So, Who's The Rat?

I never trusted that Michael Cohen was actually a "rat." I mean he could be, but I'll believe he really turned against Trump when I see it. Chris Hayes never seems to have bought in either, right? Lanny Davis is a classic piece of shit, the very worst of the garbage the dregs of the Clinton establishment vomits up from time to time. So anything he says... is never believable enough to trust. Davis was to Bill Clinton (and now Michael Cohen) what Giuliani is to Trump, not an actual attorney, just a p.r. operative. He did the same thing for Trent Lott, Penn State and Martha Stewart and was the treasurer for Joe Lieberman's sleazy PAC (which has always funneled Democratic money into Peter King's campaigns).

You've probably already heard or read about how Davis tossed a live grenade into the Michael Cohen case yesterday. Before reading Aaron Blake's Washington Post report, I want you to know that Cohen's mobster friends in Miami have been telling my friend's mobster friends in Miami that Cohen and Trump are still in cahoots and setting us all up. Is it true? How do I know? But I believe it as much as I believe the idea that Cohen actually flipped. Blake started with the point that "Davis has backed off two massive claims he made in recent weeks," including that former Trumpanzee bagman and fixer Michael Cohen has told people he witnessed Trump being informed of Fuck Up Jr.'s 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer before it happened.

“I should have been more clear-- including with you-- that I could not independently confirm what happened,” Davis said, adding: “I regret my error.”

Davis also backed off his claim that Cohen has information suggesting that Trump knew in advance about Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails in 2016.

“I am not sure,” Davis said. “There’s a possibility that is the case. But I am not sure.”

...Davis said that in discussing the hacking allegations last week, he should have emphasized his lack of certainty. He said he raised the idea that Cohen might have information about Trump’s knowledge because he had a strong feeling that might be the case.

“I was giving an instinct that he might have something to say of interest to the special counsel” about hacking, Davis said. In retrospect, he said, “I am just not sure.”

“A strong feeling.” That just doesn’t make much sense. Davis is a lawyer for his client, not a pundit. He can speak to Cohen about sensitive matters. His job is literally to speak publicly for Cohen, and getting their story straight is Job No. 1. The idea that Davis was simply freelancing with a narrative he hadn’t run by his client just doesn’t ring true. And if he was, how has Cohen not fired him for so clearly botching his defense?

It’s also pretty remarkable that, despite the first of these claims having been in the public domain for several weeks now-- CNN’s story broke exactly one month ago, on July 27-- Davis began reining it in only last week. Why wait that long if it was erroneous? Did Cohen not notice he was being put forward as the guy who might be able to prove Trump’s collusion with Russia-- a claim that, if true, could end an American presidency?

The most obvious answer would seem to be that Cohen may be the one contradicting himself. Ever since the CNN story broke, the question has been whether Cohen told congressional investigators the same story when he testified behind closed doors at a time when he was more loyal to Trump. There were indications that this new version of events wasn’t exactly compatible with that testimony, which could open Cohen up to more legal problems.

When Cohen reached a plea deal last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s top Republican and Democrat made a rare joint, public statement saying they wanted Cohen to continue cooperating with their Russia investigation. They also said they had contacted Cohen’s lawyers after the CNN story broke and asked whether he wanted to amend his testimony. Cohen has declined to do so.

But you also have to think that possible contradiction would be something Davis and Cohen (who is also a lawyer by trade) would have sorted out before Davis went public with these claims.

However this came about, though, it’s damaging to Cohen’s credibility. Davis is his lawyer and spokesman, after all, which means these claims effectively came from Cohen himself. Davis is now trying to take ownership of them and take the blame himself, but the explanations he offers are really difficult to accept, especially given the gravity of the claims.

And that has bearing on both the Russia investigation and whatever problems Trump may encounter from the Southern District of New York’s plea deal with Cohen on a campaign-finance violation (in which Cohen also implicated Trump). Cohen was supposed to be the guy flipping on Trump and telling investigators everything he knows about the skeletons in Trump’s closet. This episode has to make everyone involved wonder whether his claims are all they’re made out to be. Regardless of how you want all of this to shake out, it’s best to base a case around people who won’t undermine it. Cohen wasn’t a fantastic witness before; he’s a worse one now.

It’s been true from the start that these investigations attract a certain grade and style of lawyer, and those lawyers often find themselves struggling with their public statements on behalf of an untrustworthy client. Nobody leaves this situation without being at least a little Trump-ified.

You know who will never be Trumpified? Randy Rainbow, that's who. Mr. Rainbow will never-- never ever, ever-- be Trumpified. Amirite? You've been good today. You've earned this. Enjoy:

When Dirty Congressmen Become Dirty Lobbyists

Sleazy lobbyists like Lanny Davis, Michael Steele & Mike Ross are needed to make sure entitled mulimillionaires like Ann Romney can get reimbursed by the taxpayers for their expensive hobbies

You probably read about how two of Washington's biggest laughing stocks, ex-NRC Chairman and media clown Michael Steele and fake Democrat Lanny Davis have started a lobbying firm, Purple Nation Solutions. DC needs another one of those, right? They'll be advocating for... well, let's face it, for whatever they're paid to advocate for. They'd be perfect, for example, for self-entitled "aristocrats" like spoiled multimillionaire Ann Romney demanding that the taxpayers pick up the costs of her dressage horse. But there's another lobbying story bubbling up that's far more interesting than Lanny Davis, Michael Steele or Ann Romney's stinky relationship with Rafalca. Republic Reports has been pressuring Members of Congress who are retiring to make their plans to go into lobbying public while they're still in Congress.

With so many corrupt members retiring, particularly Blue Dogs like Heath Shuler (who has been tending to vote even more than previously for the interests of lobbying clients much more frequently than for the interests of the poor schnooks who voted for him back in NC-11), isn't it reasonable to demand that congressman be a little transparent about their unethical behavior? This week, investigate journalist Lee Fang revealed the relationship between one of the most odious and corrupt of the retiring Blue Dogs, Mike Ross (AR) and his new world as a lobbyist (instead of a recipient of lobbyist bribes).

Last year, Arkansas Representative Mike Ross was the Democratic co-sponsor of an amendment to delay the US Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the Cross-State Air Pollution rule, which would curb the amount of soot and other dangerous chemicals released by industry. Regulators estimate that the rule could prevent 520 premature deaths in Arkansas every year, particularly because the state borders regions in Texas, Oklahoma, and elsewhere that are home to industries producing high levels of air pollutants.

And just a month ago, Ross, who is retiring from Congress after this term, announced that he will be joining one of the groups leading the charge to lobby against the EPA rule. Starting next year, Ross will be the “Senior Vice President for Government Affairs” at Southwestern Power Pool, a nonprofit that represents several coal-powered utility companies.

Southwestern Power Pool has filed multiple comments and letters demanding that the EPA delay and relax its Cross-State Air Pollution rule.

In one sense, Ross should be applauded for his transparency in revealing his future job to the public. Ordinarily, such job agreements must only be disclosed to the House Ethics Committee. But the arrangement with Southwestern Power Pool raises the possibility that Ross’  legislative activity could have been unduly influenced by the prospect of a high-paying job.

...Although Ethics rules attempt to prevent any quid-pro-quo bribery, there have been virtually no enforcement actions on congressmen moving through the revolving door. And there are literally dozens of examples of lawmakers working to benefit individual companies or industries, before retiring and becoming high paid employees of or lobbyists for those same industries. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) blocked crucial aspects of financial reform legislation before becoming an employee of Goldman Sachs. Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-MA) earmarked tens of thousands of dollars to groups that now retain him as a lobbyist.

Do You Recall The Story Of The Trojan Horse?

It was actually a big wooden Greek horse that the Greek army used to trick the Trojans into opening themselves up to a massive defeat. Corporate America, compliments of snazzy looking Costco, Starbucks and Whole Foods, is offering the Democrats a Trojan horse of its own, as reported by corporate America's very own Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Three big retailers are expected to back an alternative proposal next week on a hotly contested bill that would make it easier to unionize workplaces, a move some experts said would bolster the legislation's chance of passage.

Costco Wholesale Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Whole Foods Market Inc. are supporting the alternative proposal, according to someone familiar with the effort. Ray Krupin, a management labor lawyer in Washington said the most likely compromise would allow employees to unionize if 70% of them sign union-authorization cards, as opposed to 50% as currently proposed in the Employee Free Choice Act.
On Saturday, a person close to the discussions denied that the proposal backed by the three companies included a plan to let unions organize workers if 70% sign cards.

It's unclear whether the proposal addresses a thorny section of the bill that would have a government arbitrator draw up a contract if unions and companies can't agree to terms within 120 days.

Ah... the rub. While the Greeks hide in the high reeds, grumbling that they oppose leaving such a lovely, costly horse to the tenacious damn Trojans, the modern day Trojans-- or at least the labor unions (if not the Bayh Bloc weak-kneed Democrats) have already figured out the trick. Yesterday the AFL-CIO let the Chamber of Commerce type Dems know that they're not buy into any so-called "compromise" that still allows management to subvert the will of the majority and still allows them delay contract negotiations ad infinitum since without that first legally binding contract the union is still at their never-tender mercies. AFL-CIO's first response to the trial balloon:

The Employee Free Choice Act is about protecting the fundamental freedom of workers to bargain with their employers for a better life and to join a union without corporate interference and harassment.

The proposal being circulated by these companies falls short of meeting these standards.

We are open to discussing the legislation with parties who are legitimately concerned with protecting workers. However, a proposal coming from corporations, some of whom have their own history of
violating workers' rights, is simply not an alternative that lives up to giving workers back the freedom to form unions.

Of particular concern is the removal of majority sign up-- which exists under current law-- and the removal of the arbitration provisions. Removing the arbitration provisions will allow companies to continue to stall and delay and refuse to negotiate a contract in good faith.

"Their own history of violating workers' rights?" Surely they can't mean the hip and cool Starbucks, Costco, and Whole Foods, right? Wrong. The 3 companies have long and bitter histories of being basically as anti-union as the rest of them. After reading how much better Costco is towards unions than WalMart and other slave labor big box stores, I went over to the Costco in my neighborhood and talked to some of the workers. They laughed at my questions and said management is as anti-union as anywhere else. They get slightly better wages than in the other big box stores but collective bargaining is extremely discouraged.

As for Starbucks, they've been in a year-and-a-half brawl with the IWW and have fired pro-union employees. The National Labor Relations Board has already found them guilty on several charges of illegal union-busting. They were ordered to reinstate the 3 illegally fired employees-- and give them all their back wages-- and "to end discriminatory treatment of other pro-union workers at four Manhattan locations named in the case."

And Whole Foods is the worst of the lot. John Mackey, the reactionary/libertarian CEO-- and managers at every level-- are violently anti-union, as bad as any corporate criminal enterprise in the country... even if they do sell some organic produce sometimes. After being warned by Ken what a rip-off they are, I stopped shopping there long ago.

This morning's account of the Trojan horse strategy is pretty clear in this morning's Washington Post, especially when you see who's being paid to lead it: reviled Democratic Party Judas goat Lanny Davis, one of the most corrupt and untrustworthy characters Inside-the-Beltway.

[T]he companies' CEOs say that they also recognize that just opposing the legislation, dubbed "card-check," is not enough, because of the widespread perception in Democrat-dominated Washington that there is not a level playing field between labor and business. So the CEOs have come up with ideas they hope will form the basis of new legislation.

Their proposal would maintain management's right to demand a secret ballot election, and would leave out binding arbitration. The proposal would keep the third main element of the "card-check" bill-- toughening the penalties for companies that retaliate against workers before union elections or refuse to engage in collective bargaining. But it would also toughen penalties for union violations, and it would make it easier for businesses to call elections to try to decertify a union.

To address labor's concern that businesses intimidate workers before elections, it would set a fixed period in which an election must be held, limiting the delays that give employers time to exert pressure. The proposal does not specify what the time period should be.

The proposal would also provide unions equal access to workers before elections-- for instance, by allowing organizers to address workers on a lunch break in the company cafeteria just as management can.

"We wanted to see what we can do to come up with a compromise position that is going to address the concerns of labor and also protect the sanctity of the collective bargaining process and secret ballot," said Costco CEO Jim Sinegal.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz cast the proposal in more defensive terms. "The way the wind is blowing we're heading toward a bill that is not the right approach," he said. "My responsibility is to not be a bystander but to offer a voice of reason offers a more positive alternative that levels the playing field."

The effort is being led in Washington by Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton. Davis said he has approached about 20 Senate offices and gotten an overwhelmingly encouraging response. The Employee Free Choice Act has majority support in both chambers, but there are signs it may have trouble getting a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate, where several centrist Democrats who previously supporting it are expressing reservations.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), a centrist ambivalent about card-check, praised the companies' proposal. "I appreciate good faith effort that could result in a reasonable compromise on what has become a highly polarizing matter," he said.

Davis said he thought that the proposal would intrigue Obama, who was a co-sponsor of the card-check bill in 2007 but signaled in an interview before his inauguration that he was also open to other proposals to help organized labor. "This is consistent with President Obama's overall approach of avoiding polarized positions and looking for third way ideas," Davis said.

And who better to go to than a senator who justifies telling his constituents he believes in a talking snake in the Garden of Eden by admitting-- or even bragging-- that "you don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate." Pity.


UPDATE: PROGRESSIVE LEADERS TURN DOWN CORPORATE TROJAN HORSE

Working families' biggest champions in Congress didn't fall for the bullshit "compromise" offered by anti-worker CEOs.

“This proposal is unacceptable. It was written by CEOs for CEOs. It is not a serious attempt at labor law reform because it fails to fundamentally address key problems that currently prevent workers from being able to join together and bargain for a better life,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) in a joint statement.

Shameless corporate shill, Lanny Davis, a well-paid tool of WalMart, is still trying to appeal to the anti-Obama Democrats led by Indiana reactionary Evan Bayh to help undermine the right of working people to unionize. Using the obscene tactics he's learned for his pals at Fox, Davis oozed with dishonesty as he claimed “We believe our role is trigger the conversation between business and labor, to end this polarization and level the playing field;" kind of like Bush's definition of bipartisanship.

Why is Clintonite Lanny Davis sticking up for Ted Stevens? Inside the Beltway, that's what members of the permanent government do

"What, exactly, is it that Mr. Lanny Davis of the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe sees as such a threat from the election of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich to Ted Stevens' seat in the U.S. Senate? Why are Evan Bayh and Lindsey Graham so eager to promote Lanny Davis' books? Wonkette thinks Lanny Davis is off his meds, but I think Wonkette fails to understand the nature of the bipartisan permanent government that seeks to maintain control of both parties, no matter who wins individual elections. They are the people that agreed to embark of George and Dick's Excellent Adventure in Mesopotamia and that, ever since, have sought to cover-up for that mistake and protect their interests."

--BooMan, at Booman Tribune

by Ken

Many of us who cringed at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency have noted that the single most alarming factor was that stupefying coterie of masterminds and high-level flunkies she surrounded herself with, whom I've described frequently as some of the vilest people on the planet. These are people you shudder to be in the same solar system with.

In the high-level flunky category, nobody is flunkier than (shudder) Lanny Davis, who not surprisingly is also proud to be a card-carrying certified public stooge of the unspeakable Holy Joe Lieberman. Our Lanny, you''ll recall, is now on Rupert Murdoch's payroll at Fox News, where along with fellow ex-Clintonite slimebag Howard Wolfson he presumably provides "liberal" commentary. I don't know about you, but my flesh crawls just thinking about these people.

Most recently, our Lanny has been heard from rising to the defense of the Senate's senior Republicrook, our pal Ted Stevens of Alaska, taking to the pages of the Moonie Times bearing breathless news of this here thing called "the presumption of innocence." He apparently thinks he is the only person who has heard about it. He even provides us with a history lesson, on the origin of this here presumption of innocence, whatever the heck it is (poor fellow must have spent a few taxing minutes on Wikipedia rounding that information up) before providing actual instances of people who were accused of things they turned out not to be guilty of.

Naturally this has provoked some curiosity as to the nature of our Lanny's interest in Senator Stevens' case.

It sure got our colleague BooMan going! And if you have any curiosity about how and why drones like our Lanny -- Lannies of both parties -- clump together for mutual advancement and also mutual protetction, thereby forming the rotten core of our bipartisan permanent government, you really owe it to yourself to follow along as BooMan tracks Lanny through the slimeways of Beltway Insiderdom, with passing views of celebrities like George W. Bush, Scooter Libby, Lindsey Graham, the Patton Boggs lobby shop, Holy Joe, and Evan Bayh -- prompting the comment, "Do you begin to see why progressives threw a fit when we saw Evan Bayh's name on the short-list for Barack Obama's running mate?"

I don't know that the people Barack Obama summons to government service (assuming he gets to do the summoning) are going to be that much better, but at least they won't all be these same people. Of course they'll all still be around. Roaches and rats you've got a shot at exterminating. These folks aren't going anywhere.

#