Mirengoff — Nominally About Kissinger — But Really About… Himself, And The Powerliners.

This is hilarious.

Mirengoff says this was 2008. Which scans, because Kissinger’s political capital was at its nadir — Bush 43 was feckless; McCain was certainly going to lose to Mr. Obama — this was clear by early Summer of that year. And… Nixon/Reagan style dirty war political thinking was all but vanishing from the Earth.

We were about to try again to become the beacon on the hill — the second Camelot, as an Obama presidency promised so much new hope. [That all of it came up somewhat short of the wildest parts of the dream really doesn’t matter now. Much was achieved. 45 million Americans have basic health care. That alone is… a victory for a century.]

So — Kissinger’s theories on things… had become just about as relevant as a wall covered with buggy whips, for sale in the center of the DC Metro in 2008.

And so… he appeared at a Powerline dinner, and we are told, observed a debate among these village idiots about… wait for it! — whether to bomb Iran. Mirengoff reports that Kissinger looked “bemused” by the debate. Perhaps it was his gin, kicking in, and he was glassy eyed — or perhaps he was thinking… how far his star had fallen… listening to this drivel.

In any event, under Trump he did have a few last, fleeting flashy moments of public appearances, mostly for show (by the GOP regulars, trying to legitimize the lunacy of Tangerine and all he stood for).

And my point, then: Paul, John and Scott and Steve (who likely hadn’t joined yet)… forever think of themselves as being important in national political conversations, when they really aren’t even relevant in mainline conservative ones, any longer. They are so filled with racial invective, and bias against anything other than evangelical X-tain talking points… no one of consequence listens any more — to them.

Just as it is sure Kissinger was NOT listening that night, to these mental midgets.

And, in truth — very few were listening to Kissinger himself, any longer. It was an Island of Misfit Toys moment — if ever there one was.

Finally, to correct Paul — Mr. Obama disdained Kissinger, as we all did and do… for his war crimes, covert wars and genocide, all committed in our name — without any of us (or at least not most of us) knowing, until many years later.

Exhibit A? Cambodia, at left, and top left, above. Anthony Bourdain wanted to beat Kissinger to death with his bare fists — if he ever met him, based on what he did to the Cambodian people in our name.

Sure — he was… a crafty sociopath — much like a latter day Goebbels, behind the 1960s and 1970s GOP scenes. Sort of a thinking man’s Dick Cheney.

Out.

A Return To The Power Alley: Small Update — On The Merck v. Merck Lanham Act Name Spat [Trial Date Now Not Earlier Than Late 2024]…

Pretty much as we earlier guessed, at least one of the parties’ lawyers (the one for German Merck) is definitely slow walking the pre-trial conference date, probably because there have been renewed (but on-and-off) settlement discussions. But the federal district court in New Jersey will not let that cha-cha go on… forever. [Fairly recent prior backgrounder — specifically about trial guesses, here. But overall,the coverage hits hundreds of posts, over 14 years minimum, here.]

Earlier today, both sides explained that — for various reasons, instead of holding a pre-trial conference in the first days of the New Year, either the second week of February — or the last week in that month (2024) — may be the only next available date.

Somehow, these lawyers have forgotten that the court itself suggested that its own very busy docket might mean some slippage on the trial date, which he was trying mightily to avoid.

[That said, it is baffling to me that a trial lawyer would say he doesn’t have to say why he’s unavailable for two weeks in Asia, in the middle of February — given that he’s known about these dates, in a multi-billion dollar piece of global litigation, no less… for a year minimum, and possibly closer to… a decade.]

In any event, we report on the letter solely to predict that we aren’t likely to see a 2024 trial date — if we ever see one. I’ve thought for a decade that these claims are the sort to settle — not try, in a courtroom — even a fine one like the NJ USDC. The stakes are far too high — on both sides. Figure it out, guys. Out. Grinning… again.

नमस्ते

Trump Is Subject To Court Ordered Monitoring, In NY: But He Moved $40 Million In 2023, Without Telling The Monitor — $29 Million To Him, Personally.

This all makes the Hunter Biden nonsense… just pure… nonsense.

This is a highly esteemed retired federal judge, reporting in, on Trump’s continuing less than complete compliance with court orders in the NY AG matter.

Y A W N.

He’s simply moving money around that he has no right to move — anything over $5 million, without telling the Monitor.

But literally every report she makes includes several entries each — of money transfers she only found by combing through bank statements — for which Trump is under orders to give her a written prior notice. And he… hasn’t.

For over $40 million, this year 2023 alone — and the year is not over.

This is mob-stuff, folks. Damn — here’s the bit, and the latest report, in full as a PDF:

The Materiality Threshold also requires that Defendants “provide notice when entities within the Trust make transfers outside of the Trust with an aggregate value in excess of $5 million.” As mentioned above, during this reporting period, my team requested and conducted a review of bank statements for 12 bank accounts maintained by the Trust from January 2023 through October 2023. Upon review of these bank statements, we observed three cash transfers exceeding $5 million each, totaling approximately $40 million. These transactions included a cash transfer of $29 million to Donald J. Trump, which I have confirmed was used for tax payments.

Based upon Defendants explanations I have also confirmed that the other transfers were for insurance premiums and to an attorney escrow account [that was for a bond, in the Jean Carol appeal from his loss of $25 million]. We have discussed with Defendants why these transactions were not previously disclosed and I have now clarified (and Defendants have agreed) that all transfers of assets out of the Trust exceeding $5 million must be reported….

Please jail this crook — forthwith. Damnation.

As With Every Time Prior, Gov. Abbott Will Lose, Resoundingly — In His Fifth Cir. Appeal, On Razor Wire Barriers. YAWN.

So (as we said this morning), once again, Greg Abbott lost.

A G A I N.

On an attempt to enjoin clear federal authority, at the border.

That’s utterly unsurprising.

What is stultifying… is that his lawyers (Paxson, primarily) cannot understand how federal law works.

They will lose, just as they did in ’19, ’20, ’21 and most recently in 2023 — on the Tipton nonsense orders — in trying to enjoin federal agents… from doing their jobs.

But — as we all know — this is strictly political / fund-raising fodder, for the rubes, down there. This is the MAGA GOP bleeding Texas idiots dry, for Quixotic attacks on a boogeyman that is solely resident in their collective… imaginations.

Damn. But now you know.

Onward — smiling. Ever, smiling.

On Kissinger: Bourdain Said It Best — H/T To Rayne, At EW…

I cannot improve on her justifiably acrid sentiments — so I will quote, and attribute them (not that their fine site needs my meager traffic!). But here is about 100 words… that frankly define/cover Kissinger.

“…Beloved chef and travel journalist Anthony Bourdain put it best in his 2010 book, ‘A Cook’s Tour: Global Adventures in Extreme Cuisines’:

“…Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands.

You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević….”

You will hear that quote above often this week because there have not been enough people who have distilled Kissinger’s wretchedness into less than 100 words as Bourdain did….”

Now you know — out.

New Empirical U of C Finance Study Estimates Cost Of Corporate Fraud — To US Economy: $830 Billion A Year…

This one belongs in this spot (Mr. Musk, we are looking at YOU, here!) because it touches several bad actors we’ve covered repeatedly here: SBF, Pharma-Bro, CZ, and of course — right down the center of the fairway, of supposed med devices (that never were): Elizabeth Holmes, Sunny Balwani and Theranos.

But it is — according to this new study — far more likely that the garden variety (sub $60 million frauds, per outing — like those Martin Shkreli engineered, across a decade, and several company / fund iterations) are far more common, and less prosecuted. . . overall. That’s how the finance professors came up with the eye-watering over $800 billion a year figure.

Rather depressingly (at least to me) the profs estimate that as many as one in ten firms of fairly longer standing in the US have committed some form of financial fraud. That’s just… sad.

In any event, here’s the story, from Fortune this morning:

…It’s been a hot few years of corporate fraud. A plea deal earlier this week for Binance founder Changpeng Zhao on charges of money laundering comes on the heels earlier this month of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s conviction for what prosecutors called “one of the biggest financial frauds in American history.” And earlier this year, former Theranos executives Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani began serving multiyear sentences after juries determined that their aggressive overselling of an unproven blood-testing technology had amounted to fraud.

But what if there is so much more fraud that we just don’t know about? That’s what a recent paper by three finance professors tried to pin down — and their findings indicate SBF, Holmes, et al. are just the tip of the proverbial, well, you know….

Here’s a hat tip, to the University of Chicago prof who led the study — Luigi Zingales. He worked with economists at University of Toronto, and at Cal Berkeley. Excellent. And so, we will move forward, into the chilly sunshine — in any event, grinning.

नमस्ते

USDC Judge Alia Moses Has Correctly Held That The State Of Texas Cannot Place Land-Based Razor Wire Barriers In The Way Of DHS And CBP. Excellent.

I disagree with most of her editorializing — to the effect that it is the federal agencies’ actions that are causing the problems. But no matter, at least the courts in West Texas are “showing their homework” once again.

This is the right result — but make no mistake — the opinion, as published this morning is a political bow to Gov. Abbott. She knows she has to keep living in Del Rio, where there are more gun nuts who want Gov. Abbott to do more — to use hit squads, for example.

And I am not immune to the notion that perhaps a more balanced, on the law opinion might paint a target on her back — among those MAGA nuts.

So I accept that this is the way she squared the circle, as a political matter. But understand, I reproduce the pull quote below, solely to highlight the disagreeable political speechifying she engages in:

…The U.S.-Mexico border presents a unique challenge that is equal parts puzzling to outsiders and frustrating to locals. The immigration system at the heart of it all, dysfunctional and flawed as it is, would work if properly implemented. Instead, the status quo is a harmful mixture of political rancor, ego, and economic and geopolitical realities that serves no one. So destructive is its nature that the nation cannot help but be transfixed by, but simultaneously unable to correct, the present condition. What follows here is but another chapter in this unfolding tragedy. The law may be on the side of the Defendants and compel a resolution in their favor today, but it does not excuse their culpable and duplicitous conduct….

Migrant numbers increased apparently in response to softened political rhetoric… [Editor’s Note: she apparently feels the four years of documented lawlessness — as found by the US Supreme Court, under Tangerine… was solely “appropriate” political rhetoric; and Mr. Biden’s return to a lawful course — complying with our treaties and laws… is “softened”?! C’mon, your honor. Give it a rest.]

This is plainly the right result, but the winning here was “very ugly”. It has been a full month that CBP has been hamstrung, in its efforts to prevent injuries like those in my last post on the topic. Damnation. Out.

Updated: I should note that Gov. Abbott already filed an appeal of his complete loss, here to the Fifth Circuit. He will lose there, too.

नमस्ते

In Which Hinderaker Fear-Mongers — About The Brits. No, It Was That Brexit Has Become… An Abject Failure, John.

Tonight, ever looking to demonize brown people, Hinderaker claims that the conservatives in England are suffering political defeats because… wait for it!… they are not be harsh enough on LAWFUL immigration there.

Uh-huh. Sure. Right-O.

It is that Boris’ Brexit has become every bit the failure that Tangerine’s tariffs, charities graft (PPP give-aways to primarily the wealthiest 1/10th of 1%) and walls that prevent nothing… have proved to be.

They lose because… their economic policies… don’t work, really — for anyone.

Just as Trumps didn’t — and won’t here. Not since the Nineteenth Century have so many understood so little about real international economics. Hinderaker plainly included here.

Out — g’night.

We Now Have The Biden Administration’s 44 Page Answer — To Merck’s Whining, About Negotiating, On Drug Prices…

We said we’d have it for you tonight — and now… we do. And frankly, Merck’s lawyers look rather foolish, when put to their proof.

As Buckminster Fuller was reputed to have said (albeit of… Cleveland) “there really is no ‘there’… there.” This is true of Merck’s “claims” as well. Heh. [And just for fun, we will run a legacy graphic, the one that accompanied AARP’s fine amicus brief in this matter — from earlier in September 2023.]

In any event, do read it all, but here’s a bit of the very well thought out governmental payors’ response tonight — just filed, in DC:

…[P]rescription drugs have “long been the source of public concern and the subject of government regulation.” Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1007 (1984). And the Supreme Court has made clear that Congress can require manufacturers of such “dangerous chemicals” to give up some property interest “as a condition [of] receiving a permit to sell those products” — a “benefit” manufacturers are not inherently entitled to receive. Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 576 U.S. 350, 365–66 (2015)….

[In fact,] as another district court recently recognized when considering a similar constitutional challenge to the IRA, Congress’s authorization for the Secretary to negotiate how much Medicare pays for drugs “cannot be considered a constitutional violation” because drug manufacturers “are not legally compelled to participate in the [Negotiation] Program—or in Medicare generally.” Dayton Area Chamber of Com. v. Becerra, No. 3:23-cv-156, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 6378423, at *11 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2023)….

[E]ntities “that wish to participate in Medicare and Medicaid have always been obligated to satisfy a host of conditions” that are packaged together as part of one offer, without being able to pick and choose individual conditions they wish to accept or reject. Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87, 94 (2022). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, presenting such all-or-nothing offers is well within Congress’s prerogative to ensure that federal funds are spent according to its view of the “general Welfare.” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1. And Plaintiffs’ attempts to evade this established framework not only misread the underlying legal authorities but also would — by [Merck’s] own admission — rewrite decades of established law about Congress’s spending powers. Plaintiffs do not come close to justifying this extraordinary result. Drug manufacturers may choose whether they wish to participate in Medicare — but they do not have a constitutional right to unilaterally dictate how much the government spends on their drugs….

Congress acts pursuant to its spending powers to set terms on which the government will buy products. In those circumstances, the government is not imposing a legal obligation on a private party to hand over property at all, but merely setting conditions on doing business with the government (as one of many buyers)….

…“Unlike ordinary legislation, which imposes congressional policy on regulated parties involuntarily, Spending Clause legislation operates based on consent: in return for federal funds, the [recipients] agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.” Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, PLLC, 596 U.S. 212, 216 (2022) (internal quotes and citation omitted). “[I]f a party objects to a condition on the receipt of federal funding, its recourse is to decline the funds.” Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013). Accordingly, there is no need to consider whether a party obtained a separate benefit to determine that the government’s conditions are part of a voluntary exchange….

Mr. Davis really ought to let this be dismissed on consent. His purported “claims” lack “any and all… there, there.”

नमस्ते

No (Again!) “THEY” Are Not Coming For Your… Beef, You Lunatic Hinderaker!

We have told him the truth here, before — set him straight, several times in the last two years or so.

The proof of that is in the date on the legacy graphic, at right — and this link, to this post, among several others.

But increasingly demented John Hinderaker… still clings to a lie — a lie, that the “they” (on the unnamed left, of course!)… are going to force him to eat… bugs.

[Oddly, though — he never even remotely hints at, let alone explains… how that “forcing” might actually… occur.]

This, even though — as he proudly shouts — he can afford all the beef and chicken and pork and lobster he wants. And more!

His fear (as silly as it is, on its face!) is that no one will sell to him.

Well — with odious opinions like this one (among literally several hundred like it — along the same lines; as at immediate left)… maybe he is… right — but not for the reasons he imagines.

Out. What a putz.