It's Not Heidi Heitkamp's Party To Leader Any Longer

Heidi and Trumpanzee

On a recent episode of the NY Times podcast, The Daily, Alex Burns interviewed former Senator Heidi Heitkamp. Whether you call what happened in 2018 a blue wave-- in which case you'd be wrong-- or an anti-red /anti-Trump wave-- in which case you'd be correct-- Heitkamp lost her seat while dozens of other Democrats were winning. Kevin Cramer beat her 179,720 (55.1%) to 144,376 (44.3%), although she outspent him massively. Her own campaign raised $31,025,854 to his $5,947,202 and outside spending was about even for the two candidates.

Heitkamp was on with The Daily, sharing her wisdom on how Democrats can win in 2020 by turning towards the right, the way she did. She had one of the 3 or 4 worst voting records of any Democrat in the Senate, often betraying anything that would be recognizable as progressive or even Democratic. And she lost-- badly-- but she still thinks she gets to urge Democrats to do what she did-- and for some reason, corporate media thinks it's splendid having her dispense her opinions which have been proven so wrong. And, she's very aggressive about her own lameness. She claimed that Democrats backing progressive policies "make the Republicans very happy. That's because she's an idiot who thinks that because she was a senator, she knows what she's talking about. She doesn't; she's clueless.

Her self-proclaimed expertise is about elections in rural America. She won just 12 of North Dakota's 53 counties... and two of them were the only urban counties in the state Grand Forks County and Fargo County. Her conservatism didn't help her in the rural counties. The rural counties she did win were the super-blue Indian reservation counties. But she feels that the progressive ideas which are so popular-- from Medicare-For-All to making the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes-- kill the Democratic chances. She's so utterly un-self aware that she doesn't realize she might have actually held onto her seat if she had backed those ideas instead of disparaged them. She as far from the New Deal ideas on which the Democratic Party is built as you can be and still even remotely call yourself a Democrat. She whined and whined about Democrats not paying attention to rural voters, but I sincerely doubt she's ever considered reading Bernie's platform for rural America.



Yesterday someone with a more pertinent electoral vision, Belén Sisa, wrote about why Bernie is the right candidate for the Latinx community-- and why she's working for his campaign. "As a young activist," she wrote, "one of the first chants I learned was 'Sí se puede'-- yes we can. Simple, yet powerful, the chant (adopted by Barack Obama) was in fact coined by Dolores Huerta and César Chávez, the leaders of the United Farm Workers movement. Huerta and Chávez organized poor Mexican and Filipino farm workers into unions and led boycotts for better pay and working conditions. Chávez and Huerta’s accomplishments are now celebrated as inspiring, but what many don’t remember is that the people behind the United Farm Workers movement were once villainized as 'radical communists.'"

Over the course of history, Latinos and Latinas who have fought for substantive equality have been labeled as radicals again and again. To name a few: we’ve had heroes like Emma Tenayuca, who most notably lead the 1938 Southern Pecan Shelling Company worker’s strike, and Luisa Moreno, who worked to unify Spanish-speaking communities in New York and organized her female coworkers into a Garment Workers Union during the Great Depression.

Those attacks were intended to smear freedom fighters and derail the fight for equality. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

The desire for true economic freedom is what drives movements like these to deliver victories for the working class around the world.

In 1965, farm workers were paid 90 cents per hour with an additional 10 cents per bucket they picked. Along with these unlivable wages, the workers were subject to inhumane work conditions with little to no access to water, no toilets, and race-segregated housing. Workers paid two dollars or more per day for mosquito infested unheated metal shacks that had no indoor plumbing or cooking facilities.

What César Chávez understood is that getting people involved in direct action could change politics. He believed that liberty for his community would only come if workers owned a piece of their workplace and had decision-making power. The Farm Workers Credit Union provided loans to workers when banks denied them. Instead, the banks financed the big farm owners who were exploiting their workers in the fields.

By pulling together their resources as a community, workers were able to sustain themselves through the winter months and into summer months when they went on strike. Solidarity gave them freedom and autonomy to fight for their economic and human rights.

Huerta and Chávez were not alone. The Brown Berets helped lead the fight against police brutality, bad school conditions and a racist educational system in East Los Angeles during the 1960s and 1970s, putting free programs in place to help their communities.

The Brown Berets, a Chicanx liberation group, founded El Barrio Free Clinic in response to pressing issues facing the Mexican American community, like the lack of access to affordable healthcare. The clinic was operated by an all-volunteer staff and helped low-income families who could not afford to see primary doctors near them. The community came together to ensure that all people, even those with limited resources, had quality healthcare and giving them true economic freedom from healthcare bills.

Sadly, we still face many of the same disparities as the movements before us. Healthcare in our country has not become more accessible. In fact, nearly 1 in 5 Latinos in the United States are uninsured, which makes Latinos the largest uninsured ethnic group in the country. Currently, organizations like Mijente, Movimiento Cosecha, and RAICES are spearheading people-owned and powered services to help our community with legal fees, housing, and legal services at no cost in the fight for justice.

Latinx workers, disproportionately working in minimum wage jobs, are still fighting for a living wage, the right to unionize, better working conditions, and basic benefits like paid time off and family, sick, and maternity leave.

So when we hear Senator Bernie Sanders saying that everyone living in this country should be able to receive free-at-point-of-service health care (regardless of immigration status), that’s revolutionary. When we see him say we should raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars and confront Walmart to allow workers to own part of the company they work for, we are seeing someone who is standing with working class people in this country by calling out the greed that has kept too many of us poor without the economic freedom to thrive.

Our campaign is talking about a government by the people, for the people, to help the people-- and that’s why those in power are using the same old scare tactics they’ve used against every person in our country’s history who has fought to do good for all people rather than for their bottom line.

True economic and social freedom is realized by empowering people, not big government or big corporations. We elect our legislators to protect and expand our economic rights. Now it’s up to us to hold them accountable.

Now more than ever, in the face of right-wing nationalism and our rapid movement towards oligarchy, we must stand up and remind this country that our victories have always been driven by people power. It’s time to come together for the good of all-- just like our forebears did for the rights we enjoy today.

César Chávez and the Farm Workers Credit Union, the Brown Berets and their community health centers, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Poor People’s Campaign: our country is replete with examples of heroes that made a difference. Now it’s up to us to make this country a place where all of us have the economic and human rights we deserve. It’s going to take all of us coming together to create a country where all of us can thrive, not just a wealthy few. When we think about who to vote for, we should choose the candidate who has been amplifying and supporting our fight for worker’s rights, by walking with workers on picket lines and trying to ensure a dignified life for all regardless of immigration status, income, race, or gender.

I believe that candidate is Bernie Sanders.

By the way, every poll I've seen that measures support for the primary candidates by ethnic demographic, shows Bernie leading among Latinos They seem to understand this better than other groups do:.

Superior Solution For The SCOTUS Emergency

Barrett by Chip Proser

by David Leibowitz

Indivisible has recently posted a web page titled “The 2-Step Strategy to Win the Supreme Court Fight” that clearly lays out the available conventional grassroots tools and strategies for dealing with the SCOTUS emergency. The first step is to block the approval of any Supreme Court nominee during the remainder of the current Senate session. The conventional methods now being brought into play in that effort are worth trying and could succeed, but have a high probability of failure. Neither of the two Republican senators whose cooperation we require is up for re-election this year, with their next general elections being more than two and more than four years away. The three Democratic senators whose cooperation we require are standing for re-election this November--but their primaries are over and their re-election this November seems to be essential if the Democrats are to win control of the Senate next year. The next election at which they could pay any price from the Democratic base for voting “yes” on a SCOTUS nomination this year is a whopping six years off. The grassroots anger that will erupt immediately following any “yes” vote by any of the five senators will have been forgotten by virtually all voters by time each senator’s next election contest rolls around with its fresh current issues. Therefore, all five senators whose cooperation we need in this emergency are effectively free to vote “yes” for a Trump SCOTUS nominee in 2018 with political impunity—and they know it. If any one of them responds favorably to petitions, phone calls, emails, demonstrations, newspaper ads and other conventional lobbying efforts, it will be as a matter of conscience, decency and political courage only. In politics, other considerations often override those personal attributes. Yet we need a minimum of four of those five senators to vote “No”. There’s got to be a better way!

There IS a better way: the conditional pledge drive. In a conditional pledge drive, a very large number of individuals who cumulatively hold real power over a targeted incumbent politician sign conditional pledges, that are then bundled together by the drive’s organizers and presented to the politician to induce the politician to behave a certain way. The pledges are not declared effective and their submission to the politician does not commence until a targeted minimum number of them has been collected (based on analyses of the voting population and history in the politician’s district). The pledges can take various forms depending on the political context. In the current context, pledge drives can be designed to influence a politician to vote “No” on any nomination to the Supreme Court either for the remainder of the current session of Congress (step 1 in Indivisible’s classification), the entire duration of the next session of Congress (step 2), or the remainder of the current Presidential term (steps 1 and 2 combined). Below, I will discuss, with examples, conditional pledge drives intended to compel a politician to vote “No” during the remainder of the current session of Congress. First I will discuss conditional voter pledge drives, using Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski as examples. Then I will discuss conditional pledge drives targeting Democratic Senators Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin III. In the course of that discussion I will introduce two additional kinds of conditional pledge drives and make some recommendations concerning the structuring of conditional pledge campaigns.

Conditional Voter Pledge Drives targeting Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski

In the current context, a conditional voter pledge targeting one of the Republican senators might say, for example:

Dear Senator [Collins][Murkowski]: I am a registered voter in your state. The right of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is extremely important to me. Preserving that right is so important to me that I hereby solemnly make the following pledge: If you fail to vote “No” on all of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations that come to a vote before the next Congress is seated in 2019, then I will not vote for your re-election in [2020][2022] and I will vote for one of your opponents in that election if any opponent is acceptable to me, regardless of your performance as my senator in all other respects. I will behave as a single-issue voter in [2020][2022], basing my voting decision solely on your 2018 failure to vote “No” on all of Trump’s Supreme Court nominations, and my goal in that election will be to remove you from office.

The primary purpose of a conditional voter pledge campaign is to convince the targeted politician that to fail to fulfil the stated requirement of the pledgees now will be to commit a political suicide that will take effect at the politician’s next run for office. This is likely to compel the politician to vote the right way.  The secondary purposes are to raise the consciousness of voters who currently may support the politician and to help remove the politician from office in the next election in case the politician votes the wrong way now. Thanks to these secondary effects, funds invested in a conditional voter pledge drive are not wasted even if the pledge drive fails to achieve its primary purpose. A conditional voter pledge drive is purely an issue-focused drive and welcomes and solicits pledges from all registered voters eligible to vote in the next primary or general election, including current supporters of the targeted politician.

Under the existing circumstances, a well-executed conditional voter pledge drive is the only tool in our arsenal that has the power of compulsion. All other available methods depend upon the good will and reasonableness of the targeted politician and can safely be ignored by that politician-- especially since senators Collins and Murkowski will be under tremendous compulsive pressure from the Republican establishment. The compulsive mechanism of the conditional voter pledge drive relies directly on actual vote numbers. It is therefore more powerful than the compulsive power of the Republican Party, which depends on the granting or withholding of financial support and political favors so is at best one step removed from actual vote numbers. If a sufficient number of conditional voter pledges are collected statewide, our side should prevail.

A conditional voter pledge drive is a major undertaking, comparable to (but less expensive than) an election campaign for a political candidate in the same political district. It also has unique challenges arising from the time delay between the action being sought from the politician and the corresponding response from the voters. On account of those characteristics, it is appropriate for only a small subset of political situations. The current Supreme Court emergency is such a situation because:

(1)      The issue [effectively, a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion] is very easy for virtually every voter to understand;
(2)      The issue is of such great importance, and its linkage with the filling of this particular Supreme Court seat is so strong, that a large percentage of the electorate ought to be willing to become conditional single-issue voters in this particular case;
(3)      The action being requested of the politician [don’t vote for any Supreme Court nominee until the next Congress is in session in early 2019] will seem extremely reasonable to most voters;
(4)      The action being requested of the politician is of a simple yes-or-no nature, with no ambiguity about it;
(5)      The issue is of such great importance that a groundswell of grassroots support can be expected-- which would enable the statewide collection of signed pledges in a reasonable period of time at relatively low expense, once such a campaign is initiated and publicized; and
(6)      The terrible cost to society of failing to stop Trump from getting a nominee approved before 2019 justifies the expense of conditional voter pledge drives.  Well-targeted and well-run conditional voter pledge drives are likely to succeed, whereas all other options currently available seem likely to fail.

A conditional voter pledge drive will not have the power of compulsion unless it is structured in such a way that (a) a sufficient number of the pledges will be redeemable two or more years into the future, and (b) the targeted politician will be convinced that a sufficient number of those pledges will be redeemed at her next election contest to end her political career if she defies the pledgees now.Otherwise, the pledges may have no more power than an ordinary petition. I have already figured out the kinds of structures that should meet the two requirements to make the pledges redeemable and compulsive to the politician.

A conditional voter pledge drive in Maine or Alaska can be reinforced by a conditional future voter pledge drive in the same state and a nation-wide conditional contributor pledge drive.

Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin-- the three Democrats currently known to pose the greatest risk of voting to approve a Trump SCOTUS nominee in 2018-- are all up for re-election this year but, are effectively immune from attack by any conditional voter pledge drive that comes due in this year’s general election. They will then remain safe until their next elections in 2024.The six-year delay between deed and any potential punishment poses the greatest challenge to a conditional pledge campaign that can be found in American politics. We need a strategy with sufficient power to compel these three senators to hold the SCOTUS seat open until the next session of Congress.

1.        Conditional Voter Pledges. An example of such a pledge, specialized for this emergency situation, follows. Elements of it that are not self-explanatory are then briefly explained.

Dear Senator _______: I am a registered voter in your state, and I am registered under a classification that qualifies me to vote in Democratic Party primary elections. The right of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is extremely important to me. Preserving that right is so important to me that I hereby solemnly make the following pledge: If you fail to vote “No” for every one of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations that comes to a vote before the next Congress is seated in 2019, and if I still qualify to vote in the respective election(s) in 2024, then: (a) I will vote against you in the 2024 Democratic primary election; (b) if you have more than one challenger in the2024 Democratic primary, I will vote for the one that is endorsed by [NAME OF SENATOR-SPECIFIC PLEDGE ORGANIZATION] to avoid splitting the vote against you; and (c) if you are the Democratic candidate in the 2024 election, and if polling close to the 2024 general election suggests that your defeat in the general election will not compromise Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, I will vote for your Republican opponent in the 2024 general election. I will behave as a single-issue voter in that election, basing my voting decision solely on your 2018 vote in favor of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and my primary goal in that election will be to remove you from office.

Explanations/Comments:  The “SENATOR-SPECIFIC PLEDGE ORGANIZATION” is the special-purpose entity that is set up to carry out the pledge campaign in 2018.  If the targeted senator votes for a Trump SCOTUS nominee in 2018, that organization will extend its existence for the following six years in order to participate in the 2024 elections. Prior to the 2024 primary election, if the incumbent senator has more than one primary opponent, all the pledgees will be polled to select a single candidate on whom to concentrate their votes. It is essential that there be only one senator-specific pledge organization per senator.

2.        Conditional Future Voter Pledges. An example of such a pledge, specialized for this emergency situation, follows. Elements of it that are not self-explanatory are then briefly explained.

Dear Senator _______:  I am a resident of your state. I meet all of the state’s qualifications to be a registered voter except that I am too young. I will be old enough to vote in one or both of the 2024 Democratic primary election and the 2024 general election.  The right of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is extremely important to me. Preserving that right is so important to me that I hereby solemnly make the following pledge: If you fail to vote “No” for every one of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations that comes to a vote before the next Congress is seated in 2019, and if I am still a resident of your state at the relevant future time: (a) I will register or preregister to vote, under a classification that will qualify me to vote in Democratic primaries, in time to qualify to vote in the 2024 Democratic primary (if I will be old enough to vote by its date) or the 2024 general election (if I will be too young to vote in the 2024 Democratic primary). (b) If I qualify to vote in the 2024 Democratic Primary, I will vote against you in that primary election, and if you have more than one opponent in that election I will vote for whichever candidate is endorsed by [NAME OF SENATOR-SPECIFIC PLEDGE ORGANIZATION] to avoid splitting the vote against you. (c) If you are the Democratic candidate in the 2024 general election, and if polling close to the date of the 2024 general election indicates that your defeat in the general election will not compromise Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, I will vote for your Republican opponent in the 2024 general election. I will behave as a single-issue voter, basing my voting decision solely on your 2018 “yes” vote in favor of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, and my primary goal in that election will be to remove you from office.

Explanations/Comments: The six-year delay until 2024 offers a big opportunity to recruit individuals who are still too young to vote into the current political process.  Since younger voters are the most progressive voters of all, this type of pledge should really scare the politician!

3.        Conditional Contributor Pledges.  An example of such a pledge, specialized for this emergency situation, follows. Elements of it that are not self-explanatory are then briefly explained.

Dear Senator _______:  I am an individual who is legally qualified to make political contributions in the United States. The right of a woman to have a safe and legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is extremely important to me.  Preserving that right is so important to me that I hereby solemnly make the following pledge:  If you fail to vote “No” for every one of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations that comes to a vote before the next Congress is seated in 2019, then I will immediately make a political donation of at least $________ to [NAME OF SENATOR-SPECIFIC PLEDGE ORGANIZATION].  [NAME OF SENATOR-SPECIFIC PLEDGE ORGANIZATION] is a single-purpose entity, the sole purpose of which is to persuade you to vote against all of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations for so long as the current session of Congress continues, and to see to it that in case you vote “yes” for any Trump Supreme Court nominee during the current session of Congress, your political career will be ended in 2024.

Explanations/Comments: Six years is a long time and people forget easily. In case the targeted senator votes “yes” for a 2018 Trump nominee, the pledge organization will need to keep track of as many of its pledgees as possible over that period, and inform them from time to time of the most recent terrible Supreme Court decision that was made possible by the 2018 vote of the targeted senator. In election year 2024, the pledge organization will need to remind all pledgees of their commitment, it may need to recruit a high-quality candidate to oppose the targeted senator in a 2014 primary or to conduct a poll of its voter and future voter pledgees to endorse a challenger in the primary, and then it will need to help support the campaign of the challenger in the primary. For all these things it will need adequate funding. The best time to collect those funds will be during the period of outrage that immediately follows the targeted senator’s “yes” vote, and then immediately following news-making terrible Supreme Court decisions during the following years. Furthermore, each signer of any of the three pledge types should be encouraged to make a small financial contribution at the time of pledging. In addition to supporting the pledge effort, this initial contribution will serve psychologically to commit them more strongly to honor the pledge they make.

Concluding Comments

The scope of the voter pledge drives (both kinds) would be limited to the senator’s state, while the contribution pledges would be nation-wide in scope, and all would be carried out by a single-purpose entity created for that sole purpose.

Alternatively, an existing political organization might carry out one or more senator-specific pledge drives, but it would need to set up a segregated account for all pledge-campaign-related activities relating to a given senator.) After the purpose has been achieved (either after the senator votes “no” in 2018 as requested, or else after a senator who voted “yes” has been defeated in 2024) all remaining funds would be distributed and the special-purpose entity would be dissolved. The remaining funds would be distributed preferentially to any similar pledge drives (targeting any other senators who voted “Yes” in 2018) that are still active. If no other such pledge drive remains active, the remaining funds would be distributed pro rata to other ongoing political organizations that were specified by the final fund’s original contributors at the time they made their contributions.

By combining all three types of pledge into a single pledge campaign, and by reminding pledgees periodically over the six-year period of the terrible consequences that the “yes”-voter’s 2018 vote is continuing to have, it should be possible to make the pledges (a) objectively redeemable in 2024 and (b) subjectively convincing and compulsive to the politician in 2018. Appropriate details of the pledge campaign’s structure and plan of action would be explained and documented to the politician in 2018 to persuade the politician that a “yes” vote would be a career-ending vote.

Conditional pledge drive campaigns require work, but they are the only tool at our disposal in the current SCOTUS emergency that has the power of compulsion-- in contrast to all the other standard lobbying methods that consist basically of relatively-impotent, expensive begging. There can be no confidence that the standard lobbying methods will work on the five politicians we need to influence. On the other hand, well-conducted conditional pledge drives against them would seem to be very likely to succeed. There is no time for an individual like me working alone or a small group of individuals with sparse resources to organize a conditional pledge drive in time. Already-existing political groups with existing funding, facilities, and media and campaigning expertise MUST step in and make the effort. Established organizations often don’t want to take risks like this, but the current situation requires at least one of them to do so and to move boldly, quickly and decisively.

If you are a decision-maker in a political group with the resources to participate in such campaigns, I would be happy to help your organization design a conditional pledge campaign.

David Leibowitz
DLpolitical@aol.com

Colluding With The Republicans To Help Wall Street Will Hurt Right Of Center Senate Democrats, Not Help Them

One strategy for conservative Democratic senators in Trump states to win reelection is to show voters back home how bipartisan they are. I wonder if touting the Wall-street friendly dismantling of Dodd-Frank is a good idea for Democrats. Republicans aren't going to vote for them; they have their own candidates. Perhaps some independents will. But how many Democrats will be discouraged by those tactics to not turn out in November? We'll find out in North Dakota, Indiana and Montana, where 3 endangered Democratic senators are running away from core Democratic values and embracing mainstream conservatism. Last Thursday Trump signed a bill Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly and Jon Tester had attached their name to as co-authors (though it was actually written by bank lobbyists).

Tester: "One-size-fits-all rules from Washington have been strangling Montana’s Main Street economy and threatening our rural way of life. When the extremes on both sides of the aisle tried to derail our efforts, we bucked partisan politics and instead found common ground."

Extremes? Who would that be? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie? I'm sure the 3 right-wing senators are aware that Bernie won the 2016 primaries in their states against the status quo candidate all three of them supported (Hillary).

• North Dakota:
• Bernie- 64.2%
• Hillary- 25.6%

• Indiana:
• Bernie- 52.5%
• Hillary- 47.5%

• Montana:
• Bernie- 51.1%
• Hillary- 44.6%

I can't imagine that any-- or many-- of these Bernie voters are going to vote for the Republican Senate challengers in November. After all, the Democratic incumbents are certainly the lesser of two evils. But I wonder how many of these Democrats are just fed up with voting for lesser evils and will just not turn out at all.

There are 56 counties in Montana. Bernie won 34 of them. 3 small ones were exactly tied. Only 5 have over 80,000 people:

• Yellowstone- 50.2% Hillary
• Missoula- 60.4% Bernie
• Gallatin- 57.0% Bernie
• Flathead- 55.5% Bernie
• Cascade- 52.7%

Is Tester going to explain to these people that Bernie is "extreme?" For wanting to keep banks from blowing up the economy again?

[W]hether the law will turn into electoral gold remains to be seen.

The banking industry remains deeply unpopular, and liberal activists have assailed the new law as a giveaway to the financial industry.

“There’s nobody that is going to be motivated to support someone because they’re proving their bipartisanship by giving banks what they want,” said a former Democratic strategist now leading a liberal nonprofit.

Trump made slashing Obama regulations a pillar of his 2016 campaign, and he pledged to “dismantle” Dodd-Frank shortly after his election. He hailed the new law as delivering on that promise.

“This is truly a great day for Americans, and a great day for workers and small businesses across the nation,” Trump said at the Thursday signing.

Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly were key forces behind the successful loosening of the Dodd-Frank rules. The trio, along with Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), anchored the Democratic side of the negotiations.

...Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly have also dismissed suggestions that they pushed to loosen the banking rules to protect their right flank in the midterm elections. While Heitkamp has avoided Trump’s wrath so far, the president has held rallies in Tester and Donnelly’s states in support of their Republican opponents.

“This election has nothing to do with this,” Tester said during a March press conference on the bill. “This has everything to do with access to capital and making sure rural America remains strong moving forward. If this bill didn't do that, I wouldn't support it."

While praise from Trump is toxic for Democrats in liberal strongholds, it could provide a boost to moderates from states where Trump is popular.

Praise from Trump? Was Sylvan Lane smoking crack when he wrote that? And where were his editors? Smoking crack with him? Trump isn't going to be praising Tester, Donnelly or Heitkamp before the election. This morning the NY Times reported that Trump "is planning to focus his midterm campaigning this summer on red states with competitive Senate races where he has a deep reservoir of support and can bring a message devised to stoke partisan outrage. The strategy is intended to take advantage of his star power among core Republican supporters while minimizing his exposure in states with competitive congressional races where his polarizing presence could help motivate Democrats as well as independents and moderate Republicans." Perhaps they should be hoping they get praise from Bernie.

It remains to be seen whether scaling back rules on banks will help the Democratic candidates win Republican votes, but polling indicates it could work.

Close to 70 percent of Republicans polled by Gallup in November said there is too much federal regulation of businesses, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.

A July study from Pew also showed a 13-point gap in the share of Republicans (46 percent) and Democrats (33 percent) who said banks and financial institutions have a positive impact on the U.S.

The American Bankers Association (ABA), a top U.S. bank lobbying group, has sought to aid Democrats who’ve supported efforts to roll back Dodd-Frank. The group spent $100,000 on TV ads in Montana featuring bankers praising Tester for his work on loosening bank rules.

“The release of these positive television ads represents another step in ABA’s advocacy for our members,” said ABA press secretary Ian McKendry. “We will be supporting candidates in both parties who have advocated for policies that will help banks better serve their customers and communities.”

But other campaign veterans doubt that the senators’ support for the law will be a difference-maker in November.

Stuart Roy, a GOP strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Cocaine Mitch (R-KY), said “endangered Democrats will find this vote as helpful as a parachute that opens after the second bounce.”

“Voters barely remember big legislation,” Roy said, calling the bill “not even a fraction” of the importance of the main issues driving voters to the polls.

Roy also said Democrats could risk suppressing their base by touting efforts to scrap regulations.

A February poll commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit supporting tough bank laws, found that only 17 percent of voters support loosening regulations on the biggest firms impacted by the bipartisan bill.

The survey, conducted by left-leaning Public Policy Polling, also found that 59 percent of voters support Dodd-Frank, and only 25 percent believe it went too far in regulating banks.

The former Democratic strategist said Democratic support for the Dodd-Frank bill is mainly useful as a way to keep financial sector super PACs and bank lobbyists from supporting their Republican opponents.

“It allows them to try to keep industry from donating to their opponent,” the strategist said. “But in terms of winning voters, it’s a losing issue for everybody.”

This kind of blatant anti-populism is going to cost Heitkamp, Donnelly and Tester dearly in November. They should have followed Manchin, who was smart enough to vote for the grassroots on this one. And I bet Democrats and independents agree with Elizabeth Warren on this one, not Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly or Jon Tester... or Donald Trump.

Related-- very related: Despite the DCCC urging Democratic candidates to keep at arm's length from Medicare-for-All, it's the candidates who are ignoring their bad advice who are doing the best. The DCCC is incapable of learning that lesson though, even if they weep bitterly as their shit candidates-- like Jay Hulings (TX), Brad Ashford (NE) and Jim Gray (KY) are flushed down the electoral toilet. Jake Johnson for Common Dreams:

With Medicare for All reaching record levels of support among both members of Congress and the American public—where support for single-payer is spreading "like wildfire"-- policy platforms demanding that the U.S. ditch its wasteful and deeply immoral for-profit system in favor of guaranteed healthcare for every American are also proving to be winners in Democratic primary fights across the country.

In red and blue states alike, candidates backing Medicare for All have emerged victorious in Democratic primary battles where, in some cases, their opponents had the backing of the party establishment.

...Further demonstrating the American public's hunger for a system that guarantees healthcare as a right regardless of one's ability to pay, a town hall hosted by Sanders and other Medicare for All advocates earlier this year drew 1.6 million viewers despite a complete blackout by the corporate media.

"It ain't gonna be on CBS. It ain't gonna be on NBC. What astounds me is we already have a pretty good majority of the American people who already believe in universal healthcare, believe that it is the government's responsibility to make sure that health care is a right," Sanders said. "And we have reached that stage with media not talking about the issue at all."

"Together we will successfully move the United States to a Medicare-for-All, single-payer healthcare system and guarantee healthcare to all," Sanders concluded.

Bad Medicine (For Us) From The Trump Regime-- Backed By Half A Dozen Conservative Democrats

This week 6 corporate Democrats voted to confirm Alex Azar to be Secretary of Health and Human Services:

• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Doug Jones (D-AL)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Maine independent Angus King also voted to confirm and Rand Paul was the only Republican to break with his party, cross the aisle in the other direction and vote NO. Paul said he voted against him because Azar opposes drug importation but Heitkamp said she was voting for him because he is "incredibly competent... I don’t share a lot of his philosophy," she said, "but he understands, as someone who has been in the administration, the importance of the rule of law and compliance. I believe I can work with him in the future, especially on Indian health." If she means by that, raising the cost of pharmaceuticals, she's right. He proved he can do that when he was the head of Eli Lilly’s U.S. operation ( 2012 to 2017).

Skyrocketing drug prices are the bain of many people's lives. I think I mentioned when I got back from Thailand a couple of weeks ago. I bought a couple of months worth of one drug I take that costs $3,000 a month here and less than a fifth of that there. I also bough several inhalers for $6 each in Thailand and $70-80 in the U.S. with insurance.

When Azar was running Eli Lilly he tripled the price of insulin for example. Is that what Heitkamp thinks is going to help her American Indian constituents back in North Dakota? Heitkamp and the Republicans are basically using the laughable argument that who's better to fight crime than criminals. That doesn't work with predators like Azar (or Trump or any of his cabinet appointments).

The only part of Medicare that sucks is Bush's Medicare Part D-- the part that insures (badly) drugs. Azar was a key Bush staffer on that. Bush's Health Secretary Mike Leavitt appointed Azar to oversee the department’s regulatory process. Remember when Trump, on the campaign trail, said that firms like Eli Lilly were "getting away with murder?" Now he's put one of the most brutal murderers in charge.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee: "Azar’s nomination is a perfect encapsulation of the president’s broken promises on prescription drugs and health care overall." Almost all the Democratic senators looked at Azars pledge to address rising drug prices in the light of what he did at Eli Lilly significantly raise prices. He opposes the Affordable Care Act and is an anti-Choice fanatic, which probably helps explain why other conservative Democratic women who often cross the aisle to vote for Trump's nominees left Heitkamp other own this time.

Kaylie Hanson Long, a spokeswoman for NARAL: "It is sad, but not surprising, that Donald Trump is so desperate to install another anti-choice ideologue at HHS, an agency that's critical for women's healthcare. HHS has a duty to protect the health, rights, and reproductive freedom of women all across America, and Azar's clear and consistent anti-choice record should disqualify him from such an influential position."

Jenny Marshall in the progressive candidate running for the House seat in northwest North Carolina-- the seat Virginia Foxx occupies. She explained that "It is the job of the Senate to confirm well qualified candidates who will serve the people of this country through their departments. So far President Trump has put forward nominees who despise the departments they would oversee, were completely incompetent and who would stand to make fortunes from the policies they enact. This is not best for the people of this country and it erodes the very fabric of our government. My fellow Democrats and I should be standing strong against these kinds of nominees. Our country deserves better."

Holding Senators Accountable For Bad Votes-- Like Confirming Neil Gorsuch To The Supreme Court

Gorsuch throws a gang sign: "thin the herd"

What do you think-- should senators be considered responsible-- by voters-- for the actions of Supreme Court judges they vote to confirm? I've always thought so. There were 3 Democrats-- Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch and a 4th, Michael Bennet (D-CO) , who voted with the Republicans procedurally to enable the confirmation. Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin are all up for reelection next year-- and in states which Trump won by big majorities-- 56.82% to 37.91% in Indiana, 62.96% to 27.23% in North Dakota and 68.50% to 26.43% in West Virginia. The electoral calculus by each senator was that they had more to lose by voting NO than to gain by voting YES, knowing Democrats in their states would be likely to ignore the bad vote for the Gorsuch-- as well, in each case, bad vote after bad vote all year.

And no one can claim they weren't warned about how bad Gorsuch was likely to be on the Court. There wasn't a good government group in the country that wasn't sounding the alarm. Ian Millhiser, the Justice Editor for Think Progress was especially outspoken and especially dire in his predictions. Over the weekend, he wrote an I told you so piece. The carefully choreographed and intentionally deceptive hearings didn't indicate the Gorsuch would likely be the worst justice on the Court-- but you had to be deaf, dumb and blind to have missed that during the process. Today, writes Millhiser, "Gorsuch is disrespectful of precedent and eager to move the law very far, very fast. His agenda is both well-thought out and extraordinarily conservative. When the Court splits into its old factions, with Justice Clarence Thomas staking out a position that no other member of the Court will sign onto, Gorsuch embraces Thomas’ view. Gorsuch spent the last day of the Court’s just-concluded term, moreover, laying out a vision that will make culture warriors bounce with glee. His ascension to the Supreme Court was the culmination of an effort to protect religious conservatives by any means necessary. And, if Gorsuch gets his way, some very basic civil rights will bow to the Christian right."

[Robert] George is probably the nation’s leading anti-LGBTQ scholar. A former chair of the National Organization for Marriage, which tried and failed to halt the spread of marriage equality in the United States, George was cited twice in a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, which complained that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was struck down.

George gushed about the Gorsuch nomination in an op-ed published by the Washington Post. “Gorsuch will be a hard man to depict as a ferocious partisan or an ideological judge,” George wrote of a man who tried to hobble a law protecting disabled children before he was unanimously rebuked by his eight new colleagues.

Yet, in a straightforward admission that George knew what he stood to gain from a Gorsuch confirmation, the professor also wrote that, on “abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, campaign finance reform and religious freedom,” Gorsuch was likely to vote “pretty much the same way Scalia did.”

Indeed, if Neil Gorsuch gets his way, the hundreds of defiant conservative leaders who signed George’s Manhattan Declaration will be given broad discretion to defy the law by the Supreme Court itself.

Echoing religious conservatives who sought the right to deny birth control coverage to their employees, Gorsuch wrote as a lower court judge in the original Hobby Lobby litigation that “all of us face the problem of complicity,” and “all of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others.”

Hobby Lobby set off a doctrinal earthquake when it reached the Supreme Court, holding, for the first time, that a religious objection can be wielded to limit the rights of a third party. And now, with Gorsuch occupying a seat on the Supreme Court, the Court is preparing to hear a case that could grant the Christian right a license to engage in straight up discrimination.

Gorsuch, moreover, has already telegraphed how he will vote in this case.

Last Monday was a big day for Neil Gorsuch--  and not a hopeful day for anyone who believes that LGBTQ people are fully human and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. Gorsuch revealed himself as a hardline conservative on marriage equality and called for a broad expansion of Hobby Lobby. And he did so on the very same morning that the Court announced that it would decide whether religion is a license to discriminate.

The marriage equality case involved an Arkansas law providing that a mother’s husband will automatically be listed on a birth certificate as the child’s father, even in many cases where the husband is not the biological father, but that did not afford similar treatment to same-sex couples. Such a rule, a majority of the Supreme Court explained, violates the Court’s holding in Obergefell v. Hodges that “the Constitution entitles same-sex couples to civil marriage ‘on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’”

Gorsuch disagreed, pointing to the state’s arguments “that rational reasons exist for a biology based birth registration regime.” Never mind, of course, that Arkansas did not have a “biology based birth registration regime,” as it often listed non-biological parents on birth certificates so long as that parent is a man married to a woman.

The conservative jurist’s use of the word “rational” here is also highly significant, as it offers a window into how Gorsuch views discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation generally. The lowest level of scrutiny the Court applies in constitutional discrimination cases-- the level it typically applies to allegations it views as dubious-- is known as “rational basis,” and it provides that the government is free to do whatever it wants so long as it can articulate a rational reason for doing so.

So when Gorsuch defended Arkansas’s law by pointing to allegedly “rational reasons” for it to exist, he suggested that discrimination based on sexual orientation isn’t something the courts should worry themselves about.

It's another factor that needs to go into calculations for voters when they decide in 17 months whether or not to vote for Donnelly, Heitkamp and Manchin. In Manchin's case, there's also a primary, which, for a progressive, should be a no brainer. There's no chance the progressive Berniecrat running against him, Paula Jean Swearengin, would have ever voted to confirm Gorsuch-- or voted to have confirmed Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA, as Manchin (and Heitkamp) did.

We're stuck with Gorsuch for life-- voters can-- and should-- remove Manchin

Wilbur Ross And The Russian Roots Of Trump's New Kleptocracy/Kakistocracy

You may have come to expect cowardly conservative careerists in the Senate like Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to cross the aisle and rubber-stamp virtually all of Trump's horrendous nominees for high public office. But the vote Monday on billionaire Trump crony and murderer Wilbur Ross didn't follow the regular pattern. Ross was confirmed as Secretary of Commerce-- no one really questioning him on the Sago Mining disaster or on his financial connections to Putin's kleptocracy-- 72-27. Every Republican, of course, voted yes. But so did 21 Democrats (not including Manchin, who, presumably out of deference to the families of the dead miners Ross killed, broke with the Trump Regime on this one). These are the Democrats who voted to confirm Ross:

• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Sherrod Brown (OH)
• Tom Carper (DE)
• Bob Casey (PA)
• Chris Coons (DE)
• Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)
• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Tammy Duckworth (IL)
• Dianne Feinstein (CA)
• Maggie Hassan (NH)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Amy Klobuchar (MN)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Bill Nelson (FL)
• Gary Peters (MI)
• Brian Schatz (HI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Mark Warner (VA)

I just watched Señor Trumpanzee signing a couple of executive orders on TV while I was putting on my shoes and socks. He thanked a gaggle of right-wing hacks in the room to witness it-- Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Barrasso (R-WY), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Nan Fischer (R-NE) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). These are all members from states and districts that went for Trump in November and all of them see themselves-- for whatever reason-- as rubber stamps for his horrific agenda, You may have noticed that one is a Democrat, Heitkamp. She has the single worst voting record in the Senate of any Democrat-- a 57.87 lifetime crucial vote score (obviously, an "F"). Few people realize she's actually been a worse voter than Joe Manchin, albeit not by much. She has to face North Dakota voters in 2018. I don't know who she expects to support her. Democrats are sickened by her acquiescence to all things Trump and Republicans will have their own even worse right-wing nut to vote for. Trump beat Hillary in North Dakota 216,784 (63.0%)-93,758 (27.2%), one of Clinton's worst performances. She only won 2 tiny counties in the state, Rolette and Sioux (both of which had been won by Obama in 2012, although he won 6 counties and 124,827 votes (39%). On that same day in 2012 that Obama was taking 124,827 votes, Heitkamp was winning her first Senate term with 161,163 votes, less than 3,000 more votes than Congressman Rick Berg. Many North Dakotans were prepared to split their tickets.

Just over half the Democrats who voted for confirm Ross are up for reelection in 2018. Like Heitkamp, their names are bolded above. Why do these senators always appear to be frightened of Trump and his voters instead of being frightened by Democratic voters who may be angry that they are rubber-stamps for Trump? For example, Feinstein-- if she decides to run again; she'd be nearly 86 wen her next term begins-- might want to consider that a mainstream California Democrat could primary her. Trump lost California 8,753,788 to 4,483,810 and she doesn't have to worry about his 31.5% of the voters and kiss his ass for political reasons. Trump lost the 13 biggest counties in the state-- including GOP-leaning areas like Orange, Riverside and Fresno counties.

Who's going to be held responsible when Wilbur Ross, a top Russian money laundering asset, swings into action? Are people going to wonder why Ross wasn't properly vetted by Democrats like Feinstein-- not to mention Sherrod Brown, Brian Schatz, Bill Nelson, Amy Klobuchar and Tim Kaine? Isn't that their job? Recall when the Mafia congressman from Staten Island (since arrested and imprisoned and released), Michael "Mikey Suits" Grimm, disappeared while on a trip too Israel with a bunch of GOP skinny-dippers? He wasn't skinny-dipping with Kevin Yoder in the Sea of Galilee because he was working on a deal for the Russian Mafia in Nicosia. (And yes, he was dating Bannon crony Tulsi Gabbard at the time.) And who's on the board of that money laundering bank, Trumpy-the-Clown's new Commerce Secretary, Wilbur the murderer (along with some Russian mobsters) one of whom helped arrange a $60 million payoff to Trump (watch the video at the top of the page).

James Henry wrote the story up for DCReport.org Tuesday morning. Even though over 24 hours have passed, it's a must-read if you want to understand Trump's carefully constructed kakistocracy. "Wilbur J. Ross, Jr., the billionaire investor who is one of Donald Trump’s closest advisors on trade and economics," he wrote, "has extensive Russian financial ties that the Senate should thoroughly explore before voting on his nomination as Commerce Secretary." Oops... too late; wrong tense. Thanks Sherrod, Ranking Dem on the Senate Banking Committee.

Central to this inquiry is the question of Ross’s  role as Vice Chair and a leading investor in the Bank of Cyprus, the largest bank in Cyprus, one of the key offshore havens for illicit Russian finance. Ross has been Vice Chairman of this bank and a  major investor in it since 2014. His fellow bank co-chair evidently was appointed by none other than Vladimir Putin.

The Bank of Cyprus is just one of more than 100 direct and indirect investments that Ross listed on his U.S. Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure form last month. He recently promised to resign as Vice Chairman of the Bank and disinvest from it within the next 90 days if his nomination is approved.

Mere divestiture will not suffice here, even if it was immediate. Exiting a brothel in a hurry doesn’t explain what you were doing there in the first place.

Ross’ involvement in the Bank of Cyprus raises many questions about his judgment, but also about the Trump Administration’s seemingly endless direct and indirect connections with friends and associates of Vladimir Putin, who all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies say conspired to interfere in the November 2016 U.S. election on behalf of Donald Trump.

Whether or not these connections involve any criminality, these are the kind of relationships that most American business people would not tolerate for 30 seconds.

After all, as discussed below, since the 1990s Cyprus has served as one the top three offshore destinations for Russian and former Soviet Union flight capital, most of it motivated by tax dodging, kleptocracy, and money laundering. As of 2013, just before the banking crisis, Russian deposits accounted for at least a third of all bank deposits in Cyprus. As one leading newspaper put it, “Russian money is in fact at the heart of the island’s economy.”

Nor is Ross’ Bank of Cyprus in particular-- now probably at least half owned by Russians, as we‘ll see-- any stranger to money laundering, tax dodging, or odious finance. With a market share of 30 percent,  Bank of Cyprus has long been the market leader in Cypriot financial chicanery:

• As of 2013, for example, more than 81 percent of the bank’s deposits were accounted for by 21,000 mainly foreign depositors, up to half of them Russians, who each had at least €100,000 on deposit.
• By 2013, after a decade of rampant inflows of offshore capital and irresponsible lending, Bank of Cyprus alone had €11.5 billion of delinquent loans on its books-- 60 percent of the country’s entire gross domestic product. At that point, it required €11.3 billion of Emergency Liquidity Finance from the Central Bank of Cyprus to survive.
• The top 20 Bank of Cyprus borrowers reportedly accounted for €3 billion of these non-performing loans. This is consistent with the patterns found in other recent credit booms-- dodgy real estate projects, bust-out loans to insiders, and rampant control fraud.
• In March 2015, it was discovered that 19 of the Cyprus Parliament’s 56 Members of Parliament, owed BOC €51.2mm, including 13 MPs whose non-performing loans totalled €35.3m. The following month, the Parliament adopted a new pro-bank law to accelerate foreclosures. Evidently the revelations increased the pressures to act.
• In a series of recent criminal trials in Nicosia, five former CEOs, Board Chairmen, and managers of Bank of Cyprus have been charged with a wide variety of financial misconduct pertaining to the pre-2013 period. The charges include conspiracy to defraud investors, forgery, and market manipulation.
• No one has yet been convicted.

There are also disturbing reports of several recent high-profile money laundering cases in Cyprus.[There are also reports that attempts to clean up money laundering and improve financial transparency stalled, and that as of 2016 Geldwasching may be back, not only in Cyrus as a whole, but also at the Bank of Cyprus.]

So this is the fundamental question:

How did a prospective U.S. Commerce Secretary come to play a lead role in what turns out to be one of the world’s leading haven banks for laundering Russian money, precisely at a time when the U.S. Government and the EU have been trying so hard to enforce economic sanctions against Russia and Putin’s wealthy allies?

Before the U.S. Senate approves Ross’s  nomination, it is essential to get to the bottom of these curious relationships.  Unfortunately, no one bothered to ask Ross even a single question about them, the Bank of Cyprus, or dirty Russian money at his January 18 confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, where he received unanimous approval along with a ringing endorsement from his Florida Senator.

In “TrumpLand,” however, as we have recently come to appreciate, that was eons ago.  And there are now signs that the U.S. Senate may finally be waking up.

In July 2014, Ross became Vice Chairman of the Bank of Cyprus. At that point the bank was in deep financial trouble, having nearly failed in 2013.

Ross, who specializes in buying troubled firms cheap and then reselling them, organized a group of U.S. and European-based investors to spend €1 billion (U.S. $1.3 billion then) to acquire 17 percent of the common stock of this deeply troubled bank, including Ross’ own 1.6 percent stake.

Since then, Ross has played an active role in recruiting and nominating its senior management team, especially its board chairman, Josef Ackermann, the long-time former Chairman of Deutsche Bank-- one of the few banks in the world that would make loans to Donald Trump.

As we have recently explored elsewhere, from the mid-1990s on, this massive reconcentration of wealth gave way to an extraordinary outflow of flight capital, and the proliferation of tax dodging and criminal enterprises.

Among the key beneficiaries of this economic crisis was Vladimir Putin, who rode it to power. But the tsunami of illicit Russian money also greatly benefited Donald Trump, who, as discussed in more detail in a previous article, simply could not have financed his bankrupt business empire in the early 2000s without it.

Of course, Trump has reiterated time and again—most recently at his White House press conference on Feb. 17-- that he has no business deals with Russia. Significantly, Trump said nothing about Russians, investors from other former Soviet Union states like the Ukraine or Kazakhstan, or ventures with Russians outside of Russia and the former Soviet Union.

In the past, even Trump has boasted repeatedly about raking in many millions from Russian oligarchs who bought luxury Trump apartments and joined his golf clubs. Nor has he denied that he was paid $13 million to hold the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. His three oldest children also made 13 trips to Moscow over 18 months, in what the Trump Organization described at the time as business trips intended to recruit Russian investors.

Furthermore, as noted below, one Russian oligarch shelled out at least $95 million to Trump in one Florida real estate deal. This allowed Trump to more than double his $41 million investment in that property in four years. This profit were earned at a time,  when by Trump’s own account, the U.S. real estate market was a “disaster”-- so dead that he actually sued Deutsche Bank, his one remaining global creditor, in a failed effort to avoid repaying a $40 million real estate loan.

...According to money laundering experts, the Bank of Cyprus also has a long history of being up to its ears in Russian flight capital. Indeed, Like Trump and Putin, Cyprus in general-- and the Bank of Cyprus in particular-- have been huge beneficiaries of Russia’s 1990s economic crisis and the extraordinary deluge of dirty money that it produced. Especially since Cyprus was admitted to the EU in 2004 and the Eurozone in 2008, the island has captured the bronze medal, just behind more venerable havens like the Switzerland and the UK. And,  as noted, the Bank of Cyprus was the market leader, as the island’s largest single financial institution, which for a time also had branches in Moscow, the Ukraine, Greece, and Rumania.

...For Wilbur Ross and his fellow private vulture capitalists, this Russian-flight induced crisis presented an irresistible investment opportunity. (Exactly who introduced Wilbur’s group to the island is an interesting question that the Senate should explore.)

The bank’s management and board spent the first year after the March 2013 crisis staving off bankruptcy with the help of €10 billion in ECB and IMF emergency assistance-- including €6.5 billion for the Bank of Cyprus alone. In 2014  it decided to raise new capital. In July 2014, in exchange for €1 billion, Ross and his group were able to acquire 17 percent of the bank’s stock, the largest single ownership block, plus the Vice Chairmanship and significant management influence.

The only trouble was that Ross and his group could not afford to be too discriminating about who their co-investors were. To this day, as noted, not only is Bank of Cyprus at least half owned by Russian investors, but several of the largest ones are “super-garchs” who have business and personal histories that are, to be polite, colorful.

Nor could Wilbur’s investment group afford to be too particular about the uses these co-investors made of the bank, or the fact that Bank of Cyprus’s new business model-- apart from financial chicanery and more MP loans-- requires an awful lot of hard work trying to collect money they don’t have from thousands of recalcitrant borrowers.

Under the terms of  Cyprus’ 2013 agreement with the ECB and the IMF, to qualify for for their €10 billion bailout-- fully €7.3 billion of which went to bail out the Bank of Cyprus and other private banks-- the country was compelled to agree to “bail-in” “large depositors”-- those with over €100,000 on deposit.

In return for seizing 47.5 percent of their deposits, 21,000 of depositors-- and especially a core group of about 560-- initially received 81.5 percent percent of the bank’s stock. When the Ross group arrived this was slashed. The Bank’s financial disclosures don’t permit us to say precisely how this ownership is distributed. But at least a third to fifty percent accrued to wealthy Russians who received stock in proportion their confiscated deposits. In addition, our three leading identified Russian ‘garchs also ended up owning at least 14.3 percent of the bank.

The Russian Connections

Vladimir Strzhalkovsky: Vice Chair, Bank of Cyprus, October 2013- June 2015

For a year after Wilbur Ross arrived on the scene at the Bank of Cyprus in July 2014, until June 2015, his fellow Co-Chair and leading co-investor was none other than Vladimir Strzhalkovsky, described by the New York Times and the FT as “a former KGB agent” and as a “long-time associate of Putin’s.”

Strzhalkovsky reportedly owned 2.5 percent of the Bank of Cyprus from  October 2013 until June 2015. He told an interviewer that his family would retain at least 1.8 percent of the Bank-- more than Ross owns.

How did Strzhalkovsky become the Bank of Cyprus’ Vice Chair in October 2013?[52] It is most likely that he was appointed by Putin, his “long time associate” and fellow former KGB agent, to represent the estimated 33-50 percent of the bank’s 2013 “large depositors” who were Russian, and who had had nearly half of their deposits confiscated and converted into stock.

Strzhalkovsky continued to serve as Bank of Cyprus’s Vice Chair until he sold part of his stake-- 0.7 percentBank of Cyrpus-- to Viktor Vekelsberg. (See below.)

Before joining Bank of Cyprus, from 2008 to 2012, Strzhalkovsky had served as Chairman/ CEO of the Russian mining giant Norilsk Nickel. In 2010, the Polish business community reportedly lobbied him to appeal directly to Putin to adopt a softer line toward Poland-- more evidence that he have a direct line to the Russian President. In 2012 Strzhalkovsky gained the distinction of receiving the largest management buyout in Russian corporate history-- a $100 million payment for leaving his post at Norilsk. It was described by the New York Times as follows:

“…(A)nother data point in the shift of corporate wealth and influence away from the first generation of former Soviet businessmen-- known as the oligarchs-- and toward a coterie of well-connected former security service agents who made their mark under President Vladimir V. Putin…”

Before that, from 2004 to 2008 Vladimir Strzhalkovsky had run Rostourism, the Russian equivalent of the FSU’s Intourist tourism agency—long a source of invaluable “kompromat” for the Russian secret service. He had also served on the boards of several leading Russian companies, including Aeroflot and the giant energy company Inter RAO UES.

Interestingly, even while Vice Chair of the Bank of Cyprus from 2013 to 2015, Strzhalkovsky had also served on the board of  Olympstroy, a corruption-ridden state company that in 2014 grew to be notorious for mismanaging the construction of sports facilities at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. The Sochi Olympics cost a record $51 billion-- four times the cost of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics... Here are a few questions that Senators should ask Ross, under oath, in public hearings about Strzhalkovsky:

• Have you ever visited Cyprus? Have you ever met with Vladimir Strzhalkovsky? When, where, how many times and for what purposes? What records of those meetings do you or the bank have, and will you produce them? Did you or your associates have email, messaging, mail or phone contacts with Strzhalkovsky and his associates? Can you provide records of those communications?
• During the year that you and Strzhalkovsky were co-chairs and co-investors in the Bank of Cyprus, were you aware of Strzhalkovsky’s KGB background? Of his extensive connections with Putin? If not. how do you explain this lack of diligence?
• As a “turn-around king” with a special focus on banking, how would you assess Vladimir’s Strzhalkovsky special bank management expertise? What other special skills does he have?
• To you knowledge, did any of the Russian intelligence services ever make use of the Bank of Cyprus? Which ones? What efforts did you make to learn of Russian intelligence services regarding Bank of Cyprus activities?
• What conversations, if any, did you have directly or through associates with Putin or his associates? Did you keep records of such contacts and, if so, will you provide them?
• What inquiries did you make about the money flowing into Bank of Cyprus?
Did you ask for reports about criminal proceeds? Tax evasion? Russian interference in the affairs of other countries, including especially Cyprus and the United States?
• It is true that Vladimir Putin selected Strzhalkovsky to be Vice Chair of the Bank? If so, given the fact that Putin appointed Strzhalkovsky, did you see any indications that Putin, his family of entities he controls did business with the Bank of Cyprus? Did it occur to you to make such inquiries?
• What reports, if any, did you make to U.S. banking, money laundering, terrorist finance and intelligence agencies about Bank of Cyprus and its customers? Please describe the Bank’s activities with respect to controlling flight capital, money laundering, and tax dodging during your tenure.
• Are you aware that Strzhalkovsky’s family is still an investor in The Bank of Cyprus?
• Did you discuss the Sochi project and its huge costs with Strzhalkovsky? Were you aware of published reports that the Sochi Olympics contracts were riddled with fraud? That Strzhalkovsky was one of Olympstroy‘s directors?
• What, if any, conversations did you have with Russians, including Strzhalkovsky, Putin and their associates concerning Donald Trump, the Trump Organization or the Trump family? To your knowledge, has Strzhalkovsky ever met Donald Trump or any members of his family?

Viktor Vekselberg: Bank of Cyprus board member and largest single shareholder (9.3 percent stake); Russian aluminum tsar, reportedly worth $11-$17 billion; long-time business partner of Ukrainian-born billionaire Len Blavatnik, the UK’s wealthiest citizen; reportedly enjoys good relations with Vladimir Putin.

As of now, Ross maintains a joint Co-Chairmanship in Bank of Cyprus with Maksim Goldman, who represents Lamesa Holding S.A., a part of the Renova Group, an aluminum and oil conglomerate that is majority-owned by Vekselberg.

As of 2014, Lamesa’s stake in the Bank was 5.5 percent; in 2015 it was increased to 6.2 percent  with the purchase of the 0.7 percent stake from Strzhalkovsky. In January 2017, it increased again to 9.3 percent, making Renova Group the bank’s largest single shareholder.

Together with his long-time business partner Leo Blavatnik, Vekselberg is a major aluminum and oil industries investor through Renova Group, their corporate umbrella group.  He also reportedly owns the world’s largest collection of Faberge eggs, and a yacht, the Odessa II, that is valued at $150 million.

Vekselberg is the 7th wealthiest Russian, according to the Russian edition of Forbes magazine. He is reportedly also on reasonably good terms with President Putin. In fact, he reportedly delighted the “new Tsar” by spending millions to buy up the Faberge eggs and return them to a special museum he has created for them in Moscow. Vekselberg has denied reports of some tension between him and Putin. There have been some recent reports of tensions in the relationship, but VV has denied it.

Here are a few questions that Senators should ask Ross in public hearings about Viktor Vekelsberg:
 

• When, where and under what circumstances have you ever met or communicated with Viktor Vekelsberg or his business partners? How frequently do you communicate directly or through Maksim Goldman or anyone else associated with Renova Group?
• What business dealings, if any, have you had directly or indirectly with Vekelsberg and his various business enterprises? With his partner Len Blavatnik, directly or indirectly? What role has he and his family played in the bank? Do other members of his family do business with the Bank?  Do other members of his affiliated companies do business with the Bank or with other investors in the Bank? To your knowledge, has he or his business partners done any business with the Trump Organization?
• What has been Renova’s role at the Bank of Cyprus? How does Vekelsberg use the bank, as a depositor, investor or borrower? What loans or advances were extended to him or at his direction to others? Has Vekelsberg brought any new clients to the bank?  If so, who?
• What can you tell us about business dealings between Vekelsberg and others associated with the Bank of Cyprus and Renova Group and Donald Trump, his organization and his family?
• Were you aware that Vekselberg’s long time business partner is Len Blavatnik? Were you aware that on October 25 2016, AI ALTEP Holdings Inc., a company reportedly based in New York City and owned directly or indirectly by Vekselberg’s business partner Len Blavatnik, made a $1 million contribution to Senator Mitch McConnell’s “Senate Leadership Fund?”

Dmitry Rybolovlev: Reportedly owned the largest stake in the Bank of Cyprus as of 2010 (9.7%); bought Donald Trump’s Palm Beach house in 2008 for $95 million, at the time the most expensive property in the U.S., more than doubling what Trump paid four years earlier; his personal jet’s flight pattern shows an odd coincidence of airports with Trump’s appearances on the fall campaign trail. (See the discussion below.)

Wilbur Ross also has a direct link through the Bank of Cyprus to a third leading Russian oligarch who, as of 2010, was the bank’s largest single investor and appears to still own a significant position in the Bank.

This is Dmitry Rybolovlev, a 50-year old Russian once known as the country’s “potash king.” During the “Wild West” days of Russian privatization back in the mid-1990s, “Rybo” had acquired a two-thirds stake in a critical fertilizer company, Uralkali, which eventually supplied up to 30 percent of global potash sales. Beginning in June 2010, however, shortly before Rybolovlev invested €233 million in the Bank of Cyprus,  he rather wisely started to dispose of his 66% stake in UralKali, completing the divestiture in 2011. Since then potash prices have slumped, so in hindsight, this was an adroit move.

Even after an expensive divorce, in recent years Rybolovlev’s net worth has variously estimated at $5 to $13.8 billion, depending on the year and source, with $7.8 billion being the most popular guesstimate. According to published reports, he has a very impressive €500 million art collection, although some of it was recently the subject of nasty litigation concerning provenance. He has also reportedly acquired xCitbank CEO Sandy Weill’s $88 million penthouse in New York, a $20 million mansion in Hawaii that used to belong to the actor Will Smith, a waterfront property in Palm Beach that he purchased from Donald Trump,(see below), two luxury villas in Gstaad, two personal jets that are reportedly worth over $100 million, including a private Airbus A319 (see below), a mansion on the Rue de l’Elysée in Paris that overlooks the Presidential Palace, the  entire island of Scorpios, a $68 million 67-meter yacht, and the football club in Monaco.

If this fellow had invented fertilizer, it is hard to believe that this collection of toys and lucre or his collection of invoices from divorce attorneys would be any more elaborate.

In addition to just being yet another fabulously rich Russian natural resources billionaire-- for our purposes Rybolovlev is interesting for at least three other reasons.

First, as noted, in 2010 Rybolovlev bought 9.7% of the Bank of Cyprus, becoming at that point by far its largest single investor. By 2013, just before the crash, he had reportedly increased that to 9.9 percent. Even after the 2013 crash and refinancing that produced a “haircut” for existing Bank of Cyprus investors, he appears to have retained at least a 3.3% stake. Although this stake is larger than Ross’s 1.6 percent, Rybolovlev does not have a seat on the board of directors.

Second, like many other hypertense members of the Russian elite, since the early 2000s Rybolovlev has been on of a crusade to diversify his wealth internationally. The potash mines were hard to relocate physically, so he sold off some his stake in it, and has focused since 2007 on purchasing foreign properties, joining the Russian émigré flood abroad.

In particular, in addition to all the other foreign properties described earlier, in June 2008 he purchased a Palm Beach waterfront property from Donald Trump for $95 million plus a sales commission, one that Trump had reportedly purchased himself in July 2004 for just $41 million. The unusual nature of this transaction is only underscored by the fact that the property had been valued at just $59.8 million on Palm Beach County’s tax rolls as of 2013. Eight years later, in 2016, Rybolovlev had the 60,000 square foot mansion that Trump built torn down, subdivided the property in three, and sold off a 2.74-acre plot for $34 million-- nearly $3 million per acre less than he had paid for it.

This price gain is also especially interesting because in mid-2008, Trump was complaining loudly the American real estate market was “dead” and that many of his projects were cratering. Indeed, as we noted earlier, that same year he fought tooth and nail to avoid repaying a $40 million real estate loan to Deutsche Bank.

Now precisely at that crucial point in mid-2008, just as the Great Recession was unfolding, this extraordinary $50 million Russian cash injection into Donald Trump’s balance sheet may well have saved him from personal bankruptcy. On top of his six other corporate bankruptcies, that one, in turn, might well have been the beginning of the end for Donald Trump’s political ambitions.

Third, according to flight logs from FlightRadar24 and PlaneFinder, as well as photos of planes on the ground taken from Jetphotos.co and amateur photos taken at airports by amateur Twitter journalists, an Airbus A319-133X(CJ) with the registration M-KATE that very much appears to belong to Dmitry Rybolovlev appears to have followed some very unusual flight patterns during the fall 2016 American presidential campaign.

When Rybolovlev still owned his potash company, he reportedly maintained an Airbus A319 that was outfitted for personal use. This plane, with the registration M-KATE, is registered to Sophar Property Limited, a British Virgin Islands company. While this company was originally registered to UralKali, the potash company that he disposed of by 2011, apparently Rybo, as he is known, enjoyed this plane and another, a Falcon, so much that he retained ownership or at least use rights to the two planes, this Airbus and, a Falcon jet. The Airbus A319’s registration is reportedly named after one of his two daughters, Ekaterina.

For our purposes, the intriguing thing is that this plane, normally based in Moscow and Switzerland, can be tracked. According the flight logs available from FlightRadar24, it made numerous flights all over the U.S. from August 2016 through November 2016, the peak season for the U.S. 2016 Presidential campaign-- of course right at the moment when Moscow was supposedly trying to jack the election on Trump’s behalf.

Moreover, in at least three cases, Airbus A319M-KATE showed up at very same airports, where candidate Trump was-- in the North Carolina cities of Charlotte and Concord and in Las Vegas, for example. Indeed, in the case of Charlotte, local photographers took pictures of M-KATE and the Trump campaign jet at the very same airport on November 3, 2016. During a presidential campaign close aides often arrive before and after the candidate, times that overlap with the Rybolovlev jet in several cities.

Local photographers took pictures of M-KATE and Trump’s Boeing 757 the Trump campaign jet at the same airport on November 3, 2016.

Indeed, earlier this month-- on Friday, Feb. 10 2017-- Rybolovlev‘s Airbus A319 M-KATE flew all the way from Switzerland to Miami. That airport is near where the White House said that the president was partying with hedge fund mogul Steven Schwartzman in Palm Beach on Saturday night. Rybolovlev’s jet returned to Switzerland on February 12, flight records show.

There were also M-KATE flights to Westhampton, New York and Los Angeles in early August 2016 and October-November, 2016, but the intersections with Trump’s travels are less clear.

Why would Rybolovlev’s plane scurry back and forth from Moscow to odd destinations like Charlotte and Concord, as well as to Las Vegas, New York, Burbank, and Miami, to arrive there precisely when Trump was there? The obvious question: was Rybolovlev a Putin emissary?

These flight patterns that were first noted by observant ‘Twitter journalists” like @Observer14 and @AceInCharlotte back on Nov. 3, 2016, just as they were occurring.

But what could Rybolovlev possibly have been carrying that couldn’t have been ported more efficiently and discretely by other methods? Furthermore, are we sure that relations between Putin and Rybolovev are all that good?  After all, in 2008,  Igor Sechin, Putin’s Deputy Prime Minister at the time-- and now the Executive Chairman of the fabled Rosneft, the world’s largest publicly-traded oil producer-- reportedly threatened to prosecute Dmitry Rybolovlev’s potash company over a mine disaster, exposing it to huge fines. Soon after this threat, Rybolovlev’s potash company, UralKali, reportedly paid $250 million of “voluntary” compensation to the government. After that Rybolovlevalso accelerated his efforts to diversify abroad. The Financial Times does say that relations between Putin and Rybolovlev are now fine. But this pattern also fits the standard Putin stratagem whereby oligarchs are pressured into becoming semi-feudal servants of the de facto modern Tsar.

In any case, these flights remain a genuine enigma. We do yet not have any eyewitness reports or photos that show that Rybolovlev was actually on the planes or actually met with Trump or any of his staff. But these coincidences, combined with everything else we know about Rybolovlev’s connections to Trump and Ross, certainly deserves further scrutiny.

This prompts still  more questions for Wilbur Ross, this time regarding Dmitry Rybolovlev:

• How long have you known Dmitry Rybolovlev? How much of the Bank of Cyprus does he currently own? What role has he and his family played in the bank?  Do other members of his family do business with the Bank?  Do other members of his affiliated companies do business with the Bank or with other investors in the Bank?  What contacts have you or associates had with Dmitry Rybolovlev?
• What attention did you and your team pay to Rybolovlev because of his 3.3 % (and at one time nearly 10%) stake in the Bank of Cyprus? What due diligence did you or your associates perform regarding Rybolovlev and Trump? What did you find?
• When and how did you learn of the lucrative deal Trump made with Rybolovlev in 2008 to sell his Florida property at a huge profit? As a long-time Trump friend and associate, were you involved in that deal?  Did you meet Rybolovlev at the time? To your knowledge, has Donald Trump had any other business dealings with Rybolovlev or his associates? 
• Have you or your businesses done any business with Rybolovlev or entities associated with him?
• When and when if ever, have you or your team met or communicated by telephone mail, email or through intermediaries with Rybolovlev? Are you aware of any occasions where Dmitry Rybolovlev may have met with Donald Trump or other members of his staff?  Were you present at any occasions in the last year in the U.S. or elsewhere where Dmitry was present?  How do you account for the unusual flight patterns listed above?  Do you know who recently bought one-third of Rybolovlev’s Palm Beach property?  Did you attend the Schwartzman party in Palm Beach on February 11? Was Dmitry there? Did you meet Donald Trump or other members of his staff that weekend? If so, what was discussed?

Josef Ackermann: Chairman of the Board, The Bank of Cyprus since 2014; former Chairman of Deutsche Bank (2002-12) during period when it engaged in a wide range of corporate misbehavior, including laundering $10 billion of Russian money, incurred fines that nearly bankrupted the bank, which is the largest single lender to the Trump Organization; “Friend of Vlad” who reportedly knows Putin well.

When Wilbur Ross became Vice Chairman of The Bank of Cyprus in July 2014, one of his first acts was to nominate Josef Ackermann, who had headed Deutsche Bank from 2002 to 2012, to become Bank of Cyprus’s new board chairman. He assumed that role in November 2014 and still holds it.

Even back in July 2014, it was difficult to make Ackermann’s decade running Deutsche Bank look like an achievement, to say the least. Since then, it has become even clearer that he presided over a period of spectacular chicanery at Germany’s largest bank. Given this, his nomination by Ross to head the Bank of Cyprus in 2014  seems peculiar, to say the least.

Wilbur und Josef

One possible explanation is that Wilbur Ross is a long-time financial ally of Donald Trump, dating back to an effort to restructure his casinos in 1990. From 2002 to 2012, under Ackerman, Deutsche Bank had become Trump’s largest bank creditor by far, with more than $650 million of loans to the Trump Organization and even more to other Trump partnerships, as of 2008. Trump’s 2016 financial disclosures show that out of $650 million owed by him and his organization, $364 million was owed to Deutsche Bank.

Meanwhile, ever since Trump failed to repay more than $900 million of bank loans in the early 1990s, other major U.S. and European banks had largely rejected him. He did not help his own cause by bragging in print that he had borrowed from the banks knowing full well that he would never repay.

To this day, why Deutsche Bank has continued lending to Trump and his organization remains a mystery.

Indeed, according to recent press reports, Deutsche Bank has recently been looking into allegations that the Russian Government may have guaranteed some of the bank’s  more generous loans to Trump during the Ackerman period, either directly, or through offshore banks and companies.

This would resemble a similar approach that was used by Putin in France. In 2014  he helped secure €11 million for Marine Le Pen’s cash-starved National Front from the “First Czech-Russian Bank,” a Moscow-based bank, as a reward for her support for Russia’s March 2014 invasion of Crimea and other Putin policies.

In any case, as noted, during Ackermann’s tenure at Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank had indulged in an incredible range of financial misconduct, from sanctions-busting, interest rate rigging, and mortgage fraud to facilitating tax dodging, illicit trading, illegal foreclosures, rigging energy markets, and money laundering. By no means were any of these full-blooded “white collar crimes” that were prosecuted to conviction and sentence; in most cases, they were disposed of by settlements and, at worst, deferred prosecution agreements. But in many ways that is the point-- leniency may explain why they kept recurring.

Since 2010 all this misconduct has finally caught up with the bank, if not its former senior executive. Although no one has gone to jail, Deutsche Bank has already had to pay nearly $20 billion in fines and settlement costs.

Those already booked include a  recent $7.2 billion U.S. Justice Department settlement for issuing fraudulent mortgage-backed securities in the 2008 financial crisis-- the largest penalty of its kind to date. This was also coupled with a $5.3 billion fine against Ackermann’s previous employer, Credit Suisse, for the same exact kind of toxic RMBSs. Another case led to a $650 million fine for laundering $10 billion of Russian money, by way of Deutsche Bank’s  offices in Moscow, New York, and Cyprus.

All these penalties were announced in January 2017. They all pertain to behavior that took root on Ackermann’s watch.  As a New York State financial regulator remarked when he announced the Russian money-laundering fine for Deutsche Bank in January, “This Russian mirror-trading scheme occurred while the bank was on clear notice of serious and widespread compliance issues dating back a decade.”

Since 2016, all this misbehavior has finally caught up with Deutsche Bank’s stock price. DB’s stock price has sharply underperformed other bank stocks because of the billions of litigation expense and penalties, to a large extent for offenses that originated during the Ackerman years. This, in turn, has led to huge job cuts, and even some serious concerns about whether Germany’s largest bank may soon require a bailout of its own.

Meanwhile, Ackermann has moved on, bonuses and all, despite recent demands from shareholders to claw them back.

As the saying goes, however, “A shoemaker does not just make one shoe.” There are some reports from investigative journalists that Cyprus is still up to its old tricks, albeit on a smaller scale. As a German ZDF TV investigative program concluded last year after succeeding in laundering €15 million through the Bank of Cyprus and other Cyprus banks, “Money laundering in Cyprus is still possible.” If so, the mere force of competitive pressures mean that Bank of Cyprus cannot stay far behind.

This is especially irritating to money laundering experts. After all, one of the key conditions for the €7.3 billion bailout that Cyprus received from the ECB and IMF in 2013-2016 was that Cyprus banks would commit to much tougher programs for monitoring compliance with “anti-money laundering” rules and statutes. As Ackermann acknowledged in a June 2016 interview, however, “There may still be individual cases… Money laundering had been the business model of Cyprus, and it is a difficult struggle.”

Evidently, it is not a struggle for everyone. In addition to becoming Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Cyprus, Ackerman has also joined the board of directors of Viktor Vekselberg’s Renova Group. This is consistent with the fact that Ackermann also reportedly enjoys a long-standing, warm relationship with Vladimir Putin. While at Deutsche Bank, he met with Putin  and other senior Russian officials frequently, served on Russia’s Foreign Investment Advisory Council and its “consultative committee” to form an “International Financial Center” in Moscow, and strongly endorsed Putin’s peculiar idea of a “free trade zone” between Russia and the EU. In Putin’s own words, “It would take ages to describe everything that Deutsche Bank is doing in Russia.”

Indeed I fear that it may.

So we also have a  few more questions that Senators should ask Ross, under oath, in public hearings, with respect to Josef Ackermann:

• How long have you known Josef Ackerman? What loans or other business dealings have you had with Credit Suisse or Deutsche Bank? Do you have a private banking relationship with Deutsche Bank? With Credit Suisse?
• Are you aware of Deutsche Bank’s history with respect to Donald Trump? To your knowledge, does Josef Ackerman know Donald Trump? To your knowledge, was he involved  in the lending relationship between Deutsche Bank and the Trump Organization or between the private banking side of Deutsche Bank and Donald Trump or is family? Was this a factor in your decision to hire him?
• What due diligence did you do with respect to Josef Ackermann? What questions did you ask Ackermann about his connections to Trump, Putin and Russian oligarchs? Are you aware that Josef Ackerman has a very cordial relationship with Vladimir Putin? Was that a factor in your decision to nominate him? Does Vladimir Putin ever any banking relationships with The Bank of Cyprus? 
• Given Ackerman’s track record, and in light of your own reputation for bank turn-around management, why did you hire Josef Ackerman to be Chairman of the Board of The Bank of Cyprus?  How confident should its shareholders be in his leadership?

WILBUR ROSS-- SUMMARY

At 79, Wilbur Ross’s energy level and sheer capacity to take on new challenges are impressive. If approved, he would be by far the oldest U.S. Commerce Secretary ever. But his nomination is actually not that surprising.

To begin with, Ross’ relationship with Trump goes back at least to the early 1990s, when he helped to finance one of Trump’s first Atlantic City casino deals. Ross has also been one of the most generous donors to Trump’s 2016 campaign. And he is widely reported to be one Trump’s most trusted advisors-- in so far as Trump listens to anything other than the voices in his head.

Ross fits right in with the ruling financier elite, way more easily than the President. Of course, Trump campaigned against all these folks when he was courting the lumpen proletariat back in the fall, but when he realized for the first time on Election Eve that he might actually have to govern, he immediately began to invite the hard-working Ivy elite in to do a reverse takeover.

Most important, while Ross’ investment funds have had trouble raising money lately, reportedly out of concern about his age, he does provide Trump with a certain degree of respectability in the investment community. While Trump falsely claims a degree from the Wharton School (he actually attended Penn’s undergraduate real estate economics program), Ross has a degree from Yale and earned a Harvard MBA. While Trump has no record of public or community service of any kind, Ross serves on the boards of a dozen prominent non-profits, including the Japan Society (Chair), Brookings, and the Dean’s Advisory Board at the Harvard Business School. He also holds seats on the boards of 70 for-profit firms, including 7 banks and 19 offshore haven companies.

The January 15 “Ethics Agreement” Ross signed with federal Office of Government Ethics promises that he will divest up to 80 of these investments within 90 to 180 days and that he will resign from most of his board seats as well.

Unfortunately, however, this does not put an end to potential conflicts of interest, especially in the Ross case.

First, from the standpoint of potential conflicts, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Ross still insists on retaining tens of millions of dollars in investments in non-transparent offshore entities.

These include a major co-investment with the Chinese government, a stake in a shipping company that will probably be subject to Commerce Department regulations, and a Cayman Islands “fund of funds” whose underlying assets and co-investors are completely invisible-- for all we know they include “friends of Putin.” Ross hasn’t been asked.

Second, the proposed terms of disinvestment are pretty slack. Three months is an eternity on Wall Street-- plenty of time to alter their value if Ross were so inclined.

Third, there are no limits on Ross’ partners’ investments in the Bank of Cyprus or any other enterprises. They might decide to reward him in Heaven for favors done now.

Fourth, Ross is not required to unwind his extensive loan portfolio, including the very large sums that he and his group owe to big banks like JP Morgan. These banks may well be within the range of various federal government regulations that official actions by Ross could impact.

Fifth, If Mr. Ross were so inclined, an endless variety of murky dis-invest and buy-back deals might be constructed to offset his formal disinvestments. This is the essence of the problem with trying to enforce conflict of interest rules against extremely rich business people who have built up global networks of other rich business people over decades. Favors are discretely provided and reciprocated. Just ask Vladimir Putin.

Just for the sake of argument, however, let’s assume for the moment that Wilbur is too long in the tooth to take advantage of such loopholes or be motivated by selfish considerations. Let’s also stipulate that he really does believe that what he is serving the public good, as he sees it.

Even then,  there is still another valid concern-- the most important. From this angle, classic “conflicts of interest” analysis and Ross’s pledges to discontinue his investments and board seats both miss the point.

For just as with the President, the stench of dodgy associations lingers on. In other words, even if  Ross divested everything down to his garters, there would still be this annoying puzzle:

Why, at the ripe old age of 77, way back in 2014,  did Wilbur  Ross step in with a lot of his and his associates’ money to save this feral bank in Cyprus? Why did he  pursue all these associations with dodgy  Russian “investors,” including “close associates of Putin?”

Before it confirms Mr. Wilbur Ross, the U.S. Senate needs to conduct a full investigation and demand public testimony to help us understand this glaring puzzle.

So... if you run into Sherrod Brown or Amy Klobuchar or Brian Schatz, ask them why they voted to confirm Wilbur.