Sorry for the drive by essay. My life is way to busy. However I did get a chance to watch DemocracyNow this morning (in bits on my TV and iPad) and there were two very good interviews that are well worth watching. The first interview is with a Wall Street Journal Reporter James Grimaldi. It deals with the Clinton Foundation and its relationship with the Clinton State Department. The interview is not sensational but is full of facts and Grimaldi is serious and knowledgeable.

Ballot Access in CT is UNOFFICIAL yet because the CT Secretary of State still has to certify it. But they submitted 14K-15K signatures and only 7,500 are required. So it's good news. CT now has the "No Evil" option.

96% Of Clinton Donations Went To The Clinton Foundation

Moments ago, when we showed the newly released Clinton 2015 tax return, we posted a rhetorical question: "how much of the Clinton charity donations went to the Clinton Foundation? Taking a deduction for contributing to the employer of your daughter and expense payer of your husband is awesome."

Russia prepares to defend Crimea

The Russian military has announced the delivery of new air defence missiles to Crimea, in a move scheduled before the latest tension with Ukraine.

Ukraine prepars to "defend" itself

Commissioner Ann Ravel goes the full Louis Renault:

Federal Election Commission member Ann Ravel on Tuesday proposed a ban on political contributions by domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations.

Ravel’s proposal cites The Intercept series last week reporting that American Pacific International Capital, a California corporation owned by two Chinese nationals, donated $1.3 million to Right to Rise USA, the main Super PAC supporting Jeb Bush’s presidential run.

Ravel wrote that as a result of Citizens United and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, “our campaign finance system is vulnerable to influence from foreign nationals and foreign corporations through Domestic subsidiaries and affiliates in ways unimaginable a decade ago.”

Yes, Commissioner Ravel. Who could have possibly even remotely imagined that a former President and his Secretary of State spouse who also happen to run a multinational, billion dollar not-for-profit could (only hypothetically, mind you) have any dealings that might, perhaps, maybe, lead to the smidgen of the notion of an idea of the contemplation a foreign bribe?

Why that's preposterous!