Long Detail of Biden, Inc.

Politico:

The day the Bidens took over Paradigm Global Advisors was a memorable one.

In the late summer of 2006 Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Joe’s younger brother, James, purchased the firm. On their first day on the job, they showed up with Joe’s other son, Beau, and two large men and ordered the hedge fund’s chief of compliance to fire its president, according to a Paradigm executive who was present.

After the firing, the two large men escorted the fund’s president out of the firm’s midtown Manhattan office, and James Biden laid out his vision for the fund’s future. “Don’t worry about investors,” he said, according to the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of retaliation. “We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.”

At the time, the senator was just months away from both assuming the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second presidential bid. According to the executive, James Biden made it clear he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

At this, the executive recalled, Beau Biden, who was then running for attorney general of Delaware, turned bright red. He told his uncle, “This can never leave this room, and if you ever say it again, I will have nothing to do with this.”

A spokesman for James and Hunter Biden said no such episode ever occurred. Beau Biden died in 2015, at 46.

But the recollection of an effort to cash in on Joe’s political ties is consistent with other accounts provided by other former executives at the fund.

Three former Paradigm executives said James and Hunter Biden also sought to capitalize on Joe’s strong ties to labor unions in the hopes of landing investments from them; Charles Provini, who briefly served as Paradigm’s president, said both James and Hunter repeatedly cited Joe’s political ties when they recruited him to work for the fund. “I was told because of his relationships with the unions that they felt as though it would be favorably looked upon to invest in the fund as long as it was a good fund,” Provini recalled.

Documents submitted as part of a legal dispute over Paradigm’s acquisition show James Biden planned to solicit investments for it from union pension funds. A spokesman for James and Hunter said they did not end up marketing the fund to unions.

As Joe Biden runs for the Democratic presidential nomination on the argument he can strongly appeal to the party’s dwindling base of blue-collar supporters, the candidate has often made the point that he hasn’t gotten rich from his decades in politics. As recently as 2009, his net worth was less than $30,000, though in recent years he has made millions from book sales and speaking fees. He refers to himself as “Middle-Class Joe,” and presents himself as a corrective to a system rigged by financiers and networked corporate elites.

Biden’s image as a straight-shooting man of the people, however, is clouded by the careers of his son and brother, who have lengthy track records of making, or seeking, deals that cash in on his name. Interviews, court records, government filings and news reports reveal that some members of the Biden family have consistently mixed business and politics over nearly half a century, moving from one business to the next as Joe’s stature in Washington grew.

None of the ventures appear to have been runaway successes, and Biden’s relatives have not been accused of criminal wrongdoing in their dealings. But over the years, several of their partners and associates have ended up indicted or convicted. The dealings have brought Joe unwelcome scrutiny and threaten to distract from his presidential bid.

A spokesman for Biden’s campaign, Andrew Bates, declined to comment for this story. A spokesman for James and Hunter disputed several specific recollections of former Paradigm executives but did not address more general questions about their business dealings.

Their ventures, over nearly half a century, have regularly raised conflict-of-interest questions and brought the Biden family into potentially compromising associations. This investigation offers the most comprehensive account to date of the politically tinged business activities of Biden’s brother and son, and is the first time former associates of James and Hunter have alleged that the pair explicitly sought to make money off of Joe’s political connections.

Photo illustration of Hunter Biden, MBNA bank

Within weeks of the encounter at Paradigm Global Advisors, Beau Biden won his race for Delaware attorney general, and never established any recorded ties to Paradigm. His political career kept him well clear of his brother and uncle’s business endeavors.

James and Hunter are another story. There is no indication the Bidens ever succeeded in bringing new foreign money into the fund, but their involvement with Paradigm, which spanned the final two years of Joe’s Senate career and first two years of his vice presidency, was troubled for other reasons: In James and Hunter’s five-year tenure, Paradigm became associated with a number of alleged and confirmed frauds, including Allen Stanford’s multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, while seeking to draw on their powerful relative’s political allies for financing.

The pattern of dubious associations and possible conflicts of interest would continue later with Hunter’s foreign dealings, which led him to a lucrative appointment to the board of a Ukrainian oil company and to deals with firms connected to the Chinese state. But it started far earlier.

The Biden Family:

A political and financial timeline

As Joe has risen from senator to vice president to leading

contender for president, his brother and son have charted

their own complicated path in the business world.

***Go here for the timeline graphic that began in 1973.

James Biden, known socially as Jimmy, is seven years younger than Joe and a dead ringer for his famous older brother. He worked as a salesman and served as the finance chairman of Joe’s first Senate campaign in 1972 before embarking on a career as a serial entrepreneur.

In the 1970s, as Joe was entering the Senate and taking a seat on the Banking Committee, James obtained unusually generous loans from lenders who later faced federal regulatory issues. Joe Biden was in touch with two of those banks about his brother’s loans, once to scold a bank executive about invoking his name in attempts to collect on overdue payments.

In the 1990s, a group of Mississippi trial lawyers enlisted James to further its interests in Washington as it sought congressional support for a tobacco megasettlement. A decade later, those Mississippi contacts supported Joe’s presidential bid — hosting a fundraiser for him and accepting an invitation to accompany Joe to a high-profile Washington dinner — while they simultaneously prepared to launch a lobbying firm with James and his wife, Sara. Plans for the firm fizzled when the Mississippians were arrested, then jailed, for an unrelated bribery scheme.

During the Obama years, several months after James joined a construction firm as an executive, the firm received a contract worth more than a billion dollars to build houses in Iraq while Joe oversaw the U.S.-led occupation of that country.

Along the way, James partnered with his nephew Hunter, the younger of Joe’s two sons. A graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School, Hunter, 49, has struggled with substance abuse while hopscotching between endeavors in law, business and politics.

In the early 2000s, before working with his uncle, Hunter had opened a lobbying practice that landed clients with interests that overlapped with Joe’s committee assignments and legislative priorities. Ahead of his father’s second presidential bid, he entered the hedge fund business with James.

There’s no evidence that Joe Biden used his power inappropriately or took action to benefit his relatives with respect to these ventures. These entanglements could pose problems for Democrats as they seek to draw a contrast with President Donald Trump, who they accuse of corruption for mixing politics with his own family’s business ventures.

“Joe Biden needs to recognize it’s a problem,” said Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush era, who recently became a Democrat. Painter said Biden should pledge that if he were elected president, he would ask his relatives to refrain from business practices that could pose ethical quandaries, such as taking foreign sources of financing.

“You can’t control your brothers. You can’t control your grown son. But you can put some firewalls in place in your own office,” Painter said.

SCANDAL-PLAGUED HEDGE FUND

Paradigm was the brainchild of James Park, a son-in-law of the billionaire Sun Myung Moon, who claimed to be the messiah and founded the Unification movement, a religious group often accused of being a cult and whose members are known as Moonies. Started by Park in 1989, Paradigm was an early entrant in the hedge fund industry and among the first funds of funds — that is, a hedge fund that invested in other hedge funds.
The Biden involvement began in January 2006. James Biden called Anthony Lotito, a New York financial adviser, and said his older brother, Joe, wanted his son Hunter to find a job outside of lobbying to avoid damaging his planned campaign for the presidency, according to a complaint Lotito later filed in a New York court, after his relationship with James and Hunter soured.

In a court filing of their own, James and Hunter denied that such a call took place as described, but it is undisputed that Lotito, James and Hunter were soon exploring a purchase of Paradigm together.

According to court filings, James Biden and Lotito had been introduced years earlier by Tom Scotto, a former president of New York’s Detectives’ Endowment Association, a union, around 2002. A year before, Scotto had been named an unindicted co-conspirator by federal prosecutors in an organized crime scheme — described at the time as the largest securities fraud bust in U.S. history — to bribe union leaders in order to access union pension funds. Scotto, who denied wrongdoing at the time, declined to comment on his relationship with James Biden and Lotito.

After their introduction, a firm owned by Lotito, Globex Financial Advisors, began doing business with one owned by James, Lion Hall Group. Lotito and Biden later co-founded a company called Americore International Security, a private security firm, according to court filings. Not much is known about Americore, though James Biden said in court filings that the business was not successful.

Lotito did not respond to requests for comment.

By 2006, Lotito, James and Hunter were eyeing a purchase of Paradigm.

James and Hunter brought in Larry Rasky, a lobbyist and longtime Biden adviser, who at one point, according to court records, was going to provide $1 million in financing. Rasky did not respond to a request for comment. They also obtained $1 million in financing from SimmonsCooper, a St. Louis-area law firm with a thriving practice representing asbestos victims. Partners in the firm had befriended the Biden sons, steering business to Beau’s Delaware law firm and donations to Biden’s campaign coffers. SimmonsCooper’s interests aligned with Joe Biden’s views. He was a prominent opponent of the creation of an asbestos trust fund, a measure that would have curtailed lawsuits related to the cancer-causing fibers.

Things quickly got messy. The prospective purchasers discovered that because of an accounting trick, the fund had only a fraction of the $1.5 billion in assets under management that it claimed, according to court filings.

James and Hunter also discovered that the attorney the trio had hired on Lotito’s recommendation to explore the purchase, John Fasciana, had recently been convicted on 12 counts of fraud, according to court filings.

Fasciana declined to comment, citing attorney-client confidentiality rules. Messages left at a number listed in Lotito’s name were not returned.

Despite the problems with the fund and souring relations with Lotito, James and Hunter charged ahead with their acquisition of Paradigm. They purchased the fund without him in August 2006, not for cash, but for an $8.1 million promissory note.

Lotito later sued James and Hunter in New York state court, accusing them of fraudulently acquiring Paradigm behind his back. Lotito claimed in his complaint that Hunter had entered into an employment agreement with Paradigm that entitled Hunter to draw an annual salary of $1.2 million.

James and Hunter counter-sued, and James stated in an affidavit that he, Hunter and a firm they had formed with Lotito had lost $1.3 million in their initial attempt to acquire Paradigm. All parties voluntarily dropped their claims in December 2008.

According to an agreement Lotito and James made with Paradigm in May 2006 that later surfaced in their court fight, they had planned to use their connections to union pension funds governed by the 1947 Taft–Hartley Act, which regulates labor unions, in order to steer new investments to Paradigm.

The documents corroborate the recollections of the three executives who said James and Hunter sought to tap Joe’s union ties.

At one point after the Bidens purchased the fund, one of the executives recalled, groups of firefighters started trekking up in small groups to Paradigm’s offices and leaving him checks for a few thousand dollars each, about 10 in total over the course of a few days.

Firefighters unions have been among Joe Biden’s closest political allies since the start of his political career.

The Paradigm executive said the checks were never cashed. Generally, legal restrictions and fund policies mean only the rich can invest directly in hedge funds, and only in much higher increments than a couple thousand dollars. A spokesman for James and Hunter said no such episode occurred.

Another of the former executives recalled that Paradigm abandoned plans to pursue Taft–Hartley pension funds because of the prospect of “perceived conflicts.”

As soon as James and Hunter — without Lotito — took control of Paradigm, they ordered the firing of the fund’s president, Stephane Farouze. Farouze, who had been in a dispute about equity with the fund’s previous owner, later sued James, Hunter and Lotito in New York state, accusing them of engaging in an “elaborate scheme” to defraud him out of his ownership stake in Paradigm. Farouze alleged that James and Hunter entered into a contract with him to buy out his share in the fund without ever intending to abide by it, as part of a ploy to steal his share. The case was dismissed. Farouze did not respond to requests for comment.

James and Hunter set about reorganizing the fund, installing Provini as its president in 2007.

Two legal documents

In the Bidens’ first months at the helm, Paradigm reached an arrangement with Longship Capital Management, a New York investment firm, in which Longship would serve as an investment adviser to Paradigm, according to an Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The arrangement put James and Hunter in business with Longship partner Brian Mathis, a veteran of the Clinton Treasury Department and a Democratic bundler who was friends with Barack and Michelle Obama at Harvard Law School. In March 2011, Mathis, who declined to comment, was among the roughly 30 financiers invited to a controversial White House meeting to discuss the state of the economy. The meeting was arranged by the Democratic National Committee and omitted from Obama’s public schedule. There is no evidence Joe Biden was involved in the meeting.

To pay back the million dollars they had borrowed from SimmonsCooper during their first, aborted acquisition attempt, James and Hunter had taken out a loan from WashingtonFirst Bank, which had been co-founded by one of Hunter’s former lobbying partners. A former WashingtonFirst executive said James and Hunter had pledged their houses on the loan and both had paid back their debts after several years.

In the meantime, that debt was causing friction within Paradigm.

At one point, the executive said, Hunter called him and asked him to hand over $21,000 in company funds for a personal mortgage payment. When the executive refused, saying the funds were needed to cover operating expenses, he recalled that Hunter — who recently told The New Yorker he has spent most of his life living paycheck to paycheck — responded that he might lose his house.

“Hunter did take substantial dollars out of the company,” said a second former Paradigm executive, describing the withdrawals as a “semi-regular” subject of discussion and concern within the firm.

A third former executive at Paradigm claimed that at one point around 2008 or 2009, James and Hunter withdrew several million dollars from Paradigm’s coffers for their own use. By this point, “The Bidens didn’t have access to the day-to-day operation of Paradigm at all,” this executive said. “The only thing the Bidens could do was get paid or request to get money out of the hedge fund.” The executive said the Bidens had the right to withdraw the funds and that the transaction was cleared through counsel.

A spokesman for James and Hunter said no such withdrawals occurred.

An independent audit performed on the fund in 2008 by the Philadelphia firm Briggs, Bunting & Dougherty was filed with the SEC. Though it is does not detail the basis for its findings, the audit found accounting deficiencies at Paradigm, including a “failure to timely prepare financial statements” and a “failure to reconcile Investment Advisors reimbursement of fund expenses.”

***

While James and Hunter Biden were trying to succeed in the world of high finance, Joe Biden was seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency, eventually becoming Barack Obama’s running mate after his own bid foundered. The duo would go on to victory, in part by casting themselves as reliable stewards of an economy that was careening downward as a result of financial engineering gone awry.

As Election Day neared, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there was a run on money market accounts, the Fed bailed out AIG, and some of the country’s largest financial institutions teetered on the brink of collapse. On September 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 777 points, then the largest single-day drop in history.

Dennis Tang, now an undergraduate instructor at Columbia University, was interning at Paradigm that summer. He described a business that was oddly quiet, saying its offices were a “ghost town” that summer, including on the September day Lehman Brothers collapsed. “It was just empty desks and empty Bloomberg terminals,” Tang said.

Paradigm was still running and would soon attract attention for its associations with several criminal frauds.

In September 2008, with the financial system melting, an executive at Paradigm registered “Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund” with the SEC. The fund of hedge funds represented a partnership with the firm run by Allen Stanford.

In February 2009, less than a month after Joe Biden was sworn in as vice president and Hunter served as honorary co-chairman of the inaugural committee, Stanford was charged with a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, one of the largest in U.S. history. Paradigm was not accused of participating in the scheme. At the time, a spokesman for Paradigm told The Wall Street Journal that it had terminated its relationship with Stanford and offered to turn over the money it received from him to a court-appointed receiver.

Paradigm had also rented space to Francesco Rusciano, whose Ponta Negra fund shared both an office and a phone number with Paradigm. In April 2009, the SEC accused Rusciano of a multimillion-dollar fraud. He got a year in prison. There is no evidence Paradigm participated in the scheme.

Sun Myung Moon, Jim Biden, Allen Stanford

There were also allegations that James and Hunter’s proximity to political power allowed them to mistreat business partners.

In his suit against Hunter and James, Lotito alleged they invoked their political connections in their dispute with Fasciana, the lawyer who was later jailed. “The Bidens refused to pay the bill, repeatedly citing their political connections and family status as a basis for disclaiming the obligation,” Lotito claimed in his complaint. “The Bidens threatened to use their alleged connections with a former United States Senator to retaliate against counsel for insisting that his bill be paid, claiming that the former senator was prepared to use his influence with a federal judge to disadvantage counsel in a proceeding then pending before that court.” James and Hunter denied those allegations.

A month after Joe Biden was elected vice president, the Justice Department seized the building that housed Paradigm’s offices, 650 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y., alleging that it was secretly owned by the same Iranian bank that was financing the nation’s nuclear program. In 2017, the U.S. won a case that granted it the power to sell the building and use the proceeds to benefit terrorism victims.

According to one of the former Paradigm executives, many of the fund’s staffers were members of the Unification Church who received roughly 30 percent of prevailing market salaries because they considered working for Park, with his proximity to the late Rev. Moon, to be compensation in itself.

James and Hunter began unwinding the fund in 2010.

Another former executive said negative press about Paradigm’s ties to fraudulent funds made James and Hunter wary of more scrutiny of “potential conflicts of interest or tie-ins to the Biden family.” As a result, the executive said, “They really just chose to liquidate the hedge fund and give back the money to the investors.” The former WashingtonFirst executive said James and Hunter shut down Paradigm because the global recession had cut into its revenues.

They never brought on any new investors.

According to a 2013 New Republic story on the Unification Church, Park, who did not respond to requests for comment, was never able to collect from James and Hunter on the promissory note they used to acquire the fund.

UNUSUAL LOANS

Paradigm was not the first Biden family business venture to fail after attracting unwanted attention.

In 1972, Joe ran a scrappy campaign for Senate with his younger brother in charge of the finances. The Bidens earned a reputation for being tight-knit and fiercely loyal to one another. “People called [James] ‘the Hammer,’” explained one future associate of his. “He would hammer the table until people agreed to give money to Joe’s campaign.”

No sooner was freshman lawmaker Joe Biden seated on the Senate Banking Committee than James became the beneficiary of business loans that were described in news accounts at the time as unusually generous because of the relatively large amount of money he was able to borrow with little or no collateral and a lack of relevant prior experience.

In early 1973, on the heels of Joe’s election to the Senate, James Biden and a business partner decided to open a nightclub.

The club, Seasons Change, located in a shopping plaza near the Pennsylvania state line, would eventually fail, leaving behind it a trail of debt and a trickle of embarrassing revelations about its financing.

The pair had obtained a series of loans for $80,000, $60,000 and $25,000 from Wilmington’s Farmers Bank. At least one of those loans was unsecured, meaning it was not backed by collateral that could be seized if the borrowers stopped paying.

When James began missing his payments and risking default, his brother Joe became angry — at the bank.

“What I’d like to know,” the junior senator told his hometown paper in 1977, “is how the guy in charge of loans let it get this far.”

The paper looked into it: “The answer, according to three former officers of the troubled Farmers Bank, is the Biden name,” reported Delaware’s News Journal. According to the paper, the bank thought the senatorial name would attract club-goers.

It did not attract enough to turn a profit, and by 1975, the bank was having problems collecting from James.

That year, Joe Biden called Farmers’ chairman, A. Edwards Danforth, to complain about the bank’s collection practices. As the News Journal later reported, “After the phone call, the former bank officers said, P. Gary Hastings, a vice president, was called into Danforth’s office and told the senator had complained that his brother has been harassed.”

The Bidens told the News Journal that the senator placed the call only because the bank was telling James that a default would be embarrassing for Joe. Danforth concurred with Joe’s characterization of the call. “They were trying to use me as a bludgeon,” Joe complained to the paper.

Another figure tied to Farmers Bank, the politically connected financier Norman Rales, extended James Biden an unsecured loan.

Rales, who did extensive business with Farmers, extended the loan to James through Joe Biden’s former law firm, Walsh, Monzack & Owens. One of the firm’s partners, John T. Owens, was a Biden brother-in-law, having married Joe’s sister and political confidante, Valerie. Owens would also become a partner in the nightclub.

These unusual arrangements came to light after Farmers Bank nearly collapsed in 1976, forcing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to bail it out. The crisis spurred several investigations into the bank’s lending practices and political connections. It also prompted Moody’s to downgrade the state of Delaware’s credit rating from A1 to A because the state’s finances were so intertwined with the bank’s.

A Delaware banking commissioner was found to have received a loan from Farmers while overseeing its finances, an apparent violation of federal law. Separately, the Justice Department began investigating whether Rales had defrauded the bank in his unrelated dealings with it. The DOJ also scrutinized unusual loans made by Farmers, including the Biden loan. In 1978, assistant U.S. Attorney Alan Hoffman — who would go on to serve as a top aide to Biden in the Senate and the White House — told the Philadelphia Daily News that the government found nothing improper about Farmers’ loan to James.

Farmers was not the only bank to provide James unusual funding.

In 1975, the same year Farmers was having difficulty collecting on its original night club loan, James Biden and his partners went to a Philadelphia bank, First Pennsylvania, to get more money to expand their operation.

Despite their meager financial means and lack of experience in the nightclub business, James and his partner were able to obtain a loan of $500,000, equivalent to more than $2 million today.

The same year that First Pennsylvania granted the loan, it was placed on the Federal Reserve Board’s watch list over potentially unsound lending practices.

Delaware’s News Journal would later report that the office of Pennsylvania’s then-governor, Democrat Milton Shapp, had recommended James Biden for the First Pennsylvania loan. Owens had previously worked as an aide to Shapp. While declining to discuss specifics, Owens told the News Journal that from a “philosophical” perspective there would be nothing wrong with such a recommendation. Owens did not respond to a request for comment left at his office.

It also emerged that after the loan was made, First Pennsylvania met with Joe Biden to discuss it.

“My only contact with First Pennsylvania was with a junior loan officer who wanted to see me about my brother’s loan. I told him no. It was my brother’s business,” Joe Biden told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, though the bank representative he named, William Githens, was in fact a senior vice president.

The senator said he was not intervening on his brother’s behalf, but that in fact the bank executive was asking for his help in dealing with his brother. “He asked me,” Joe said at the time, “to intercede with my brother and ask him to change the management. He wanted me to use my influence with my brother. I did talk to him for them, and they finally changed the management.”

By early 1977, unable to make payments on his loans, James Biden had to give up the struggling club. A year later, the man who took it over from him, Salvatore Cardile, was fighting First Pennsylvania in court, claiming the bank had set him up to take the failing club off of James Biden’s hands. “The bank didn’t want the senator’s brother to be on the paper when the disco folded,” Cardile said at the time. “They needed a patsy. Me.”

There is no indication that Joe Biden helped his brother obtain any of the loans.

James told the Daily News he had made a deal on undisclosed terms to settle his debt to First Pennsylvania. In 1981, the FDIC sued James and his partners for outstanding loans to Farmers. In both instances, the Bidens told the press that Joe did nothing to help James get the loans.

CORRUPT TRIAL LAWYERS

By the time the club was going under, Joe had left his seat on the Banking Committee for one on the Judiciary Committee.

As for James, after a stint selling real estate in San Francisco, he returned to the East Coast and set up a new firm, the Lion Hall Group.

By the mid-1990s, he was working with a crew of corrupt Mississippi operators, as detailed in journalist Curtis Wilkie’s 2010 book, The Fall of the House of Zeus.

Left-right: Patrick Ho, Joe Biden, Finnegan Biden and Hunter Biden.

In 1995, famed Mississippi trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs set his sights on a gargantuan national settlement with Big Tobacco worth hundreds of billions of dollars. To make such a settlement work, Congress would have to bless it by immunizing the tobacco companies against future legal claims.

But Biden and many of his fellow liberals in Congress had reservations about passing any measure that absolved tobacco companies of further liability.

As part of an effort to win over Joe and other Democrats, Scruggs hired James’ Lion Hall Group to help with a “legislative, executive, political and social” campaign, according to Wilkie’s book. Neither James nor Lion Hall appear in federal lobbying disclosures.

The congressional measure, which was championed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, failed to pass. There is no evidence James influenced Joe’s votes on the legislation.

Scruggs is among the lawyers who reached a multistate settlement with Big Tobacco worth more than $360 billion anyway. Scruggs, a prolific Democratic donor, would become the world’s richest trial lawyer, and earn the nickname “The King of Torts.”

He would also remain in touch with the Bidens. During the tobacco fight, James Biden’s services had been recommended to Scruggs by former Mississippi State Auditor Steve Patterson.

Before serving as auditor, Patterson, a Democrat, had served as a regional director for Joe Biden’s 1988 presidential primary bid. Patterson resigned as auditor in 1996 after pleading guilty to lying on official documents to avoid paying taxes on a car.

A decade after the tobacco fight, just as Joe was embarking on his second presidential campaign, Patterson and another Scruggs associate, trial lawyer Timothy Balducci, would embark on a new business venture with James.

The plan was to open a Washington law and lobbying practice with the name Patterson, Balducci and Biden. James was not an attorney, but his wife, Sara Biden, a Duke-educated lawyer, would be a partner, and Hunter Biden was expected to be involved, according to Wilkie’s book. Sara Biden referred a request for comment to Joe Biden’s campaign.

Those plans were heating up around August 2007, when Patterson, Balducci and Scruggs co-hosted a high-dollar fundraiser for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign in Oxford, Mississippi. James attended the event and used it as an opportunity to talk business with his Southern associates, according to the book.

The next month, Balducci and Patterson were invited to attend a formal dinner with Joe as part of the Congressional Black Caucus’ annual weekend. They planned to use the dinner as an opportunity to recruit Charles Stith, who had served as ambassador to Tanzania during the Clinton administration, to their firm in a bid to bolster the firm’s standing with potential clients in Africa, according to Wilkie’s book.

In an email, Stith described James Biden as a longtime acquaintance but said they had never gone into business together nor, so far as he could remember, even talked about it. “If any such discussions took place they lacked such seriousness I don’t recall any such conversation,” he wrote.

The group also sought out associates in Switzerland, Argentina and Venezuela, according to a brochure for the prospective firm obtained by Wilkie.

At the same time James and Sara were planning to open an influence shop with Patterson and Balducci, the Mississippians were being investigated by the FBI over a scheme to bribe a judge to rule in favor of Scruggs in a dispute over legal bills. In September, the FBI picked up a wiretapped phone call between the Mississippians in which Balducci told Patterson, “We really need to push on the Senate bill.” He also said, “We’re going to meet with the Bidens around noon,” and mentioned a meeting with “black farmers.” It is unclear whether the meeting occurred. At the time, Biden was backing legislation to compensate black farmers who had faced discrimination when seeking loans and subsidies from the Department of Agriculture.

A month later, in October 2007, plans for the lobbying firm were derailed when Balducci was arrested for leaving an envelope full of cash on the judge’s desk while being videotaped by the feds.

After the scandal erupted in public in the midst of the presidential campaign, Biden returned donations from the two men and Scruggs. In 2008, Scruggs pleaded guilty to his role in the scheme and was sentenced to five years in prison. In 2009, Balducci and Patterson each received two-year sentences.

Before he published the book, Wilkie — who covered Joe Biden’s career on the New Castle County Council as a local Delaware reporter in the 1970s — said he reached out to the vice president’s office to offer him a briefing on its contents. Wilkie said he never heard back.

There is no allegation that James Biden was a party to his would-be colleagues’ misdeeds or was even aware of them before their arrests, but Wilkie said he is nevertheless shocked that James’ association with the crew has not received greater attention. “I thought surely someone in Washington would pick up on this thing because of the Biden name,” he said. “The whole thing was indiscreet at best.”

LOBBYING AND FOREIGN DEALINGS

During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father’s wake.

He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware’s largest employer, in 1996. He left to become a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years, beginning in the late ’90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005, when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe’s support.

At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator, Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter’s clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter’s firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware.

As Joe prepared to mount his second presidential run, James and Hunter pivoted to Paradigm.

Two legal documents

After Paradigm, James Biden landed a new gig. Despite a lack of experience in the construction industry, he was named an executive vice president at HillStone International, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based construction firm Hill International, in November 2010.

In June 2011, the firm landed contracts worth an estimated $1.5 billion to build homes in Iraq. At the time, HillStone had little homebuilding experience. Joe Biden was leading the administration’s Iraq policy. The firm denied that the vice president’s position helped it land the deal, which came through the TRAC Development Group, a South Korean firm that had been awarded a contract by the Iraqi government to build 500,000 homes in Iraq.

A former executive at HillStone and a person involved in negotiating TRAC’s deal with the Iraqi government both told POLITICO that James Biden played no role in the deal, but the founder of HillStone’s parent company has said the Biden name was an asset.

“Listen, his name helps him get in the door, but it doesn’t help him get business,” Hill International’s founder, Irvin Richter, told Fox Business News of James. “People who have important names tend to get in the door easier but it doesn’t mean success. If he had the name Obama he would get in the door easier.”

In the end, the contracts did not work out, and HillStone did not end up building the housing. “I thought we had a good chance during a downturn in that market to become a player and I was wrong, so we closed it down,” Richter told the magazine Arabian Business in 2014.

Hunter had more success pursuing business in Asia and Europe. After buying Paradigm, he went into business with former Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson, Christopher Heinz, and Heinz’s friend, Devon Archer. They formed a variety of investment-focused firms under the name Rosemont Seneca.

As they set about searching for deals, Hunter and Archer were eager to land business in China.

In late 2013, Hunter traveled with his father to Beijing, where the vice president was set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

While there, Hunter introduced one of his business partners, Jonathan Li of the Beijing-based private equity firm Bohai Capital, to his father, according to The New Yorker. Hunter and Archer had just concluded a large real estate deal with Bohai. In May of 2019, The Intercept reported that Hunter’s Chinese investment vehicle, Bohai Harvest RST, was invested in a firm that developed facial-recognition technology used in Chinese state-backed surveillance efforts.

In 2014, as Joe Biden led the administration’s response to the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in southern Ukraine, Hunter and Archer received appointments to the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings. Hunter’s monthly pay from Burisma was reportedly as high as $50,000 in some months.

Last June, Archer was convicted in federal court in New York for an unrelated fraud targeting a Native American tribe and pension funds. In November, a judge granted Archer a retrial.

A spokesman for Heinz, Chris Bastardi, said the ketchup fortune heir had nothing to do with Hunter’s foreign dealings. “Neither Mr. Heinz, nor any business in which he had an interest, was involved in Burisma or Bohai Harvest RST.”

Since his father left office, Hunter has cultivated a relationship with the Chinese billionaire Ye Jianming. Hunter told The New Yorker the pair had partnered on a natural gas venture in Louisiana and that Ye had once gifted him a large diamond.

Hunter also dealt with Ye’s deputy, Patrick Ho. In November 2017, federal agents in New York arrested Ho on suspicion of bribing government officials in Chad and Uganda. Ho’s first call, according to The New York Times, was to James Biden, who told the paper Ho had been trying to reach Hunter.

Ho was convicted on seven counts in December. Ye has disappeared from public view, and his name has surfaced in a corruption case in China.

LIMITED SUCCESS

In 2017, Joe Biden told a Vanity Fair writer that he sometimes wished that one of his children had gotten rich in order to provide for him in his old age.

Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15 million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017.

Hunter recently told The New Yorker that he lives on $4,000 a month and that he offered to pay his ex-wife $37,000 a month in alimony and child support for 10 years.

In 2012, Fox Business pegged James Biden’s net worth at $7 million. In 2013, James and Sara Biden bought a vacation house on Keewaydin Island in Florida for $2.5 million. While the house served for several years as a family getaway amid beautiful surroundings, it did not pay off as an investment. After James and Sara put it on the market in early 2016 with an initial asking price of $5.9 million; it sold for just $1.35 million in 2018.

 

 

Senator Daines vs. Socialism

Resolution_draft by Fox News on Scribd

In his prepared remarks introducing the resolution, obtained by Fox News, Daines criticized the Green New Deal and “Medicare-for-all” — as well as the increase in partisanship on Capitol Hill. Less than an hour earlier, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., similarly condemned “hyperventilating hacks” seeking to sow division, rather than make policy.

Daines Stumps For Gorsuch, Spars With Protesters At ...

“We are at a pivotal time in our great nation’s history,” Daines said. “We have shown the world time and time again the genius of American ingenuity and the grit of American determination. However, a radical, socialist, far-left movement is growing across this country. And it has taken root as the new voice of the Democratic Party.”

*** A hat tip to the Senator for his position on America vs. Democrats, Socialism and all things related to the Green New Deal. There is also Medicare for All, free college tuition and even paying criminals to behave.

Does this resolution go far enough? Not really, but it is a start. There should be legislation and eventually law that states socialism is forbidden in the United States. It is wishful thinking however, because our Federal government is slammed full with socialist programs that we can never undo.

All things government healthcare like Obamacare is socialism, Social Security is of course socialism, block grants, community reinvestment act and so many more fit the definition of socialism as do the countless entitlement programs.

You can however begin the challenge on yet another item that you personally pay each month. Have you checked your utility bills lately and looked at all those weird fees? Same thing with your cell phone bill. The cable bill too? Yes.

There is corporate socialism too, bailouts and subsidies…yes…all socialism. This is forced socialism with no oversight. That means no one is accountable, no one measures success, no one measures if the money really goes where it is supposed to go.

Places like Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore and other major cities all have a major homeless program where tax money is earmarked to address that crisis. For instance, California voted in March to approve a quarter-cent sales tax increase to help the homeless. It is expected to raise $355 million each year for a ten year period. That said, do California officials and residents really believe the homeless problem will go away in ten years? Really?

As long as Baltimore is in the news, thousands of residents in the inner city get a lead check along with living in Section 8 housing and getting food stamps. What is a lead check you ask?

Well our Congress voted in the 1990’s to create a slush fund to eradicate lead (paint) from homes and buildings constructed before 1977. By now, all that lead should be gone right? Nah..residents in Baltimore and other major cities get a monthly lead check as they choose to live in row houses allegedly still containing peeling lead paint. This whole scam was coordinated by several federal agencies including Housing and Urban Development, the EPA and Health and Human Services.

Socialism is a constant cancer, of which the ends we will never see but we can stop some of it at least by challenging those pesky fees in your power bill, the cable bill or your cell phone bill.

Anyway….hat tip again to the Senator.

 

 

Is the U.S. Prepared for Foreign Interference of 2020 Elections

The Democrats continue to declare the Russians helped Donald Trump win the presidency and that now President Trump has done nothing to prevent Russian interference of the 2020 elections.

DHS is worried about our elections, and it's asking ...

But we need to look at some real facts.

  1. DHS launched several programs to aid the U.S. security of the nation’s elections systems. Beginning in 2017, a National Infrastructure Protection Plan was launched which began the real partnership with Federal, State and local governments including private sector entities. The sharing of timely and actionable threats, cybersecurity assistance including sensors all at no charge to election officials. Scanning, risk assessment and analysis along with training are all part of the Protection Plan, including conference calls scheduled as needed. What is most interesting is this program was initiated by a Presidential Policy Directive #21 signed by then President Obama in 2013.
  2. As ODNI Dan Coats has tendered his resignation effective in mid-August, many have said he has no accomplishment. This agency is merely an intelligence coordinator of many agencies and is bureaucratic but Coats did create a position that is dedicated to election security efforts and is headed by Shelby Pierson who has a deep resume in intelligence and was a crisis manager for election security in the 2018 elections. He has briefed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee several times so for any Democrat to declare that the Trump administration has done nothing is false.
  3. DHS has a resource library including a checklist that is available for free for any election officials that can be accessed as new threats or conditions arise. This library includes HTTPS encryption techniques, incident response, ransomware best practices and securing voter registration data. Additionally, email authentication techniques are available, layering credentialed access logins, security baselines, monitoring intrusions and brute force attack attempts are shared with all participating partners.

All of these efforts are positive steps against foreign interference, however fake news and rogue actors are crafty, resourceful and well financed. The United States is not the only country that is a victim of foreign intrusions.

Foreign spy services that are utilizing information operations in order to influence US elections reportedly include —aside from Russia— Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and China.

The majority of foreign information operations take place on social-media platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. But there are also campaigns to influence more traditional American media, for instance by tricking newspapers into publishing letters to the editor that are in fact authored by foreign intelligence operatives. Analysts from FireEye, Graphika and other cybersecurity and network-analysis firms told The Postthat some information operations are difficult to detect, because the presence of a state security service is not always apparent. However, the messages that are communicated in tweets, Facebook postings, online videos, etc., tend to echo —often word for word— the rhetoric of foreign governments, and promote their geopolitical objectives. As can be expected, these objectives vary. Thus, Russian, Israeli and Saudi information operations tend to express strong political support for US President Donald Trump, arguably because these governments see his potential re-election as a development that would further their national interest. In contrast, Iranian information operations tend to lambast Trump for his negative stance on the Iranian nuclear deal and for his support for Saudi Arabia’s intervention in the Yemeni Civil War.

Stanley McChrystal has called for a nonpartisan, non-governmental Fair Digital Election Commission to protect the integrity of our elections by detecting, exposing, evaluating and remediating the impact of disinformation. Well we already have one where non-government cyber experts are collaborating with government officials and issuing attributions to the cyber actors as well as recommendations.

Fake news and false news influence voter’s attitudes. So one must ask where in Silicon Valley and the tech giants? We already know that Instagram, Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter are censoring so voters must be diligent in research and cautious themselves regarding the spread of fake news and validating stories beyond just reading the headlines.

Last year, 2018:

A new study by three MIT scholars has found that false news spreads more rapidly on the social network Twitter than real news does — and by a substantial margin.

“We found that falsehood diffuses significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth, in all categories of information, and in many cases by an order of magnitude,” says Sinan Aral, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of a new paper detailing the findings.

“These findings shed new light on fundamental aspects of our online communication ecosystem,” says Deb Roy, an associate professor of media arts and sciences at the MIT Media Lab and director of the Media Lab’s Laboratory for Social Machines (LSM), who is also a co-author of the study. Roy adds that the researchers were “somewhere between surprised and stunned” at the different trajectories of true and false news on Twitter.

Moreover, the scholars found, the spread of false information is essentially not due to bots that are programmed to disseminate inaccurate stories. Instead, false news speeds faster around Twitter due to people retweeting inaccurate news items.

“When we removed all of the bots in our dataset, [the] differences between the spread of false and true news stood,”says Soroush Vosoughi, a co-author of the new paper and a postdoc at LSM whose PhD research helped give rise to the current study.

The study provides a variety of ways of quantifying this phenomenon: For instance,  false news stories are 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true stories are. It also takes true stories about six times as long to reach 1,500 people as it does for false stories to reach the same number of people. When it comes to Twitter’s “cascades,” or unbroken retweet chains, falsehoods reach a cascade depth of 10 about 20 times faster than facts. And falsehoods are retweeted by unique users more broadly than true statements at every depth of cascade.

The paper, “The Spread of True and False News Online,” is published today in Science.

 

 

Google Manipulated Votes in 2016 for Hillary, Senate Hearing

Now, who is Dr. Robert Epstein? He is a distinguished research psychologist and the former editor in chief of Psychology Today. He has authored 15 books and published 250 articles. He is a committed Democrat and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

So, you MUST watch this video clip from C-Span today before the Senate. More terrifying than even Russia interfering in the American election infrastructure.

Hat tip to Senator Ted Cruz.

Can you guess who was the top campaign contributor? Yes, Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

Update: The testimony of Dr. Epstein regarding Google’s collaboration with Hillary is also substantiated by a research paper found here and published in 2016.

WikiLeaks: Google's Eric Schmidt Planning Hillary's ...

Now, he published this piece about Google and it too is a must read.

Recognition is growing worldwide that something big needs to be done about Big Tech, and fast.

More than $8 billion in fines have been levied against Google by the European Union since 2017. Facebook Inc., facing an onslaught of investigations, has dropped in reputation to almost rock bottom among the 100 most visible companies in the U.S. Former employees of Google and Facebook have warned that these companies are “ripping apart the social fabric” and can “hijack the mind.”

Adding substance to the concerns, documents and videos have been leaking from Big Tech companies, supporting fears—most often expressed by conservatives—about political manipulations and even aspirations to engineer human values.

Fixes on the table include forcing the tech titans to divest themselves of some of the companies they’ve bought (more than 250 by Google and Facebook alone) and guaranteeing that user data are transportable.

But these and a dozen other proposals never get to the heart of the problem, and that is that Google’s search engine and Facebook’s social network platform have value only if they are intact. Breaking up Google’s search engine would give us a smattering of search engines that yield inferior results (the larger the search engine, the wider the range of results it can give you), and breaking up Facebook’s platform would be like building an immensely long Berlin Wall that would splinter millions of relationships.

With those basic platforms intact, the three biggest threats that Google and Facebook pose to societies worldwide are barely affected by almost any intervention: the aggressive surveillance, the suppression of content, and the subtle manipulation of the thinking and behavior of more than 2.5 billion people.

Different tech companies pose different kinds of threats. I’m focused here on Google, which I’ve been studying for more than six years through both experimental research and monitoring projects. (Google is well aware of my work and not entirely happy with me. The company did not respond to requests for comment.) Google is especially worrisome because it has maintained an unopposed monopoly on search worldwide for nearly a decade. It controls 92 percent of search, with the next largest competitor, Microsoft’s Bing, drawing only 2.5%.

Fortunately, there is a simple way to end the company’s monopoly without breaking up its search engine, and that is to turn its “index”—the mammoth and ever-growing database it maintains of internet content—into a kind of public commons.

There is precedent for this both in law and in Google’s business practices. When private ownership of essential resources and services—water, electricity, telecommunications, and so on—no longer serves the public interest, governments often step in to control them. One particular government intervention is especially relevant to the Big Tech dilemma: the 1956 consent decree in the U.S. in which AT&T agreed to share all its patents with other companies free of charge. As tech investor Roger McNamee and others have pointed out, that sharing reverberated around the world, leading to a significant increase in technological competition and innovation.

Doesn’t Google already share its index with everyone in the world? Yes, but only for single searches. I’m talking about requiring Google to share its entire index with outside entities—businesses, nonprofit organizations, even individuals—through what programmers call an application programming interface, or API.

Google already allows this kind of sharing with a chosen few, most notably a small but ingenious company called Startpage, which is based in the Netherlands. In 2009, Google granted Startpage access to its index in return for fees generated by ads placed near Startpage search results.

With access to Google’s index—the most extensive in the world, by far—Startpage gives you great search results, but with a difference. Google tracks your searches and also monitors you in other ways, so it gives you personalized results. Startpage doesn’t track you—it respects and guarantees your privacy—so it gives you generic results. Some people like customized results; others treasure their privacy. (You might have heard of another privacy-oriented alternative to Google.com called DuckDuckGo, which aggregates information obtained from 400 other non-Google sources, including its own modest crawler.)

If entities worldwide were given unlimited access to Google’s index, dozens of Startpage variants would turn up within months; within a year or two, thousands of new search platforms might emerge, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Many would target niche audiences—some small, perhaps, like high-end shoppers, and some huge, like all the world’s women, and most of these platforms would do a better job of serving their constituencies than Google ever could.

These aren’t just alternatives to Google, they are competitors—thousands of search platforms, each with its special focus and emphasis, each drawing on different subsets of information from Google’s ever-expanding index, and each using different rules to decide how to organize the search results they display. Different platforms would likely have different business models, too, and business models that have never been tried before would quickly be tested.

This system replicates the competitive ecology we now have of both traditional and online media sources—newspapers, magazines, television channels, and so on—each drawing on roughly the same body of knowledge, serving niche audiences, and prioritizing information as it sees fit.

But what about those nasty filter bubbles that trap people in narrow worlds of information? Making Google’s index public doesn’t solve that problem, but it shrinks it to nonthreatening proportions. At the moment, it’s entirely up to Google to determine which bubble you’re in, which search suggestions you receive, and which search results appear at the top of the list; that’s the stuff of worldwide mind control. But with thousands of search platforms vying for your attention, the power is back in your hands. You pick your platform or platforms and shift to others when they draw your attention, as they will all be trying to do continuously.

If that happens, what becomes of Google? At first, not much. It should be allowed, I believe, to retain ownership and control of its index. That will assure it continues to do a great job maintaining and updating it. And even with competition looming, change will take time. Serious competitors will need months to gather resources and generate traffic. Eventually, though, Google will likely become a smaller, leaner, more diversified company, especially if some of the other proposals out there for taming Big Tech are eventually implemented. If, over time, Google wants to continue to spy on people through its search engine, it will have to work like hell to keep them. It will no longer be able to rest on its laurels, as it has for most of the past 20 years; it’s going to have to hustle, and we will all benefit from its energy.

My kids think Google was the world’s first search engine, but it was actually the 21st. I can remember when search was highly competitive—when Yahoo! was the big kid on the block and engines such as Ask Jeeves and Lycos were hot commodities. Founded in 1998 amid a crowded field of competitors, Google didn’t begin to dominate search until 2003, by which time it still handled only about a third of searches in the U.S. Search can be competitive again—this time with a massive, authoritative, rapidly expanding index available to all parties.

The alternative is frightening. If Google retains its monopoly on search, or even if a government steps in and makes Google a public utility, the obscene power to decide what information humanity can see and how that information should be ordered will remain in the hands of a single authority. Democracy will be an illusion, human autonomy will be compromised, and competition in search—with all the innovation that implies—might never emerge. With internet penetration increasing rapidly worldwide, do we really want a single player, no matter how benign it appears to be, to control the gateway to all information?

For the system I propose to work fairly and efficiently, we’ll need rules. Here are some obvious ones to think about:

Access. There might have to be limits on who can access the API. We might not want every high school hacker to be able to build his or her own search platform. On the other hand, imagine thousands of Mark Zuckerbergs battling each other to find better ways of organizing the world’s information.

Speed. Google must not be allowed to throttle access to its index, especially in ways that give it a performance advantage or that favor one search platform over another.

Content. To prevent Google from engineering humanity by being selective about what content it adds to its index, all parties with API access must be able to add content.

Visibility. For people using Google to seek information about other search platforms, Google must be forbidden from driving people to itself or its affiliated platforms.

Removal. Google must be prohibited from removing content from its index. The only exception will be when a web page no longer exists. An accurate, up-to-date record of such deletions must be accessible through the API.

Logging. Google must log all visits to its index, and that log must be accessible through the API.

Fees. Low-volume external platforms (think: high school hackers) should be able to access the index free of charge. High-volume users (think: Microsoft Corp.’s Bing) should pay Google nominal fees set by regulators. That gives Google another incentive for maintaining a superior index.

Can we really justify bludgeoning one of the world’s biggest and most successful companies? When governments have regulated, dismembered, or, in some cases, taken ownership of private water or electricity companies, they have done so to serve the public interest, even when the company in question has developed new technologies or resources at great expense. The rationale is straightforward: You may have built the pipelines, but water is a “common” resource that belongs to everyone, as David Bollier reminded us in his seminal book, Silent Theft: The Private Plunder of Our Common Wealth.

In Google’s case, it would be absurd for the company to claim ownership rights over the contents of its index for the simple reason that it copied virtually all those contents. Google scraped the content by roaming the internet, examining webpages, and copying both the address of a page and language used on that page. None of those websites or any external authority ever gave Google permission to do this copying.

Did any external authority give Google permission to demote a website in its search results or to remove a website from its index? No, which is why both individuals and even top business leaders are sometimes traumatized when Google demotes or delists a website.

But when Google’s index becomes public, people won’t care as much about its machinations. If conservatives think Google is messing with them, they’ll soon switch to other search platforms, where they’ll still get potentially excellent results. Given the possibility of a mass migration, Google will likely stop playing God, treating users and constituencies with new respect and humility.

Who will implement this plan? In the U.S., Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice all have the power to make this happen. Because Google is a global company with, at this writing, 16 data centers—eight in the U.S., one in Chile, five in the EU, one in Taiwan, and one in Singapore—countries outside the U.S. could also declare its index to be a public commons. The EU is a prime candidate for taking such action.

But there is another possibility—namely, that Google itself will step up. This isn’t as crazy as you might think. Likely prompted by the EU antitrust investigations, the company has quietly gone through two corporate reorganizations since 2015, and experts I’ve talked to in both the U.S. and the U.K. say the main effect of these reorganizations has been to distance Google’s major shareholders from any calamities that might befall the Google search engine. The company’s lawyers have also undoubtedly been taking a close look at the turbulent years during which Microsoft unsuccessfully fought U.S. antitrust investigators.

Google’s leaders have been preparing for an uncertain future in which the search engine might be made a public utility, fined into bankruptcy, frozen by court orders, or even seized by governments. It might be able to avoid ugly scenarios simply by posting the specs for its new public API and inviting people and companies around the world to compete with its search platform. Google could do this tomorrow—and generate glowing headlines worldwide. Google’s data analysts know how to run numbers better than anyone. If the models predict that the company will make more money, minimize risk, and optimize its brand in coming years by making its index public, Google will make this happen long before the roof caves in.

Whoa, Meet Eric Kessler and Arabella

Who you ask?

Eric Kessler is founder, principal, and senior managing director of Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based philanthropic consultancy that caters to left-leaning clients. Arabella Advisors also manages a number of center-left funding and fiscal sponsorship organizations, including 501(c)(4) Sixteen Thirty Fund, 501(c)(3) New Venture Fund, 501(c)(3) Hopewell Fund, and 501(c)(3) Windward Fund. Kessler himself is closely involved with these organizations, often serving as the founder, principal officer, or board member in them.

Kessler is closely involved in Democratic Party and left-wing politics. He is a former Clinton administration White House appointee and previously served as national field director for the League of Conservation Voters. [1] Kessler later served as a member of the now-defunct Clinton Global Initiative. [2]

Kessler chairs a committee on culinary advocacy for the center-left James Beard Foundation and is co-founder of the Chef Action Network. He also serves on the board of directors of the National Democratic Institute. [3]

Image result for eric kessler

Okay so what?

Well, when it came to the paid choreographed operation against Brett Kavanaugh, enter Arabella Advisors. While there were other well funded organizations, Kessler is someone to continue to watch. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse spoke often about the dark money supporting the Kavanaugh confirmation.

The most visible liberal organization was Demand Justice, formed only a few months before Kennedy’s retirement by veteran Democratic operatives with experience in the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration. If money given to the Judicial Crisis Network is “dark” because JCN’s annual 990 tax filings don’t disclose its donors, Demand Justice’s bank account is a black hole. “Fiscally sponsored” by the Sixteen Thirty Fund, an under-the-radar liberal intermediary group that passes money from donors to dozens of liberal organizations, Demand Justice doesn’t even file the disclosure forms that “dark money” groups do. Senator Whitehouse couldn’t put it on one of his pie charts if he tried. Both the donors to Demand Justice and the amount of money they contribute are completely invisible.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund does file an annual Form 990, but it does not reveal the identities of its donors. Although its budget dwarfs that of the Judicial Crisis Network and the Federalist Society combined, it has failed to pique Senator Whitehouse’s interest. In 2017 it brought in $79 million and ended the year with $43 million in assets, growing by an astonishing 1,547 percent in only eight years. In pursuit of its cryptically worded mission—“promoting social welfare, including, but not limited to, providing public education on and conducting advocacy regarding key policies”—the fund bankrolls liberal groups focused on everything from judicial appointments, organized labor, and abortion to Senator Whitehouse’s own favorite dark-money heavyweight, the League of Conservation Voters. They also fund Majority Forward, a 501(c)(4) group closely tied to Senator Chuck Schumer’s Senate Majority PAC. Majority Forward alone accounted for one-third of all the dark-money spending in the 2018 election, giving liberals a comfortable dark-money lead over conservatives.

Eric Kessler, a former White House aide to President Bill Clinton, serves as senior managing director of Arabella and as president of Sixteen Thirty. Both groups have the same Washington, D.C., address.

The approach appears typical of the company’s approach to such initiatives. Kessler told Worth magazine in 2017 that Arabella often assumes core management functions for its client charities.

“First and foremost, we support family philanthropists, family foundations, by providing staffing,” Kessler said. “What that means is, there’s a whole bunch of foundations with assets between about $30 million and $300 million whose address is my office. We are their executive director, their program officer, their grant manager.”

But hold on there is more. Where did all this mass incarceration issue come from? Yup, Arabella.

As part of a report on their website:

  • Supporting research to map the network of companies involved in the prison-industrial complex in greater detail. Such mapping can raise awareness of the prison-industrial complex, identify and expose its harmful practices, and empower advocates to counter the influence of those seeking to advance policies tied to profits rather than to preserve and protect communities.
  • Supporting organizations and initiatives that are working to counter the advocacy efforts of politically active corporations that profit from mass incarceration. Various companies within the prison-industrial complex provide money to lobbying groups that strengthen and perpetuate policies that help drive mass incarceration. Those working for better policies need financial support to overcome potential opposition from groups that benefit from the continuation of “business as usual” in the sector.
  • Divesting from egregious actors and investing in positive solutions. As in other sectors, divestment can help isolate and stigmatize entities that are engaged in harmful practices and can potentially motivate other corporations to cease doing business with them unless and until they reform. Meanwhile, investment in positive solutions can begin to help rebuild damaged communities.
  • Using the power of endowment capital to engage in investor activism and capital market strategies targeting companies in the prison-industrial complex. Donors and investors can use their capital and influence to take equity positions in companies that are associated with the prison industry from which they can raise awareness and push companies toward reform from within.

There is also the matter of climate change and the condition of natural disasters so key cities are being pressured to comply with reforms for urban areas. The matter of the hurricanes in Puerto Rico is of particular note.

One notable project is in San Juan where we are part of the effort, led by The Solar Foundation and the Clinton Foundation, for the installation of solar and energy efficiency upgrades of the Plaza del Mercado de Río Piedras in San Juan, the largest produce market on the island, responsible for the livelihoods of 200 small business owners. Since Hurricane Maria, the energy situation has led to an unstable business environment. A $600,000 grant from The Hispanic Foundation and a $500,000 grant from CDP will cover the cost of the purchase and installation of the first phase of solar panels, battery capacity and LED lighting. Our grant also creates an apprenticeship program for local workers to learn skills related to solar installation, roofing and electrical work which will help promote local workforce development. The project is being done at the request of, and in close coordination with, the Municipality of San Juan.

What about this debate on gender equality and internet access (digital divide) for everyone? Yup, that too.