Draining the Swamp/Sewer

[coorslite21]

Yes this is a FOX summary........but the MSM only puts bits and pieces out there........this is a pretty complete summary........Swamp creatures left and right......beware....!!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/13/attacking-trump-is-now-losing-strategy-in-both-parties-thats-real-takeaway-from-tuesdays-primaries.html

 

Attacking Trump is now a losing strategy in BOTH parties -- That's the real takeaway from Tuesday's primaries

 By Douglas E. Schoen | Fox News

• Facebook
•  

 

 (FNC)

Tuesday’s primaries in Virginia, North Dakota, Nevada, South Carolina, and Maine indicated that in many congressional races, vehemently attacking President Trump will not be a winning strategy for either Democrats or Republicans in the Nov. 6 general election.

 

As we’ve seen in earlier primaries this year, it was clear Tuesday that while strongly resisting President Trump is certainly damaging to Democrats, doing so is nothing short of catastrophic for Republicans. GOP voters in several races showed once again that they are rejecting lawmakers who decisively break with the president.

 

Instead of building their campaigns on being anti-Trump, candidates in both parties would be wise to develop compelling moderate policy alternatives and a unifying message that can appeal to centrist and independent voters.

 

The most prominent Trump critic to go down to defeat in the Tuesday primaries was Republican Rep. Mark Sanford in South Carolina’s 1^st District. Sanford lost his GOP primary for another term in the House to state Rep. Katie Arrington, a strong supporter and defender of the president.

Instead of building their campaigns on being anti-Trump, candidates in both parties would be wise to develop compelling moderate policy alternatives and a unifying message that can appeal to centrist and independent voters.

President Trump endorsed Arrington in a tweet just three hours before the polls closed, while at the same time offering harsh criticism of Sanford, a former governor who resigned after admitting an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina. The president’s tweet attacking Sanford said that “He is better off in Argentina.”

 

It is worth noting that though backing President Trump helped a number of Republican candidates in Tuesday’s primaries, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s past endorsement of President Trump was not enough to help him break the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff later this month.

 

Tuesday’s results were arguably encouraging for Democrats in several races, especially in Virginia, where a number of promising Democratic candidates secured their party’s nominations.

 

In Virginia's 10th Congressional District in the northern point of the commonwealth, moderate Democrat Jennifer Wexton coasted to victory in her primary race and will now face Republican incumbent Barbara Comstock in November. 

 

Given that Comstock’s seat is one of the more vulnerable Republican-held seats nationwide, Wexton’s victory is a particular bright spot for Democrats looking ahead to the general election.

 

Wexton is a moderate, anti-resistance Democrat who certainly has broad appeal and a strong opportunity to defeat Comstock in November, despite the district’s historically Republican voting record.

 

In Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District in the Tidewater region along the Atlantic Coast, Democrat Elaine Luria, a former Navy commander and small business owner, won the Democratic primary. Luria will face incumbent Republican Rep. Scott Taylor, who is also a veteran, in the general election.

 

Luria has received support from Democrats nationwide as the party has focused on this particular district as a top target in its effort to regain control of the House. Luria’s credentials as an accomplished veteran and her moderate policy views underpin her strong positioning heading toward November.

 

Additionally, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger won the Democratic primary for Virginia's 7th Congressional District, which is another key district Democrats are targeting to flip.

 

It is certainly notable that the winners of these three congressional races in Virginia – Wexton, Luria, and Spanberger – are all women. This is especially significant for Democrats heading into November, as the presence of strong, moderate female candidates – all positioned differently than the insurgent resistance movement – may serve to revitalize the blue wave that Democrats hope comes to fruition.

 

If Democrats stand any chance at taking back congressional seats in November while likewise holding onto vulnerable congressional seats currently held by their own party, it is necessary that the party’s message emphasizes centrism and unity.

 

This will be especially important as Democrats attempt to flip Republican Sen. Dean Heller’s seat in Nevada and retain Democratic incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s seat in North Dakota.

 

Democrat Jacky Rosen will take on Heller in what will certainly be one of the most closely analyzed Senate elections in November. Democrats know that defeating Heller, in a state Hillarious Clinton won in 2016, is essential if they stand any chance at taking back the Senate or stemming potential Republican gains.

 

In North Dakota, a state that Donald Trump carried by nearly 36 points in 2016, Rep. Kevin Cramer won the Republican nomination for Senate to challenge Heitkamp.

 

Candidates in both parties on the ballot in November need to remember that voters want to know not just what the candidates oppose, but what they are for. Simply complaining about President Trump without giving voters a compelling reason to support them will be a losing strategy.

[bostonangler]

The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.

Will Rogers

[Sage449]

Karma, the dems have consistently thumbed it's nose at the American people that don't agree with them. If your not with its socialist agenda you're pond scum. Now the shoe is on the other foot, more people are wanting something more than the government handout. And the dems cannot face that or come up with a way to get to voters when the U.S. continues to prosper. You may not like Trump, his means/methods, but he has done much for the economy and working to stop the "give me/you owe me" attitude. I've paid enough taxes over my lifetime to be a millionaire many times over and it galls me to pay for those who hate America, disregard it's laws and believe I'm responsible for them and owe them everything for free. Nothing in life is or come free. 

[Shabibilicious]

One must give Sanford credit for admitting his adulterer dirt bag ways.....takes guts to admit guilt, even when caught red handed or perhaps on tape.  As always, just my opinion.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited June 13, 2018 by Shabibilicious

[Synopsis]

4 hours ago, Sage449 said:

Karma, the dems have consistently thumbed it's nose at the American people that don't agree with them. If your not with its socialist agenda you're pond scum. Now the shoe is on the other foot, more people are wanting something more than the government handout. And the dems cannot face that or come up with a way to get to voters when the U.S. continues to prosper. You may not like Trump, his means/methods, but he has done much for the economy and working to stop the "give me/you owe me" attitude. I've paid enough taxes over my lifetime to be a millionaire many times over and it galls me to pay for those who hate America, disregard it's laws and believe I'm responsible for them and owe them everything for free. Nothing in life is or come free. 

 

HEAR!!! HEAR!!!

[yota691]

Never Trumpers be like

[coorslite21]

I enjoy looking at other "like events".........current, or in past history.......to help me understand what might happen in the future.......

 

Since 2010 Brasil has been draining their swamp........so much corruption.....

 

And it all started when some simple investigations led  it down the rabbit hole.........

 

Coming soon to the US?.........we can only hope........

 

Research this if you want......here are a couple of articles.....

 

http://harvardpolitics.com/world/cleaning-up-the-brazilian-judiciary-roots-out-corruption/

 

 

Cleaning Up: The Brazilian Judiciary Roots Out Corruption

By Vanessa Ruales | March 24, 2018

 

 

In 2002, there was an air of excitement in Brazil as the Workers’ Party (PT) came into power. The new party, led by its exceptionally charismatic leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, promised unparalleled change to the political establishment, among them reforms aimed at stamping out the country’s age-old problem of corruption. Now, the Workers’ Party—and Lula himself—is ironically decimated by its own graft: the Odebrecht scandal.

 

Odebrecht, Latin America’s largest construction firm, was one of various companies that paid millions of dollars in bribes to Brazilian officials in exchange for contracts with Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil firm. The investigation in response to the scandal, Operation Lava Jato, uncovered the systemic graft of the country’s most powerful executives and politicians. The investigation marks a momentous change in Latin America: governments have finally been forced to answer to corruption allegations at the highest levels of government and business, breaking a long tradition of the public’s tacit acceptance of corruption as simply the way the government works.

 

What led to this avalanche of governmental accountability in Brazil? What accounts for the sudden successful prosecution of so many figures in government and business? The answer lies within the unexpected but powerful force of the judicial reforms the PT made during its 13-year rule. These anti-corruption reforms have not only made corrupt leaders suffer the consequence of their actions, but have also begun the process of creating a culture among the populace of an intolerance towards corruption.

 

Brazil’s Jeitinho Culture

Brazilians have long been accustomed to a government riddled by corruption. In fact, Brazil’s judiciary has been plagued by a tacit cultural acceptance of corruption as a necessary evil. This belief is so deeply entrenched in Brazilian society that there is even a term for it: the jeitinho brasileiro, or the Brazilian way. The justification for this acceptance? A common expression among Brazilians regarding their public officials explains it simply—Rouba mas faz—The Brazilian politician steals, but gets things done. Consequently, instead of serving as a check on the power of Congress and the Executive, the judiciary was nothing more than a tool for Brazilian politicians.

Lula da Silva during his first presidential term, December 2002.

Prior to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration, the legal process was known for its misconduct and lack of political independence. The government deliberately overwhelmed courts with time-consuming, inconsequential cases. Because the 1988 Constitution granted citizens a seemingly endless right to appeal decisions, small cases languished in the system for years. The government often took advantage of this fact to avoid paying its debts. Similarly, instances of corruption by judges were also common; some judges were known to have sold more lenient sentences to convicted criminals. Therefore, Lava Jato took the world by surprise when the investigation exposed a legal system tremendously effective at rooting out corruption.

 

The Story of Lava Jato  

While the Lava Jato investigation originally began as a simple money laundering operation, the investigation soon uncovered evidence of corruption in the Brazilian government.  In February 2014, investigators were led to Posto da Torre, a popular gas station in the heart of Brasilia during an operation inspecting doleiros, or money launderers. There, the police unexpectedly found a currency exchange and money wiring machine in the gas station that allowed executives from Petrobras, Brazil’s state oil company, to steal company money and move it to overseas accounts. These doleirosworked for Paulo Roberto Costa, a Petrobras executive who became the principal link to exposing dishonest public officials. He revealed to investigators that he and other Petrobras executives had routinely overpaid and provided extremely profitable terms to companies they hired for various contracts, such as the building of oil refineries. These companies would, in return, pay one to five percent of each deal back to Petrobras executives, amounting to about $3 billion in bribes.

 

Ultimately, the Lava Jato investigation not only implicated minor local officials, but even prominent figures in the national government. When whistleblower Delcídio do Amaral, leader of the Workers’ Party in the Senate, was jailed on corruption charges, ,  do Amaral immediately turned on other politicians, providing to the police a testimony that implicated 74 minor officials. . Within his testimony, do Amaral provided evidence that implicated corrupt politicians from all parties, flagrantly demonstrating to the Brazilian public and the world the extent of graft in the government. Most surprisingly of all, he contributed the accusations that placed scrutiny upon former President Lula da Silva and his hand-picked successor, then-President Dilma Rousseff.

The National Congress of Brazil

This corruption investigation entangled not only Brazil’s leading domestic politicians, but also powerful officials abroad with the discovery of Odebrecht’s involvement. Probes into these cases revealed that, in the same way, the company paid bribes to officials all over Latin America to secure lucrative construction contracts. Consequently, the Odebrecht scandal rocked the world with a staggering $800 million in payoffs, and $7 billion in settlements.

 

Reforms Under Lula Begin Fight Against Jeitinho

Although Lula ran on a campaign of anti-corruption, numerous instances of graft in his administration prompted widespread protests; in response, Lula enacted a set of anti-corruption measures that later proved to be crucial in the Lava Jato investigation. The most important of these changes was to provide more power and more resources to federal police and prosecutors, according to Jonathan Watts, Latin American correspondent from The Guardian. In a recent interview, Watts told the HPR that “The key step was in allowing public prosecutors to vote for the attorney general.” Consequently, the ability for prosecutors to choose their own attorney general led to the appointment of  Rodrigo Janot, who was ruthless in his prosecution of corruption. Not only did Janot keep the Lava Jato investigation running despite major backlash from politicians left and right, but he also maintained the rule of law when he charged Lula and Rousseff with corruption, even though Rousseff had appointed him four years prior.

 

In addition to this change in electing the attorney general, Lula also enacted a set of laws fighting anti-corruption that profoundly improved courts’ efficiency, enabling them to process more corruption cases. Among these statutes were Law 11417, which allowed the Supreme Court to judge cases based on stare decisis, the legal principle which allows previous decisions made in similar cases to stand. This in turn allowed for the reduction of the Supreme Court’s massive caseload. The Court’s more than 11,000 judges were thus able to focus more resources on trying anti-corruption cases. Thee changes symbolized a crucial step in strengthening the judiciary and eventually weakening jeitinho culture.

 

Lawmakers Unintentionally Root Out Corruption

When Brazilians saw that the Workers’ Party government had enacted legislation in response  to their original demands, the public took to the streets again in 2013. More than a million protested the government’s corruption as well as excess spending and an increasing scarcity of government services, which was caused by a deep economic downturn and made worse by preparations for the impending World Cup and Olympics.

 

After witnessing the satiating effect of anti-corruption legislation in Lula’s administration and whilst feeling the pressures of economic malaise, Rousseff enacted four anti-corruption laws: the 2011 procurement reforms, 2011 freedom of information law, 2013 Clean Company Act, and, most importantly, the 2013 organized crime bill. Andrew Spalding, professor of law at the University of Richmond (UR) School of Law and head of U.R.’s Olympic Anti-Corruption Research Team, discussed Lula’s legal reforms with the HPR. “The organized crime bill is by far the most important of the four major legal reforms in blowing open the Odebrecht bribery scandal. This is underappreciated, even among Brazilian lawyers.”

 

What lawyers and lawmakers did not appreciate, Spalding explained, was the twoprincipal provisions of the bill: obstruction of justice charges and extended leniency agreements. The former referred to the stipulation that those who were charged with obstruction of justice were subject to the same punishment as if they had been accomplice to the crime or had committed the crime themselves. The latter referred to the greater ability of judges to grant plea bargains, or a reduction in a criminal’s sentence in exchange for providing information to the police that could aid them in arresting a more heinous criminal. Prior to the bill, judges could only reduce a sentence by two-thirds, but now had the authority of going as far as dropping charges.

 

Without the combination of these laws, the organized crime bill, and the reforms made under the Lula administration, Lava Jato could not have occurred. Freed up from trivial cases and an independent Attorney General, judges like Judge Sergio Moro took harsh stands on corruption, refusing bail from the arrested elite. This measure was enough to convince Nestor Cerveró, the Petrobras executive, to talk to the police about a plea deal and to provide the further evidence necessary to untangle the web of corruption. By spring of 2017, plea bargains implemented by the organized crime bill implicated 77 involved individuals. Furthermore, the obstruction of justice charge allowed for an added pressure on defendants, as they not only faced their own charges of obstruction of justice, bribery, and other crimes, but also implicated their families in the process. 

Brazilian federal judge Sergio Moro.

Consequently, what started as a routine money laundering investigation led to billions of dollars in settlements for companies involved, brought executives like Marcelo Odebrecht to justice, investigated graft in more than 100 powerful politicians, and scrutinized even the makers of the reforms, Lula and Rousseff. The sentencing and impeachment of these two figures, although controversial, signals that Brazil’s judiciary has made great strides in effectively fighting corruption.

 

The Future of Corruption in Brazil

Although these reforms appear to have reduced corruption in Brazil, the current presidency of Michel Temer, an outspoken advocate of dismantling Lava Jato and the leader of Brazil’s most corrupt party, the PMDB, has led to concerns about the efficacy of  these reforms. Temer has been charged with racketeering and obstruction of justice, funneling federal money to key officials that could help him avoid a conviction.

However, Brazil’s judiciary may still prove to be resilient in the face of such challenges. Latin America expert and professor of government at Harvard University, Steven Levitsky, explained, “for a long time, Brazil’s judiciary has grown more independent, more sophisticated for decades.” Given this fact, and Brazil’s increasing economic development (thus creating a society more demanding of democracy), it is likely that this slow change will continue regardless of Temer’s presidency.

 

The idea of the resilient strength of Brazil’s judiciary is especially pertinent considering the upcoming presidential elections. As of January 2018, recently convicted ex-president Lula da Silva is the lead candidate at 35 percent, according to Reuters, while the Trump-like right-wing dark horse candidate Jair Bolsonaro is in second place. In a country where the two leading presidential candidates have either been convicted of corruption or criticized for charges of racism and sexism, Brazil’s political future appears to be bleak.

 

However, Levitsky’s analysis of the Brazilian people’s predicament provides hope: the judiciary system has strengthened for so long that it has changed Brazilians’ expectations of their leaders. Their probable choice of Lula as their next president is not a reflection of the continued approval of the jeitinho, but a reflection of the fact that the system is so corrupt that it is difficult to find a clean and capable candidate.

 

Consequently, it will take time for the system to change along with this judicial and cultural shift. While Bolsonaro’s candidacy is worrisome and likely indicates growing political and economic discontent, the results of Lava Jato are clear. The people have changed their expectations and will continue to demand a clean government, thus slowly continuing to strengthen Brazil’s jewel: its judiciary.

 

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Cayambe // Wikimedia Commons/ Agência Brasil// Wikimedia Commons/ Dpc01// Wikimedia Commons/ JardelW 

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

for more......click link below

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/world/americas/brazil-lula-da-silva.html