The problem with Matt Taibbi's piece...

[ProSense]

Why did it take so long for this whistleblower to come forward?

She tried to stay quiet, she really did. But after eight years of keeping a heavy secret, the day came when Alayne Fleischmann couldn't take it anymore.

"It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street," she says. "I thought, 'I can't sit by any longer.'"

<...>

Back in 2006, as a deal manager at the gigantic bank, Fleischmann first witnessed, then tried to stop, what she describes as "massive criminal securities fraud" in the bank's mortgage operations.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106

It would have been good if she had come forward when Senator Warren was holding hearings and in the majority.

[CanonRay]

1. She probably believed Eric Holder

was going to get up off his fat corporate ass and do something. Worst Democratic Attorney General EVER! I'll grant you that the last two Bush attorneys general and John Mitchell were all worse. But he's supposed to be on the people's side.

[KamaAina]

137. Not to mention Ed Meese

[Enthusiast]

186. They all belong the AG Hall of Fame. Or shame.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. In total agreement

I just read the whole article.

How the hell did she miss those hearings? She couldn't go to the press and say - Hey - I Have critical information and for some reason no one is paying attention. Maybe they just don't know I exist?

[freshwest]

114. Yeah, she was so upset. Comes out just in time to set the mood for 2016.

I also read the whole article with Taibbi's usual colorful language and the standard kicking of Democrats. Not that the bank doesn't need to get a good asskicking, but why wait until the GOP gets majority, knowing they are eviscerating Warren's agency as we speak?

A GOP Senate's First Target - Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Protection Agency

For years, House Republicans have been trying to gut her greatest accomplishment.



By Erika Eichelberger - Sep. 26, 2014

If the GOP wins the Senate, they'll no doubt use the opportunity to push through a range of measures that are kryptonite to Democratic voters—new abortion restrictions, limits on the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to combat climate change, a relaxation of the rules reining in Wall Street's worst excesses...

Yet people blame Obama.

The bureau's job is to make sure Americans aren't getting screwed by mortgage lenders, credit card companies, debt collectors, and other financial institutions. It's the first federal agency designed specifically to protect everyday consumers from financial wrongdoing, and Republicans have done everything in their power to hobble the agency—including fighting the confirmation of its director, Richard Cordray. Winning the Senate in November could be their best chance to roll back Warren's greatest accomplishment...

Half of their work is already done. The House has passed a bill that would limit the bureau's power by replacing its director with a five-member panel, and subjecting its budget to the congressional appropriations process—meaning that hostile lawmakers could starve it to death. (Unlike most federal agencies, the bureau is bankrolled by the Federal Reserve, an effort to free it from the whims of partisan politics.) House Republicans have also introduced legislation to let other financial regulators overturn CFPB rules, to eliminate a fund the bureau uses to compensate consumers who've been defrauded by an institution that's gone belly-up, and to restrict the kind of data the bureau may collect from consumers. (Republicans have charged that the CFPB's collection of credit data is a violation of privacy, even though the bureau does not collect any personal details the consumer doesn't volunteer.)

Yet people hate the Federal Reserve, and want to effect a Ron Paul and Libertarian plan to eliminate it. A lot more on what they'll do to destroy Warren's work:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/republican-senate-would-gut-elizabeth-warren-consumer-protection-bureau

The timing and tone of this release makes it seem suspect. OTOH, she may be coming now out to help save the CPB, if one wants to give it the benefit of the doubt. This story proves why it needs to be there.

[JustAnotherGen]

118. You are right - the story DOES prove why it needs to be there

And we need Candidates in 2016 that will put re-implementation of Glass Steagall at the top of the ticket because that won't be happening for the next two years.

Which begs the question - would Hillary run against her husband's poor judgment?

[freshwest]

119. I've read that she and Bill disputed the repeal of Glass-Stegall. And found this:

Clinton-Warren for Change



Brent Budowsky Posted: 06/20/2014

...I predict that, if Clinton is nominated in 2016, such polling data would inspire her to seriously consider this possibility as the tidal wave of voter rebellion against status quo politics reaches epic proportion. A ticket of two women would appear as a refreshing broom to sweep aside the discredited politics of demonization, destruction and dysfunction that most Americans detest.

Here's my Clinton-Warren math, which polls will prove or disprove. Net voter support from independent and GOP women: up markedly. Voter turnout and fundraising for Dems: up markedly. Net voter decrease from men who would otherwise vote Democratic: little.
The insider establishment is oblivious to the powerful hunger for transforming change from voters who have endured a decade of scarce jobs, stagnant wages, rising costs and financial pain in an economy they know is fixed and a politics they know is rigged...

Warren's appeal transcends ideology and gender. She reaches the same working-class men that Clinton successfully addressed midway through her 2008 campaign, when she abandoned her consultant-driven caution and fully hit her stride. Today, Warren works with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for a 21st century version of Glass-Steagall financial reform...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brent-budowsky/

Never heard of the writer but this is what Wikipedia says about him:

Brent J. Budowsky (born February 19, 1952)[1] is an American political opinion writer and blogger for publications including The Hill,[2] the LA Progressive,[3] and The Huffington Post.

From the mid-1970s to 1990, Budowsky served in senior congressional staff positions including legislative assistant to former Senator Lloyd Bentsen;[4] extensively involved with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and Intelligence Officers Death Benefits Act, and legislative director to Representative Bill Alexander, then the Chief Deputy Majority Whip.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Budowsky

Everyone listed there is a Democrat. He's been around for a while. With Warren's raison d'être, the CFPB, gutted by the GOP, she may be frustrated enough to run.

Warren has said repeatedly that she supports Hillary for POTUS. Those who want Warren but despise Clinton would be faced with a dilemma if both women ran on the same ticket.

[JustAnotherGen]

120. Ohhhhh - I really like that

Now around DU we have people who have a strongly held conviction about a third way.

They don't hold that Warren in that category at all.


I wonder - would they go out and knock on doors for Clinton if Warren was on her ticket - or would they just stay home on principle?

[freshwest]

158. I think they spell it 'principal' as if it's loan amount or a school official.

And no, they won't knock on any doors. That's for the 'invisible' people. May they turn out in 2016!

[truedelphi]

151. We blame President Obama, er,

rather, Democratic Corporate Spokesperson Obama because he and he alone appointed Tim Geithner and let Geithner handle the situation to the betterment of ALL, if by ALL, you mean the Big Banks.

Even after the hideous Savings and Loan debacle of the late 1980's, the Reagan/Bush people knew better than to go ahead and Bailout the troubled Savings and Loans directly.

Instead they created a system of state chartered regional banks, that were given lots of money by the Federal Government, and they also put in restrictions such that those banks had to loan the money out to the people on Main Street.

Obama could have done this. You had Brooksley Born and William Black waiting in the wings, willing to assist in this. You had Elizabeth Warren. The laws written in the late 1980's were still n the books, perfectly able to be dusted off and put back into operation. As they headed the Congressional Committee on House Oversight of Financial Matters, both Dennis Kucinich "D" and Darryl Issa "R" implored the WH under both George W and Barack Obama to do this.

But Obama did as the Corporations who paid his way into the WH asked him to do, and he will be richly rewarded when he leaves office.

The $ 250,000 per speech in front of corporate podium that bill Clinton now gets will be only chump change for the exorbitant amounts that will be the "quid pro quo" of Obama selling us out. As far as "How will he sleep, knowing he did this to the middle class," well, several hundred millions will buy a lot of sleep aids, should his conscience ever get the better of him.

[TBF]

3. Attack the victim -

excellent strategy!

[villager]

5. Well, you can't be a good "centrist" and attack the *banks," for Heaven's Sake!

That's like pleading for unicorns!

[truedelphi]

156. And the other thing is that the witness came out 2 and a half years ago -

So it is not at all true, as ProSense claims it to be, that she waited for eight years.

Seems to me like ProSense got itchy fingers and needed to vent about something, without making sure she or he got her facts straight.

[joeybee12]

6. Yup...

Lots of reasons she didn't come forth, she assumed the truth would come out and Holder and Obama would keep their word is the reason most obvious reaason to impartial people...but if you want to find fault with her beacuse you simply cannot bear to hear anything at not totally 100% positive about BO, then you'll find something.

[TBF]

9. Not to mention the fact that

the Patriot Act pretty much gives our current government the ability to lock up whomever they want. I'd find a way to put up with Eric Holder too if I were her. Now that she is back in Canada she's on safer footing.

[Warpy]

54. Exactly, I'd leave this country to speak out in her position, too

Once you start exposing how the plutocracy is systematically robbing not only us but the world, you start putting yourself in extreme danger in this country.

Perhaps being in Canada will protect her. I hope so.

[ProSense]

7. Ask a question.

".Attack the victim "

You're attacking the OP for posing a question, and framing it to suit a divisive agenda.

I want to know: Are people expecting the GOP majority to investigate the banks. Eight years, with Senator Warren in a position to do something for the last two years, was a missed opportunity.

[TBF]

11. This is corruption and your

defense of it is nauseating. Do I expect republicans to handle the subject any differently? No. And that should point out to anyone reading what the difference is between the third way and republicans.

[ProSense]

12. Where in the OP is there a "defense" of "corruption"?

If the OP is "nauseating" it's because you've twisted it into something it's not.

"And that should point out to anyone reading what the difference is between the third way and republicans. "

What?

[SomethingFishy]

17. You didn't read the article did you.

There was no "missed opportunity" here. The Justice Dept decided to let these guys buy their way out of jail. Period. There was no opportunity to do anything. The article states:

I"nstead, the government decided to help Chase bury the evidence. It began when Holder's office scheduled a press conference for the morning of September 24th, 2013, to announce sweeping civil-fraud charges against the bank, all laid out in a detailed complaint drafted by the U.S. attorney's Sacramento office. But that morning the presser was suddenly canceled, and no complaint was filed. According to later news reports, Dimon had personally called Associate Attorney General Tony West, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, and asked to reopen negotiations to settle the case out of court.

It goes without saying that the ordinary citizen who is the target of a government investigation cannot simply pick up the phone, call up the prosecutor in charge of his case and have a legal proceeding canceled. But Dimon did just that. "And he didn't just call the prosecutor, he called the prosecutor's boss," Fleischmann says. According to The New York Times, after Dimon had already offered $3 billion to settle the case and was turned down, he went to Holder's office and upped the offer, but apparently not by enough.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IKbR96Ej
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[ProSense]

20. Did you?

In January 2010, when Dimon testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, he told investigators the exact opposite story, portraying the poor Chase leadership as having been duped, just like the rest of us. "In mortgage underwriting," he said, "somehow we just missed, you know, that home prices don't go up forever."

When Fleischmann found out about all of this years later, she was shocked. Her confidentiality agreement at Chase didn't bar her from reporting a crime, but the problem was that she couldn't prove that Chase had committed a crime without knowing whether those bad loans had been sold.

As it turned out, of course, Chase was selling those rotten dog-meat loans all over the place. How bad were they? A single lawsuit by a single angry litigant gives some insight. In 2011, Chase was sued over massive losses suffered by a group of credit unions. One of them had invested $135 million in one of the bank's mortgage--backed securities. About 40 percent of the loans in that deal came from the GreenPoint pool.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IKXU1GA8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[SomethingFishy]

25. Yeah twice and what you posted confirms I'm right...

"When Fleischmann found out about all of this years later"

So she didn't know. Yet you are saying this is her faulty for not coming forward. She found out in the fucking NEWSPAPER that she was a government witness. IN THE FUCKING NEWSPAPER.

You know I find it funny that you offer no blame to anyone but this woman who just wan't fast enough for you.

Sorry, The Justice Dept let the bankers buy their way out of jail after fucking over 10's of millions of Americans. Blame her if you want. But most of us can see what really happened.

[ProSense]

33. You know

"You know I find it funny that you offer no blame to anyone but this woman who just wan't fast enough for you."

...I'm not sure why you're so upset by the OP. You seem to be attacking me for asking a question about the timing of the article. Why is the question so upsetting to you?

You want to be mad at me for asking it. Go ahead. I've got other posts to read.

Have a good day.

[SomethingFishy]

46. You know... you are right...

I shouldn't be upset that you once again try to deflect any blame off of the Obama Administration, and lay it at the feet of a citizen with no power whatsoever. I should just expect you to stand against what is right and move along with my day

[ProSense]

49. OK, I read this post.

"I shouldn't be upset that you once again try to deflect any blame off of the Obama Administration"

Explain how wishing this would have come out during the Warren hearings does that?

Does that even make sense?

[SomethingFishy]

51. It makes perfect sense to anyone who

has read your OP's for the last couple years. Coy doesn't suit you Pro.

[ProSense]

56. This is the entire purpose of your

your responses:

"It makes perfect sense to anyone who has read your OP's for the last couple years. Coy doesn't suit you Pro."

You want to argue with me based on that. Your comments are not about the OP. It'a about reading into it to fit some issue you have with me.

[Enthusiast]

187. +1 You nailed it.

[rhett o rick]

64. If you aren't attacking the victim, then what is the point of your OP?

You must think it clever to just insinuate but not really commit yourself. But of course you wouldn't like whistle-blowers. They speak truth to authoritarian power. Seems you are defending the overreach of corporate power.

[ProSense]

65. Post 4 and 48 seem to understood the point you missed. n/t

[Raine1967]

45. I think it is fair question.

I am not interested in the motivations some might think the OP has.

Why did she not come forward earlier?

[valerief]

75. Expect nothing less from the OP. nt

[99th_Monkey]

4. Better late than never

One could always wish bankster-crimes had been exposed earlier, etc. ... and yes the timing is heart-breaking (missing the Warren Hearings), but still; I'm not inclined to disparage either Taibbi or the whistleblower for that.

At least it's getting exposed, and Taibbi is taking on the Big Boys big-time here, and I applaud him for that.

[ProSense]

10. "and yes the timing is heart-breaking (missing the Warren Hearings)"

Agree.

[truedelphi]

152. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^n/t

[Marr]

8. You couldn't get farther than five paragraphs before finding a "problem" with the whistleblower.

Whatever, pro.

[ProSense]

14. The problem is the timing.

But hey, whatever!

[Marr]

26. I would think you'd cheer the timing. A day after the election.

The article makes it pretty clear she was hoping things would be sorted out through the legal process without her needing to come forward. She didn't want to be a whistle blower, it seems-- and it's understandable. It's not good for your professional prospects and it makes you a target for all sorts of, you know... smears and attacks.

[ProSense]

28. You think the timing a day after the election is good?

I don't. I think during the Warren hearings would have been better.

I likely would have cheered had Democrats retained their gavel.

[Marr]

41. Yes, Obama's DOJ should've brought her into the hearings instead of sweeping

a crime under the rug.

But they didn't.

[mindwalker_i]

67. No, the problem is that she makes Obama look bad

[ProSense]

69. If she had come out during the Warren hearings, would that have made him look good? n/t

[mindwalker_i]

70. Then you'd find something else to to nitpick

[ProSense]

71. Would you have been happier had this come out then? n/t

[mindwalker_i]

72. Now you want it to be about me?

Wouldn't matter how I felt about it, you would still be all bent out of shape that someone made Obama look bad.

"Well why didn't she say it earlier?"
"Why didn't she send registered mail to..."
"Why was she wearing blue shoes?"
"She's just a hater."

[SomethingFishy]

13. Really?

Unbelievable.

Maybe she was worried about getting killed? Maybe she was worried about being setup? Maybe she was worried about being able to get a job and support herself. Maybe, like she says in the article, that she didn't even know she was the leading witness in the governments case. Maybe she was fucking afraid.

Not to mention that if you had bothered to read the article she was contacted in 2012, BEFORE WARREN HELD HER HEARINGS, by the SEC and she told them she was ready to testify on what she knew. She waited and awaited to be contacted.

Welcome Back BTW...

[ProSense]

15. Has this changed?

Maybe she was worried about getting killed? Maybe she was worried about being setup? Maybe she was worried about being able to get a job and support herself. Maybe, like she says in the article, that she didn't even know she was the leading witness in the governments case. Maybe she was fucking afraid.

I mean, I see comments about her staying out of small planes.

I really wished she had talked to Senator Warren during the hearings, don't you?

[SomethingFishy]

18. It wouldn't have made a difference.

Read my response to you above. These guys were never going to jail thanks to Holder.

[ProSense]

22. This is about the Warren hearings.

Are you saying that her information would have been of no use during the Warren hearings?

[SomethingFishy]

29. No I'm saying no one in your beloved Obama administration gave enough of a shit

to bring her in. Are you saying she should have just walked into Warrens hearings and claimed she was a witness?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to blame this woman who had no power over anyone, for a problem that the head of the fucking Justice Dept let walk out the door for a few billion in cash.

[ProSense]

52. See comment 48

It's spot on regarding the importance of having this come out during the Warren hearings.

[Autumn]

165. She had interviews with the U.S. attorney's office in 2012 she gave them

detailed information about everything she'd seen. The United States Government knew, the SEC knew. Holders office had to have known . I wish they had talked to her, don't you?

[elias49]

16. Just want to say I haven't missed you

despite your last post that brought out your fan club.
Don't let the door hit you on the way to obscurity.

[ProSense]

24. I love you too, and I don't even know you. n/t

[Cleita]

19. Why is the problem with Taibbi? He's just reporting.

Or did I misunderstand you?

[ProSense]

21. It's a short thread title. Clearly, the point is about the timing. n/t

[Autumn]

23. A whistle blower coming forward under a gag order

is not a good thing considering Holders sweetheart deals with the banks and now that he's leaving office maybe she feels more comfortable. Jamie Dimon is the one who should scare the fuck out of her.

[ProSense]

27. Here's what I read:

In January 2010, when Dimon testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, he told investigators the exact opposite story, portraying the poor Chase leadership as having been duped, just like the rest of us. "In mortgage underwriting," he said, "somehow we just missed, you know, that home prices don't go up forever."

When Fleischmann found out about all of this years later, she was shocked. Her confidentiality agreement at Chase didn't bar her from reporting a crime, but the problem was that she couldn't prove that Chase had committed a crime without knowing whether those bad loans had been sold.

As it turned out, of course, Chase was selling those rotten dog-meat loans all over the place. How bad were they? A single lawsuit by a single angry litigant gives some insight. In 2011, Chase was sued over massive losses suffered by a group of credit unions. One of them had invested $135 million in one of the bank's mortgage--backed securities. About 40 percent of the loans in that deal came from the GreenPoint pool.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IKXU1GA8
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I still wished she had come forward during the Warren hearings.

[Autumn]

31. I wish she has come out then too, but I understand why she didn't. Dimon is a powerful man

with connections in high places and he fucking lied to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and got well rewarded for it. Holder is leaving and she may just feel better about coming out now.

Welcome back. it's good to see you.

[ProSense]

43. Thanks, and good comment. n/t

[Autumn]

55. After reading it all I think Holder and Dimon's asses should be hauled in front of a special

prosecutor.

[Rex]

191. Let's hope the new AG will actually go after the banksters.

She has produced results by getting huge chunks of money in fines, but if companies are people then it makes sense to go after the head person.

[fredamae]

30. Would Statute(s) of Limitation(s)

apply to the question of "why did it take her 8 years to come forward"?
(serious ques)

[woo me with science]

32. Third Way talking points. Trashing thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

[ProSense]

36. That comment makes no sense. Wanting this to have been revealed during the Warren hearings

is not a "Third Way" talking point.

Hey, keep errecting bogeymen.

Don't trash my next thread. Ignore it.

[NanceGreggs]

73. You've been away for a while ...

... so you might not be familiar with the new DU code words.

Being called a Third Wayer, or being accused of using their talking points, means "I don't like you and/or I don't agree with your views."

Being called an Authoritarian means "You continue to refuse to lockstep with me and all the other Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) on this site."

Other terms may also be thrown at you, e.g. ConservaDem, DINO, corporatist, water-carrier for the 1%, etc. They all mean "If you don't agree with me and all of the other Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) here, you are (a) telling me to STFU, (b) a paid operative shilling for (insert nefarious group/organization here), or (c) attempting to confuse DUers by posting things that have not been pre-approved for discussion by the Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) whose views and/or opinions are the ONLY views and/or opinions deemed acceptable here."

Nice to see you back in action. I'd thought you might have seen the recent ALEXA stats re DemocraticUnderground, and decided that the site now has too few participants to bother interacting with.

[grasswire]

79. turd in the punch bowl?

That's really rude to slam DU. Haters gotta hate, yes, but more polite people can take note of the last sentence and grimace.

[NanceGreggs]

80. Check out the Alexa stats for yourself.

DU went from being just above the 6,000 mark in the last week of August to the 12,000 mark as of today. That's a loss of 6,000 points on the Global rank scale in eight weeks - and that's the eight weeks leading into a mid-term election, when most political websites are at their peak activity.

I don't see anything "impolite" about stating the obvious. The constant Dem-bashing on this site has obviously driven down its numbers - so I can only hope that the bashers are happy with the fact that DU is now less popular than it has been in its entire history as a website, other than the earliest of days, when it was just taking hold.

In July of 2003, DU was at a 4,322 ranking. By August of that same year, it had moved up to the 3,697 spot - and climbing. Since 2010, DU has had a steady decline in activity year over year. But it has never seen such a disastrous decline as it has in the past eight weeks. AGAIN, I repeat that the decline occurred during the MOST active time for all other political websites.

So please grimace as you will. The fact is that DU is a dying website. It's why I started posting here again after a long absence - just visiting a dying website that was once the centre of the universe for so many Democrats, myself included, that is now just a meeting place for the Perpetually Pissed-Off, the Constant Complainers Ad Naseuem, the RWers posing as disgruntled "Democrats", and the Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) who have absolutely no idea how the nation's government actually works.

[grasswire]

81. so stop Dem bashing. nt

[NanceGreggs]

82. That's your well considered comeback ...

... that I'm the one bashing Dems?

Take a look at this website, sweetie. Post after post about how The Dems are spineless, they stand for nothing, they cave in every instance, they don't know what they're doing, they don't listen to their constituents, they send too many emails at election time, they're too timid, they're unelectable, they're corrupt, they're sell-outs, they're no better than the Republicans, they're idiots, they're water-carriers for the 1%, they're shills for the corporations, they don't stand up for the Party's principles, they don't know how to communicate, they have no message, they don't care about their fellow citizens, they're all bought-and-paid-for, they never do the right thing, they never stand up for Democratic values, they're too stupid to know what's really going on, they're only in it for themselves, they lack any morals, they lack any commitment to the Party or to the country, they're liars, they're cheats, they're immoral, they're unprincipled, they're undisciplined, they are the cause of the country's woes, they are clueless, they are stupid in the extreme, and they will never have what it takes to be anything more than empty-headed imbeciles who never accomplish anything of substance or consequence.

THIS is your DU - and you have the fuckin' nerve to tell me that I'm the one "bashing Dems"?

[grasswire]

85. actually, I didn't read either of your posts to me except for the first and last sentence.

Life's too short for such nonsense.

You don't like DU? Don't bother with it.

[NanceGreggs]

86. You should have gone with ...

... "I'm rubber and you're glue," or, "I know you are, but what am I?" Much more original than anything you've come up with, and far more amusing.

"Actually, I didn't read your posts" - but responded to them anyway - is pretty much what DU is down to these days; people who don't want their little bubble burst by the big, bad facts.

[sabrina 1]

88. DU is doing fine, and is likely to do even better now as Dem voters, who warned about this

impending defeat if the DLC/Third Way continued to control this party, once again look for a place where they can begin the process of rebuilding their party.

They didn't listen to the voters last time the Third Way lost an election for Dems, and I can see the denial by a few still, but the continued attacks on Dem voters from the Third Way have little impact anymore.

Now it's time to move forward and figure out how to restore the Dem Party to what it used to be and to start the long, hard work of rebuilding it, removing those who care nothing for the people and replace them with good, progressive candidates.

Haven't you noticed, no one is listening to the 'talking points' anymore. Too many lives have been adversely affected by just 'going along'.

DU will be fine. I wouldn't worry so much if I were you.

[NanceGreggs]

90. Oh, believe me ...

... I'm not "worried" at all.

The stats speak for themselves. You can ignore them if you like, but they're still there. Maybe you can hire Baghdad Bob as a spokesman - he can explain how the plummeting participation on this site is a sign that the Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) are making DU bigger and stronger than ever!!!

It would seem apparent that the "talking points" no one is listening to anymore are the ones being spewed on a website that has fallen six thousand points in eight weeks.

[Marr]

91. Why are you here?

You seem to think very little of this site and the people who post on it.

[NanceGreggs]

93. To visit a site that used to be ...

... before it's gone completely.

Waxing nostalgic for a truly Democratic site, before it became what it is now.

"Why are you here?" Is that not better asked of the "both parties are the same" crowd? Or the obvious RWers who post here? How about "the Democrats stand for nothing" contingent? Why are they here on what was once a "Democratic" message board?

Things that make you go hmmmmm ...

[Marr]

95. No one is begging you to stay.

If you dislike this site and the people who post on it, you should go elsewhere.

[NanceGreggs]

110. Can you point me to where ...

... I inferred that anyone was "begging me to stay"?

I am free to post here when I like. Just like the RWers are free to post here now. Just like the Dem-bashers are allowed to post here. Just like the "both parties are the same" contingent is allowed to post here. Just like the "Obama is a piece of shit used car salesmen" posters are allowed to post here.

In fact, it seems the only people who get flack for posting here nowadays are those who support the Democrats here on DemocraticUnderground.

Perhaps it's time to beg the Admins to get rid of all the pesky Democrats - they're ruining things for everyone else.

[sabrina 1]

94. Okay! Whatever you say! Meantime, most of us actually KNOW why DU stats

fall now before elections. After the election is when you need to check the stats. But hey, you seem to be thrilled at the prospect of the failure of a Dem site. That seems very strange to me. I otoh, want to Dems SUCCEED.

Why are you here, btw, if you despise this Dem site so much? Personally I never waste time going to places I have so much ill will towards. And there are quite a few, but I sure don't post on them, or even read them.

[NanceGreggs]

96. As per usual, sabrina ...

... the point flares like fireworks as it sails over your head.

I would never be thrilled at the prospect of a Democratic site failing. But this is no longer a Democratic site.

Perhaps you can explain why DU's stats have fallen that far in eight weeks - a decline unrivaled in DU history, both in terms of numbers and the rapidity of its sinking to its lowest point ever. That severe a drop has never happened before now - any theories on why that might be? DU, like every other political site, has historically seen a marked increase in numbers in the lead-up to mid-term elections every year until now. Why is this year different?

That rapid a decline in participants would be remarkable at any point. To see it happen in the lead-up to an election is truly astounding - and telling.

But please feel free to post your theory as to why DU has managed to drop to the lowest point in its history in the past eight weeks. I'm SURE it will be entertaining, if nothing else.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. Mostly due to a handful of loyalty oath centrists trying to root out disloyalty

and blaming the left for the goddamned abortion they made of the election.

[NanceGreggs]

99. Oh, I see.

That's why DU's numbers plummeted in the lead-up to the election? Because the "loyalty oath" contingent drove people off the site - suddenly, all at once, over an eight-week period?

Hmmm. And where were the Totally Cool True Progressives (TM)? Looking through posts from the past two months, they don't seem to have stopped posting here. In fact, they were posting in droves, whinging about Third Wayers, and DINOs, and those damned Centrists the whole time.

Sorry, but your theory is not borne out by the facts. In fact, it looks like the only people who hung around here in the two months leading up to the mid-terms were the usual TCTPs. I guess their numbers weren't enough to keep the site from falling off the edge of the earth, stats-wise.

Care to offer another theory, since that one doesn't hold water?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. You lost the right to influence my opinion about 800 3rd Way posts ago.

Bring some more of that goddamned centrist magic. I just loved it Tuesday night.

[NanceGreggs]

102. You still haven't explained ...

... why DU's numbers have plummeted to their lowest point in the site's history - and did so during the eight weeks leading up to an election.

And by the way, I doubt you'd know the difference between a Third Wayer and a pair of Bermuda shorts. But keep on lock-stepping with your Totally Cool True Progressive friends - ya know, the ones who tell you what to think.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

103. Oh goody, insults worthy of a Discussionist right wing fuckstain.

No thank you.

[NanceGreggs]

105. It was a simple question.

If you can't answer it, just say so.

Oh, but I forgot - asking questions on DU is now an "insult".

Are you starting to get the picture as to why DU's numbers are falling?

[Fumesucker]

116. I went to Discussionist

I came to DU to stop arguing with conservatives, if I'm going have to argue the liberal viewpoint anyway then why not do it with real conservatives?

The software and the jury system work pretty well even over there, neither side has managed to dominate and I've only had one post hidden, that was months ago. Keep your head and be civil and you can post whatever you like.

If you really want to make a difference give it a try.

[NanceGreggs]

134. Thanks for the invite ...

.. but no thanks.

I'll give Skinner credit where due. He finally noticed that DU's stats only go up when people are screaming at each other. A good case in point was the Snowden fiasco; DUers immediately took sides and participation ratcheted up as a result.

Well, what better way to keep people yelling at each other than to invite RWers and lefties to the same site? Business-wise, it was a very smart move.

Another advantage is the fact that RWers can openly declare themselves on Discussionist. That saves them the hassle of having to pretend they're "disappointed Dems" in order to post here - although I admit to missing the entertainment of reading first-time posters explaining that they canvassed for Obama (fifty miles every day, in the snow, uphill both ways), donated their life's savings to his first campaign, and renamed all of their children "Obama" and "Michelle", only to realize they'd been had. Some of the best creative writing ever posted on a political website.

But, as I said, Discussionist was a very good business move. As long as Repubs and Dems are at each other's throats (which they always are), that site should thrive.

[Number23]

136. It's like watching a master at work.

Simply phenomenal.

And some of these posts to you are nothing short of unreal. They're actually SURREAL. Especially from people who have decided that they will respond to people even after having been asked NOT to a hundred times, demanding to know what YOU are still posting here.

[Marr]

141. I've asked you to stop harrassing me before.

But here you are, throwing rocks from behind other posters yet again. I will not stand for your stalking and creepy insults.

(PS- Never played your little game before. Am I doing it right?)

[Number23]

143. HEY NANCE, see what I'm talking about??

The hit dogs will ALWAYS holler!! ALWAYS. They can't help themselves!

[Marr]

144. I know, it's awful...

Sometimes when you insult people, they actually respond.

[Number23]

145. Where is the insult? In noting that you, who I have demanded to leave me alone, are now badgering

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Nance about why she's posting here?? Where is the insult? There is none. That is EXACTLY what you are doing. You can't even control your OWN damned posting and you're trying to tell other people what and where they should post?????

And this feeling of bulletproofness that allows you to keep posting to me after I've asked and demanded that you stop the better part of a dozen times for over A YEAR will hopefully be coming to an end very soon.

Edit: And this person always has a habit of talking shit in his edits. Ten minutes after you've read the post and moved on, he comes back and edits in some witty, pithy BS.

[Marr]

146. Actually, I had respected your wishes and ignored your recent posts. But you chose to

insult me here again and make your same old phony accusations, so I responded to it. It was silly enough when you were just crying about people responding to your posts on a public message board-- but it's completely absurd to do so while you're insulting them.

I know that must be very hard for you, but...

[Number23]

149. Let's get this in before another one of your stupid edits where you add in everything

you weren't quick witted enough to get in the first time.

Don't ignore some of my posts. Ignore ALL of them. When you can control your own posts, THEN you get to demand and exhibit your endless fascination with what OTHER people (particularly the female Democrat and Democrat supporting posters) are posting.

There was no insult in my post but mere incredulity that someone who has so well documented a problem that they are incapable of responding to someone who has made it clear that they want absolutely NOTHING to do with them, has the unmitigated gall to chase after someone else for their postings. I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you see an insult in there. Your ability to understand basic conversation and directions such as, LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE, seems to be every bit as strong as your self-awareness.

And as for that baby, if I had a choice between having the two of you sniffing after me, there'd be no contest. He'd probably clobber you in a political discussion and then clean your clock in a beauty contest the same day.

[Marr]

174. No.

As I said, against my better judgement, for sometime I actually honored your idiot demands that I not respond to your posts. My mistake. You chose to continue your insults and flat-out lies of being stalked.

So, sorry-- you'll just have to deal with getting responses to your posts on this public message board. If you can't take it, go back to your bog.

[sabrina 1]

175. If you know the answer, why ask the question? That's kind of silly isn't it?

.
..

[Fumesucker]

180. Don't you get tired of having to constantly defend things from the right?

Like I said, I originally came to DU out of exhaustion from constantly arguing the left against an avalanche of right wingers. Eventually I found myself again constantly arguing the left but this time on DU.

If I'm going to argue the left anyway might as well go all in, there doesn't seem to be anywhere reasonable to post any more that's not tinged with right wing ideas if not outright marinaded in them.

[Blue_Adept]

125. And your latest jury results...

On Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

You still haven't explained ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5779782

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:50 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whaaaambulance alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this whole thread is nothing but swarming. let 'em duke it out.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: frivolous alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If that's an attack, I'm a potato. That's a statement.

[Mnpaul]

138. The alert on that one went down in flames

Big 0-7 just like the rest of their crap

More fail

[SMC22307]

166. 1) They tired of the Cha/sheshe/abakan/fill-in-the-blank show.

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

It's not intellectually stimulating. At all.

2) They were busy, out in the real world, trying to get Democrats elected on November 4th, not farting around on message boards.

[NanceGreggs]

179. Seriously?

A 6,000 point drop is not a blip on the radar screen - it's a disaster.

It's also unprecedented. Are you suggesting that in every other election lead-up before now, no DUers were "busy out in the real world getting Democrats elected"? Because DUs numbers used to go UP before an election, never down.

Seems to me that the usual frequent flyer miles posters are still here, and have been throughout. Are we to assume that their continued presence indicates that none of them did anything "out in the real world" to get Dems elected?

In addition, posters like sheshe and Cha have been pretty consistent in their postings for years now. Are you seriously suggesting that they suddenly drove away enough DUers to cause a 6,000 point drop over an eight-week period? Who knew they were THAT powerful an influence over an entire website - wow!

[sabrina 1]

124. I would think the reason for any decline in participation on the site before the election

would not need any explanation at this point. But if you haven't figured it out, then watch the stats over the coming year, maybe that might help.

But then, I don't follow stats on websites. So I'm taking your word for it as it seems of great importance to you. If you care about the site the way to help is to support it. That is what I do as much as possible.

[NanceGreggs]

148. Oh, I think the explanation ...

... is pretty obvious, too.

But I am truly interested in your theory as to why a political website would drop 6,000 points in global ranking in any eight-week period - no less the eight weeks preceding a mid-term election - a drop unprecedented in DU's history.

Please enlighten me.

[Gore1FL]

128. Jury results...

You apparently have someone worked up.

On Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

As per usual, sabrina ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5779678

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attacks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 7, 2014, 09:41 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Disgusting stream of posts by this person. Just get off the site if you don't like it
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Come the fuck on.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Points flying overhead, whatever the ordnance metaphor, is a personal attack with the power of lukewarm Postum.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What personal attacks?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Union Scribe]

111. Not worried about DU, just obsessed with it?

Seriously who does that petty shit, coming here just to bash the site and its users and tracking its hits? I mean how you spend your time is your business but damn.

[QC]

122. It's like the guy who swears he's over his old girlfriend

but he drives by her house every couple of hours and calls in the middle of the night and hangs up when she answers and cries over her every time he gets a few drinks in him.

[Puglover]

155. Yep and his best bud has showed up to school

everyone on just what his old girlfriend is missing. Complete with and glowing accolades.

AND started a rumble on top of it all.

It would be good however if his bestie could string a coherent sentence together. It might make the glowing review a tad more credible.

Oh this is comedy gold! I should up my donation for this sub thread alone!

And now I see we're hallucinatin Obama and Democrat bashin in this thread. Yikes!

[QC]

183. LOL

[QC]

190. STOP REPLYING TO ME!!!!!1!11 STOP REPLYING TO ME RIGHT NOW!!1!!!!1!111!

[Number23]

192. And more than 48 hours later....

Guess you thought if you replied to your friend again, THIS TIME he'd answer, huh? Poor, poor thang.

[Rex]

130. There are a handful and strangely enough they always say the same thing.

"If this place doesn't change, nobody will post here anymore." YET they come back here day after day and do nothing but complain about the topics that get posted here, complain about the liberals that post here. Complain about the admins wanting to make money and nothing else, then for some strange reason we are supposed to agree with their asinine whining.

Thankfully it is only about 5 or 6 people...supposedly.

[Marr]

142. Twenty if you count their socks. /nt

[Barack_America]

154. Well, THAT was an interesting sub-thread.

Maybe I should google this Discussionist site. Sounds groovy.

[Efilroft Sul]

83. Many liberal voices were chased off this board in the last six or seven years.

Whether it was through series of purges or posters walking away from DU in disgust, a lot of goodwill for this place evaporated.

There should probably be an effort made to "get the band back together again," but to do that would require some high lord muckety-mucks to admit the error of their ways.

[NanceGreggs]

92. So true.

Oh, to spend one more night on DU as it used to be - lively conversation, actual 'discussion' as opposed to playing the "I'm more progressivier than you" game. Laughs galore, a real sense of community and common purpose.

I miss those days - but I am glad I had the chance to be part of them when they still existed. It was a great time in my life - as it was for many.

[Major Hogwash]

101. They has a list.

And they use it, frequently.

[NanceGreggs]

104. Yeah, I've heard their song ...

"There's a man goin' round takin' names."

Except he's not a man, he's a woman - and how dare I be such an anti-feminist by insinuating that the person takin' names is a man, like a woman couldn't do the job. But then I'm not a feminist, because I shave my underarms. So there's that.

[aikoaiko]

112. And the jury results are in....

On Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:15 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeah, I've heard their song ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5779789

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Totaly unnecessary slam on feminists, and a jerky series of posts shitting on DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:23 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LEAVE IT
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not a "slam on feminists".. alerter needs to stop knee jerking and get a grip.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Unnecessary? That's what I'd call this alert.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Union Scribe]

113. That was my alert

I guess trolling DU and insulting all feminists with lame stereotypes is cool. Proud of that jury duty?

[aikoaiko]

115. You make your alert and takes your chances;

Not everyone, in this case 6 out of 7 random DUers, didn't see the post the same was as you.

[U4ikLefty]

108. Many of my favorite DUers were purged, while the DLC sucking fools

are allowed to spew here ad-nauseam.

I see you've been here for a while as well & probably remember when we had something here.

Very sad.

[Efilroft Sul]

126. This place became simultaneously meaner and hyper-sensitive after 2007.

Back in dem ol' dark days of the Shrub, there was a stronger sense of community (partly because we were all on the outs), a hell of a lot more humor, and — I cannot stress this enough — actual principles we believed and cherished.

I post only in fits and spurts as my schedule allows, then and now, but I lurk around enough to have seen the change happen, starting around 2007, when Pelosi took impeachment off the table. That's when I started to notice the Sensible Woodchuck brigade make posts in support of Pelosi's decision, with the whole "look forward, not backward" spin. Then came the curse of the Three P's: the 2008 primaries, the PUMA controversy, and the purges that later followed. "Principles" became a euphemism for "wanting a pony," and at that point, this place was never the same after we had "our guy" in the Oval Office.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we're supposed to be here to support the Democratic candidates and the party. Well, the party's changed, and instead of wanting to go along with it, some of us are going to try to swing it back from its gawd-awful rightward tilt to the liberal principles espoused by FDR, LBJ, and Paul Wellstone. I'm a small-town elected official in charge of supervising elections, but I fight like mad against the pro-voter ID Republicans and the Democrats too scared to fight back against the vote suppressors. It's a start, baby steps actually, but it's been a successful start. Sticking to Democratic principles works.

At the end of the day, no real Democrat puts the social safety net on the table for negotiation, approves of the Justice Department letting Wall Street get away with a slap on the wrist while coming down hard on whistle-blowers and civil liberties in general, and takes an anti-worker stand by pushing for secretive free trade deals and siding with Amazon against their temporary warehouse employees who want to be paid for the time they undergo security checks before and after their shifts. These actions by this White House are not Democratic in any way, shape, or form — and any person who supports this ish and still calls themselves a Democrat can take their three-dimensional chess pieces and, well, if I say what to do with them, that would just sound mean, wouldn't it?

[ChisolmTrailDem]

176. This ^ and more than a couple of cliques alert-stalking and just plain running

good, long-lived members like nadin and others off. She was stalked mercilessly. Like her or lover her, she was DU fixture. And now she's gone. Along with many others. My stats don't reflect it but I've been a daily DU visitor since 2005 and this site is worse for the wear by cliques such as the ones to which I am referring.

So many good people providing valuable and quality content every day. I used to spend entire days reading and posting on DU because I couldn't get enough. Now I'm here an hour here or an hour there or just a few minutes before I get disgusted and leave. I can't be here for over an hour it seems before my very own stalkers appear and force me to go find something to do where I'm not being bullied and getting posts hidden for fighting back.

[Number23]

135. Great Caesar's Ghost, you NAILED it. Freaking NAILED IT

is now just a meeting place for the Perpetually Pissed-Off, the Constant Complainers Ad Naseuem, the RWers posing as disgruntled "Democrats", and the Totally Cool True Progressives (TM) who have absolutely no idea how the nation's government actually works.

[steve2470]

139. yes she did nt

[Number23]

140. Between the brilliantly handled pile ons, personal attacks and failed jury attempts

Pwned seems like too mild a word to describe what Nance did in this thread.

[NanceGreggs]

150. Thanks, Number23!!!

Always good to reconnect with you - hope all is well with you and yours!

Looks like the "Disgruntled Dems" site isn't faring very well these days.

And it's ALL Obama's fault. If only he would wave his magic wand and make everyone understand that a "Democratic" site that bashes Dems day-in and day-out deserves to have better numbers!!! Why can't he just issue an executive order making participation on DU mandatory for all party members????!!



Checked Alexa again this morning - DU now below the 12,000 mark in global ranking. DAMN THAT OBAMA!!!

[Number23]

153. Dem bashing with a big old side of needless harrassin' to boot!

Yum, yum! Who wouldn't line up for all of that???!

And I love how it's YOUR fault for so beautifully highlighting just how shitty this place has become, complete with actual numbers and rankings, that's the problem. Not the deranged behavior of some posters here (look upthread for reference) including demanding to know why you don't leave.

I just had to give you props for the way you handled the horde. You did beautifully.

[Autumn]

164. Where does democrats for progress rank?

[SMC22307]

167. Globally, a whopping 2,627,556.

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Within the United States, 619,129. Historical data isn't maintained on the poor dears because their numbers aren't low enough. Perhaps if they spend more time whining about DU, they'll reach the magic 100,000 or less!

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democratsforprogress.com

Doesn't Greggs have her own site? I imagine those numbers are pretty dismal; hence the lashing out.

Wait, isn't there a "no whining about DU" policy still in effect? We lose the election thanks to the Mushy Middle and all the *pragmatists* can muster is a round of DU-bashing. Productive lot, eh?

[Autumn]

168. Oh I see, democrats for progress is where Nance posts

That seems interesting. The site is rather dismal, only a few posters, and it has a BOG like feeling.

[SMC22307]

170. I have no idea where she posts; I tuned out lonnnnng ago.

There's DFP, but I thought she had her own blog. Which mustn't be doing very well, since she's popped up yet again on DU to... bash DU. With her little pep club cheering her on, of course. For folks who hate this site as much as they do, they spend an inordinate amount of time on it. Who has that kinda time in life? I don't.

[Autumn]

172. I love DU and I probably spend too much time here but it's my home.

I agree it makes no sense to go to a site contribute nothing but complain about it and attack the members every time you visit. That's like going to someones house and peeing on the floor.

[SMC22307]

173. Exactly. It's quite rude, to members and site admins.

They proclaim that DU sucks, make a big production about how they won't contribute financially, announce that they're *done* with the site (as if that would be any great loss), etc., BUT THEY NEVER LEAVE!

[NanceGreggs]

178. Too small a site ...

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 05:37 AM - Edit history (1)

... to have a ranking there. Your point being?

DFP was never set up to be a site on the order of DU. It's a blog featuring original essays, editorials, etc. The discussion forum is secondary - basically a place for just that, discussion among fellow Dems.

You seem to be obsessed with this idea that implying that DFP is a much smaller site than DU actually means something. It is a much smaller site - and it was never envisioned as anything other than what it is.

[Autumn]

181. My point is whatever the fuck I want it to be.

I quit posting there, it was boring but I don't go over and tell the few people there how much it sucks. That would just be a small petty thing to do.
I don't think DU was set up to be a site on the order of the DU it became. This is the best place for Discussion among fellow Dems and the essays, Our DU is lucky that we have such wonderful published authors like William Rivers Pitt that posts essays that are wonderfully thought provoking. He did one piece called the Ocean is Coming that was just amazing. Then we have satire that will just blow one away.

[Puglover]

182. Beautifully said.

I believe it's called bad form.

But I will say that if you did go over there and spew venom about the site and it's members that NJM would probably have the good sense to give you the boot.

Just sayin.

[QC]

184. Imagine---a place where NJmaverick is the voice of reason!

[NanceGreggs]

189. Your point was obvious.

But comparing apples and oranges is always a silly idea.

Yes, Will is an excellent writer. It's sad that he wastes his writing skills on calling Obama a POS used car salesman because Will himself didn't bother to choose an insurance plan that covered his wife's medication. Anyone can see how that was all Obama's fault.

Then there was the WP screamfest about how Obama introduced an obviously severely injured soldier at the last SOTU address in order to "glorify war". I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. Seems that if Obama wanted to glorify war, he would have trotted out a handsome young soldier with a medal-laden chest, instead of one who represented the visible consequences of having served in battle.

As for the "satire" aspect, I think the DU TOS now qualifies as such - you know, all that talk about a site devoted to supporting Dems and electing more of them. That's downright hysterical on a site where OPs trashing Dems 24/7 outweigh any positive threads about the Party and/or its members.

Ever wonder why DU's traffic numbers are in free fall? You might want to think about it. I'm sure the answer will dawn on you eventually.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

177. Well, that explains Discussionist...

[LostInAnomie]

159. I have to say...

... you have put on an ass-whoopin' clinic in this thread like I've never seen before.

Fantastic!

[Number23]

162. I really have to agree. 'Ass whoopin' clinic' is a perfect description

Took everything that was handed to her with a laugh and a smile

Even brought out a couple of latecomers that do NOTHING but taunt, but always from the sidelines where they belong. Don't want to risk the chance of having their asses handed to them too. Plus joining the fray means they'll be taken too far away from their Googling of everyone one's personal business!

Whooping was so bad it almost made me rethink my donation policy. Almost.

[mercuryblues]

34. She could

have been in trouble for going to the press. It is not like whistleblowers in the US are treated as heroes instead of criminals. Then add in every so often an investigation is raised, she thinks finally I can talk. Only to find out months and sometimes years later that a 'settlement' has been reached.

Thanks to a confidentiality agreement, she's kept her mouth shut since then. "My closest family and friends don't know what I've been living with," she says. "Even my brother will only find out for the first time when he sees this interview."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106#ixzz3IQU9GRfu

[Bluenorthwest]

35. What a petty, silly, Stretch Armstrong reach for a complaint that is.

'I would have really liked this story, but she wore blue socks, so that's a deal breaker'.

[ProSense]

39. This is from post 4

"yes the timing is heart-breaking (missing the Warren Hearings"

We don't all have to agree.

[markpkessinger]

42. Well said! n/t

[arcane1]

37. What does that have to do with Matt Taibbi?

[TheKentuckian]

117. Smeared en route to smearing a whistle blower as all whistle blowers are smeared.

The OP's real problem with the article is that it was written. The OP smears the writer step on and goes on to support said smear with no problems with the actual article.

Pure propaganda.

[gratuitous]

38. It looks to me

First, that Ms. Fleischmann was subject to some confidentiality agreement. Further, it appears she was mollified by DOJ assurances that their investigation was going to get the perpetrators. She also seems to have foolishly believed that when the DOJ investigators took her statements and evidence, that they were interested in, you know, justice.

By the time it became apparent that DOJ was actually in collusion with the targets of their investigation to cover up the whole scheme, it was far too late for one individual to do anything. Thanks to the confidentiality agreement, the investigators for any Senate hearings may not have even been aware of Fleischmann's existence, so they didn't know to subpoena her to testify. But why should Fleischmann testify? Chase was being duly investigated by the enforcement bulldogs of the DOJ. Going public with her testimony could jeopardize her freedom, because the United States considers whistle-blowing a far more serious crime than anything exposed by that whistle-blowing. Ask Chelsea Manning or Jon Kiriakou about that.

It also takes some time for someone serious about an investigation to look into someone's whistle-blowing evidence and establish that the person knows what he or she is talking about. It's a shame that that job was left to Matt Taibbi, who doesn't have any law enforcement credentials, instead of being taken up by government officials whose job is to enforce the law.

Why didn't DOJ prosecute a crime, instead of working with the perpetrators to sweep it under the rug?

[Enrique]

40. I knew it!

ProSense is Jamie Dimon!

[ProSense]

44. LOL!

[jwirr]

47. Wonder if this is what all the suicides in the bankers circle is all about?

[Luminous Animal]

48. Warren's hearings were focused on white-washing regulators; so yes, Fleischmann's testimony

would have given Warren new ammunition to skewer the Obama admin.

[magical thyme]

50. Doesn't surprise me in the least. She had multiple reasons to hold out

First, she was hoping against hope that the government would finally and at last do their job. Instead, she saw them cover up the crimes, so she came out.

Second, this is a career-destroying move. She could be disbarred for violating her confidentiality agreement.

[pa28]

53. It would have been nice but the facts are coming out now and better late than never.

How is it a "problem" with the piece? Sorry, this OP makes no sense.

[KingCharlemagne]

60. Just a guess, but I think the OP is passive aggressively trying to impugn

the character of Ms. Fleischmann by insinuating that she came forward too late for nefarious unspecified reasons on Ms. Fleischmann's part that can only be hinted at and never detailed. In so doing, the OP hopes to indemnify Holder from criticism of 'throwing the case' b/c, see, Fleischmann waited too long.

Had the OP been around during Vietnam, he or she no doubt would have taken issue with Daniel Ellsberg waiting so long to leak the PP to the press. No matter that Ellsberg tried to leak them to several congress people first only to be rebuffed.

Thus, the OP hopes to change the story from a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice by Attorney General Holder, Dimon and other unspecified co-conspirators to the whistleblower's own shortcomings. Classic deflection 101.

[pa28]

62. If that's true it's a tactic I've seen on this site many times before.

A whistle blower, potentially embarrassing to the administration, comes forward. Whistle blower becomes the object of intense and highly personal scrutiny. Same playbook, same shit.

[KingCharlemagne]

66. The bottom line for me here is that there is NO PROBLEM with

Taibbi's piece, nor with the timing of Ms. Fleischmann coming forward now.

The REAL PROBLEM is that Taibbi's piece creates at least the impression that Attorney General Holder or his underlings conspired to obstruct justice. Not cool, especially when one considers who Holder's boss is.

Instead, the government decided to help Chase bury the evidence. It began when Holder's office scheduled a press conference for the morning of September 24th, 2013, to announce sweeping civil-fraud charges against the bank, all laid out in a detailed complaint drafted by the U.S. attorney's Sacramento office. But that morning the presser was suddenly canceled, and no complaint was filed. According to later news reports, Dimon had personally called Associate Attorney General Tony West, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, and asked to reopen negotiations to settle the case out of court.

It goes without saying that the ordinary citizen who is the target of a government investigation cannot simply pick up the phone, call up the prosecutor in charge of his case and have a legal proceeding canceled. But Dimon did just that. "And he didn't just call the prosecutor, he called the prosecutor's boss," Fleischmann says. According to The New York Times, after Dimon had already offered $3 billion to settle the case and was turned down, he went to Holder's office and upped the offer, but apparently not by enough.

This stinks to high heaven.

[SMC22307]

169. Yes. And based on the low number of recs,

DU sees through it. Which explains the lashing out by some in this thread. Vicious circle.

[Rex]

57. I noticed that, but that is not Taibbi's problem he is just reporting on the issue.

I agree, I winced when I read she had been an active participant for YEARS in criminal activity. Yet, I am happy she finally did come forward - even if nothing ever comes from the investigation (which seems the outcome).

[randome]

58. A better question is why didn't The Intercept want this story?

Perhaps everything is not what it seems?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

63. First, this story wouldn't have appeared on The Intercept.

I believe you mean First Look, the umbrella organization. Tiabbi was creating 'Racket,' a separate magazine about financial issues, the type Taibbi tends to write about

Second, we don't know First Look didn't want the story, as far as I know. The Intercept:

Taibbi’s dispute with his bosses instead centered on differences in management style and the extent to which First Look would influence the organizational and corporate aspects of his role as editor-in-chief."

Maybe Omidyar didn't want the story published, but what evidence is there of that?

[randome]

68. Unless this story was written in 15 minutes, it was written for Racket.

Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I find it hard to believe that only Taibbi's management problems stopped this 'blockbuster' story from being published there. No evidence of any of this but I think there is more to both stories, both the Fleischmann story and the story about Taibbi's departure.

Greenwald's hurried 'expose' of Taibbi hints at more.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Major Hogwash]

107. Why wouldn't Omidyar want the story published?

I thought that was what Greenwald's "The Intercept" was all about, whistleblowers.

Unless Omidyar made a lot of money from the financial banking fiasco that took place in 2006.

[Hissyspit]

59. Maybe she knew what happens to whistleblowers?

[ProSense]

61. Still wish she had come out during the Warren hearings. Besides

people who blow the whistle on banks have a huge impact.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455454

[JaneyVee]

74. Prosense is back!!!

[Odin2005]

77. To his usual NONsense.

[Odin2005]

76. What a load of centrist BS.

[tularetom]

78. Where have you been?

I rarely agree with you but I missed you being here.

You're a gracious and dignified poster.

[Fearless]

84. She still has the majority until the end of the Congressional Session

And it has nothing to do with the reporter any more than blaming Woodward and Bernstein for Watergate!

[Rex]

87. The problem is the title of your thread. It is incorrect. nt

nt

[JEB]

89. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I'm just glad she's stepping forward now.

[laserhaas]

98. The only thing wrong with Taibbi's piece - is no explaining why back at RS

As one of his sources for the Greed and Debt story;
I'm really miffed that we haven't had his work for so long

and now this - out of the blue.

Hope he continues

I'm just sayin............

[joshcryer]

106. The hive is strong here.

Jeez, it's a legit question. Not sure what the pile on is about. The OP is being called all sorts of shit.

[ProSense]

123. Truth hurts.

Do you really believe anyone being nasty or snarky wouldn't have love this information shared during the Warren hearings?

[adirondacker]

132. Perhaps "Why did this report have to come out before the midterms" would have been the alternative

to what you are asking. ie They couldn't win either way. Personally I don't think they were ready for one reason or another due to whatever Matt's issues are/were with Racket. Also, Alayne more than likely had to contemplate on who to trust.

I do agree that it would have been an interesting revelation for Warren to discuss, but this does not make Eric Holder look good at all.

There was an excellent interview with Taibbi and Alayne Fleischmann on Democracy Now...

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/7/matt_taibbi_and_bank_whistleblower_on

BTW, I read your return post and wanted to offer you my sympathy and Best Wishes.
Hope things manage to improve for All of us, but it doesn't look like things are going to be easier for quite a while.

[U4ikLefty]

109. The problem with Matt Taibbi's piece is that it doesn't fit your narrative.

[TransitJohn]

121. LOL

So, "this is old news."

[Warren Stupidity]

127. Thank you so much for providing the missing under bus chucking. nt.

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. are you suggesting he was waiting untill after the elections so as to avoid harm to the Democrats?

Are you suggesting he should have come forward before the election even if there was a possibility of it harming the Democrats?

[msanthrope]

133. I don't think Taibbi held off on the story....I just don't think he could get it published

at Omidayar's concern.

The details of the settlement have already been published....so I'm not sure if this would have helped or hurt the Dems.....I see this less as whistleblowing, and more like getting the inside scoop. Had she spoken before the settlement, she might have made more of a difference.

[Puglover]

131. Matt Taibbi and the "Whistleblower"

were just on DemocracyNow. I would suggest giving the segment a listen.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/7/matt_taibbi_and_bank_whistleblower_on

I also realize that this suggestion might (for some) be akin to offering a vampire a garlic sundae.

[Autumn]

160. Hi Puglover. I've read Taibbi's piece three times now. The problem with it

is Holder and Jamie Dimon, Obama's appointees.

Going off to watch the video you linked

[Puglover]

161. Let me know what your take is m'dear!

[Autumn]

163. My take is a special prosecutor is needed

and Holder and Dimons asses need to hauled up in front of one. That's just from reading Taibbi's piece. I think about little lord Jamie flashing his presidential cuff links and I get pissed all over again

[KoKo]

188. Agree after watching the interview on DN yesterday and

reading Taibbi's article...I came to the same conclusion.

[Vattel]

147. What is the problem with Taibbi's piece?

And why do you think she took so long to come forward?

[truedelphi]

157. ProSense, pls take the time to watch the Democracy Now video about this woman witness.

That video is up and running over at the Video Forum here at DU.

The witness actually came out two and a half years ago, so it is rather unfair to say that she waited eight years. (And I realize that from the one section of Taibbi's material you are referring to, it does make it seem like she waited eight years.)

Legal entanglements prevented her from blurting out what she knew. But when she started fearing that the truth might never get out there, she did come forward.

That is one of the hazards of becoming entangled as a witness for a court case. Things can take dreadfully long with our legal system as it is.

[MFrohike]

171. The NDA and the subsequent blacklisting

Those would be completely sufficient reasons to keep quiet. How many people would really risk their livelihood, their ability to make a living, to go public against a powerful adversary? Not many, I think.

Even if she did it to make a point, which is absurd given the post-electoral timing, so what? It doesn't change the fact that Jamie Dimon can call the AG directly to reopen a negotiation over a criminal investigation and buy off the Justice Department. It doesn't change the fact that the $13B "settlement" was lie from the start (it's really $9B to the bank, with $4B being charged against the interests of investors). It doesn't change the fact that we have yet another case of clear fraud that was ignored by Holder AND his boss. Compared against all of that, any argument over the "timing" is just a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.

If you replace Gonzalez with Holder and Bush with Obama, I strongly doubt you defend this policy of appeasing the almighty banks.

[Enthusiast]

185. Because she was afraid "they" would kill her?