishment is descended from families who, until well after the European Jewish Holocaust, restricted Jews’ entry to top universities and career opportunities, and totally excluded them from social clubs, etc.

These contradictions are clarified by the recent visibility of Israeli-American mega-donor Haim Saban’s denunciations of Bernie Sanders-supporting DNC chair candidate Keith Ellison as “anti-Semitic”, etc.:

• Saban is reportedly the single biggest donor, to the Dem Party and, separately, to the Clintons.
• Saban fully shares Republican sugar-daddy Sheldon Adelson’s purity against criticism of Israeli policies (Quote: "no daylight between us on Israel")

What does this tell us?

Purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of Israel, serves:

• not only the (universally recognized) purpose of maintaining cash flows from Saban and other Jewish-American big donors,
• but also as camouflage for the more fundamental goal of purist bashing of Lefties for criticism of all donors’ (whether Jewish, Christian, Saudi Fundamentalist, Russian Orthodox, Chinese Confucianist, etc.) cash to party, and party cash to consultants.

Data supporting the above:

• Bashing Lefties for "anti-Semitism" has a proven track record of political (if not electoral) success. This contrasts sharply with Hillary’s (lack of) electoral success since saying, in 2008 debate with Obama: "Lobbyists are people too!"
• Denouncing purity against "lobbyists" was a classic "gaffe" (i.e.: exposing true beliefs), which most of establishment is smart enough not to repeat. Only “big donors” are more reviled, while "consultants" are catching up as people begin to recognize that they are largely also lobbyists (if sometimes only for themselves).

What could possibly go wrong from using ostensible protection of Jews as a weapon to shut down criticism of donor cash to party and party cash to consultants?

It’s not as though non-Jews, especially those of low-income and/or low-education, are receptive to arguments that "Jews control everything!" …right?

Meanwhile, forget about recusal, will Comrade Jeff Sessions resign as Attorney General after lying under oath to the Senate about meetings with Russians while he was working for the Trump campaign? (Lying to Congress is perjury, which is illegal... even for an Attorney General.) Late this evening, the Washington Post reported that "Justice Department officials" revealed that Sessions spoke twice with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while he was part of the Trump campaign.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

...In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

I guess this means the Republicans are going to find it a lot harder to keep cock-blocking an independent special prosecutor.